is 12,000 students. secondly is the critical shortage area of teachers to the all ofion and filling the positions necessary to provide our students the best classroom environment and most qualified teachers, especially in the areas of math and science, and even technology. states, onrom the the c-span. -- on c-span. live today on c-span, "washington journal is next. at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the korean american institute looks at the upcoming north korea talks. coming up in an hour, washington post technology and political reporter discuss privacy in the wake of the facebook and

cambridge analytica fall appeared and 9:00 a.m., a correspondent on his new book about the 2014 ebola host: good morning. it we have a three-hour washington journal ahead for you. morning with a question of russian relations with the west erin after dozens of the mats were expelled from different countries, we are asking if you believe russia and the u.s. are in a new cold war. if you think the cold war is back, what position should the ?.s. and its allies take

phone lines are open. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 784-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. a very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling in now. question, is the cold war back? we have some news headlines. this is the editorial board of the washington times. the cold war is back, they write. they said who said donald trump can't set -- can't get tough with the russians? one other headline on this topic from the pages of the new york times, it's no cold war.

relations are volatile. the new york times, news analysis on the state of the west and its preparedness to take on another cold war. the global order and attacks from within. the story is by peter goodman of the new york times. we are going to dig more into this analysis piece on the front page of the new york times

greater even start calling in on this topic. of the using the cold war is back today? phone numbers, democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 784-8001. .ndependents (202) 748-8002 we want to bring in dave lawlor to talk about the announcement yesterday. take us through what was announced and the impact it will have on relations. president trump has decided to expel 60 russians, 12 are operating at the u.n.. working as intelligence officers. 48 other diplomats were based in washington. we are going to be closing the inhing -- russian consulate seattle, which is close to a submarine base and a boeing

facility. it's a useful facility for them to collect intelligence. it's in response to the poisoning of a russian double agent in the u.k. the steps taken to cut down on russia's intelligence gathering in the u.s. vladimir putin will take reciprocal action. that's what we are waiting for. that is his playbook. that's whereand things are likely to go. there's a change in the trump/putin dynamic. he has some leaders in the west. we will say how this changes. how did the united states decide who needs to be expelled? guest: this was an intelligence decision. least 100re are at russian intelligence operatives

inside the u.s., we are trying to pick up people who are not here to hand out passports, but are here to collect information on us. the list that was drawn up was to try and get people who are spying inside the u.s. expel all 100? are more people on the list expected to go if this goes on down the road? guest: it's interesting. barack obama expelled 35 people with a similar rationale in 2016. trump is expelling 60 people. it's unclear exactly how many people are left on the list. we assume they are spies. the alternative is we have people spying inside russia as well. eventually, we will get to the

point where there are no embassies if we keep expelling people back and forth. host: when do they have to leave? guest: they have one week. they have to clear out themselves and their families have to move back to russia within the week. host: what was the reaction yesterday on capitol hill as you heard from members of congress? they are away today in their various districts. what you hear from them? my sense was there was surprise and encouragement. president trump a slow walked his response to russia in the past. he was asked about the specific incident, the poisoning of the spy. the first time he said we needed to wait for the fax, this was after theresa may said it was the russians. said thishe kind of

is the key issue right now. he called vladimir putin and did not bring up the poisoning of the spy. all of a sudden, you have a strong action against russia. they have resisted sanctions on russia in the past. people a lot of hawkish within the republican party will be thrilled that he has stepped up to the plate on this. i think some democrats will find their criticism muted. i think the surprised a lot of people. host: will we hear from the president on this or on the future of u.s. russia relations? guest: that's a very interesting question. this,eague has written on how trump seems happy to take actions like this behind closed doors. when it comes to actually

criticizing russia in public, he's never really done it. that's was missing here. if this is meant to send a message, it would be hell to have a statement like barack obama made when he took a similar move expelling diplomats. he spoke very forcefully about how this isn't going to be how the u.s. russia relations play out. you need to change your behavior. it would be surprising to see trump take a similar stance because of past behavior on his part. host: you mentioned the possibility for reciprocal action from russia. ?hen will we see that today? guest: a kremlin spokesman said they laid the groundwork, saying they would expect something similar.

we saw the russian parliament say it. i don't think we will have to wait long for vladimir putin's response. there are some steps involved in getting this together. they have to figure out who they want to expel. i don't think there will be a long delay here. today, i would say that's possible. host: he is an editor with axioms. you can reach -- read all about it and axioms.com. our question to you is the cold war back? theou believe, if you think u.s. is prepared to win a new cold war. we want to hear from you. democrats (202) 748-8000. republicans (202) 784-8001. .ndependents (202) 748-8002

we will start with brian in virginia. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. the cold war is back again because ever since the right wing or conservative republican start money and big money was free speech, that open the door for espionage. interest hasof always been the floodgate for successful espionage. now with the incoming president, it's benefiting from that type of espionage. it's open the door for russians ofnd the never been the successful against the united states. the reason they are successful now is the conflict of interest.

this opens up the corruption. there is no way i could maintain a job and clearance with fraction of what the executive branch allows. that contribute to the cold war. now we have to react to it. host: did you work at the department of defense when the berlin wall fell? former marine and i've been working with pentagon contractors. did you ever think we be talking about of the cold war was back? caller: i sure wouldn't. we had a great opportunity during the clinton they couldion when

bring russia into nato. been a military strike from russia. administration, nato could have been an economic alliance. when the british petroleum oil company decided they wanted to off thel platforms shores of the naval base there what wouldk sea, happen if russia built oil platforms off guantanamo bay? host: stacy is in her junior as well. is the cold war back? caller: good morning, john. that's a good question today. let's be clear. the cold war never ended. america may have thought it ended when we took down the

wall. it did not end there. the russians never stopped attacking or finding ways to attack us. the last caller was very correct. money has been -- money and hatred was weaponize against the american people. used theputin republicans hatred of president obama and hillary clinton and used that to turn 320 million americans. we've got more russian spies in every branch of the government than they have in the kremlin and moscow and the kgb combined. how did they get there? you, the coup would not have been successful without the gop turning a blind eye and

letting russia invade our country and our democracy and our allies. they did nothing. host: alan is in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. veteran, ican and a would agree with the last caller that the cold war never really left. i think the class-based political perspective. how we turned against the soviet union after world war ii is still hard to understand. the cold war brought the war in , and, a policy the u.s. the war in vietnam. you've got to look at the political perspective that created the cold war after world

war ii. host: what do you think about that organization? caller: which organization? state, the west and its organization after world war ii and its ability in this new era to push back against russian aggression? would dispute your assumption about russian aggression. down,he berlin wall came it was an agreement that nato would not expand eastward into the former territories of the soviet union. as far as russian aggression goes, maybe we should look at our involvement in syria and starting that and also what it had to do with the internal politics in ukraine.

nowcrisis in korea right was created by the u.s. going into korea after world war ii group.king a small this was opposed by the majority of the korean people and the u.s. back to them for five years and it led to the korean war. host: richard is in louisiana. go ahead. what happened to all of these people you had on that were bragging on putin when obama was in and said he was a strong man? where are they at now? they said he is a leader, where are they at now? thank you.

host: go ahead. the cold war is basically against the people of america. and changen write ae constitution to where congressman can work one year and get full benefits. everything, immediate and the government talk about is all designed it ripping off the public. these politicians need to go. in order to make a solution about the government, they need to get rid of both of the parties. we need to unite all the world in the best interest of health,

education, well-being, housing, communication, parks, recreation, justice, law enforcement, religion, reparations, a clean and safe environment. host: two tweets as we been having this conversation, whether you think the cold war is back. eric says the cold war is back. we wanted you to an editorial in two different news stories on this topic.

the editorial board of the washington times said the cold war is back. here's more from the lead editorial. that compares to this news story from the new york times today. one,eadline on that relations with russia turn volatile.

more than 100 from 20 countries around the world. if you want to see a list of those countries that expelled u.s.mats yesterday, the leading that list and it's on the front page of the washington journal -- wall street journal.

we are asking, do you think the cold war is back. go ahead. caller: i don't know if it's the cold war, i know it's hard to find out what russia is really doing because of the psychological warfare. i noticed president trump was accused of collaborating with russia to computer stuff. obama the main arguments had was there were things going between trump tower and russians. virtual machines are easy to go through. russia has a lot of virtual machines people can use. there is ans the

argument between our two countries. it's all about oil i think. isis tends to go after all of these oil wells. i know russia has a lot of oil reserves. that is something i would keep my eye on's, what the elites are doing. host: dominic is in new jersey. go ahead. contend the cold war never ended. kgb officere is a took power and he had the united stateshe has never fully been a friend. we haven't been friends for a long time. ukraine, meddling in

the election, what you saw in the u.k. with the poisoning of the former spy, those are some of the tactics. some americans are not aware that last month u.s. forces andht russian mercenaries we gave them a sweet linking in combat. we ceased fighting to allow the russians to gather up their dead. host: what you talking about? caller: in syria. u.s. forces were attacked by russian mercenaries. forces in theu.s. area on the syrian/turkish border.

reported by the washington post and several newspapers. at the end of february, this took place. dominic in new jersey. scott is in illinois. as the cold war back? caller: i don't believe the cold war is on again. that are 15 republics started the soviet union. republics don't exist anymore. there is cohesion between the economics. also, stalin was in charge of all of that. formed the soviet

union, he had the economics funneled through them. i don't think vladimir putin has the credentials anymore to pull it all together. that is one of the biggest reasons why the cold war is not on. he was able to, that would be a problem. we don't have that. of idle don't think the cold war is on yet. not at this point. host: this is from the russian embassy in the united states, in reaction to what was taken yesterday. they tweeted the u.s. administration ordered the closure of the russian consulate in seattle. they put out a twitter poll with various choices. people were voting.

