hearings, c.e.o. zuckerberg, "the communicators" look at the spread of personal data with the president and c.e.o. at the center of democracy and technology and former chair of the federal election commission. >> look at all the politicians who asked him questions for 10 hours, every one of them has en using data mined from american citizens to communicate with their constituents to target voters and a lot of this is for good reasons. >> the mega issue for me is how data collected, used, secured and processed by the companies in which we engage in the online world in a very pervasive way. >> watch "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2.

thanks for joining us. host: joining us in the question is bloomberg news serves as an agricultural reporter.

trying to gut the benefit. they don't like it. and they have historically put a bull's eye on this program and sick and tired of beating up on poor people. if they get their way on this bill, millions of people will lose their benefit. it's worth it. >> what kind of a teek to the program could you expect? they get adjusted every farm

bill, what tweaks could you see? >> i would like to see an expanded benefit. $the average snap is about $1.40 per person per meantime for this extravagant benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. i want to make sure that more people who are entitled to the benefit can get it. i also, you know, want to address the issue that they seem concerned about, which is how do you get peep off -- people off of snap? let's set the record straight on the majority of people who are on the benefit are not expected to work because they're children, senior citizens or disabled. of those who could work, the vast majority work. yet they earn so little they still qualify for snap. here's a radical idea. why don't we talk about a livable stpwhage why don't we talk about raising the minimum wage? why don't we talk about raise minimal bill? >> what would be a job training proposal, sorment of way of moving people to work that you could support?

>> already, i mean, there are job training programs out there. and there are already limitations on able-bodied ithout dependents. they can only be on the program for three months. they don't have a job, they lose their bell. that's harsh but they already exists and we have work training program that currently exists. why are we reinventing the wheel? this is an attempt to really go after a population of who is vulnerable. and i'm -- i've sat through all these hearings. i've heard all the rhetoric. i'm fed up with this constant belittling of poor people, and minutishing their struggle. and i think democrats are united an opposition to this bill. they want to go to the core of this program and we're going fight it. and the other thing is, it reflects a lousy process. i mean, none of us were involved in it.

none of us were informed about it and it's shameful. >> a little more broadly. you say you wanted to expand this program. how would you pay for something like that? cbs just came down with this report that there's going to be a trillion dollars in 2020. if that's the new normal, how do you pay for anything domestic, discretionary entitlement. how do you plan to pay for the programs? >> i would prefer investing in programs like this rather than tax cuts. but here's the other thing. this is what we are now finding out. the great austin food bank and the massachusetts children's health watch completed a study on the consequences of food and security and hunger in massachusetts in terms of other costs. they have estimated that the cost associated with food insecurity and hunger in massachusetts is about $2.4 billion a year. that's a billion with a b. so the fact that we're not

addressing this issue, the fact that we're content to keep the benefits so low that food banks and other charities have pick up the slack midway through a month, there are costs associated with that. kids who go to school hungry don't learn. people who don't have access to good nutritious foods end up with high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, the list goes on and on. to avoid solving this problem has been incredibly expensive. i can't tell you right off the bat exactly where we would find all the money. i'm just telling you by not addressing it, it's costing us a lot more. >> undoubtedly, any farm bill that would pass congress would be reconciled with congress. given the position of the house, there is still a possibility that a farm bill that would be palatable to you could pass the bill this year? >> i think our farmers deserve

the certainty of a farm bill. i'm not sure that the current bill as drafted helps farmers as much as farmers deserve to be helped. but the bottom line is, you know, i guess my answer to your question is i don't know. because, again, the host position on food and nutrition is so extreme. and it's so harmful to people in this country who are struggling in poverty. that unless they make some dramatic shifts for me, i can't support a farm bill. from the very beginning, i've said i will support a farm bill that doesn't increase hunger in america. that was my -- that was the bar i set, the line in the sand that i drew. well, you know, this bill will increase hunger. and so let's just radical changes, i'm not sure that we can reconcile the bills. the senate, you know, again, as a very, very vastly ifferent

approach. the food and nutrition program has will be in the house. i don't know where these proposals came from maybe you get chairman conway on the program. who wrote this? surely not the people from the agriculture company. it is not the product of liberation and the agriculture committee. it's not the product of the hearings we held. the hearings we held basically said do the opposite of what we're doing in the farm bill that republicans put forward. >> switch gears a little bit and talk about syria. you have pushed for more authority resolution in the umf. that has gone nowhere for different positions -- reasons. but speaker ryan says there's no need for one. which is a different tone from speaker boehner. he didn't like the proposal that former president obama had sent down. is this a set backwards in the congressional oversight? >> absolutely and it is. it is so disappointing to hear speaker ryan say that and now

that he announced his retirement, i was hoping that maybe, you know, he would stand up and actually do the right thing on this and a whole bunch of other issues. look, congress is aggregating the constitution responsibilities by seating these, you know, war powers to the executive branch. and war is a big deal. we got to be debating it. we ought to be set the parameters of what we're talking about. and not just reacting to things. and, you know, we're in a war that seems to be a war forever in afghanistan. we're still involving iraq. we're now in syria. we're in a whole bunch of other places. and congress is just sitting back and doing nothing. you know, it is wrong. and we ought to ask the white house for an aumf and debate it and vote on it. and if congress votes no, then that means you don't go to war. >> what its that doesn't satisfy syria?

