remainders the life and legacy -- remembers the life and legacy of john lewis. ♪ host: good morning, everyone. facebook, amazon, apple, and google will be on testifyingl for before the house judiciary committee about their market power. this morning, we will begin with your take on this. -.mocrats, (202) 748-800 republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8003.

get to your thoughts in just a minute. golda, a technology reporter with axios, joining us on the phone to talk about this hearing that will be taking place at noon eastern time on c-span3, on our website c-span.org, and you can listen on the go with our free c-span radio app. committee iswhat holding this hearing and why? is the house judiciary committee antitrust subcommittee. they are holding this hearing because they have been having an investigation of the digital markets and big tech companies in the past few years and this is a culmination of that investigation. host: why are they investigating

these companies? guest: they are investigating these big tech companies, apple, amazon, google, and facebook, because amongst the democrats and some republicans, these -- there is a feeling that these companies are too big, take up too much of the economy, gobble up competition by acquiring smaller companies, and amazon's case by both selling products and being a platform, and in apple's case running the app store. they feel that antitrust law has not kept up with what the digital economy looks like. senator elizabeth warren has tweeted recently "here is what you will not read and big tech's bought and paid for research. amazon, facebook, google, and

apple have too much power over our economy, society, and democracy." what is she talking about when she says we need to break up big tech and stop mergers? guest: facebook is a very large company. they also own instagram and whatsapp, huge companies that people across the world use. is that is saying smaller companies never have a chance to emerge into the marketplace and become successful, if facebook, which has the means to buy up smaller companies, keeps doing that. she thinks google is too big and it should be separated from youtube, that amazon should not be able to be both the seller for products and the marketplace of products. she thinks the federal trade

commission and the department of justice should sue to have these companies spinoff from each other and become smaller companies. host: so it is a role for regulators, not for congress? guest: well, what congress can laws past new antitrust that would make it easier for federal regulators to do so. currently, some of the lawmakers feel our antitrust laws that are on the books simply are not strong enough to do that and they want to give regulators a different way to be able to do so. senator john thune, a republican, member of the senate leadership for their party, tweets "sweeping protections for large tech companies have meant that, with few exceptions, internet platforms are not held responsible for the comments, pictures, and videos users post. no matter how harmful, it is

time to re-examine these protections." could this come up as well? guest: this issue could come up. the lawson under thune is talking about is also something -- the law senator thune is -- ing about is something addition, limiting section 230 is something lawmakers have been discussing. this law is obscure. 1996 part of the communications decency act. it makes it so tech platforms are largely not liable for what other people post on their platforms. the tech companies say it is allowed -- it allows them to moderate and keep things bad off on bothatform, but some sides of the aisle say immunity has gone too far. bipartisan is their

agreement about what needs to be done with these big -- where is there bipartisan agreement on what needs to be done with these big tech companies> -- ? guest: there is not much. i talked to representative ken buck, a republican. he told me that after a year of investigating tech companies, he could needrust laws some changing. -- that strays from what republicans think historically. these bigorried that tech companies are biased again conservatives. what you will see is that there is not a lot of agreement. everybody is matted them for some reason, but it is hard to know how they will go forward. they cannot agree on exactly what the problem is.

-- ashleyally gold gold, technology reporter with axios. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: coming up on the "washington journal," we will have congressman ken buck, republican of colorado, on the program. he will take your comments about these big ceos. also, the hearing on capitol hill with attorney general barr, you'll be able to ask him about that as well. it is your turn to let washington know what you think of these big tech companies, facebook, amazon, apple, and google. there ceos will be testifying this morning. ceos will be testifying this morning. what do you think of the power of their online platforms?

lawrence in washington, d.c., a democrat, you are up first. good morning to you. caller: i ordered some things online, not from amazon. and thea lowe's order other was from a music company. i got a tracking number on those orders. initially, it said i would get it in a certain point in time. at least a week if not more. i got the order and was able to talk to the postal carrier. i said, what was going on? she said, perhaps they had some issues. i said the tracking said i was do to get it at a certain point in time and it did not happen. they said, well, the week before, they had to defer a lot of other deliveries so they could handle a lot of amazon's orders because the postal service is handling a lot of those orders as well.

deference toe this amazon orders -- i have a neighbor who gets tons of stuff from amazon. there is sort of a miscarriage of justice, if you will, or service through the postal service as much as they are doing that kind of volume and giving deference to amazon. times"he "new york editorial board this morning has a lengthy piece about today's hearings and the questions they believe members of congress should be asking these ceos. amazon, is the subcommittee will probably focus on the company's relationship with third-party merchants. such merchants use debts represent about 60% of amazon sales. they also operate an enormous shipping network and a cloud

computing service that may raise alarms among regulators as well. according to the opening statement of jeff bezos, he will argue this. the global retail market we compete in is large and competitive. are less than 1% of the 25 trillion global retail market and it less than 4% of retail in the united states. there is room in retail for many winners. for example, more than 80 retailers in the united states earn over $1 billion in annual retailer. we know that the success of a store depends on customer satisfaction. every day, amazon competes against large, established players, like target, costco, and walmart. and while we have always focused on a great customer experience, sales initiated online or in

even larger growth area for other stores. online sales grew in the first quarter. openingf bezos's statement before the house judiciary subcommittee today. that is what he will be saying to lawmakers. robert in olympia, washington, you are a democrat. what do you think of these companies? caller: what bothers me about the whole thing is it seems to me it is about throttling people's freedom of speech. we see what happens in the speech when you come out to have -- what happens in the streets when you come out to have your freedom of speech. now what will happen with the internet?? censor what people

