governor kim were donna. and in virginia, and gillespie and rolf northam. watch live on c-span in c-span.org and listen live on the free c-span radio app. now, a discussion on hurricane maria's environmental impact on puerto rico. this"washington journal" is about 30 minutes. tom schadler will be a guest. ington journal" continues. host: we are joined by vann newkirk. thank you for joining us today. guest: thanks for having me. you to go toompted puerto rico and do these pieces? guest: i had been covering

puerto rico for about a year and a half. the debt crisis, the public alsoh issue, the grid, and their consideration of statehood, independence, voting. so, basically, i have been developing our puerto rico beat for two years. and of course, when hurricane irma and maria a hit, it was no question. i was going to go down and see what happened. so, yeah. host: ok, and you describe the situation in puerto rico as "in environmental catastrophe." how much does this have to do with situations before the landfall of hurricanes irma and murray at, and how much is due to the storms? guest: the important thing to understand about mariko, infrastructure, debt, those things were crippling the island the storms.

people were saying, any storm would bring the great down. any storm would cause problems with debris and trash. there is justfor trash. the roads are already bad in the mountains and hospitals were already closing. mostly depends on diesel fuel for its energy and anything that could disrupt supply lines could cause a problem. a lot of it was the unusual strength of maria, but it was also the situation on the island and infrastructure. host: ok, we are talking, again, fromvann newkirk, a writer a series ofc," articles on puerto rico in our

spotlight on magazines. if you are in the eastern or , you canime zone's call -- if you are in mountain or --ific, you can call on thes an issue health-care crisis and on the power issue. you write "maria blows through the island in a matter of hours, but what was left behind is not just traditional hurricane damage. the storm uncovered an intensified long-term environmental challenges that have long blighted puerto rico and now threaten its future, and securing a viable future for the island will mean more than just rebuilding from the wind and , it will require addressing those challenges and sustainable ways." talk about those challenges. guest: one of the biggest

challenges on the island is the fact that so much of its energy comes from fossil fuels. on the southeastern part of the island there is no place to put or other --coal ash waste, so they built a big mountain. the landfills are overflowing. there is no place to put hazardous waste. no place to put trash caused by a hurricane. hurricanes cause so much waste. you think about things that will , runoff going ash into the water supply --puerto already hasrto rico the worst water supply in the united states and hurricanes are notorious for making water supplies worse. i think now we have upwards of 70 cases of leftist process --

an illness caused by contaminated water. the stripping of foliage from the trees creates tons and tons of debris they go into the water. , andthis is a water crisis those things on the ground now, even today, even six weeks after the hurricane, are still intensifying crises that have not yet abated. ever was before the storm to address some of these environmental challenges that were already there? there were, but there is a disconnect between the government of puerto rico and the government of the united states and the people of puerto rico. is government of puerto rico sort of hamstrung by his incredible debt issue. the major player in that debt crisis is the puerto rico power

source. their problem is they cannot move to more sustainable energy structures because they do not have the money. they do not have the money or the management capacity to keep the grid anywhere but where it is. it is already 50 years old. that is 30 years older than most theage power systems in united states. all they can do is maintain. when you are only maintaining and 1970's era power grid built on fossil fuels, there's not much you can do. the people of puerto rico -- i spoke to many people involved in making micro-grids, solar power, solar power farming, and they were truly interested in building sustainable communities. but the only way they can ineive reliable power places, even before the storm. host: our caller from washington, d.c. -- you are on with vann newkirk. caller: thank you for accepting

my call. i'm interested in the six weeks we have been discussing puerto -- the lack ofck help for it. what happened to the listening station where there were rows and rows and rows -- this is an awfully expensive thing for america. yet no one has said anything about it or the condition of those -- what is the condition now? host: -- at "they colleagues to them" reached out after the storm and they were still fulfilling their mission requirements and objectives. that has not changed. it was considered critical infrastructure. they have power. territory,ding surrounding municipalities, they are struggling, especially

drinking water. but the observatory is still online. host: you talk about working toward a sustainable future for puerto rico. what does that look like? when i was -- especially in san juan, what i saw was people trying to put together a micro-grid. communities, neighborhoods that reinforcesl power other. maybe you have one place that has a lot of panels and another has batteries. and they can reinforce the micro-grid. and people have been thinking about that for years. now people are using the storm as a way to maybe implement these things. nowle are using batteries whateate what artifact --

artifact of micro-grids. they are ad hoc. you have communities relying solely on their own powered generator -- their own power generation. -- people are using batteries factoo create what are de micro-grids. talked lot has been about the government response, the federal response to hurricanes. how do you think the federal response has affected the situation on the ground now when it comes to the environmental situation? guest: i think there is no doubt, even among some people in the federal government, that the federal response was not adequate, that it was not quick enough for the people, and there are some disconnects about just who was in charge, what the protocol is for relief and some of, and basically the most basic areas of recovery, getting transportation networks back on line.