st. petersburg is the one that would be voted on by those twitter voters as one they would close. reaction is continuing to come from russia in the wake of these actions. we want to hear from you in the wake of those. phone numbers this morning, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans can call (202) 784-8001. independents can call (202) 748-8002. we are asking if you think the cold war is back, what do you think the state of the u.s. is to deal with a cold war? piece innews analysis the new york times. this is one of the quotes. peter goodman is writing in his story. 1990's, a political

scientist suggested the global arrangement of power and reached its conclusion. last year, britain leaving europe and nationalists on the march, he suggested new obituary for the liberal world order.

he has only grown more alarmed. what you see now is insidious. it's coming from within democracy. it's not just the u.s., but hardigree, turkey, poland, russia. n elected leader trying to dismantle democracy. that's part of the column in the new york times. michael has been waiting in cleveland. go ahead. caller: i think the greatest thing you start the program with is a question. we need to seek more questions. i don't think the cold war ever ended. i think it's been going on. vladimir putin has changed his

tactics. here's a question. evangelicals are giving trump a mullican. america is a giant mirror where we look at ourselves. trump has shattered that. are we going to keep them going? said, no terrorist can hurt america. only if we allow them to. right now, we are allowing them to. host: mike, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not believe the cold war ever ended. i don't think it's ever going to end. the only way these two countries can conduct these aggressions against each other is these

proxy wars. war can have a conventional against each other. . served in west germany i worked for a defense contractor. in 1985, we looked at each other when the wall came down. 40,000 people got laid off. arms and the arms race is a big part of our economy. thenhower warned us about defense military complex in the late 1950's. but how much money we spend on our defense. one of your points was about nato. we've allowed nato to wither and die. turkey, the largest nato partner after us. they don't have the same goals or values most nato countries have. host: if the cold war never

ended, did we take our eye off the ball? i'm an independent. when the russians are going into these small countries it used to be part of the soviet union, we did nothing. we did supply them with some aid, but it wasn't lethal aid because we did not want to antagonize the russians. qaddafi, he gave up his nukes. we let him get slaughtered. syria, the same thing. we participate in these little proxy things. the majority of americans probably don't know we have forces in 40 different countries. we are droning people all over the world. i don't think the cold war has

ever -- is ever going to end it. it's the only way to conduct business because a conventional war is never going to work. host: ron is in new york city. go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. economy is comparable to the size of italy. the remember correctly in 80's, afghanistan broke the back of the russian economy. lost my thought there. thank you for c-span. host: call back again. it's just after 7:30 a.m. on the east coast. question, is this the cold war back? we are asking this in the wake

of the expulsion of russian diplomats yesterday. briefing, they discussed the expulsion and what it means for relations. past after theof attack and the expulsion, what took so long? >> we coordinated with over one dozen allies who one of his to be a joint effort. we are joining the european union and nato allies to -- allies. we want to work with russia. this action can't be tolerated. the united states is responding to russia's action. it is brazen and reckless. we want to work with russia. the ball is in their court with respect to how they want to respond.

>> if you listen to national sayrity experts, they will you have to hit russia where it hurts, sanctioned them economically, go after vladimir putin's cronies and put himself. with this president consider sanctioning vladimir putin to punish him in the russian government? >> the united states has issued sanctions on the key russian oligarchs in response to the election. i wouldn't close any doors or preclude any potential action. if you miss that press briefing yesterday, you can watch it in its entirety at www.c-span.org. we are taking your calls with this question, is the cold war back. good morning. caller: good morning.

for having programs like this. the cold war has never ended. the hostilities ended, they just turned economic. economically, we are in the position to win. i'm not sure about our allies. the real cold war is right here in america. it's escalating. that is between the divisions of the races. that war we need to address. as far as the russian cold war, we can handle them. host: which allies are you concerned about? why do you not think they are up to a new cold war fight? shown theyy haven't

can support themselves without our backing. host: to randall in minnesota. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. began, peoplee have been fighting wars. recently, democracies that are functioning, the only wars and then started between two democracies. witnessing a downfall of leadership. the people of germany or let down that path. all it takes is one wrongheaded leader instigating an incident in today's world. always goes to saying it and then they do it. in today's world, it could be too late once they decide.

the cold war is is raging as it's ever been. with these leaders that revert to their own travel popularity, that's going to lead us to another conflict. host: reaction from some leaders on capitol hill. they are away this week, working in their districts and states. a republican from mississippi wrote yesterday. we are monitoring reaction from members of congress. we want to get your reaction as well. we want to keep you up-to-date on some of the other news going on around the country and the world. here are a few headlines.

this is the lead story in usa today. the federal trade commission is investigating facebook as congress summons mark zuckerberg on the privacy issues in the wake of the cambridge analytica story. we will be talking about that in the next hour. we will be joined by two technology reporters to talk about the congressional reaction and where that story goes. the tariffst about proposed by the trump administration. they are hailing agreement to revise the trade deal. they are calling it a win-win after south korea will open its auto market. say they would not impose steel tariffs on the country.

south korea is the third largest exporter of steel to the united states. one other story that came out yesterday evening getting a lot of attention. trump administration announced monday it will ask a question that citizenship on the census. the story from the washington times.

eric holder had a tweet on this front. we will see what comes on that front. back to the question if you think the cold war is back.

carmine is waiting in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning. the cold were never really ended. ii,t after world war unbeknownst to the russians, we had broken their code and we were monitoring them. president,ruman was they were trying back then to interfere in our elections up until the present day. the only thing that has changed is they now have this technology where they don't need spies in our country. all they need is a computer and an office in order to attain what they want. that is to cause disruption in our process. i don't understand the surprise by congress that this is going on. we knew this 70 years ago. good morning.

caller: good morning. i want to thank you for taking my call. when they to this said they expelled all these russians. syria, thes in bombing and constant loss of life, i haven't heard anything condemningvernment the russians for this. to be seriouswant we should do something. they start expelling these , it's sort of a

symbolic thing. host: you think more needs to be done? caller: definitely. i served in vietnam. i know what it's like. i have seen what they did to the vietnamese over there. it's a reality. host: are you worried about them escalation here between russia and the west and what that could mean for whatever new cold war we might be in? think: i really don't there's a lot of worry between the government we have now and the russians. more about money and politics. the president and vladimir putin are very rich people.

i think money plays into it a lot more than the politics does. host: andrew is in west plains. good morning. caller: thank you for having this issue on this morning. i agree with your previous callers. i don't think the cold war ever ended. when we were in conflict with the soviet union, it was more about ideology. i think what your last caller pointed out, it's a matter of money today. tasty about very using the united states to maintain his own power base. off the cold our i war we are in with china. they are stealing technology from us. they are setting themselves up to be the superpower.

we are not in a cold war so much as international politics. we are in confrontation with so many people. thank you very much. host: john is in louisiana. go ahead. is the cold war back? caller: 50 years ago this month, i was on the pointed end of the spear in the cold war. i was part of the nuclear workforce. war, cold war to be a hot you have to have something that would do it. superpowers armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons ready to initiate and fight a global nuclear war. the cold war was getting ready to do that. today, we don't have those forces. -- if the corn

went off, we could be airborne in 15 minutes. the idea that the cold war today compared it to whether was a cold war and we were waiting for a hot war, it does not exist. and it is time to look at some other name for it. war is for. it's death and destruction. to use that word one that's not what's going to happen on the scale of 50 years ago. goodthink that's a comment. host: in the new york times story, they said relations with russia are volatile. the reporter talks about comparisons to the end of the cold war.

both sides knew roughly what to expect. they had trust the other would act in a reasonably predictable way. that's love of the differences between then and today. would you agree with that? caller: absolutely. the soviet union and that if they lost a nuclear strike, the united states had the capability to respond with an equally devastating strike. file --oing to be a war file with nuclear weapons. what was the word they use their? i can't remember what you were reading. a cold war, it's more -- let's say they are leaning on each other a lot. they are pushing. it's not pushing with nuclear weapons.

remember that vividly. and ia second lieutenant was ready to go to nuclear war in 15 minutes and -- minutes. host: go ahead. caller: i would like to agree with many of the other callers. i remember, i grew up in the 50's. for cryingn as children in russia because they did not have it choice of ice cream. it was totally ideological. the people who are fighting that war knew what real war was about. i don't think they wanted to go there, even with all the saber rattling. it's a different generation now. people who don't know war, people like donald trump who

avoided real war but want military parades. ,eople in this country especially in this country, people want to impose their own ideological worldview on everybody else. they are willing to play a game of whoever is craziest wins. that's the difference. before, they weren't playing that game. they knew what was that risk. even with mutual assured they are willing to risk everything for god-based ideology or a gun based ideology or a three-based ideology. that seems more dangerous. we have about 10 minutes left in this first segment. we have more of your calls. i want to turn to the obituary

page in the new york times. brown, she was at the center of the landmark desegregation case. her father objected when she was not allowed to attend an all-white school in her neighborhood. this was one of the most transformative court cases in american history. this is linda brown from the c-span archives. she is talking about the brown versus the board of education case >> my memory began in the fall of 1950. in the quiet kansas town of topeka, a mild-mannered black man took his daughter by the for and walked briskly

blocks from their home. it was the all-white school and they tried without success to enroll. waschild of whom i speak linda carol brown. late reverend oliver leon brown. many were the evening my father would arrive home to find my mother upset because i had to take a walk like she did many years before and catch a school bus and be bust across town. i can member that walk. i could only make half of it some days because the cold would get to better for a small child.

i can still remember taking that bitter walk and the terrible cold that was caused my tears to freeze on my face. i would return home then as fast as i could. a very busyss avenue in order to catch the school bus which would carry me to miles across town to the all black monroe school. these with the circumstances that so angered black parents. conjured why? why should we show our children they cannot go to the school in their neighborhood because they are black? why? why must i spend time trying to explain to my child that she cannot go to school with her neighborhood playmates who are predominantly white, native american, hispanic, and asian.