want to say on social media? host: would you pose those questions to the facebook ceo, mark zuckerberg? and what examples would you give him? caller: the fact of the matter is that the president can tweak whatever he wants to. what about everybody else? who will censor it? who will be the one to say you can say this, but not that? host: you want to know more about their operations. but any kind of rule to censor is leveraged in order to get them to do what -- to commit to certain rules and regulations about who posts what on their thing. amazon, that is kind of a different deal. they just allow people to have a storefront and sell stuff all

over the world. concerned, they do every little retailer i favor they just have to understand. store all over a the world. that is what amazon does. censorshipt, on your argument, marsha blackburn, republican senator from big teche, tweeting " frequently sensors conservative voices. reform."30 is ripe for nora, independent, good morning. go ahead. caller: i was noticing the other day on my cell phone that i just got, it had a list. agree to allow

third-party countries all over the world to have access to my posts,emails, facebook , andthing in the world that is none of their business. we are the united states. we should not be able to be accessed by all these other foreign countries that we are not -- we do not get access to their stuff. japan done been proven and china blocks us from seeing anything they do online, so why should they have access to anything we do online? host: ok, nora. the new york times editorial board begins their peace by writing "the challenge for the committee will be to establish

whether these tech companies operate as illegal monopolies in certain domains such as online search for google, online marketplaces for amazon, phone apps for apple, the dissemination of information for facebook, and advertising sales for google and facebook. it is not illegal to be the largest social beanie network, but antitrust laws are meant to protect against outside market power. -- they squeeze across the line by imposing higher prices to consumers. those of the questions lawmakers will pose." are these practices quashing the competition? your take on the companies this

morning. here is a tweet from whenever viewers. -- one of our viewers. "they are giants because they provide a product the service -- the public wants." another, "we need to tax the hell out of all of them." should, social media have no political ads. "they compete against small businesses." doug, roanoke, virginia, republican. go ahead. the people they get on these sites, where is our privacy at when you have been on one of these sites, like google. if you get on to play a game or

something, you have to give them permission to access your photos, your pictures, everything on your phone. where is the american people's privacy? why did these companies need access to that kind of information. what is on your phone, your contact information, pictures, all of that stuff. why did they need all that type of information? host: doug, will you be watching today? caller: yes. host: so you are interested in lawmakers asking that type of question? caller: yes, i wish somebody would ask them that question. host: you can watch on c-span3 starting at 12:00 p.m. eastern time or on our website c-span.org along with the free c-span radio app. if you missed part of the hearing, you can go back and watch key moments from it after the fact if you go to our website c-span.org and watch the

video there. you will see gold stars along the video player once you push play. that indicates where there was a key moment or an interesting to catch the hearing up if you do not have time to watch hours of testimony. brian in hanover, maryland, independent. hi. caller: i agree with the -- but i also want to point out that these media companies or private organizations -- are private organizations. free speech is a protection against the government censoring, not private institutions. -- just likeike the republican national committee.

caller.ris, democratic what do you think? caller: if we had teddy roosevelt around, he would break up all them big trusts, wouldn't he? we need a another teddy roosevelt in our country to take care of these problems. host: you are for breaking up these big companies. missouri says they need another teddy roosevelt to break them up. ohio, youngstown, independent. caller: hi. good morning. host: go ahead. these companies are biased. the undercover video from asoject vera tasks -- verit where the said they would not let trump won again, that is just not their job to do something about that.

that is just a way out of their -- you know, what they should be doing. they need to be broken up and stop censoring people. democrats they censor, but mostly conservatives. when they say it was an accident, it is happening more and more so we know it is not. i am looking forward to watching this hearing, and i hope something is done because what they are doing is wrong. we are supposed to have free speech in this country, not shutting people down because you do not like what they are saying just because they are from a different party. that is unheard of. host: on this issue of privacy and censorship, according to the new york times editorial board -- the wall street journal, facebook quashed efforts to make the website less put a clean

divisive because that content less politically divisive because that content site, more use of the which is beneficial to edit ties and -- beneficial to advertising. mark zuckerberg will argue, "i believe companies should not be making judgments about important issues like content, election integrity, on their own. that is why i have called for updated rules for the internet. if we do this right, we can preserve what is best about the technology, for people to express themselves, while also protecting society from harm." he goes on to write, "facebook is working to address problems of scale. we are bringing significant technical and financial resources to bear on the challenges we face.

for example, we have more than 35,000 people working on safety and security, three times as many as we had three years ago. we built systems to remove and refine -- we built systems to remove harmful content and are building products to connect people to authoritative information, like the recently introduced covid-19 information center." jackie in tennessee, we go next to you. you are a republican. caller: i am 68 years old. i am pretty smart. i graduated with a degree of history and political science. anyway, i did not get the internet until i was 52 years old. before that, i learned the internet and i love it. i discovered something.

by the way, i do not get usa today. i did not buy it anymore. it is too liberal. the wall street journal is the best newspaper in the world. i get that now six days a week. it is great, great, great, great. i also watch fox news and a started watching foxbusiness news, especially when they repeat, like sunday morning futures. host: how is this related? caller: the information overload we have got. i discovered, instead of amazon, which i use a lot, there is another vendor which you can use. it is really good. anyway, i discovered in the last six months to a year, that when -- google, for some reason, there is yahoo! -- the search engine -- it is hard for me to

get on google now for some reason. i do not know why, but also when i look for a map, they put me to map quest. i do not understand why those kinds of things happen. i have never voted for a democrat for president. i think what the media and other places are doing to tromp just because they hate him -- doing to trump just because they hate him. i started voting in 1972. i have never seen, in my life, somebody, the president, being a tactically trump is. -- like trump is. host: ok. tech ceos set to testify. chance to prove their power

does not rise from monopoly." let's go to christine, rockford, illinois, democratic caller. caller: good morning. i do not think we should group all these together because they all had their good and their bad things. think the security plan is the main thing. the factuld protest is that they have so much money compared to the rest of us. would behat right now their best chance where they could play god in save this nation. that really disappoints me. with all the money they have, and some people would be lucky to have a loaf of bread. i wish they would step up and -- helpaight and up straighten out this nation.