those are things that just baffled federal relief efforts. again, puerto rico is a difficult situation because of the underlying infrastructure issues, but fema, the army corps of engineers, there seems to be overlap of authority's there, who was in charge of doing what, and that -- overlap of authorities there, who was in charge of doing what. that hampers everything else. people do not know when you transfer patients to the military hospital, people going to the military hospital do not know where else they can go for basic health care services. so there is just so much miscommunication, lack of communication. some of it is the existing state

of the island. host: we are talking to vann newkirk about his pieces on puerto rico as it recovers from hurricane maria. if you are on these central or iftern time zones, call and you are in the mountain or pacific time zones, you can call another line. howard? caller: good morning. commentant to make a about the puerto rican people. they are not allowed to vote in our elections, and that is why they are not getting the attention they deserve. that is my thought on it. thank you for taking my call. what about their political power? guest: that is something brought up several times. when i spoke to people on the island, even before hurricane ofia, they link there lack federal power to their status, and it is likened to colonialism

in a lot of ways. you can make a case for that. you can make a case that puerto rico did not get the same type attention and response that, say, texas did. a lot of people did not realize that the puerto rican people are american. it is hard to say how those grid onffect the power a day-to-day basis, but i definitely think they matter in terms of the long-term support, the long-term response and how many eyes are on the situation going forward. host: what about the increase of puerto rican people moving to the mainland? what impact will that have on the island as it is trying to recover from this hurricane? i think all of the experts now are saying this will cause one of the biggest movements of people in american

history. you're looking at -- you have already seen puerto rico lose something on the order of 10% of its population over the last 10 years. you have a diaspora that is bigger on the mainland than on the island, and you have historically seen an exit is -- especially people looking for jobs. people who have children. younger families. they are leaving the island, and they are leaving with older people, people more vulnerable and that is a situation where it makes the island more and more vulnerable, and our ability to respond becomes more and more strained. that, in turn, creates the impetus for more people to leave. a storm like this, you can definitely see that 10% number in the course of a year. already 10,000 children who have gone to florida just to go to school. there are people who have a family member who have taken themselves to the mainland just so they can have school, a

house, basic surfaces -- basic services. they think about coming back. but they have one-way tickets. the longer the crisis goes on, the fewer reasons there are to go back. host: i want to read from your second piece that focuses on health care. you said "primary care was already a bottleneck in the puerto rican health-care system before the hurricanes, before the mass exit us of doctors to the mainland, and the increasing concentration of children, women, and elderly people back on the island. but now, with many doctors offices and smaller facilities closed, people with chronic health needs often have to go without care or seek it in emergency rooms, which can mean sitting entry us for hours. the shortage exacerbates the burden of with chronic and acute conditions as patients compete for space and resources." talk about the situation now. thet: the situation now --

hospitals, most of them are online. they have power either by generator or central grid, but they undermine the smaller emergency rooms, clinics, the doctors offices people would go for their first point of care. a lot of them are still not online and may never come back online peer review have people who are sick and because of the storm itself, who have mounting issues, going to a system that is completely tertiary. focused on acute illnesses, emergency rooms. and it cannot deal with the more basic, everyday health care needs of people. they need prescriptions. they need checkups. pregnant women need their monthly checkups and vitamins and prescriptions for them. and people who are more on the margins who need dialysis, who are elderly -- they seem more and more strain of their ability , and that healthy

basically compiles at the top of this tertiary structure now. ok, we have a call from homestead, sort of. good morning. good morning. i want to tell you guys that you are doing a real great job and i appreciate it, the service that you provide. and i wanted to call in and comment. --question is [indiscernible] it, when you first started talking about the situation, that the island was bad shape. that any hurricane, any storm would have knocked out the whole system. , how much of the