in the face of this discouragement, he and 12 other parents met with the local naacp and their lawyers. they made plans for each family to try and roll their child in the white school nearest their home during september 1950. after trying enrollment and being turned down, the suit was filed in federal court in 1951. july, the following panel heard testimony from my father along with several of the other parents who agreed that segregated schools for blacks were unequal. the obituary for linda brown. it ends with these two sentences.

c-span highlighted the case in our landmark cases series. you can check that out online. we are in the midst of a second season of landmark cases. our firstthe midst of hour of washington journal. we have a few minutes left. we are asking you is the cold war back. good morning. caller: i'm a veteran who actually was on the award during the cold war era. the question is the cold war never ended. if you listen to vladimir putin when he talks about the worst

thing that happened to russia, who says it was the fall of the soviet union. shifts, he has sent troops for terrorism. now he wants to make a land bridge from russia to north korea to supply them. he has sent communism into our schools to teach communism to our kids. if you read the doctrine of communism, this is a tactic. they lost a battle, but they are still fighting the war to take us over. arnold is in tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. have you ever heard of a book

the creature from jekyll island? host: i have not. book deals with the creation of russia, of communist russia during the revolution. the author of the book claims communist russia was engineered by the super rich of the world. enemyer to give us an that we would have to prepare to fight. thenhower warned us about military-industrial complex. graderitten a book myself

. myself grade i've written a book myself grade --. the first book i mentioned in my book is the creature from jekyll island. host: ron is in new hampshire. as the cold war back? caller: good morning. i love the show. i don't think the cold war never ended. i think the united states has become complacent since the cold war. b-52s over toakes our combatants. now it's just push a button and wait. we've made it so easy just to kill and destroy. we've become complacent, russia has not.

they are doing whatever they can , taking over that poor. there's a lot of bad behavior. it never really ended. threat toer constant we no longer have to take the flight over there. and wet push a button launch a new. helm,onald trump at the i'm not eddie's at all. thank you. host: edward is in new jersey. good morning. caller: there's about 10 different explanations. the idea is these are just

engineered for social control. the were on terrorism was actually cold war two. governments are trying to legitimize themselves by giving lettinges an enemy and them enrich ourselves by making weapons. we should come together. we live on one planet. if we set ourselves up for world war iii, that's what we will get. host: this is our last caller in the segment. up next, we will talk about data privacy in the wake of facebook in cambridge analytica. that made headlines in the last week. later on, reid wilson will be here to discuss his new book on

the bullet epidemic and the international response to that crisis. we will be right back. ♪ >> for nearly 20 years, nonfiction writers have live conversations about their book. this year with a special project, we're featuring best-selling station writers for a munchen -- fiction writers, for a best-selling fiction writers program.

on sunday evening we will have walter mosley. down the river unto the sea is his most favorite book -- is his most amos book. -- his most famous book. our special series, in-depth, fission addiction, with altar -- lies, mosley, sunday, from noon to 3 p.m. eastern. monday, on landmark cases, biz while the connecticut, where a connecticut law was challenged against the use of birth control. the court ruled the statute to and broughtutional, about an argument about right to privacy that is still being argued today.

several legal experts as our guests. watch landmark cases, monday, and join the conversation. is landmark cases. book,o have a companion and the landmark asia's -- landmark cases podcast at our website. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979 c-span was created as a public service by america's cable -- cable television company. today we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, and the supreme .ourt and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country.

c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. morning, we are in olympia, washington, for our 50 capitals tour. we will have guests during washington journal starting at 9 a.m. eastern. >> washington journal continues. host: for tuesday roundtable on facebook's issues securing user -- the date date involving cambridge analytica. zhao and tony romm explain how we got to this point? appain how a facebook quiz is resulting in an fec -- ftc investigation?

host: we are here because of was hired bylytica president trump for the 2016 election and other can -- republican and conservative candidates before that. they put together psychographic profiles of owners. a way to identify your hopes, and fears, and dreams, to get effective marketing messages to you. to do that cambridge analytica need a data, they relied on a researcher that put together an app which was a personality quiz and was used by 200,000 users on facebook. at the time if you are a nerd -- a third-party app developer you were in a -- you were able to get information from users who downloaded that up, and their friends. as a result cambridge analytica was able to siphon out working users information's. everything from names, to the

things they liked and additional details. this has been an issue for the ftc. one of the big questions they are asking us were these activities violations? host: tenure slang cambridge analytica's connection to the trump campaign -- can you explain cambridge analytica's connection to the trump campaign? previously led by former trump advisor steve bannon, who was then hired by the trump campaign to help do some work. what is interesting about them as tony mentioned, they used psychographics. something the from campaign said ultimately led to -- something the trump campaigns that ultimately led to their success. --ngs being interested things like being interested in new experiences versus just demographic data. so how does cambridge

analytica use this data, and did they break laws? --t: guest: the privacy policy allowed cambridge analytica to do what it did. you are allowed to ask about users and friends, plenty of apps did this. is twofold.e here did camera generally cut delete the data it had amassed when it was asked by facebook to do so in -- did cambridge analytica delete the data it had amassed when it was asked to do so by facebook? does this violate the settlement that was brokered between facebook and the federal trade commission? that will ultimately determine whether they have to pay any fines.

host: cambridge analytica is acting ceo put out a statement about where they are in terms of holding this data, saying in part when facebook offered further assurances year ago that data, we did an internal audit to make sure that all derivatives and backup had been deleted. i be clear, we did not use any gsr data in the work we did in the 2016 residential campaign. .e are -- presidential campaign we are undergoing an audit to show we did not use any gsr data. thatr is the firm alexander conan, that is his company. cambridge analytica is saying that even another our ties to

gsr, that data was not used to anything related to the trump campaign and they want to be very clear about that. host: is there any wiggle room in this latest statement been in their previous statements? to betill think they want clear about that certification, that facebook is valid. they heard from cambridge analytica that there is no data left on their servers. is in cambridge analytica a hot seat, they are facing a lot of questions, particularly in the united kingdom where they are investigating this matter. a big question is whether they related -- deleted the data. i think cambridge analytica has been sharply critical of the whistleblower that has brought .ll of this to light christopher wylie is also testifying in the u.k. right now .

he said he was a part-time contractor, and they said he had no idea what he was talking about. they have gone after him in response to these allegations. the headline this week seemed very much focused on facebook. here's the lead story. facebook falls down the ropes, the ftc investigates congress. -- the focusocused shifted? haveis is a backlash we seen building, there have been a lot of questions about user data, how it is handled and protected. this really sparked the flame. there have been a lot of conversations around this larger issue, not just the specific case. host: we invite viewers to call in, it is a complicated story so we are taking an hour to unpack it. questions or

comments as we talk about the future or privacy issues, here are the numbers. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. i want to show viewers this full-page ad, this appeared in a lot of papers. it is from mark zuckerberg, it is a letter that he wrote, just a text just just text on a white background. he talks about the cambridge analytica story, not mentioning the company. investigatedve every single act that had access to large amount of data, before we fix this we expect there will be others and when we find them we will ban them. we will remind you which apps you have given access and information to. thank you for believing in this

community, i promise to do better for you. why take that step of taking out so many very expensive ads? guest: the company is under a lot of political heat right now. mark zuckerberg in particular had to testify, and there were three committees that asked him questions about what happened with cambridge analytica. at the same time there are multiple investigations from the federal trade commission and regulators from the european union. on top of all of that, facebook's stock price has fluctuated wildly. at one point it was down 6% yesterday before the rest of the market rebounded. there is a lot of criticism zuckerberg is taking he has to address. host: if you were zuckerberg, what investigation would you be most concerned about? guest: the federal trade commission, because the penalties could be very steep.

ftc encountered facebook on another privacy mishap. a result, they said facebook would be subject to 20 years of privacy checkups. to see ftc is looking at if they broke the terms of that settlement, they could face fines up to $40,000 per violation. that could lead to fines that reach well beyond the millions of dollars. is juststigation beginning, so we cannot say anything about the issue of wrongdoing just yet. host: a few tweets from members of the senate in the past few hours. there is a bit of shade on that ad that mark zuckerberg took out.

to testify to congress, zero dollars. the american people deserve more than an ad, they deserve an explanation. fromore tweets yesterday post.m of the washington mark zuckerberg testified on april 10 hearing, facebook's pass and pot -- past and future policies regarding the protection and monitoring of consumer data. we want to bring in a few viewer questions and comments. mason, in california, on the democrat line. -- a lease, in california, on the democrat line. caller: i heard someone say that cambridge analytica has nothing to do with the trump campaign, yet we saw on television one of the representatives in an underground tape stating that

they did all of the marketing for trump. that trump paid them $6 million to gather this data. these were then sent out to facebook users who they gathered. so whatever that statement was, it is not true, cambridge analytica with that underground tape that was released clearly stated that they had everything to do with it. host: li i will let you answer that. i think the statement is that the data that was allegedly exploited is what the firm was saying was not used for the trump campaign. but yes they were definitely hired by the trump campaign. and the tape relates to an investigation done by channel four news where they had undercover reporters talk to then ceo of cambridge analytica.

in some of those clips they appear to talk about things like framing opposition politics for bribery and even sending sex workers to the homes of candidates. they appeared to say that. we do not have any evidence that those things were done by the firm. especially not in the united states. but it is certainly one of the things that led to the ousting of the ceo. host: william, on the democrat line. facebook is for profit, because of that i believe this to be an oversight responsibility, maybe a congressional oversight responsibility when it comes to the facebook privacy issue. facebook since 2005, in college. at the time there were a lot of restrictions.