they got there like the rest of us did. it is now their turn to turn around and help us. when we have over 150 thousand people dead in this country and our government is toppling over toward unitarian government, or whatever you want to call it, a dictatorship, why are they not helping the people? everybody who has money is just sitting there, sitting back and watching people die when we all know it is not right. we are supposed to be the wealthiest nation. we are supposed to have the top technology. and yet, our graphs show us oing up, up, up, up without end. we have not done anything to save our people. why are these rich companies sitting there and watching us die?

nots all of a sudden -- suddenly, but we have come to a point where the dollars are numbers and the people are numbers and i just never thought i would see america be this way. these companies got to the top because they are part of us. why are they not helping the situation right now? i think all this -- host: christine in rockford, will. -- illinois. lewis --ngressman john the late congressman john lewis has been lying in state in the nation's capital for a couple days. there is the casket in the rotunda this morning. the body is slated to leave the capitol today and will be headed to georgia, where there will be a memorial service for him from 2:00 to 3:00 p.m. in

the state capitol. he will lie in state there for public viewing. any coverage of the memorial services, you can find them if you go to our website, c-span.org. coming up on the "washington journal," -- congressman friend's the congressman's friend james clyburn will be here to take your questions. we will talk to him about john lewis. we will also talk to him about the latest efforts for coronavirus economic aid and other issues on capitol hill. in las vegas, an independent, bill. what do you think? caller: i would like to make the comment -- i think there needs to be more monopoly type enforcement placed on these companies.

you have the sherman antitrust act, which has been in place for decades. it has not been utilized to its full extent as far as may be breaking up these big tech companies, or maybe not having these tech companies have as much power going forward. i think that needs to be looked at greatly going forward, both short-term and long-term. and privacy issues as well need to be addressed. host: what concerns do you have? from each of these companies, what concerns you about their power? caller: i think there is not enough competition as far as e-commerce goes. amazon is the primary e-commerce site these days. i do not think there is enough addressed as far as enough competition going forward. it could be more opened.

silicon valley needs to be more open-minded. at, is where i am concerned and privacy issues too. host: what about the jobs that they provide? caller: the jobs they provide are -- i don't know. can replacenology jobs as well. i think that should be a concern that needs to be addressed before congress as well. too much powers at the top and not enough competition. host: i asked you that because jeff bezos of amazon is going to say this to lawmakers in his opening statement. "amazon has invested more than $270 billion in the united states. beyond our workforce, amazon has created nearly 700,000 indirect jobs in fields like construction, building, and hospitality.

our hiring investments have brought much-needed jobs and added millions of dollars in economic activity to areas like fall river, massachusetts, california's inland empire, and rust belt states like ohio. 175ired an additional thousand employees, many laid off from other jobs. we spent more than $4 billion in the second quarter alone to get products to customers and to keep employees safe during the crisis." let's hear from lonnie and everett, washington, a republican. -- in everett, washington, a republican. caller: social media is a disaster. internet in general is a disaster. microsoft and facebook own most know.t, you host: we are listening. we lost lonnie.

caller: i'm still here. host: go ahead and finish your thought. facebook, and, even our wonderful ceo in seattle than owns the largest of all knows- them everything about you. i will leave it at that. host: ok. very, oklahoma city, independent. -- barry, good morning. caller: in order that enables the government to track down murderers. host: ok. a headline, the president spreads message backing drug,

vilifying fauci. he iss, he is reviving -- topcking the nation's infectious disease official in a message at odds with his government's policy. the retweet alleging the faucher conspiracy also contains -- the alsoei conspiracy praises hydro clock sikora henning -- also praise a it waschloroquine and removed for violating misinformation policies. yesterday, the president was asked about his opinion and asked to clarify his opinion on that drug. [video clip] >> can you clarify your position on the echo of his ski -- on the

efficacy of hydroxychloroquine? >> the recommendations of many of the people, including doctors. many doctors think it is extremely successful, the hydroxychloroquine. coupled with the zinc and perhaps something else. many doctors think it is good. many do not. i think it has become political. -- ipen to be leave in it happen to believe in it. i took it free 14 day period. i think it works in the early stages. frontline medical people believe that too, some, many. it has been out for a long time, that particular formula, and that is essentially what it is, the pill. it has been for malaria, lupus, and other things.

it is safe, it does not cause problems. i had absolutely no problems. i felt no different. bad. not feel good, it is not hopefully going to hurt anyone. from a safety standpoint, it is safe. i happen to think, based on what i will read -- what i read, i think it has an impact early. it is a very good test. the doctor from yale came up with a strong testament to it. there was a large group of doctors yesterday that were put on the internet and for some reason the internet wanted to take them down. twitter took them off and i think facebook took them off. i do not know why. i think they are very respected doctors. there was a woman who was spectacular in her statements about it. she has had tremendous success

with it. and they took her to off. i do not know why, but they took her off. maybe they had a good reason, maybe they did not. i do not know. i can say that from my standpoint, based upon a lot of reading and knowledge about it, i think it could have a very positive impact in the early stages. i do not think you lose anything by doing it other than politically. it does not seem to be too popular. why? because i recommend it. when i do that, they say do not use it. host: we will go to dan and maryland -- in maryland. dan, your thoughts about these big tech ceos ahead of their testimony today? caller: i think they have a right, in all honesty. they should not really be regulated. their numbers really do not support it, just 1%.