system in the island itself and the people contributed to it? if they are not doing anything to prepare for -- that it is a good example of what is going on statewide in america. vann a want to give chance to respond to that. is their responsibility for the puerto rican people? guest: i would say there's a difference between the puerto rican people and the puerto rican government. there are leaders of the state who may not be doing the things the puerto rican people are asking. to major issue for her

recover for years has been the debt crisis. part of that is the government. part of it is state owned corporations. but also, part of it is relationship with the federal government, and inability to undergo some of the same protections that mainland cities and municipalities have. and there's the inability for congress to make laws that are coherent for the puerto rican government to actually deal with . i think at multiple levels of government, there are people, there are policies that are partly responsible for the situation now. from ok, we have a caller florida. good morning. caller: i think this guy is being really fair. i was curious. you spoke earlier about statehood and how long have they voted against statehood? i know it has been quite a while. every so often they vote for

statehood and it did not seem that they voted for statehood. i do believe the place was run down -- it is like you said. bad management by politicians and whoever elected them, i guess. so, they did vote for statehood, and pretty overwhelmingly so, but there were concerns about the nature of that vote. so many people did not vote. and again, this is an issue that sparks pretty much all conversation in puerto rico about this relationship with the mainland united states, with the federal government. people believe what is happening factor what is a direct in what is unfolding after hurricane maria is puerto rico is in a state of, sort of, colonialism. it does not have self-determination. congress basically has control over it, and it exercises that

control only a critical junctures and only in ways that further undermine self-determination. so, there is a morass there of different issues about sovereignty and about status of puerto ricans. host: in your third piece, you focus on the power situation there, and you write, in addition to the situation with firm that the puerto rican electric power 30 gave that contract and they had to resend the contract, there was another contract, a $200 million deal with an oklahoma company that has also come under scrutiny. what is happening there? d.l. --he white fish there is no actual allegation of wrongdoing in that contract. , theasically what happened electric company needed to

contract out with people to rebuild the power grid. to put up lines, polls, and strangely, they chose this very toll company out of montana do this work. it seems they chose it mostly because they did not require a down payment. the bigger names require a down payment. puerto rico does not have any money, and they need assurance up front. whitefish was going to do it for free upfront. so, they chose white fish. lots of language in that contract that basically there will not be any federal oversight. they were charging something like $300 on the day for lodging. and on sunday the power company canceled the contract in response to scrutiny. it turns out in the federal congressional inquiries, two other oversight organizations,

they are looking at other contracts, including the $200 million one with cobra, a subsidiary of mammoth energy, and that contract as well -- just trying to figure out what the contracting process is and why these no federal oversight contracts are being made for a -fiananced operation -- federally-financed operation. host: good morning. caller: my heart goes out to the people of puerto rico. i am sure every american feels the same, despite what the white house is saying. we also support their search for solar energy. i think solar energy could deal with this new climate. i don't know exactly what to do. withw that cuba is dealing

climate change. , you are i have read 15 times more likely to die in puerto rico or the usa from a hurricane then in cuba. of puerto ricans are moving to cuba. if they stay, if they get the solar energy, that may be the way or moving over here, but i think it's impossible to live over there without some serious thought. guest: well, so, there is -- part of that is puerto rico has not been hit by the number of hurricanes that it should have been, statistically, in the last couple of years, but there was maybe a sense of resilience to the weather. i think people on the island to not want to leave. they think if they continue on to path, there are ways

build a resilient enough island so people can stay there. they can stay in their house. i think the number one priority of the federal government now, of the territorial government is to make it so puerto ricans can live in puerto rico and they can have access to the same amenities and quality of life that people on the mainland have. that is the goal. host: color from minneapolis. you are on with vann newkirk. caller: thank you for taking my call. good morning to you all. i was listening to "democracy they did a story that the rest of the news media didn't. to -- theistening neighboring islands whining to come in and build, but the federal government -- neighboring islands wanting to come in a build, but the federal government shunned them away.