a collegeficult for student because you had to provide a university email address. then facebook realized there was more potential for business and profit-making. then, you have all sorts so i thinkoing on, facebook need some type of regulation, especially when it comes to the privacy issue. li, what do you want to pick up on. i think many people in congress agree, and that is why so many are calling for a hearing. especially bringing in mark zuckerberg to testify. host: let's be clear on who is calling for, we read a tweet from min kim talking about chuck grassley, >> also members of the senate

intel committee and other committees have expressed interest. host: any house committees? several have had we should point out one important detail. the senate judiciary committee is not just with facebook, chairman grassley also invited and twitter ceos as well. this is expanding beyond what facebook does with data. host: what does -- what do they need to worry about? they are likely to face uncomfortable questions. -- beingis the hammered for how it is handing information traits of people are probably thinking about other platforms collecting data. these are the kinds of questions you can expect to hear if those ceos show up. host: the big question is

whether mark zuckerberg will testify, this is the interview he did with cnn last thursday in which he talked about whether he might come before members on capitol hill. answer is that i'm happy to visit is the right thing to do. facebook testifies in congress regularly on a number of topics. some high, some not. our objective is always -- some high-profile, some not. we see a small slice of activity the congress gets to have access to the information across facebook and all other countries -- companies. what we try to do is send the person from facebook who will have the most knowledge about what congress is trying to learn. if that is me, i am happy to go. what we've learned is that there

are some people who have their whole job focused on an area. but i imagine there will be a topic where i am a sole authority. >> you are the brand of facebook, and people want to hear from you. >> that is why i am doing this interview. question, is not it -- congressional testimony is not a media opportunity. the goal is to give congress all the information they need to do their extremely important job. we want to make sure that we's -- we send whoever is best. onus ofthat be accountability means i should be out there doing more interviews. as uncomfortable as it is, this is an important thing for what we are doing. i should be out there and being asked hard questions by journalists. if you are am,

betting man, will we see him on capitol hill? guest: the question is not so much will we see him, so much as will congress issue a subpoena? they have done this in the past , the former ceo was threatened with a subpoena and she testified. this, opposite side of the united kingdom is looking at this matter and they demanded that zuckerberg come testify. justice this morning we got news sendingy are not zuckerberg they are sending the chief products officer, chris cox. host: who is that? guest: he is one of the original facebook faces, and very high up in the company. they wanted someone who directly answered to the ceo who knew the mind of zuckerberg.

we will see if congress makes the same compromise. host: (202) 748-8000for (202)ats, for republicans 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. robert, on the democrat line. caller: hello? as far as your information being in cyberspace, what is to stop somebody from reaching out and grabbing at? -- it? >> i think that is a huge question. that is every -- that is the question everyone including users and lawmakers are grappling with. data breaches have been an issue in the past year, and also in the context of using a social network, how is your data protect it -- protected?

guest: facebook is a free platform, so how responsible does it -- host: facebook is a free platform, so how responsible does it have to be? they are responsible for safeguarding the data, if they do not the federal trade commission goes after those companies for failing to do that. host: responsible under what law? under unfair deceptive practices, which is a big umbrella. it is important to make the oftinction, and the question hackers, stealing information, which is clearly illegal. it is not illegal for a company like facebook to swap and sell your information for money or advertising. this is something it is been discussed but has never been

regulated. host: chris, on the independent line. caller: my comment is on lines of that last subject. i think there needs to be a distinction in the conversation for what social media companies can offer at no cost versus a paid service. in many cases there are terms and conditions. , andpeople agree with them most people do not understand the implications. i think that the cost of any social media company, offering a service for free, and the resources that go into supporting the users, i think there's some levity -- some naivety. there needs to be some acceptance and responsibility with the user in allowing the

service that they value, as kind of a quid pro quo. >> i think that is an interesting point. over the weekend we saw this report come out about how facebook was collecting data about android users activity, that included text messaging information, as well as call logs. that was something that generated more uproar. but what is interesting is that facebook it back and they said that the users were affected by this head are he opted into a policy that allowed them to collect this data. i think when we talk about what data companies are collecting, there are often in policies -- opt in policies. caller: facebook -- guest: facebook is able to be free because they value your data, and maybe there is some sort of expectation that if something is -- that something

is being taken from you, if not cash money, then your data. to fault them, because this is written in such a dense way. host: patrick, on the democrat line. during the arab spring, we now know that facebook was utilized by the u.s. government as an intelligence mechanism, and they so discourse -- and they sewed discourse in the arab world. the american people are waking areo the idea that there -- waking up to the idea that their information is not secure. this goes way beyond basic information, this is intimate conversations. facebook should be investigated, but they will not be because

they are an arm of the three letter agencies that are spying on the american people and are exacerbating the tyranny that is unfolded in america. i can tell you without hesitation, this country is going down the path of absolute infamy. host: we have your point patrick. thataller does not believe facebook is not going to be investigated, what are you hearing? >> i think what will ultimately play out, based on the reaction that we have seen and the thatack that has happened, is something that lawmakers are interested in moving forward with. and the ftc is already looking into facebook's privacy practices. host: what could come of this, what laws and regulations are members pushing for? obviously the committee hearings are maybe a first step. guest: the immediate challenge

is finds --fines. europe has been more willing than the united states to issue financial penalties. on the legislator frank, for years the legislation has talked on the legislative side, for years they have talked about minimizing data and deleting it after certain. of time, but it has always spot -- stalled, especially with lobbying from companies like facebook. the question is will this particular blowup lead members of congress to do what they have not in the past? post in today's washington regulating facebook is a bad idea, the problems that facebook and others, real and perceived,

at google, amazon and apple have led to easy consensus. the large technology company should be regulated. with senators ted cruz and elizabeth warren calling for the same thing, it is possible that even in washington, the city where nothing happens, congress will decide that technology companies must be regulated. such an outcome would be a bad mistake, that for the companies and for us, their users. and bad for the country. he goes on to say that if you want other tech companies regulated, you are asking for system in which president trump or perhaps in the future president elizabeth warren controls what is on your facebook page -- plays a role in deciding what goes on your facebook page, is that really what you want? today we are talking with li zhao and tony romm. we are about halfway through

this discussion. robert, on the independent line. good morning. caller: it seems to me that you're all asking the government to regulate your data and your privacy. yet the government goes out and obtains illegal warrants to listen to phone calls and a nobody seems to gripe about any of that. you have a legal faisal warrants -- you have illegal fisa warrants, and this generation is let's talk about onstar. this is a tracking device put in chevrolet vehicles. make.rack every move you but you are not concerned with that, you are concerned with facebook. you put your information out on facebook, you voluntarily give this information away, but the

government that you are asking to regulate information that you freely give away tracks you every day, all day long. host: robert guillaume social media -- robert, do you use social information -- social media? guest: zero. what might a case like this mean for people who use facebook? the data suggest that they are not losing as many users as might be suggested. facebook does not seem to be hemorrhaging users. hill wholks on capitol talk about government privacy, look at senator ron wyden, at times senator rand paul. there are even members who talk

about vehicle privacy to the caller's point about onstar, especially as we start thinking about a world of self driving cars. all of these efforts tend to run into some sort of partisan vote lock that keeps meaningful reforms from coming to fruition. >> i think to his question about why are we worried about these , there are same issues happening other parts of our lives. i think it comes down to accountability and having some form of oversight and understanding what is happening. host: what are other companies doing to get ahead of this issue ? you mentioned the delete ,acebook campaign on twitter but what lessons are these companies learning so they are not in the crosshairs? >> i think a lot of what you in regards tois

the investigation of russian interference in these platforms, companies like google, twitter, and facebook have emphasized that they have taken efforts themselves to self regulate. you are seeing companies try to indicate that they are self policing in some way. host: one lawmaker is calling this facebook's oil privacy -- oil spill privacy mishap. guest: senator markey, always one for puns. bp faced a lot of repercussions for what happened, and we will see if anything happens in terms of regulation. for some years it has not. we were only months ago talking about the major security breach of equifax. it is responsible for monitoring your credit information, and a

hundred 45 million americans had really personal information leaked, and that still failed to move congress. for democrats (202) 748-8000, for republicans (202) 748-8001, for independents (202) 748-8002. we are talking about the facebook cambridge analytica data privacy issues. we have tony romm and li zhao. on our democrat line. caller: your experts were talking about cambridge analytica deleting everything, but everyone knows that if you delete something you do not delete everything. police get is how information in bits and pieces. it is impossible to delete everything. also laptops, when you buy them,

you're not getting a hard drive. everything goes into the cloud. all of your data on google gets there, you have to personally use one drive, to and deactivate that. i think the government will try to regulate so they can get control over the information. you think on the point mentioned about deleting things from servers, that is one of the big outstanding questions. whether it -- in terms of whether this data lives on elsewhere, and whether the researcher in question may have shared this data with other parties. i think the point being made about data being out there, even though it is deleted from the specific location, is interesting. guest: the information is there, and the government will try to get it, we know that from the

history of rings. -- the history of things. of the other one reasons companies minimize the type of data they collect to begin with. have the actions of cambridge analytica come under the scrutiny of robert mueller? guest: it has come up and we have known for sometime they have been asking questions about the structure of that organization and the data they collect. of course the mueller investigation is more of a black .ox in capitol hill certainly a lot of data collections have been on their radar. i think to tony's point, this andn ongoing investigation something that mueller steam has expressed interest in. susan, from florida, good morning. >> i have it --

caller: i have a dumb question. i do not have a computer, an iphone, or one of those pads. i have a fliptop phone. i'm not on the internet. , andou can google my name all my personal information, including why the or pops up. -- including who i vote for pops up. the information and that on the internet and i do not understand where our privacy is. as far -- your voterou saying registration information is on the internet or specifically who you voted for? caller: who i voted for. but it is supposed to be secret. so where's the privacy? host: can i ask that you found

that? did you type in your name? caller: my daughter looked it up for me, because she made the comment that just because you do not have a computer does not mean your information cannot be found. she looked it up and there was. it is unnerving, how old you are, your address, everything. her daughter is absolutely right. you do not have to be online for information about you to be online. there are companies that exist to drive -- to figure out insights about who you are, including stores you are likely to purchase from a your political affiliation. a behindis is part of the scenes network of companies, data brokers, and other organizations who can profit off of that information. it is available whether you have a profile on facebook or

elsewhere. have a tweet from james saying cambridge had to pay for the data, and they gave -- and facebook gave data to obama for free. do we know anything about connections to the obama administration or campaign? obama campaign, they had an app they created themselves which used facebook to login. so they were able to collect data via that vehicle. if -- so it tracked your data and friends data? >> whenever you are prompted by facebook to use facebook as a login for something, that login ends up tracking information about you. at one point in time it also swept up data about your friends. guest: facebook killed that policy in 2015, it was no longer

the case that third-party app developers could get that information just by getting your permission. that has still not change the fact that people are very spooked by what happened with cambridge analytica and may have kept the data despite telling facebook they deleted it. host: take us back to the policy change, how much handwringing was there? facebook is consistently been under pressure for its privacy practices. third-party app developers had to much access to information about you and your friends. it was one of the issues that the ftc had raised in its 2011 settlement with ace books under that previous investigation that -- with facebook under the previous investigation that we talked about. they were under consistent pressure. i think when you saw mark zuckerberg last week, that is something that he built on even more.