that is what their main argument will be. if people do not want it, they should not have to use it. there are always alternatives to everything. you can always not have social media or different kinds or different phones. or anything, really. host: all right, dan. waynesville, north carolina, republican. claudia, it is your turn. caller: i was thinking if these companies would operate in the public interest, you know, not for their own interest or agenda, that the american people need to be able to trust the media. responsibility to own the public trust and there does need to be standards, i think. isn't why the federal communications commission was

developed, in order to monitor that news was not being skewed and that people were not lying about issues or spinning issues? the american people are able to make their own decisions, but we need to get both sides of an issue, or just the truth would be nice, so i think there should be regulations, a reasonable format, but there should be some monitoring, and the information should not be skewed or spun toward any interest other than the public interest. host: ok, claudia. claudia with her opinion of these tech ceos. you will hear from them in their own words at noon eastern on c-span3 today. you can watch the entire hearing with no analysis, no filters, on

website, or on the go with our c-span app. here is a text from loan patriot in florida, "they should not be asked anything. they should be told, choose a platform, a publisher, and regulate to ensure no censorship." david in ohio, you are on. caller: my doctor just came in the room. callerreeing with the earlier that antitrust legislation should be used the breakup facebook if they cannot offer more free speech that they are denying by blocking. i heard one color say that their free speech includes the right say that-- one caller

their free speech includes the right to block others' free speech. i do not agree. especially when we have a company like facebook that is basically serving a fourth estate role as an unelected part of government. i would like to talk about -- i was watching half an hour ago attorney general barr being allosedly questioned, b -- but all that happened was grandstanding by four democratic community numbers. i could not take it anymore because he was never allowed to answer one question properly. each of the members supposedly asked him a question went on for three or four minutes asking about four questions each and making three or four accusations against the attorney general and he never got a chance to answer the questions or respond

properly, not a single. one doneon as they were supposedly asking the single question, they yielded their time to another democratic senator who just asked more questions and more accusations and he never got a chance to answer any. byically, he was defended jim jordan, who was called rude by the committee chairman when, in fact, it was the four democrats who were rude and he was merely trying to put out right -- trying to put -- point out the absolute rudeness. host: i want to get back to our topic. if you missed the hearing yesterday, a five hour hearing with the attorney general, you can find it on their website, c-span.org, and you will also be able to see the key moments earlier. when you hit the video player on

our website, it will show you gold stars. those are to mark interesting moments throughout the hearing. if you not have time to sit and watch the entire thing, you can get a feel for the type of questioning that caller was talking about. let's go to bernie in louisville, kentucky, a democratic caller. caller: have we changed topics? host: no. we are on topic. caller: you do a good job keeping everybody in line. i did not really know the ceos would be question today. i work in a university and we use these products a lot, especially right now with social distancing. i have privacy issues with these companies. i am not sure what everybody is so upset about.

they are large companies that create innovative technologies. there are good things about them, bad things they do not like about them. right now, i think these companies are doing us a favor by creating these platforms so we do not have to be in the same room with each other. host: just to let you know some of the issues that will come up today, from the new york times editorial, when it comes to something shows facebook used in analytics app to collect details about competitors in order to snuff them out. that helped facebook decide to bite whatsapp for $19 billion dollars -- to buy whatsapp for $19 billion. they collect proprietary data on rivals. those are some of the questions the editorial board once -- wants lawmakers to ask.

also, has facebook made assurances about the privacy of customer data that it later reneged on? what assurances do consumers have that their information will remain private? in richland, washington, also a democratic caller. good morning. caller: hi, greta. i really like your show and you are doing a good job. i am glad that they have that. i have never been on social media because i always heard how everybody always puts everybody down and whatever, but i am glad they have it to the point where

you can -- it is basically like going to the library, but you can find out just anything you want -- about just about once.ng you lov -- jeff bezos owns the washington post. the one the lady said earlier. in the other thing is -- and the notr thing is, if you do want anybody to know your opinions or how you feel, it is like when those questions pop up, how am i doing/ ? just do not answer. that way they do not know. i just click it off and move on. you get information from when you answer those questions.

-- other thing is he's there is either that or go back to the flip phones. but i like the smartphones. they are coming out with more apps. money,re that they made but they are having people work also. do notre times that i like that they have so much information on us. it is going to become a totalitarian state. host: i want to read for you and others on this issue of apps because that is the line of questioning the new york times editorial board would like to see from lawmakers. tim cook. the new york times editorial board writes "developers are generally required to offer servicesvices -- inapt

through the apple store rather than their own website. apple has threatened to remove apps that do not abide. how is it this in the best -- how is this in the best interest of consumers? " "applek will say this, continuously improves and provides every developer with tools like compilers, programming languages, operating systems, frameworks, and building blocks. these are not only powerful, but so simple to use that students in elementary school can and do make apps. they are transparent and apply equally to developers of all sizes and in all categories. they are not set in stone. they have changed as the world has changed." cj in manchester, kentucky. independent. good morning.

caller: thank you for taking my call. they ought to give you a raise. these tech companies, these ceos, should not be allowed to shut you down for your speech. they need to be fined and have a heavy penalty put on them when they do that. thanks. host: david, tyler, texas, a republican. good morning. testify, theres is such a thing as freedom -- the ceos testify, there is such a thing as freedom of speech. the radical left democrats would not let barr talk. host: allen in huntington west something thats " concerns me is that they make up 500.f the value of the s&p

experiences a problem, it can sink the stock market." mary in san francisco, a republican. what is your take? caller: they should break up these companies. they haveoo large and forgotten how they got all this information about people. zuckerberg told everybody that everything was free, and failed to tell people he was gathering information and everything became his. that is one of the things our legislature should have looked at a long time ago. he needs to be broken up. all these companies are too big and would not have gotten access to everybody if the government would change the rules to opt in and not out. we need to be able to opt in. that means they have access to the whole united states.