think some of this people would go to those islands instead of coming to the united states? since united states is not acknowledging them as a viable part of the country they are paying attention to? yes, i think what you are referring to is the jones act. so, there is an act that basically says that shipping to any port in the united states usually isone -- done, and that is the only way to do it free -- with ships that have u.s. flags on them. basically united states- originated ships. for most of the mainland, that does not really impact the mainland. but for puerto rico and the caribbean, where there are lots of neighboring islands and

nations, the people of puerto -- there were some he people that could have given recovery. the rupee people from venezuela's worsening sending goods, supplies, shipments. there were people from surrounding nations who were coming to coordinate some of the disaster response on the ground. what i can say from what i have seen, there is a pretty's wrong -- a pretty strong international commitment to helping puerto rico. and waving the joint -- waving thejones act -- waiving jones act is helping. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i have made an observation after watching your programs. i truly believe the russian inernment is very involved cuba, and that is why some of our diplomats have been having hearing problems, because we

have been directly attacked by russia. and it's important for puerto rico to be under control of the , and they should be looking into helping puerto -- more host: phyllis, are you there? caller: i am here. i was listening to my voice on the tv. host: i will put the question to vann in the few seconds we have left. after a natural disaster, is there a greater threat of other governments routers adversaries other advantage of the -- governments or adversaries taking advantage of the situation? i don't know about that, but every natural disaster is a

national security issue. every natural disaster creates instability. when you have people on the ground who fear for their safety, you have increasing crime, just the breakdown of the structure that makes everyday afe possible, it becomes national security issue. you don't need rush at all to make it one. a rider atnewkirk, "the atlantic." you can find his work on >> c-span's washington journal. sebastiantoday, gorka. then, talking about the future of the democratic party. and we will talk about the role

of the medical community in combating the opioid crisis. sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join me discussion. -- join the discussion. >> tonight on q&a, pulitzer prize winning author rod chernow and his new book on ulysses s. grant. >> pyongyang dashing and handsome. in a way the perfect leading man for a musical. moves through a very different kind of world. and look on it and the charisma of ulysses s. grant was that he had no charisma. he was not dramatic in different situations. he is no less -- it is

fascinating, he is a much more subtle of a very, very character. similarashington had a kind of reserve and enigmatic quality. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> the house ways and means committee begins its work on the republican tax reform program monday before sending it to the full house for debate and vote. on c-span orverage get and listen using the free c-span radio app. >> in about 30 minutes, we will show you a senate hearing with officials from facebook and google.

first, a review of some of that testimony from washington journal. is the cyber now security reporter for reuters. he was here to discuss what the executives of facebook, twitter, and google have to say to lawmakers this week as they use ofed about the social media in the 2016 elections. thank you for joining us here today. lawmakers bring these executives and attorneys from social media platforms to washington. .uest: it is really simple there are unanswered questions about russia's use of social media during the election, the broader cyber influence campaign, and republicans and democrats both wanted to bring these companies forward and ask what happened on their platforms, why it has taken them so long to disclose some of the figures that we are now seeing

about the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of people seeing russian content on their platforms? there are questions still to be answered. a couple lawmakers -- this is , senatorbeginning angus king said. we will have you back. heard about ofsia's influence in use social media. one thing that came out of these hearings, we saw for the first time some of these ads purchased on these platforms. reuters, lawmakers asked questions about facebook ads and politically charged content allegedly spread on social media by moscow ahead of the trees 60 elections. some of the ads criticize candidates, while others sought to organize or promote simultaneous rallies for opposite sides of divisive issues. of the sample posted on washouse committee website

pulled from roughly 3000 ads facebook provided congressional investigators last month. talk about the ads. guest: it was jarring for people to see these ads. they are very vitriolic in many cases. one basically compare the election between democrat hillary clinton and republican donald trump to a battle between satan -- likening clinton to satan -- and trump to jesus or holiness. other ads, trying not just to influence people's opinion, but to spread messaging online but organize real-world events. we saw this with senator richard burr, the top for public and on the senate intelligence twoittee, disclosed different russia pages organized simultaneous and competing events in houston, texas last year. one that was pro-islam,

solidarity with muslim america, and another saying this is a problem, we do not need muslims in america. they brought these two groups -- for less than $200 -- this was actors andy russian what it lets you were real world events where americans were in the streets arguing over political issues. that is just one ad that came out this week. it is not just a digital information campaign. it is broader than that. ok, we are talking with about thisustin volz hearing where executives from facebook, twitter, and google testified for hours before several committees on capitol hill. -- andts can call republicans -- independents -- what the talk about