>> i don't know how the aumf's, i don't know how you can apply that to what's happening in syria. right now, with the president is talking about is the meet goes beyond it. his is beyond the purview of just go fighting terrorism. he is broadening and, look, before we start dropping bombs or sending more troops someplace, maybe we ought to talk about, you know, what we're doing and what the implications are. and, you know, where the traps might be and whether this is a good idea or a bad entered what are the alternatives? and again, you know, i blame the white house for not coming forward with the plan. i blame congress for being gutless with not dealing with the issues of war. speaker ryan has done his best

to keep any aumf legislation off the floor. well, you know what? you know, you got start thinking about the men and women who we put in harm's way. they deserve our attention. they deserve us to make sure we thoroughly vet these ideas and these initiatives before we go forward. so i -- you know, we ought to have an aumf debate. >> politically, specifically, which lawmakers are vulnerable to that vote? you said you want to protect people from that vote. >> i think within -- the majority of republicans do not want to have a vote on an aumf of any kind. they get burned with president bush on iraq and don't want to put on that situation again.

it's easy to be a member of congress and when things are well, go i was there with from the beginning but when things don't go well, say i was against that from the beginning. but when you're on vote, you're on record. i'm pleading with the republican leadership to do your job. and we all should do our job. >> a lot of senator who is are looking at 2020 in the white house. don't you think they would not like to take that vote? >> maybe they don't but that's too bad. part of our job is to debate and vote on issues just like this. you don't want to do it, then you're in the wrong business. >> does this essentially result in some sort of criteria -- crisis of leadership on the republican's side? >> i have no idea what's going to happen on the republican's side. i mean, the speaker has announced he's going to retire. i don't know who his replacement is. and, you know, to be honest with you, thapes to republicans to decide. i'm hoping we're going to win the house back. we'll be in charge. >> coming up on that for just a moment, of course, the

republican leadership turmoil is now coming into the fore. the democratic party has not always been united in its own opinion on what the future direction of leadership should be, especially here on the part of some younger members who feel folks like nancy pelosi have been in power for quite a long time and maybe there could be time for a new generation. do you see regardless of who the democrats picture, any tensions or division that could possibly create some questions about the direction of the caucus going forward? >> i think we're more united than not. and as far as nancy pelosi goes, she's done an amazing job and i hope she's speaker. and i judge people on their effectiveness and on their performance. and i've worked with older members of congress who i think have been terrific and some have who have been not so terrific.

and i've worked with crourning members of congress who are extraordinary and some who are not so extraordinary. this is about effectiveness and performance and i think she's done an incredible job. >> what about the argument that he is toxic in certain districts? she sees republicans have spent millions of dollars bumming that reputation but it does force democratic candidates that literally run ads that say i won't run for her? >> paul ryan is controversial in some district. chuck consumer is controversial in some districts. mitch mcconnell is controversial in some districts. tip o'neill was being used in ads and districts against democrats. but the bottom line is, you know, that's to be expected when you're upfront. >> when you hear those district, you hear about a lot of the left on the democratic party. but a majority of them have a

slightly different opposition. what were the character of a democratic majority in 2019 look like that would be different in how they're working on in the minority given there has to pa bigger tent? >> i watched conor lamb's race pretty closely and listen food what he has to say. he said a lot of the same things that i said in my distinct he said we need to protect medicare, the importance of unions. he talked about the importance of investing in education. those are democratic values. and so, i mean, i think our values have been consistent for years. and we may not have always articulated them as effectly as we would like -- effectively as we ould like, but i would expect

if we take control, we will try to move this country in a very different direction. one that's aimed at the middle class and one that's, you know, that's not just a big giveaway to the wealthiest people in this country. there are other people who are most well connected. >> democratic leadership last summer went out to rural virginia, and announced a better deal. this is going to be your 2018 platform. it's all economy focused. there's no social issues. there's no guns, no immigration, no abortion. and there was very little mention of donald trump. is that going to continue to be the message going forward or how do you avoid talking about the president of the united states heading into 2018 considering his popularity is historically low and he's everywhere? >> again, every congressional district is different. and i think people need to run races that are -- that are compliant with their districts.