host: ok, mary. in readinginterested what these ceos will say to the lawmakers ahead of the hearing, you can find their opening statements if you go to politico.com. here is the headline "read text ceos opening statements." we will begin coverage in eastern -- coverage in eastern time. room.ers will be in the these ceos will not be sitting side-by-side at a witness table because of covid. they will be appearing remotely to take questions. ruth in michigan, an independent. hi. caller: i don't know if a lot of people realize that the main thing, all the computer systems

for all of apple, are in china. everything that you have, that you are putting on your apple computer, is going to china. as far as the one woman said about the dark ages, my goodness. look at the inquisition hearing with barr. are you serious? we are in the dark ages with congress right now. host: ok, ruth. george in highland, michigan. caller: george in michigan. host: yes. caller: i have been advocating for a raise for you for over a year and a half now. a couple calls ago, the guy said the same thing. people like what you are doing, apparently. out, i thoughte who?

online purchasing is going up 1000% or 2000% a year. why when youre out can walk into a bookstore and library and just browse, but i was wrong. only purchased two things on amazon. as far as i can tell, amazon buys from the same manufacturers or stores that anybody else can buy from. and make a profit still. i might be incorrect on that, but --. host: listen to what jeff bezos will say. the company, amazon, is that one sends online orders.

that is where we started, and retail remains our largest business by far, accounting for 80% of revenue. the nature of that business is getting products to customers. those operations need to be close to customers in we cannot outsource these jobs. to philip -- to fulfill our promises to customers in this country, we need american workers. when customers shop on amazon, they are helping to create jobs in local communities. as a result, amazon directly employs one million people. we do not just employ highly educated computer scientists and mbas, we hire and train hundreds of thousands of people in states across the country, such as west virginia, tennessee, idaho. we will go to louisville, kentucky. democratic collar. hello. caller: what they have done as far as allowing people to be able to work from home during

covid is great. it has benefited a lot of people, but i have a problem with the fact that the information they are compiling on us personally is being used or sold in other areas. that is the piece that i believe lawmakers should be looking at, to actually sanction those things that are happening. our personal information, our personal browsing history. we do not even have a choice in most cases. it is being collected and used for other purposes. host: ok. facebook,lked about about amazon and apple. we have not talked about the google ceo, which is owned by alphabet, so he is the alphabet ceo. the new york times says that when it comes to this company, its signature product, google, is central to nearly every activity on the web and increasingly off the web as well. enginehe dominant search

by far and operates sprawling advertising and cloud computing businesses. are likelye members to hone in on how google's search business stifles competition by favoring its own services and how youtube, subsidiary, pushes its content to users. the last couple minutes on your take of these ceos testifying on capitol hill. democrats (202) 748-8000, 1,publicans (202) 748-800 independents (202) 748-8002. james, good morning. caller: i wanted to make two points in regard to jeff bezos's opening statement. certainlypinion,

amazon does do some good things, but i think people need to evaluate whether the good things outweigh the bad things. the bad things are it sells a lot of knockoff products, a lot of products from china. i am not quite sure that they are a net creator of jobs given how they have displaced entire segments of the retail industry. a second point is, and it is something that is left out seemingly, and may be intentionally, that they derive 80% of their revenue from retail. dependent the united states technology infrastructure and corporations have become upon amazon web services. if you want to talk about a potential target for a china or a russia where there is a amazon webident, services controls a significant

portion of the corporate information technology traffic in the united states. it is my view that these technology companies have become too big and represent a danger to national security. "st: james puts it this way, big tech will come on a dish come under the national spotlight today -- will come under the national spotlight today. bezos, googles ceo, toebook's ceo, are set appear before a house subcommittee that has been investigating since last year. it could help build public pressure for action, especially of lawmakers raised new concerned about how the companies operate." online, a text from matt.

"why is it so hard to find country of origin on items sold by amazon? i want to buy american, but it takes a lot of work to find." "i amam in columbus, ohio opposed to amazon's competition with their own market vendors by trying to buy out companies that are doing well. thatey are turned down by company, amazon will use unethical means to put them out of business." sue says you do not have the right to free speech in private business. if you disagree with either statement, you have the right to start your own business and set your own rules. ryan in georgia. an independent. we will go to you in these remaining minutes. -- ar: a previously caller

previous caller mentioned there is an option to opt out but there should be an option to opt in, but there already is that option. when you select those terms and conditions, which you probably do not read, that is you opting into your data being captured and sold by these companies. that is the issue. people are signing off on them, but they are may be unaware. it is hard to blame them because they are long and it is legal jargon. these tech companies are abusing the data they have. if you look at what mark zuckerberg, when he started facebook, there are videos of aresaying these dumb effers giving me their data. it was about selling it off. then q.

-- thank you. go back to theto first thing the internet dead, allow people to pirate music. my husband and i are singer songwriters, musicians, and we had a website starting around 2007. it was before social media took off. it disappeared. enabled hugernet corporations to steal from smalll property entrepreneurs who don't have the power or resources to defend ourselves. this goes back to the beginning which made its reputation on stealing music. of their problems ability of the internet to

what couldn't be more your intellectual property, the way you think, your creative content, thoughts, jokes, writings. there is no justification for it. there is no way they can say this is not some sort of unreasonable search and seizure. it has gotten so far that people excepted. it is deeply unethical. in clinic, maryland. democratic color. -- in glen oak, maryland. democratic caller. we will talk with ken buck, and he is out with a new book " capital freedom." then later, representative james clyburn will join us to talk about the late john lewis and on the coronavirus relief bill.

we will be right back. ♪ >> book tv on c-span two has top, nonfiction books and authors every weekend. sunday at noon eastern on in-depth, our live two hour conversation with u.s. combat veteran and rhodes scholar wes moore, author of several books, .ncluding the other wes moore

he will be taking your phone calls, comments, and tweets. onn, michael shellenberger what he calls apocalyptic environmentalism interviewed by andrew rev ken. watch book tv sunday. during the summer months, reach out to your elected officials with c-span's congressional directory. it contains all of the contact information you need to stay in touch with members of congress, federal agencies, and state governors. order your copy online today at c-span store -- c-spanstore.org. american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend.