members of congress who held these hearings, one message they were sending. they weressage sending. senator dianne feinstein of california, what she said about the responses of social media companies. [video clip] because iinstein: have been very proud to represent the tech community of california. i do not think you get it. i think the fact that your general counsels, you defend your company, but what we are talking about is a cataclysmic change. what we are talking about is the beginning of cyber warfare. what we are talking about is a major foreign power with the sophistication and ability to involve themselves in a

presidential election and andlictsow -- sow conflict discontent across this country. we are not going to go away, gentlemen, and this is a very big deal. i went home last night with profound disappointment. i out specific questions. -- i asked specific questions. i got vague answers. and that just won't do. you have a huge problem on your hands. and the united states is going to be the first of the countries to bring it to your attention, and others are going to follow, i'm sure. because you bear this responsibility. you have created these platforms. misused.hey are being and you have to be the ones to do something about it. or we will. is this exemplar of what

lawmakers had to say to these executives this week? guest: it really was. this was a bad week for silicon valley on capitol hill. congress, again, democrats and will continueth, to ask them questions. there were some that were very agitated we did not see the ceo's. in that we sought -- we saw the general counsels defending the copies. others want to look at legislation to make online ads more transparent, require you to have a public file where you can show on the platform who is buying these ads, how they are being targeted. the companies say they are taking proactive ads team -- steps to make the ads more transparent. lawmakers are saying you need to do more. even though it was a very bad postedrically, facebook earnings at record revenue and profit. bottom lineting the of these companies. they are still well-liked and

have favorability across all of america, republicans, democrats, independents, and until they feel it more on the business level, they will be dragging their feet most likely. host: all right, matt is on our independent line from baltimore. good morning. caller: good morning. there seems to be a very simple , to this i believe problem of these questionable ads. .amely identifying them before each ad, it should be stated, the following is an advertisement by a private source. then you know you are not listening to news. you're listening to somebody's opinion who is paying for it. the second thing is on russian hacking -- hacking is very

ample when you only have digital firewall. the solution to that, as many is ae know, and as i have, digital and an analog firewall. if you don't get the two at the same time, you cannot get into my email. i would like to hear comments on both of those items. host: i just want to say before dustin starts, the honest act, one thing being proposed would do the first point he is making. it would require internet give copies of political as and information about media bias and intended target audiences. it would be very similar standards to what we see for television and radio ads imposed on the internet. what you think about that? guest: that is something that lawmakers are very seriously

looking at, from senators warren and klobuchar, republican senator john mccain. they are trying to get into this idea of transparency, labeling ads that are clearly political or issue as, making it clear where they are from, who they are targeting, how they're being used, similar to radio or broadcast platforms. absolutely national security is important element to this. it is important that nothing that the russian actors did on facebook, twitter, or google required hacking of the platforms. certainly that was an element we saw during the election -- the hacking of democratic emails. what happened here was done openly on the platforms. in many cases it was consistent with terms of service on facebook, on twitter. so, that's only one small piece of it. it's a much broader story about what happened in the election.

elizabeth on the wind from dust on the one from pennsylvania. caller: hi, hon. i do not believe a word he is saying. this is a control thing for the media. the media's ratings are gone. the only way to control it is to go through facebook, and they figure they will put their propaganda out and nobody else can do anything. now black lives matter, last time i checked, was not with russia. so how did that add even happen? black lives matter put it out. now this is a mess. then you've got hillary, who has already said she rigged to the election. somehow -- how does russia have anything to do with it? host: let's give us in a chance to respond to that. for yourank you comment.

those are broadly different issues in some ways. certainly there are material ads from groups like black lives matter that are authentic and shared on facebook or twitter .ast year and we have pretty strong digital forensic evidence that russia created fake pages -- was one of them, for example, on facebook, where they did try to promote events as though they were americans or social organizers or other individuals, and doing so under that veneer, but it was a canard. it was someone in russia or st. petersburg or moscow on the computer pretending to be those people. has 2 billion people on it service and it has admitted as high as 200 million of those people are actually fake accounts. twitter has acknowledged that they have fake accounts on their

platform as well. they say 5%. others say larger. there has been a mix of real and fake content on the internet and in the election, what occurred is a reflection of that. going forward, people need to understand what you see on the internet may not be from who it appears to be. journal"" wall street advised that there is a political aspect to this investigation. it cars them with the russia brush. -- a free freezing society is a tempting target for authoritarian propaganda. facebook is an excellent way to fight back. is there a political aspect to what is going on here in the investigation? guest: it's washington. there's a political aspect to