said facebook is going to further limit the access that developers have two such data as a way to ensure privacy. host: we have heard him say this in interviews and he wrote it in an apology advertisement. we have a responsibility to protect your information, if you can -- if we cannot we do not deserve it. guest: facebook us to convince you that it is a trustworthy place to put your information. it was a social network, and i will point out that that newspapers.t was in this is an interesting case study as to how many facebook users even know about this controversy. our callersl see of can answer that question for you. mary is in arlington, on the republican line. caller: i wanted to make a

comment before before there was a comment about the obama campaign. it seems as though obama targeted facebook users and that campaign, they were commented for how intelligent they were and how skill for they were -- skillful they were in using the internet. yet when trump does it, or when a republican does it, it becomes a huge controversy and is criminalized. i want to know what is the difference? >> it's a larger point about how people want their data used. regardless of what campaign it is or what company is using it, the issue that we're responding to now is that they do not want to feel violated when this data is leveraged in whatever way that parties have. host: are these concerns out there -- were these concerns out campaign and 2008 the 2012 campaign?

guest: this is a tough issue because we do not know if anything illegal happened. cambridge analytica may have done exactly what it is allowed believe theas we obama campaign had done in 2012. the differences here, the reason why there are so much criticism, is because cambridge analytica said they had deleted data, and allegedly had not according to a whistleblower. we did not have that consideration with obama in 2012. i think people are waking up to the question of should this has happened in the first place? i think that is why you're seeing people are i think claiming there should have been stricter controls about data in the first space -- first place. host: rick, on the democrat line. mark zuckerberg is

infantile, a professor had to throw him out of class. the other thing that bothers me is why do news reporters talk quickly. -- in the classroom, host: what is your question on privacy? i want to get my class in the narrators talking to quickly and i think the reason he does it is the difference between a deadly participle and -- host: we got your point. marcus, on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: i'm a database developer and i wanted to add to the conversation, after the woman who was not sure where her online profile might have come from even though she does not have any tech in her life, it does not take much.

something is monday as buying a warranty can establish yourself within that system of marketable data. to a little bit of comfort to some people's anxiety, i would say most people who are using that kind of data for marketing are not looking at it as individual people so much as cohorts of people and trying to extrapolate group data. the question i would have is what are the merits of storing that data as uniquely identifiable to a person when you really only need it to profile large groups? witheople are storing it names, social security numbers and things like that. guest: it is an excellent point. that is how the information ends up in the hands of other companies. just going to the store and shopping with your loyalty card is a great way to have information about your shopping

habits. data is that anonymized, but it is so easy to do you not a my snow -- to now.ymize and to the question the way data is stored, one of the big things we have seen companies lobby against is the idea of data minimization. as a way to stop cyber hackers from stealing information, the question should be should you only be required to collect the bear minimum of information, and they generally lobby against that because they want to make sure they can launch new products and services and they don't know what they need in 10 years. host: who is lobbying for that and which side has the rigor megaphone -- so which side is lobbying for that in which side has the bigger metaphor -- megaphone. there are a lot of

privacy hawks and consumer groups that have argued for privacy information for a long time. some of those are the same ones the complaint to the federal trade commission time and again. companiesve lots of like facebook, google, and trade organizations and any organization like the u.s. chamber that has generally warded off regulation. we will see if that changes now. technology, -- is a question, how does the cloud affect facebook users? >> it's a great question, but basically what the cloud asked does is that it -- the cloud act -- microsoft had email that was out of ireland that they wanted to access, but said that if it allowed them to

do that it could be a violation of laws in other countries prefer the legislation sets up an agreement between the u.s. and other places so that law enforcement can directly access data and that country has a similar ability to do so with the u.s. with the approval of u.s. authority. host: who has been pushing the cloud act? >> lauren hatch is pushing that from us for years now. -- has been pushing for that for four years now. we have not heard a lot from him or republicans on this. we have had a few committees that said they want to have zuckerberg testify, all led by republicans. guest: with republicans and democratic support. there are many more democrats that want to touch this than republicans, they are more willing to pursue privacy regulation and i think there is a fear among the gop that this

could easily spiral into a hearing about russia and russia's potential role in the election which i think is a republicans do not want to touch -- is something there -- is something that republicans do not want to touch. dealve not heard a great from the administration, there has been a bit of a debate as to how effective their information and approach to campaigning might have been, not just for trumpet across the board. there were a lot of folks who previously -- not just for trump, but across the board. there were a lot of folks who pretty worked with them who said that they did not revolutionize campaigning the way they had said. we are taking your calls and questions, we will get to as many as you can't -- as we can. wes has been waiting on the democrat line. caller: this bleeds back into

aboutarlier conversation the cold war. this is an information war that we are in. every time you use your debit card or your credit card, or you go to the doctor and you fill out papers, all of that information goes online somewhere. and you can do all you want to try to stop, but there is no stopping it. the information is out there. if somebody wants it bad enough, they are going to get it legally or illegally. there is not much we can do about it, we just have to smarten up and pay more attention and use our common sense. host: do you think there is a role for the government to play? do you think they need to step in and play referee?

everybody wants to be concerned and do what they can. but they can only do so much. the person themselves is just going to have to realize that it is just out there and you are just going to have to live with it and look inside yourself to deal with it. and know that it is there and there's nothing you can do about it. ian, on the republican line. -- the i think that your nsa covers -- collects everything, was calling out the woman who has a profile without using the computer, what recourse does she have? pack --the experience

experience experience -- ,he government, with the nsa they have everything on you. whether it is from facebook, your phone call, they are probably listening to us. recorded.verything is question, if your information is up there and you do not wanted to be, who do you sue? can't.you probably one of the issues that came up in california is whether they should open the doors for lawsuits for companies that fail to protect data. it will be on the ballot, and facebook and google are some of the companies putting up money to fight that issue. host: why go the referendum route?

differentifornia has rules, you are more able to put things up on the ballot than other states. that is the route they have opted to go for this one. i think it is more of a salient issue given issues like equifax. google, and comcast are three companies that have put money to fight that referendum. host: our facebook users in california seeing more on their -- our facebook users in california seeing more on their lines back up -- there newsfeeds. guest: i don't think so. other question about penalties, the federal trade commission is pretty limited in what it can do to a company.

it typically only allow flat financial penalties, so a company like facebook has made a mistake and has a penalty. so what is a financial penalty mean for a multibillion dollar company like facebook? have been flat with such a penalty, it made a mistake, events than the google did not abide by the settlement, and it was hit with a fine of $22 million, which was probably a drop in the bucket. $40,000 orok at violation, that could be hundreds of millions of dollars and enough to change the entire dna of the company. thou lee's oh -- lee's --li zhou is that the cost of doing business? >> it cannot be measured with

any kind of fine, but it could have an impact on the business model. how much do we know that facebook is lost in the stock market? >> they've seen a huge dip in market value, it was also 6% yesterday. i think the immediate reaction has been quite sharp. and longer term it will be talked to sustain. pat, on the independent line. caller: let us be wise about the situation, there is nothing wrong with the advertising of people putting up facebook pages so people can learn about their business. that is how sales is carried on, it is marketing nowadays. and just like a lot of callers of already said, you're going to have people sharing information.

i do not think that can be controlled. the thing that we will need to focus on is when you have companies and people paying to hack into or to use this information that they get someone lives and get believing something about a person that is not true and then , that is theom it evil thing about this. that is what you need to focus on. the companies, or people who do that kind of thing. we have had kids commit suicide because other kids get on there and lie about them. then they get embarrassed, and they cannot face it, and they going hang themselves or shoot themselves. let's get real about the situation.

there's a difference between obama putting up a facebook and people going into it and making contributions and there's a difference with people coming in and hacking folks are getting their information to steer lies everywhere. i actually asked senator lindsey graham is couple of days ago whether he thought it was time for privacy regulation, and he responded by giving me a laundry list of things wrong in the test -- the tech industry. terrorists on social media, cyber bullying, he mentioned parkland and people posting threats on social media, saying it was time to look into regulating all of these discrete areas. we also have the russia false data being spread on sites like facebook.

there would be momentum on capitol hill to take a look at these individual things. but the caller is right, it is more than privacy that we need to look into. host: we have daniel, on the democrat line. an earlier caller was asking the trump campaign differently than me obama campaign's use of social media, and one of the things the guests to not mention in response is that there was evidence that cambridge analytica gave data to russians, and that is the real concern about when -- about why we care more now than why we did four years ago, is that correct? i think, an interesting distinction between how the two campaigns handled things is the question of disclosure and who knew what their data was being used for and how it was being

collected and who was collecting it. i think that is something that needs to be looked at and i think the question about cambridge analytica being tied to russia is something that is, as far as we know, loosely linked. it is not something that can be pinned down at the moment. host: last call, on the democratic line. the last two collars took my thunder, but let us go back to the banks -- the last took my thunder, but let's go back to the banks. the banks have all of your information. that is how most of your information gets out there, on facebook. tony? financial information is

one of the few areas that is covered by law. what are laws covering happens with financial information, but we do not have a version of that that is comprehensive like that on social media sites. we have health information and some cases student information, but that is the big debate we are having now. host: as the debate moves forward, i hope you have -- we hope to have you on down on the road. tony romm is with the washington zhao is a oh --li reporter for political. up next we are joined by other national correspondent for the hill newspaper bree wilson, we will discuss his new book on the a bola crisis in the international response. we will be right back. ♪

monday. landmark cases join the conversation. hashtag is landmark cases. c-span and we have resources on our website for background on each case, the landmark cases companion book, ink to the national constitution and the landmark cases podcast at c-span.org/landmarkcases.