this weekend on the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, japan, saturday, on thel america, the film " spirit of hiroshima." then on sunday at 4:55 p.m. eugene, army veteran talks about his assignment to the manhattan project and working on the nagasaki bomb. at 6:00 p.m. eastern on american artifacts, an exhibits marking the bombings. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman ken buck with us. congressman, we were getting our pinions of the big

tech companies as the ceos are testifying today. you are on the committee that will get the opportunity to ask the ceos questions. what questions do you have? guest: i think it is important we dive into the anti-competitive nature of having huge platforms in the high-tech area. i think a lot of the members will talk about the competitiveness of the marketplace. i think some markets will talk about privacy, and some will talk about the bias of these platforms have demonstrated. host: where do you think there could be bipartisan agreement on capitol hill to enact legislation that would impact these companies, and what would be the impact? guest: i think everyone realizes the antitrust laws need to be updated. laws that were intended to break up trusts,

rockefellers, carnegie's, sort of the turn of the last century. we have updated those laws, congress has updated those laws to apply to telecommunications. i think we need to take a serious look at the law, based on the results of our investigation, and update that law so regulators have the opportunity to apply the law, make sure we are continuing in the competitive marketplace that is innovating and staying ahead of the rest of the world. host: tell our viewers about the investigation the subcommittee did. why did you do it and what did you find? guest: for over a year, we have looked at and listened to a number of companies that have been discriminated against by these high-tech companies. frankly, the type of discrimination we are seeing indicates there is a monopolistic impact of these platforms in the marketplace. i think that is what really concerns most of us is it is not

that there is bias but that there is bias and no opportunity to address that bias because there is no place else to go. concerns, butacy the privacy concerns can't be addressed because you don't have four to five different platforms to choose from. what we are looking at is, how do we make sure the law we have is applicable to the new technology we are dealing with in our current world? host: a senator, republican tweeted out "sweeping protections under section 230 have met that with very few exceptions. they are not held responsible for the comments, pictures, or videos they are using, no matter how harmful. section 230. guest: section 230 protects these large companies.

they are bulletin boards. ofe they get into the area being publishers and changing content or removing content, we have a whole new issue. i think section 230 will be examined. thes not exactly examination we will be doing today with these tech companies. some members make get into that, but the antitrust committee is most concerned that she monopolistic -- host: our viewers can hear questions and the answers from the tech ceos when you do nanette noon eastern time -- when you tune in at noon eastern time. you can also listen on the go

with the free c-span radio app. congressman, you have a book, "capitol of freedom: restoring american greatness." why did you do the book? guest: we had all of these stories that occurred in the capital, and i wanted the ierican people to see what think the greatest museum we have in our country, living museum in our country. we are also now talking about canceling our culture and moving away from our history, and denying our history, as opposed to explaining our history. i think it is important people see what is in the capital and understand the meaning of it, and then make sure we are moving , we are progressing in a way that makes sense. i wrote this book, a political book, a historical book, and hopefully a book relevant to the issues we are talking about today. host: we want to encourage our viewers to call in, join the

conversation. republicans are (202) 748-8001. democrats are (202) 748-8000. are (202)ts 748-8002. before we get to calls, congressman, what do you think about the proposal introduced by senate republicans for more economic aid due to the coronavirus pandemic around $1 trillion? what do you like and dislike? guest: i have not read it yet. it has been going through negotiations for a while. i'm anxious to read it. i think we need to help small business people that have been shut down by the governors in this business -- businesses that have been shut down by the governors in this country. many appropriately. i'm not suggesting it is inappropriate, but i think at the same time we need to recognize we have a huge budget deficit. we have a huge national debt, and we have to take those things into account and not overspend

.r spend on pork projects unfortunately, many of the past bills have been stuck with pork. they are necessary, and anytime you have a necessary bill, it attracts the kind of wasteful spending i am opposed to. host: could you support the following from the heels act, reduce unemployment increases to $200 weekly, direct payments of $1200 per individual and a $2400 per couple, a new round of loans under the protection program, liability from covid related lawsuits, and virus testing as well as $5 billion for schools and colleges. guest: i'm not going to get into those kinds of details until i get a chance to look at the overall bill, but i can tell you that when we talk about unemployment, people should not make more money on unemployment than they do in my job -- in their job. i have had constituents in my district saying they are having trouble getting people back to work now that they are

reopening. we have to incentivize work and recognize this has been a difficult burden on americans and american businesses, but many of the things you talked about i support. i need to look at the details of the bill to make sure i am in favor of the bill overall. host: yesterday, before the house judiciary committee, the attorney general testified for hours. what did you learn from him? guest: what i learned was there are many good explanations for very difficult situations. unfortunately, during this presidential election year and a time of great stress in our country as a result of the pandemic and other issues, the very goodeneral's faith actions have been taken out of context. i am proud of this attorney general and the way he has conducted himself at the department of justice and the way he conducted himself yesterday in the hearing, which is more evidence of that. host:host: what about the protests that have been happening at -- host: what about the protests

that have been happening across the country? the homeland security secretary ader president bush wrote piece in the new york times and said the trump administration's deliberate decision to intervene was a heavy hand and inflammatory political rhetoric contributed to growing public distress, particularly at the doj. he actions that she writes these actions undermine the safety of the nation by hurting the department's ability to carry out the core mission of protecting americans from genuine threats of our security. guest: i don't think this administration has acted inappropriately. i think they have acted in a way that gives many americans comfort that this president recognizes that when you have looting, arson, and other crimes being committed, this president needs to protect federal

property. --he says the department sends the department of homeland security personnel to protect federal property, that is appropriate. the mayors of these large cities are allowing this to structure and -- this destruction of property. the -- there are peaceful protesters and we should recognize this is a country built on peaceful protest, and we could ensure -- and we should encourage both sides of the debate to encourage in that. when it turns violent, the police should intervene. the federal police are in a position they need to protect federal property and federal personnel. host: let's get to calls for you, congressman. deborah in ohio, republican. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i am interested in the privacy counts.n individuals a something i didn't realize is that i have to tell anyone i deal with like macy's or v said

that i want a privacy status. a privacyat i want status. i was widowed and to try to get control of that, i moved all of my mail to a po box and called all of my suppliers and said i would like to have a privacy on my counts. even macy's can sell your information to a third party otherwise. to me, the law should be that i would have to select a nonprivate status in order to keep my privacy. the other thing is that i would be willing to pay for a subscription to facebook in order to maintain private status, but i was shocked that i initiate the person to a privacy status on information when i was doing business with someone like macy's, visa, or someone else out there. guest: i agree with you.