everything, as you are well aware. it is interesting. while both democrats and republicans say they are very concerned, democrats are much more leaning in and being critical of the tech industry, which has long been a strong ally. certainly during the obama admin -- the obama administration. many senior officials went to google and other companies. the democrats are on the leading edge of proposing legislation and being critical. republicans, while they have expressed concerns, too, sums are trying to disassociate this issue from the russia specific thing because there are concerns about this undermine the legitimacy of the president and that being used as a weapon against him and his agenda. certainly there are political obstacles to what lawmakers may want to do in this space. ok, david on the independent line from new york. good morning. good morning to you and the viewers. the ever-expanding proliferation

of the use of social media is inevitable for good, bad, and the ugly. that will remain with us in a more expensive way. having said that though, what russia is doing in terms of reinvigorating its historical is not too far, with a different set of tools, from , after have done triumphing over fascism, by interfering in other governments, or setting up puppet governments. this is the same strategy, different tools. find we can really sovereignty for countries and nations -- including ours in russia -- and try to decipher the fake news versus the realistic, honest, objective news on social media, these two hand-in-hand might possibly propel us forward to having a

renewed commitment to a dignified family of nations. absolutely. there is a long-standing history of countries trying to take active interest in the domestic affairs of other nations. in that aspect, what russia did is not necessarily anything new. there are questions outstanding about, of course, the russian investigation, the investigations in congress about whether there was collusion between the trump campaign and russia. those are questions that we are get more of and look at going forward. other nations have historically done this as well. this is what happens on the geopolitical level. but the way that these u.s.

companies were leveraged, the way that u.s. individuals -- had mills hacked their emails hacked reverberated during the election and continues to a year later. from virginia, you are on with dustin volz. forer: hey, think you taking my call. dustin, do you have any idea why it has taken so long for congress to finally get involved in this? that is basically it. i know before president obama came into office, there had been a whole lot of backwards activity on twitter and facebook and google. i just wonder why it is taking them so long to get to the bottom of this. thanks. guest: that's a great question. means to question that be asked of congress and the people investigating this. congress asked this week of the technology companies, which came forward and said, facebook said

we had 126 million people who may have seen russia election political material during the an enormousich is revision upward of what they previously said, and that was after the ceo mark zuckerberg said it was a crazy idea that it happened at all. these investigations are complex. there is a lot that takes a long time. but absolutely, it is something that can be aggravating to people that, more than a year later, we're still talking about just what russia did. we are still learning how certain accounts on twitter, for example, that appeared to be real and had hundreds of thousands of followers were not. they were operated out of russia. certainly the obama administration has been criticized by people in both parties eating slow to react to the russia cyber threat during the election. part of that was they felt hillary clinton was likely to wasthe election and there

the concern about escalation that if you respond in kind, russia will respond back. there were also concerns about what do we really want the internet to be? for a long time, twitter, facebook, google, these companies were tech libertarians . we want people to basically do what they want. but over time, as these companies have matured and there is more concerned about certain issues, we are now seeing them pull back and reassess, and lawmakers for the first time are looking very, very seriously at regulating what used to be a nascent technology industry that they thought did not need much regulation or oversight, now they are looking at it and saying you made a lot of money. you have been around for a couple decades, a few decades. maybe now it is time to think about how to regulate you as well. prospecth that looming

of regulation, some of the platforms are offering their own solutions. facebook may move to increase transparency for people who see and by political ads. executives for the companies say they will verify political ads, requiring correct names and locations and create new graphics where users can click on the ad and find out more .bout who is behind them more broadly, rob goldman, facebook rolled vice president in charge of ad products, said the company is building new transparency tools in which all advertisers -- even those that aren't political -- are associated with a page, and users can click on a link to see all of the ads any advertiser is running. is this a roost -- is this a response we will see from other platforms as well? guest: absolutely. they are all looking at what they can proactively do to take steps forward, in part because they want to preempt regulation. senator klobuchar said these are