>> thursday morning, in olympia, stop on the r next "50 capitals tour." ensley ton governor jay will be with us starting 9:30 a.m. eastern. >> for 20 years, in depth on book t.v. featured best-known nonfiction writers for live conversations about their books. his year as special project featuring best-selling fiction writers for monthly program fiction edition. join us live sunday, noon mosley, most lter recent book "down the river, "devil in a ," and blue dress," which was made into a picture. fishing," and "fearless jones," and other books and mystery series. taking phone calls, tweets and facebook messages.

series, in-depth fiction edition with walter mosley, noon to 3 p.m. eastern on book t.v. on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. reid wilson is with us, when he's with us, it is often electoral ut talking today he is his new book "epidemic," what to the ebola outbreak? guest: couple things in the covering politics and government, we talk about how government is broken and how should be t work and better. this is a case in which the american government worked a lot of l and did things that saved a whole bunch of lives. in the course of reporting this becomes clear we're not prepared for the next pandemic comes. it is not a question of if it is

going to come, it is a question going to come. we're in a vastly changing, change is e climate increasing the tropic zones and can viruses live stred. we live in a moment when human culture is spreading further than ever has before. cities are getting bigger and e're encroaching and nature in ways we never have before. neither nature, nor human ivilization is ready to fight the next virus. by the way, we have a booming asia, class in africa and gives vectors -- give viruses get out to the rest of the world. global health community is only weakest link the in the chain and there are a lot of weak links around the world. on : story takes place multiple continents around the united states. how did you try to report the story? guest: i spent a long time talking to the americans who involved in y

ebola e ron clay, the czar, the center for disease control and prevention, the at national institute of health and then in medical e actual facility where a lot of patients were treated and people tried to cures, places like the usa m, medical research for diseases, the c.d.c. itself, places like that. and even in the halls of the itself, where people tried to organize this global response. characterse a lot of here from west africa itself, to president obama himself. a story that has a lot of heroes, i think. 2013, early 2014, do we know when and where this started?sis uest: the ebola outbreak started in guinea. in the local language to give you sense of how remote the area is, elemondu means this is as

far as we go. small village with 31 houses across rickety bridges, that test before they get there. it began in a field, where a was playing mil eside a tree, probably touched guano, or was bitten by a bat, something like that. tiny particle of rna, the ebola virus, got in his him and am, infected his family and began traveling regional leondu to center and across borders and what scared the public health had never shown up in west africa. people were not prepared for seeing, they didn't expect it, as if sheeding endemic to miami up in seattle, the areas where is from, think ebola uganda, is a

africa.nt away, in west it spread international borders and got to two cities, of more million people and there are direct flights to and nigeria, and to europe, that scared a lot of people. for the fiefrt time, ebola not only had the ability to fester really densely packed slums, but the opportunity to travel over continents. host: we show a picture of the tree, the tree on the village of meliondu, likely where the young boy was infected, how many infected, how many people died in the 2014 outbreak? offici 11300 officially 28,000, died from the virus. those are official counts. spread because the officials couldn't count verybody who got the virus and

-- dn't treat everybody guest: there has never been outbreak that killed more than 300 people before this. and away, ory, far the largest outbreak of ebola the world has ever seen. previous outbreaks combined and you barely scratch case rface, number of necessary this one. host: talking about the 2014 outbreak. rei d wilson talking about his ew book "epidemic," discussing ebola and the next killer outbreak. to join the conversation, in the time zone, entral 202-748-8000. if you're in mountain or pacific zone, 202-748-8001. for the son with us next half-hour to have this discussion, why is ebola so deadly? deadly because it has a very particular impact

on the human body. say, i like to say, ebola is not evil, it is just trying to survive, like you and i are. have viruses in us now that ave no impact on us, they live symbiotically, may have a different impact on some other species. it live necessary some other animal, probably a bat, scientists haven't formally that down. when it gets into the human in cells, hes itself reb indicates as much as osition and the cell explodes nd the ebola virus likes cells immune system, cells that take away discarded diseased in our at we just die bodies all the time. so eventually ends up melting organs and your -- internal

and you die a dy grizzly death. on humans and primates, gorilla population by ebola decimated viruses in place when is it humans. impact host: when ebola outbreak is confirmed, who is in charge of the response? on the country and depend necessary large parts have a relationship internationally. country's health agency will they can ny people as to ebola outbreak to try to contain it, trace contact, that of fighting an outbreak. infected and who they have come into close contact with you, keep an eye on had contacthey have with so that if they get infected, they can be treated quickly. -- deploy large

people.f not large number of people, team of doctors. thing i found, how much c.d.c. evolved in course of the outbreak. is the c.d.c. under control of the world health organization? uest: no, c.d.c. is american agency, they deploy teams to help and will send teams all to fight viruses anything. outbreaks of they are worried about outbreak brazil, for er in example. they send out teams, this agency used to pat itself on the back a dozen or two dozen disease detectives. in the of this outbreak, they sent 1400 people to west africa -- in sierra /* eone and guinea and did a lot to bring this virus to heal.

sierra leone suffered so much, the world was occurred thisreak united united states, kingdom and france had relationships, along with money necessary to er come to the aid of their close allies. what does that mean for the next outbreak? guest: it means we're unlikely favorablesituation as to a response as we had in west africa. created d states liberia. we sent back in the early 1800s, number of freed slaves to the region, which itsted a lot of problems of own. the fact is we've had this relationship with liberia for 150 or 200 years. when the u.s. sent in 3000 was seen as ps, it blessed event. airborne greeted as

heroes, people going to bring he virus to heal and the american approval rate nothing us.eria is 99%, they love how many other countries is that true? f this had been outbreak in pakistan or indonesia, or china, not have orne would been allowed to go in and build the capabilities they were allowed to. soldiers went in without guns, he c.d.c. officials went in protection or safety measures or anything like that, not safety, but physical safety protection because we were seen protection or safety heroes. the noutbreak could come from african or tropical are america, flu viruses circulateing and scare public health officials. how many countries are we going into with such

overwhelming force? the fact is, not many. we'll talk about preparedness for the next outbreak. ob is in beth lehem, d nsylvania, first wirei wilson. kwaukt daysr: do you remember the f louis pasteur, milk maids come down with small pox, pasteur took notice to it and ones that were milk pox, resistant to small pox. basis of antibody and that recouperated dthey use serum from people that recooperated in prevent another person from coming down with this disease? for the , thanks

question. guest: great question, bob. they did, as a matter of fact. when you get the ebola virus, if you are lucky enough to survive, your immune system creates antibodies, you will never get it again or the strain you got again. o when some people got the ebola virus, they were able to be treated, got blood hadsfusions from people who already had the virus. this is one tragedy of thomas the liberian man who came to the u.s., came to dallas nd ended up being the only fatality in the u.s. of the ebola virus. had the ebola virus who had his same blood type. transfusion, et a the two nurses infected in the -- se of treating him monrovia y contracted and donated blood to people who

virus. host: how many americans were affected and how many died? uest: some kept their name private. some people, the two issionaries in west africa who contracted the virus and came back to the u.s. to be treated, nina pham, the two nurses in craig brant dlltley, sorry, spencer who served in guinea, borders, ithout contracted few days after -- contracted it there, started with symptoms after returning and there are some ther unnamed people who have stayed private so far. host: how many ebola survivors outbreak did you

interview in your book. thing, in eresting talking to, i met nancy at hotel cross the street from the c.d.c., come back to speak with a bunch of nurses who treated thanked themtively saving her life. i talked to craig spencer over e-mail. neither of them wanted to talk for this book. spencer describe today to me as traumatic experience. ffectively there is something ow, so many people recovered, something called post ebola syndrome they described, ebola slows the brain, infects the it causes lasting, physical damage and mental damage. people report terrible having dreams and depression for the after their lives, as the virus left their body. and a lot of them didn't want to fresh, was still so look, craig spencer e-mailed me the other day and said, i didn't talk then and he may

change his mind at some point, i don't want to push him, it is his story. it's a virus that infects the and the brain. host: herndon, virginia, not far virginia, we can talk about reston. herndon.wait nothing caller: thank you for taking my call mrchlt wilson, actually you what i was supposed to say because you -- the way we virus was very beautiful because we suspend people immediately and helped them. i think what makes me angry when virus happen, how the republican react and make issue about a politics. virus distribute have whether republican or democrat, have to beings, the way we did it, best thing i ever did to we ountry when i see how respond this problem.