but what i've been experiencing when i travel, you know, different places and speak to different audience, whether they're liberal or conservative audiences, the concern over the president of the united states has intensified. people are concerned. they are nervous. conservatives in the congress are nervous. i mean, you know as well as i do what they say to you off the record versus on the record. they think this president is unhinged. they are frightened by his rhetoric. they are annoyed and shocked by his tweets. and they are very worried about what he's done and how he's doing to the republican party but what he's doing to this country. and i think the president does play a factor. he played a factor in our victory in pennsylvania with conor lamb. he played a factor in the victorying in alabama. i think he's factoring an even state legislative races. he is not a popular man. and so there's a great deal of concern over him.

i would expect that he will be a factor in these elections. >> spring becomes summer becomes fall becomes november. how loud does the impeachment wing of the democratic party become? >> i think the consensus is that we're going to have to wait and see what bob mueller's investigation produces and then make a decision. i mean, i think some of us are horrified by the character and the behavior of this president. i'll be very blunt with you. but there's also the political reality that, you know, impeachment is very difficult. that's the way our founders ntended it. and i think, you know, absent a strong evidence from mr. mueller that the president has violated the law or that he's colluded with the russians. i don't think thatism movement is -- impeachment is likely. i mean, not that i've been part of.

i think people keeping their poeta to drive to -- why are we having investigations? we're having them to fine out there are some -- something there. with each passing day, i believe there is something there but we have to play this out. and the republicans will say we will automatically impeach him. it is a high hurdle to impeach somebody. but if there is evidence that show this president broke the law and he engaged in conclusion with the russians, i think republicans will -- collusion with the russians. >> address a high hurdle played on you if the democrats win. >> it will, but i'm looking forward to all the challenges that will be presented if i was to be chairman of the rules committee. i hope i can become the chairman of the rules committee. >> what will you do if the house were to flip and you pick up

the gavel? >> you know what, i would like to believe that if democrats control the house, that we would run the place better, that we would be -- we would act like professionals, that we would understand that everything has to be closed. i mean, the republicans have presided over the most closed congresss in history. and i think that's been bad for the institution and i think it's been bad for our image. i think a lot of the toxicity in congress, a lot of the resentments are based on the fact that the republican leadership has closed everything, totally. and by the way, not just they have not just shut out democrats, they have shut out democrats as well. i can't promise that every rule is going to be an open rule but there would be a greater attempt to try to comet -- comet more members. the house -- accommodate more

members. i mean, people say why don't you solve the issue with the dreamers? you know? or why condition you do something about universal background checks when it comes to guns? the reason why is because the leadership will not allow any amendments to come to the floor who address those issues. we could solve them in a nanosecond. but they have shut everybody out. >> but putting yourself in the position of the majority and this is always the classic majority. you could bring a background check for the house. you have an open debate. now the folks who got elected in the districts as democrats have to make a bunch of difficult votes that can be used in attack ads. >> they can vote no. people need to vote their conscience of these issues. i believe we ought to have sensible gun control laws. some people don't. but here's the deal.

the issue is important enough that we ought to debate it. and what democrats have suggested, what some of us have been urging the current leadership to do is let us bring our bills of the floor. you bring whatever bills you want to bring to the formula call your friends at the n.r.a. and have them draft legislation for you. let's debate it and vote on it. bring to it the floor. majority wins. that's the way it's exposed tonight. to me, that will restore some of the integrity of the institution. speaker ryan promised about a more open house. it's been the opposite. this is the most closed house in history. and that's not the a record that i want to be proud of. we need to allow more debate and we need different ideas to have their day on the floor. and that also means we don't have to win everything. and i think if we could establish a different process, i hink

that would do a lot toward bringing us together and maybe we'll find more common ground on various pieces of legislation to get more done. >> you said everybody should just vote their district and conor lamb proved that with his victory in pennsylvania. but there is still this need for a national message and there is still going to be a very big presidential campaign in 2020 and there is still the bernie sanders wing versus the more traditional democratic wing. and how do you see all of a that playing out in terms of how do you unite these force where is some say oh all we have to do is adhere to our liberal issues and others say you never win a purple district with that in mind the gerrymandering comes into all of this. that message simply does not resonate. so once you get these guys to washington, how do you mill all of that into one cohesive message and allow you to govern and pass big bills? >> i say vote your district in your conscience, whether they

do it to things that i mentioned. but look, you don't have to agree to everything to agree on something. and if that something we agree on, we ought to move forward. i believe we should have assault weapons banned. a lot of people don't. well, i agree we should have universal background checks. you know? i like think to maybe we can all agree. we should have universal background checks. maybe it's not as much as i want but it would be a helpful step forward. we ought to be able to come together in some of these economic issues, strengthening pensions, to be able to -- you find common ground, ways to protect medicare and to protect social security. you know, and maybe find common ground to strengthen some of our environmental laws so that we can have a majority that actually believes that climate change is for real. so i think there's lots of areas and we don't have to agree on every single thing. and, look, you know, i'm a liberal democrat. i couldn't get elected in west