nice, but we need a clear-cut regulation. we need some sort of enforcement mechanism on top of that so we can really hold these standards true, and there are disagreements about whether or not we want to deal with transparency of being specific campaign ads that talk about a certain candidate and they need to be revealed publicly, or if we wanted to be a broader issue-based thing. so, political ads might touch on divisive issues, which russia did during the past elections -- issues of race, religion, those require more transparency requirements, to disclose where they are from, how they are being targeted. this is an early process. legislation does not pass easily in washington. it often takes many years. this is just the start of the conversation there. a republicancy, on line from the bronx. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a simple question. it is -- i know we like to blame

russia for everything. believe me, i don't love the russians. but with the cyber, first of all, i believe espionage has been around a long time, no want to gof you through the internet or cables underwater and what have you. my question is, since we seem to be blaming russia for everything , is there a way for china -- i know the answer to this already -- is there a way for someone like china or north korea to send emails, like they are posting from russia? is that possible to be done? guest: yes. in cyberspace, attribution is very difficult. the issue of false flags is one that researchers encounter all

the time, where someone is pretending to be a certain actor, posing as someone from a certain country or certain entity, and is actually someone entirely different. there is a certain level of unknowing this -- unknowingness online that makes verification really difficult. in russia, the evidence is rather overwhelming and we have what the u.s. intelligence community reports, as well as several cyber security firms and social media company saying this russia-enabled, russia-sponsored attack on the election. but absolutely. this actually came up during one of the hearings this week asked by aook was senator, could china do this? could north korea do this? would he want to this question mark and the answer is, we do not think they did this last election. certainly that is a possibility. any nation that wanted to try to weaponize information online,

hacks emails, spread propaganda, could do so. this is a russia issue in context of what happened in the 2016 election, but it is in a broader issue of what people are able to do online and the cloud of confusion and mystery and uncertainty about who is doing what online, that extends far beyond russia's borders. host: a couple minutes left. george on the republican line from clark so. go ahead, george. caller: hi. dustin touched on this a little bit. there is one undeniable fact. as far as pressure from use of socialized media and whatnot in the influence of the election -- it happened under president obama. why didn't he do anything? they are crying about it now. host: all right, go ahead and

address that -- guest guest: i have a little trouble hearing. host: why didn't obama react sooner? receivedesident obama criticism from democrats and republicans in congress that he did not react more quickly to the cyber threat from russia. former senior intelligence officials who served in that administration said they were trying to get the white house to pay attention to this, to issue a statement sooner that russia was attempting to interfere in the election, that there were deep concerns about appearing to favor one side during the election. you did have a candidate at the the current president donald trump, saying the election was going to be rigged, and the white house did not want to lend any credibility to that by coming out and saying russia was trying to influence this. doubtat cast even further on the process. there are factors for why the

obama administration did not react sooner. certainly they received criticism for that. host: mike on the public in line . just a few seconds, mike. what is your question? caller: thank you for the forum we have here. i'm very grateful for it. lz, irespect to mr. vo twittered my representatives. i watched the whole proceedings. -- i wouldure request that the president of facebook, the president of facebook, the president of twitter with his counsel appear so that we, american citizens, can see how the presidents of these companies, respond to the questions. host: a few seconds.

what is your reaction to bringing in these executives? guest: your frustration is shared. there were senators, including main's angus king who said he wanted to see the chief executives come before congress and testify -- including maine's angus king. host: all right, dustin volz, cyber security reporter from readers. you can find his wor c-span's washington journal, live every day with news on policy issues that affect you. activist norman solomon will talk about the future of the democratic party and we will focus on the world of the medical community in combating the opioid crisis with massachusetts primary care

physician dr. peter greenspan. be sure to join the discussion. announcer: on "newsmakers," ben thein and members of foreign relations committee talk about foreign-policy choices facing the trump administration. the president's trip to asia in congressional issues, including the congressional tax reform plans. "newsmakers," today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. "q&a,"er: tonight on pulitzer prize-winning biographer and author of alexander hamilton and his new book on ulysses s. grant. young andn was dashing and handsome, and in a way he was the perfect leading man for the musical. moves through a

very different type of -- he of plain, the charisma ulysses s. grant was that he had no charisma. the drama is often that he was not dramatic in different situations. he's not as fascinating but he deep and hamilton. georgere of a judg washington, with a similar kind of reserved, enigmatic quality. announcer: tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." announcer: now, one of three recent hearings on russia and social media influence in the 2016 election with officials from facebook, twitter, and google. from the senate intelligence committee, this is about three hours.