i think the privacy issue is a huge issue, and these companies, google, facebook, twitter, others make money off of selling our personal data, data often times people do not want to share with businesses or government. or anyone else. i think it is one of the issues that will come up today. i think it is one of the issues we need to address with legislation. the burden should be on the business to get a waiver from the individual allowing the business to use the information from that individual, private information. if we had more platforms, if we they wouldogle's, pay you to sign that waiver or give you some benefit to sign that waiver so that you would deal with that platform, and they could sell your information. i do not think selling information is necessarily bad.

having an informed business community that knows what you're buying habits are can be a good thing, if you consent to allow that information to be shared. i think you are right. a lot of people don't know they have the ability to make their information not public. i appreciate you asking that question. i think it is a concern to americans, frankly all political stripes, we don't want government and businesses knowing anything about -- knowing everything about us. because of our reliance on the internet, we often times end up distributing that information. host: what is the value of someone's personal data, and how can you figure that out? guest: that's exactly what we need the marketplace to do. if we had a competitive marketplace, we would be able to value that data. these computing platforms would be able to go to individuals and say, "i think your data is worth

$10 coupon for this fast food gift card for this fast food restaurant." then, let the platforms compete for the individual's business as opposed to assuming they have a right to use that. host: we will go to keith in north dakota, democratic caller. is,er: the question i have how come it is that you guys can .et away with your spending we are in trillions of dollars of debt. if we were in debt with our accounts, our butts would be in big trouble. why can't the democrats and republicans work together and get this spending debt way down? that's what i want to know. guest: i absolutely agree.

i have not voted for an appropriations bill for years because of our debt. i think it is the greatest threat to our country that we have right now. years ago, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said it is not russia, not china, not iran, not to north korea, it is the national debt that will take us down. i believe congress should take it more seriously. as a member of congress, i am known as a fiscal conservative because i talk about spending. when we have to deal with a pandemic like this, the first question we should ask is, "how do we pay this back?" what is the payment schedule? if you bought a home and got a mortgage, you would get a payment schedule. we should have a strategy, a plan to make sure that we are paying back this debt. we would be $1 trillion in debt without the pandemic, just

regular spending puts us $1 trillion in debt. the real challenge as a country and as a congress -- because congress reflects the values of the country. the problem we have right now is that every time congress moves to cut a program, there is pain to payolitical for that. i do not have a problem doing that. i am happy to go home, to colorado, and find other work to do, if we could ever solve this problem. as soon as you talk about cutting medicare, cutting medicaid, and not necessarily cutting in the terms of reducing the dollar value, but cutting the rate of increase, it becomes a huge political football. the same thing about cutting military spending or cutting social programs. we have to look at -- what is the core function of the federal government, and are we doing things that go beyond that function?

should we be involved in the issue of education to the extent we are right now, or is that something that should be handled at the local or state level? those are fundamental issues that we are not addressing that we need to address. hanover, pennsylvania, wayne, a democratic caller. you are on the air. caller: greta, i have a question for you. to him, you talk about how nice barr is end all. i'm a democrat and i don't believe anything you are saying. i'm going to be polite, real polite. god bless you, you are a human being, but your ideas and mine are far off. republicansof you cry, moan, and grown.

and that's great leader, mcconnell. that's a joke. host: what's your question for the congressman? caller: my question is, he sits up there -- small businesses need help. i am with that part, but all of the people losing their home, , under the curve. that is all i have to say. it is all business, business. i am a well-to-do man. host: wayne, are you abdicating for unemployment benefits? caller: yeah. people need help. host: congressman? guest: i agree people need help. much of the reason why they need help is beyond our control. this pandemic is not something government created or was created by the people. it is something government needs to help solve at the federal, state, and local level. what we can do is give people more money in unemployment than

what they would make when they work, or we are disincentive eyes in work and will not get our economy running. the only way we can pay for the various programs we are talking about is with revenue generated by this and it's is, by individuals being employed, and that revenue comes in in the form of taxes, and we have to spend the money responsibly. yes, people are hurting. this is a difficult time in our country's history. the federal government has a role in helping our economy getting back up and running by helping businesses and individuals, but we cannot spend too much money in the progress -- process because we have to pay that back. we don't want to create a national security issue as a result of our debt. host: the next caller from los angeles, independent. go ahead. caller: i am more inclined with the gentleman that got off of the phone. these republicans are totally

corporate and totally anti-american. as far as dealing with the needs of the american people versus their payment. i would like to point out something to the good congressperson about the little history. says, ourests, as he country is founded on protests. he is correct on that. trust me, i'm sure he is not as stupid as he appears to be as to what kind of protests georgia and the boys were engage in -- george and the boys were engaged in. so this stuff is going on with the ag barr as trump's personal shit man and mouthpiece, it is a disgrace. if you are principle, you would be able to distinguish between the partisan actions that are