this itics involved why happen. host: thanks for the call, john. guest: i will say we didn't we could fast as have. mil, the first kid who got the irus, contracted it late november, early december, first time international observers saw what was going on in this region .as in january of 2018

the world health organization was very slow to declare this disaster. they didn't formally recognize ebola was present until late 2014, four years ago, as we sit here now, four years go tomorrow, actually, i think about it. that was the first day president bama was briefed on it in his presidential security briefing every morning. response didn't ramp up until june, july, we sent in, hen made the decision to send in september and in most troops actually got there in october. betweens several months when we knew there was ebola and when the world really mobilized thing.p this that is why the case counts bounced up so high. respond as fast as possible in part because the world health organization itself formal ake the declaration there was a disaster going on and c.d.c. and a lot of global health agencies

around the world take cues from who. be able to work in the reston connection. this question matt asks, are outbreaks confined to african continent in terms of origin? guest: yes, in terms of origin and human infection of dangerous ebola, yes. five strains of ebola have been identified around the world. ebola virus ebov, disease that was first identified in the democratic in the of the conga version, ere is sudan and a version cropped up in cammer oon and, ganda. a version that cropped up in ivory coast, right next to person ever one was infected by that virus, virus.est

swiss graduate student who survived. fifth version, has washington, connection, the reston virus. a lot of viruses are named after discovered. are ebola is a river, tributary of conga river. zika is a forest in uganda, the virus was described in dulus warehouse near airport. "hot zone," that richard preston wrote, that research i did and subsequent movie outbreak, a great flick everybody should go watch. but the reston virus does not ave impact on humans, it transmits to humans, there have been five or six humans who were the reston virus came

before we knew anything about ebola doesn't have harmful humanings, but the others ones do. good morning.e, caller: good morning. i have a comment and an example. take less than a minute. a sick the u.s. is nation. we have what i consider major epidemics. cancer, autism, schizophrenia, al azhimer, lyme disease and more. need to make research national priority. the ample, in japan, at sujika health university and it november, 2017 scientific article, your brain on actual acid is studying the link acidity and

psychiatric disorders. world need to spend for dollars, on research disease and not wait for them to occur. guest: great point. told me in c.d.c. the book and a lot of subsequent conversations we've had, it a lot less to focus on prevention than to focus on something like the ebola outbreak costs billions of thousands of lives. something like spending money on and se surveillance less, ion costs a lot however it is a lot less sexy. about g politicians talk funding, vernment cutting spending, they talk about spending on foreign governments. why are we spending our money on bolstering ys and

their public health funding, de shouldn't they be doing that? end. is we benefit in the the ebola virus does not stay spread.ountries, it can ika spread from africa to central and south america and up into miami. viruses don't know anything about international boundaries and the more we do to stop a virus there, wherever it first crops up, the more that we and ct ourselves here protect our own investment and end.more money on the back one interesting thing about this, the obama administration trying to of time get the chinese into this particular response, they chinese version of the c.d.c. over to west africa, to build ebola treatment units in hopes of bolstering their own defenses big thing public health officials are worried about is a flu that comes out of bird market in china.

if the chinese version of the that before it goes international, we're all oing to be better off as a world. host: take viewers to january, hearing on health emergency senate, thisin the is assistant secretary for preparedness and response with human services talking about how ready the the next tes is for disease. >> are we prepared for public face? threats we > i'd have to say equivocally for some, but not all. i think the reality is when this concept of pop first came up in witnessed the terrorist attacks of 9/11. we were anticipating potentially pandemic and we had just experienced katrina, but those kind of in the rearview mirror in terms of threats we're with.red to deal

quite frankly, if you had to look at a nation's state threat or we're considering today multiple nation states that are illing to use terrible weapons against us, both physical, as well as potentially cyber, i not prepared and quite frankly those are things up at night as well as pandemic that could emerge as well as risk gotlieb that dr. identified with synthetic farioustools that allow people to do unimaginable things. e can't boil the ocean, quite frankly, the barda model works, barda to dateen to have been somewhat limited. e've had literally in some circumstances rob peter to pay paul given events that and other with ebola

events. we don't have the sustained necessarily a g line item for pandemic that nza, for example, would give us greats confidence we would have sustained, uninterrupted funding stream. so the answer is, arguably, you could do more thipgs, the answer is you can't do more with limited resources. on national security issue, i think is vital. barda, i he role of think we have to stick to our lane and highlight the fact that now to use defense analogy, we're operating with carrier f an aircraft of resources to basically do this mission. national security mission to basically protect 320 million people. challenge. host: reid wilson, can you talk outbreak?

guest: i don't want to single out the trump administration ecause fact is no administration made appropriate investment in preparedness. to a epidemic led supplemental funding bill that was five or six billion dollars. for a lot of preparedness in the u.s., created a lot of new hospitals -- created capacity treat ebola als to patients or patients of a deadly virus like ebola. but that money is running out. to, of what the money went by the way, prop up versions of the c.d.c. in a lot of other countries, something then senator tom harken wanted to put n the bill and yet at the same time that money is now running out and we're not replacing it, they d.c. has said when run out of that money in the next fiscal year, fiscal year to pull outill have of 39 of the 49 countries where hey are doing virus

surveillance and you can stop something when it is small. it grow, then it becomes more difficult. ase count as curve bends upward, the scope of the disaster widens exponentially. wait nothing louisiana. good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen, you?re you hit on the perfect target about the prevention. the money in there is no prevention, okay. it's all about money. solution called hypo produced by white blood cells. nontoxic, big pharma chemical they won't embrace it, it ible for patent and make for $.10 a gallon. ebola is easy to kill, it is not open, it has a shell on it. o when you see these people

running around with bleach and these -- out, you are going in and i think we got your question. heard about what he's talking about? guest: the interesting thing it, he brings up a good point, there is not a lot of incentive to come up with a cure for something like ebola because ebola doesn't much. out in the case where there are 8,000 cases, consider the flu epidemic that hit the u.s. this year, there were millions of flu,s of the flu, i got the i don't know if you did, a lot of us did. that is something people can know, we make vaccines for flus every year, ctually they're being made right now for next year's nuvirus, sort of weird way they things.e the fact is, for something like ebola, there aren't many create a to treatment. ortunately we have scientific resources to do that. the folks and pharma companies vaccine that

according to trial, 100% effective. be news, there will never another book about the ebola written because there is not outbreak.be another we've got vaccine that will save a lot of lives and we know now so many,e had to treat i say we, responders had to treat so many people, we know to care for somebody who has the ebola virus and how o effectively prolong their lives enough so their immune ystem can do the job nais necessary. for a lot of viruses, there are so few cases, there is not the incentive to do something. host: do we have vaccines for ebola?ains of zier andnly strains for ebv in africa. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i would like to take this to thank the american people and all the took part in

rescuing my people from this ebola virus. was -- ebola virus and it was really scary. know what would have -- didn't rescue us, especially the americans. thank -- take this opportunity to thank the american people for rescuing us. you very much. -- and er countries [indiscernible] -- appreciate it. thank you very, very much for africa. guy dids for host: stay on the line for a might have d wilson a question for you. geekts you were in free town when it happen? ed was in free town. it was scary. we were in lockdown. go out for -- and people

to eat and have food if they ask you to stay home and don't go out, it was really scary. guest: wow, that is incredible. i think it is a testament to how to this.onders reacted by the way, i have a lot of stories in this book, this is americans story of going in and saving the day. there are incredible stories and touch on a few of hem in here, of people from sierra leoneand libebia, who were american-trained and could easily moved here, moved to europe and had great, successful safer.n places that were instead, they chose to stay and make their countries better. still at work e together. some of them died in the ebola outbreak. on the front lines fighting this disease and got it themselves and didn't survive.

there are a lot of heroes in this story. americans, not t just europeans, they are the who africans themselves, helped save their own country at great personal risk to themselves. a couple minutes left. if callers have questions for you. passage fromw this you're book talking about the fear of what might come income. the next fear pathogen will be horrible ombination of worst traits of diseases like ebola, zicaand common flu. carried by something widespread like common mosquito ziki and transmissible between humans, like the flu. that?o you fight guest: world health organization as risk of research priorities and the most dangerous diseases they prioritize fighting and one add third y just degree year, disease x, the one we don't know about. scares people like

tom friedman the most because we how to react to it, don't know where it will come rom our how it will be transmitted or anything like that. the ebola virus is very difficult to catch. touch the actually bodily fluid of another human being infected to get it the zika virus is easy to catch, spread by mosquitos, not lethal to anything, but a fetus. not leethsal, but doesn't have impact on vast majority of people who get it. the flu is easily transmissible and could be quite deadly. even when we talk about the spanish flu, that was deadly, mortality rate was 2.5%, 1-20th of mortality rate of ebola. what happens if there is flu has higher mortality rate easily transmissible, there is china right now that has

high mortality rate. transmissible, it is not transmissible yet. viruses are simple and biology mutate and o basically every time a virus goes into a cell, you are comes the dice and what out might be more deadly or less deadly or more transmissible or transmissible, gambling at every point. some point, the next will come along. how do we fight that? we learned lessons about how to ebola outbreak in saw some lessens put place when zika broke out. obama administration realized hadn't been as forthcoming, forthcoming, hasn't been as obvious and open with their and their action, they hadn't shown as much action because they didn't want to panic with ebola. hen zika came along, they were

proactive how they responded and sensed dozens of disease places like miami the zika rico where virus first hit and showed that action to the american people more quickly than they had with ebola. host: reid wilson, the hill ewspaper, also author of "epidemi "epidemic," appreciate the time. thanks, john. host: up next on "washington journal," it's open phones. public policy issue you want to talk about, we can do that morning. phones numbers are on the screen. start calling in now, we'll be right back. >> for nearly 20 years in depth on book t.v. featured the best known nonfiction writers for live conversations bout their books, this year as special project, we're featuring best-selling fiction writers for in depth program fiction edition.

join us live sunday at noon mosley, his walter most recent book "down the river books e sea," his other include "devil in a blue dress," made into a picture, "gone fishing," and "fearless jones," recognized ically books and mystery series. we will take your messages. special series in depth fiction edition with author walter sunday live from noon to 3 p.m. eastern on book t.v., on c-span2. dla landmark cases.