virginia. and, you know, joe probably couldn't get lented in massachusetts. but we have a lot more common than divides us. the stuff we have in common, we ought to move. the stuff we can't, we have to work out. >> now, there was a democratic congress as recently as 2010. how does a democratic congress in 2019 differ from that one? >> well, you learn from past xperiences. and i think, you know, and i think we need to listen to all members and especially the new members about what works and what doesn't work. we need to pay attention to these races that we're winning in very difficult districts. and understand what messages work and what mesms don't. but, -- messages don't. and when people talk about these big differences, between the wing and the establishment, i see a lot more in common.

and some of the things we want to do may have to be done incrementally. aybe not all at once. but, you know, based on these last few months, i feel the democrats are coming home and they're more united than ever. they're fearful of the man who's in the white house. they're really disappointed with the dysfunction in congress. they understand that congress has been explicit with the trump agenda. >> thanks for joining us. we will be right back. >> what did you learn from the conversation particularly about the snap program, but also the

farm bill and the status there? >> the farm bill is always operating in a different political context. this time around what is striking about the democratic position on snap is they are much more united in opposition to a proposal that is milder than what several of them supported in 2014 when you saw actual cuts to the program from the c.b.o. standpoint. it does aren't make sense from the idea of what could be seen as more punitive in the snap program, although there are a lot of concerns over the job training proposals. it does make sense in how people may be looking at a farm bill that is passed in 20818 versus one in 2019. he policies is what people are focused on. host: what would you say the status is? >> the farm bill is popular among farmers and what is striking, you don't hear as much

date. it's always that focus about getting the bill passed. the snap program runs anywhere from 2/3 to as much as 80% of the program's actual spending. the big debate is over where much of the money is spent where the constituents provide the olitical push. >> i think that was correct. it is too hard a fote for people to take.

the last time that came around, that cost people their political careers and never even easy to vote on war but it is a constitutional responsibility that congress is the one to make these decisions, a lot of concern yesterday, defense secretary testified before the use armed services committee and this allows us to fight anyone anywhere. it was a broad response and temperature cats are talking about that today. they are concerned there are no constraints and considering the volatility, there is real concern there. no prices. it is a debate isn't going to go away. and if we start firing more missiles, it will be an issue. >> what happens if democrats take power? any revelations?

>> for all the talk you hear, it's time for nancy pelosi, steny hoyer, jim clyburn, the 70-plus leaders that have been around for 15 years, for all the younger talk of a younger generation, there is still a lot of support for them among guys like mcgovern. nancy pelosi is a true blue liberal and guys like mcgovern support her. they like her tenacity, fundraising, her work ethic. and so they are going to continue to fight for her and nancy pelosi just nominated jim mcgovern for the ranking member of the rules committee. he is coming off of a big victory. so he isn't going to throw her under the bus 48 hours later. she has an enormous fan base within the democratic caucus and a lot is going to depend on

november, how many seats do they flip, do they win the house, but not only that, are there enough there to bring nancy pelosi back in the fold. to both of you, thanks for oining us on "newsmakers." [captions copyright national satellite corp. 2018] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org >> the house back in at 5:00 p.m. eastern for legislative work today with six natural resources committee bills on the calendar. expect work on tax-day related measures and a bill to protect children from identity theft. live coverage at 5:00 here on c-span. join us for a look at the trump administration, 2016 election and russia. reporters from the "new york times" and n.p.r. will join a discussion with marvin kalb. we'll have that over on c-span3

and stream it online or listen free by using the free c-span radio app. tonight on landmark cases, of den berg was convicted hate speech but the supreme court ruled the state law violated his first amendment right. our guests to discuss this case are the former head of the american civil liberties union and law professor at new york law school and a senior attorney at columbia university. watch "landmark cases" tonight and join the conversation. and follow us at c-span. and we have resources on our website for background on each case. the landmark cases companion book and a link to the interactive constitution and the

andmark cases podcast at c-span.org/landmarkcases. >> as a follow-up to the recent hearings facebook, "the communicators" looks at the privacy issues raised by the spread of personal data with the president and c.e.o. at the center of democracy and technology and attorney and former chair of the federal election commission. >> all of these politicians who asked mark questions for 10 hours, every one of them has been using data mined from american citizens to communicate with their constituents to build mailing lists, to target voters and a lot of this is good for reasons. >> how data is collected, used, secured and processed by the companies with which we engage in the online world in a