>> "washington journal" continues. ost: open phones on the "washington journal," any public policy issue you want to talk about, the phone lines are yours that until 10:00 this morning. democrats call in at 202-748-8000. 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. as we said, any public policy

topicson your mind, a few we talked about on the front pages of several newspapers this page of including front "u.s.a. today," facebook falls n the ropes, dazed by intense acklash, the ftc investigates to testify.erg we talked quite a bit about sanctions, the -- not but the united states kicking russian officials out of the in the wake of attack on u.k. soil, an ex-russian spy poisoned u.k. soil. the response from around the globe, plenty of lead stories on major newspapers today, including the "new york times." john up first in corning, independent.n good morning. caller: good morning. are, when you talk about spies, they are collected assets

are given to another country. they can be eliminated for propaganda. also two nations on western side sierra leone, that war fare logical experimentation and we have a cell there. experimentation on ebola. okay. actually what happened is it got released from it and we had an accident. but -- united u think the states caused that outbreak we were talking about? caller: absolutely. host: and how do you -- what evidence do you point to for that, john? we have a ause station there. biological does do war fare experimentation. there is only two countries in allow that, one is sierra leone.

neavon park., jame democrat, good morning. c-span.thank you, i seei watch the news and all these distractions that oming from the white house and president trump. this morning learning about russians attacks americans over middle east and all and distractions congressmen on vacation to get the stormy derneath daniels thing. them --00 thank you. ahead.ndependent, go caller: yes. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. to talk es, i want about the killing of innocent black men by the police.

to the o say something black community. why are we worried about daca, be sent ren that might back to mexico when our children are being killed by the police with no consequences? i think as a community, as a the , we've been pushed to si think nobody -- care about us no more. lack leader necessary washington is all for themselves. this man was shot in sacramento, times for holding a cell phone in his grandmother's parkland and the shooter walked out alive. just don't understand why we worrying about donald trump affairs and the russia mediation, we just -- the has gotten all the americans blind to the fact that what is country and his

cost is rising and inflation is is still the y same. we need to take our country back vote all these clowns out and put in people in washington with new ideas. thank you. host: ken, lead editorial in today's "washington post," black down again. talking about the shooting that to, the referring holding here, conway, candles over the police shooting sacramento.lark in mike, open phones, go ahead. yes, good morning. can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i was wanting to comment selling of people's companies dond how this to th advantage and so forth. on n't think we can wait congress to get our privacy back. suggestion. on any form that you fill out, you're polled t

on any questions, unless it's have to sane you sign stating the information is direct, give them correct information, if it says, do you even if you do.

caller: -- there was a show who a british reporter went to california and stayed in skid row in los angeles for a took film of hundreds of tents, people living times.any she saw thousands and thousands of rats running all over the place. big problem there, that could start an epidemic of a disease.f i pray that the california something will do about this and the woman said, tent er california, these cities are springing up with homeless people who have no to go. they should bring in the national guard and clean it up, they have a national guard, state has that. host: where do the people go? somewhere her city

else? caller: they could build places for them to live in. money.ve hollywood is rich, rich with money. they should help people find to live in homes. host: nancy in kansas city. 15 phones in the last minutes of the "washington journal." phone lines, 202-748-8000, if democrat. 202-748-8001 for republicans. independents.or one other op ed to point you to just this out morning from "new york times," etired associate justice in supreme court john paul stephens headline, olumn, the repeal the second amendment, the ssociate justice who was appointed to the supreme court in 1975. ford rarely have i seen the type of engagement schoolchildren demonstrated throughout the country this past

saturday. demonstrations demand our respect. they reveal the broad public upport for legislation to minimize risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in society. to support is a clear 69 lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership weapons, omatic increasing minimum age to buy a years old and 21 establishing more extensive background checks. should seek tor more lasting and effective reform, demand appeal of second amendment. concern that national standing army might pose a threat to states led separate to adoption of the amendment, ecessary to the security of free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms infringed today, relic of the 18th century. read more, the column is in "new york times" today. daytona beach, florida. go ahead. -- post masters,

is continuing.ar however, because of this president, we are getting hotter. we're getting hotter is because like -- i work families, likend around the world, there are we ies and happens now that have a bully in the white house. and this bully is taking care of putin, another bully, and he has clue of republican financial bullies. is a man who is diagnostic osed by mental health as narcissistic, borderline and antisocial, we have a the nality disorder in white house and they don't go for help, they just make life everyone around them.

to start d concentrating instead of on the mighty dollar in the republican people, the american people. and especially our children, who more than guns. sylvia. referencing the opening question on "washington journal," it was think the cold war is back. one headline from new york timeos that topic. war, but relations with rauszia turn volatile. and this from the editorial board, the cold war is back, they write. expulsion of 60 russians is needed recognition of an engine. in california, a democrat. good morning. go -- caller: good morning. mic, right? host: open phones, what do you about?o talk caller: i want to go back to the woman who called a few calls

back, she had gone to california all these homeless people and rats and it is going cause a huge, you know, world disease.ng i mean, she seems like one of most uneducated and really mean-spirited, not caring about others. where n said yourself, are they going to go, to another city? her what did you think of comments, california has montow places in homes, not be there. caller: it is difficult in california, with homes, i'm sure you know, at the moment, especially -- host: tell us. what s about it, justin, is your experience out there? caller: well, my experience is myself, i'm o move not homeless, but i'm trying to

town of to my home vacancy rate and nothing being done for housing.e show, all, i enjoy your real public service. host: good morning. good morning, united states. killed, 17 at were ids there in florida, there is more than that killed every weekend in chicago. the drug gangs are doing most of the killing and how do we get the drug gangs i would like to ask. ow do we get rid of them, how do we get rid of alcohol gang? passed that l law -- passed that law.

host: what do you make of retired associate justice of the court john paul stevens calling for repeal of the second amendment? hello.: host: what do you make of justice john paul stevens asking the second f amendment, terry? caller: the gun laws? host: yes, sir. caller: we should still have guns, but i don't think we need no machine guns. can see them getting rid of them, but not all the guns. host: thanks for the call this morning. in sutherland, nebraska, an independent. go ahead. caller: good morning. calling about, okay, the homelessness, i saw that. carlson andn tucker it made me sick. ucker carlson was right, it looked like a third world, like out in india or something, disgusting. hyperdermic needles all on the

street, garbage overflowing no is picking up. it is really disgusting and this takes place in america is really obscene. what, what about the welfare system and snap regulations? there is something that needs to as far as snap r regulati regulations go. one and two-person households nutrition. 8%. like $10, $15, $20 a month. that is a big reason. rent is not considered as an expense. at that.ok thank you. bye. host: margaret we took a look at snap nutrition and the snap segmentin last monday's of the "washington journal," our your money segment. representative from the bipartisan policy enter about their proposals to

push for more nutritional guideline necessary food stamps, the snap program. i encourage you to go back and watch that. segments at h all c-span.org. oseanne, in wisconsin rapids, wisconsin, line for democrats. go ahead. make a yes, i wanted to comment on guns in this country. spirited have a discussion with someone about guns and uld have invariably it comes down to people are afraid of their own are afraid that their government is going to i'm afraid hem and guns isn't going to do it if that were to happen. many guns out there right now, enough to arm every citizen in the country three over. so the idea of stopping the of new guns, you still have other ones out there.

is to y thing i can see put regulation on bullets really a mean, it's sad state of affairs we have our beautiful, beautiful children protesting for their lives. really, for justice stevens to come out with that, i absolutely t is wonderful, why do we need so many guns and then they talk about hunting. ideally and i have had so many people go, that could never happen. why can't you have a situation season, you gun could go in and check out a gun library book a and then you're accountable for have breatha lieser so when they take that gun, out there in ing mass intoxicated. hy is it a big deal that you have to have that gun in your

hunter? you're a that is all i have to say. guns, ho should keep the roseanne, where would they check them out from? would: i guess maybe that be a government-run program, public program, where maybe through the police force, know, and then everybody would be accountable for that gun. radical, i'm sure to a lot of people and they are all goodness,eir eyes, my the amount of people getting killed in this country, it's sad. host: brian, bel air, maryland, line for republicans, good morning. you doing today? host: doing well. go ahead. calling, i as just heard the conversation from the lady before. if she believes that, i believe car in ando turn her breathalyzer installed on

fromd have to check it out the library everyday. to call for repeal of the second amendment, the supreme court i think he should be taken off the supreme court in a heartbeats. a retired member of the supreme court, no longer bench. on the caller: somebody come along, say, is a reason, people antiquated amendment, it was around, you take the second away, you can get ahead and kiss the rest of them oodbye, along with freedom of speech, right to due process because it does protect it and people, why can't people understand, the gun is shelf, ping off the running into the school and shooting people, there is a the em, the problem with people and acceptance of towards one anger another, until we start treating ach other better and being respectful to one another, kiling and respect to one

on.her will keep going people need to start respecting one another. terrible always be people out there, but to infringe on the people, i'm a law-abiding citizen, i work two jobs, never been in trouble with any law. -- why does people think that law is going to affect a a disturbed person? it's not. if somebody wants something, hey're going to get it, just like the man that went around people.innocent it is illegal, but they come about them. guns away nk taking will cure the problem? it's not. root.ve to start at the people, acceptance of violence has gotten way too overboard. brian in maryland, last caller in today's "washington journal." we'll of course be back here morning at 7:00 a.m. 4:00 p.m., have a great tuesday.

♪ >> live today numerical will host a discussion on countering extremism by examining the changes to the nation of islam after the death of its leader back in 1975. our live coverage starts at 11: 30 a.m. eastern. later this afternoon, policy sky's upcoming north korea talks at a summit hosted by the institute for korean american studies and washington, d.c.. we will have that live at 1:00 p.m. eastern.

eight :00 tonight at p.m. eastern, perspectives on gun control for the march for our lives rally. , --esday, 8:00 p.m. easter >> when he got the job, just like developing a television show, he said ok, i have got this job, i've got to go down to the swamp, drain the swamp, hire people that understand the swamp. what he has learned is that he is -- you're not been a drain the swamp hiring swamp monsters. >> thursday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, journalist documenting the fight against isis. >> i am trying to get you to care about someone who speaks a different language, and has a different colored skin than you

do. not born with the same privilege and make you care about their life, and understand the parallels. a.m. -- p.m.9:30 easter, arthur laffer. it is true that there are consequences to taxation and they are the same across the whole spectrum. you cannot tax and economy into prosperity. >> this week on prime time, on c-span. linda brown was a little girl from kansas who was at the center of the 1950 supreme court ruling brown versus board of .egular -- brown versus board she died sunday at the age of 76. says hurtion director