being taken by this insane president -- whatever he is. he is not a president. host: david, let's stay with the name-calling. congressman, if you want to take his point about protesting. guest: i said it earlier and i will say it again, this country is built on protests. we are a country that believes in free speech, in having access to government decisions and creating government. i'm elected by the people every two years, senators every six years, president every four years. absolutely we have public opinion, and the reason we don't have a revolution in this country is we are allowed to express our opinion, and that the sent doesn't grow. when we are burning businesses, cars, attacking individuals and police, that is wrong, and it has to stop. what i'm saying is, peaceful protest can move the political

agenda of both parties, and should move the political agenda of both parties. but when you turn to violence, there is a reaction to that, a reaction that is detrimental to the conversation we are having that caused the initial peaceful protest. we have racism in this country in need to deal with it in this country. inelieve there are ways which we can move forward. if we focus on the arson, looting, and violence we see on the streets of portland and other cities, we are going to be distracted from some of the important issues we need to address. host: frank is next in grayson, georgia, republican. caller: good morning. protesting is fine, freedom of speech, that's great, but there comes a certain amount of responsibility with that. you have to think about the country first. you can't tear the country apart just for -- i mean trump was

elected president. deal with it. we haven't dealt with it for three years. enough of that. i'm 62 years old. the world is changing rapidly right now. mainly because of the internet. i'm not really that crazy about the internet. it is great for research and development and grade for commerce. the social platforms are a danger. the fact that something needs to be done, and invasion of privacy , invaded every day with databases. --n i was in the 80's 1980's, it was a handshake and when can you start work? and have you ever been convicted of a felony? now, let us check all of these databases and, oh, you had a misdemeanor 40 years ago. that is the way it is being used, discriminated against everyday based on information in these databases. it needs to be -- it is being ignored. host: congressman? guest: i'm not or what the

question was. what the question was. i can agree the internet can be a -- i'm not sure what the question was. -- i agreeinte the internet can be a detriment. there's a lot of false information on the internet. i've never looked at the internet and said "he has been convicted as a misdemeanor." or anything else really because there is false information out there incumbent on the invisible to verify what tree read on the internet and verify on social media. -- what we read on the internet and on social media. host: the next caller from delaware. caller: representative ken buck was talking about people wanting to stay home because they are getting a big unemployment check. it probably is a small percentage. arever, i feel more people afraid of going back because they don't want to catch the

coronavirus. and expose their families or their families going to work in bringing it back to them. he did not bring that up. host: let's have the congressman talk about it now. guest: good point. i think there are number of people concerned about getting back into public interaction because of the medical concerns, the health concerns of coronavirus. it is a very valid point. my point is simply that, when you look at the long-term impact of unemployment benefits exceeding employment benefits, there is a negative impact on getting people back to work. but you raise a very valid point, that there are people that have public health concerns about going back to retail jobs, and other jobs, and we need to take those into account. host: congressman ken buck, republican of colorado. enke for your time this morning in talking to our viewers --

thank you for your time this morning in talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: we will take a short break and when we come back we will speak with representative james clyburn about the late john lewis but also aid in response to the coronavirus pandemic. ♪ of three keyage hearings this week. today at noon eastern on c-span3, technology ceos, amazons jeff bezos, mark ceo, andg, alphabet's tim cook testify on online competition. thursday at 8:45 eastern on c-span3. mike pompeo before the senate floor and relations committee, fiscal 2021e budget request. faucipan two, dr. anthony

, cdc director robert redfield, and assistant secretary for health at hhs, the admiral, before the house select subcommittee on a national copperheads of plan on the national coronavirus pandemic. watch coverage today on c-span3 and friday on c-span2. live streaming and on-demand viewing at c-span.org, or listen on the go with the free c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. ist: joining us now congressman james clyburn, republican of south carolina and the majority whip for the democrats in the house. congressman, i want to begin with your thoughts in the late representative john lewis, and as you bid farewell to him, at the memorial service in the rotunda of the capital this week, what was going through your head. share your thoughts with us. guest: i was thinking -- thank

you very much for having me. i was thinking about our early days together, john and i, when we first started out in 1960, helping to organize, which is still a nonviolent committee. you may recall from your studies, i'm sure, that the citizens started february of 1960. in north carolina. two weeks later, i joined with a in south carolina, and there, we organized citizens that started that month. it was so spontaneous all over the country, until we made the decision to come together and try to be more effective by coordinating our activities. in april of that year, we met up in raleigh, north carolina, at

the university and decided to meet again. really organize ourselves and try to be more effective. that is when i met john, october 15. i met martin luther king the same evening, and i told everybody it was that night, 2:00 in the evening to almost 4:00 in the morning. a whole transformation. john and i have been in and out with each other ever since. when he was ousted as chair in got active in i the southern regional council. i was in charleston, south carolina and he was in atlanta, georgia, and we interacted through all of those years. finally, he came to congress in 1986, and i got here 1992, and

we spent 27 years together in congress. all of that stuff was flowing through my mind, and i saw the last conversation i had with him on the floor -- thought of the last conversation i had of him on the floor, with the black lives matter movement, it was so effective. we were happy to see that breakthrough. all of a sudden, we saw these headaches. defund the police. john felt like i felt, that this kind of headline would ruin this effort, just like burn david byrne. anyone who knows anything about history knows that in the 1960's, insurgents took over and started yelling burn david rne,, which undercut -- by which undercut our efforts.

john and i spoke out against it. this kind of slogan could give you a good headline, but it was not making much headway. i was thinking about all of that , sitting thereby in the rotunda as we talked about how much we loved john. host: both of you have served in the democratic party for many years, mr. clyburn. over those years in the house, as you have seen each other in hallways or talked to each other in rooms across the capital, what have you two discussed about the movement that started so many decades ago? was anyou know, john administrator. apostate, and my father talked about following

him into the ministry, which i decided not to. john and i were active in politics. after the shooting in charleston, five years ago, john hosted a group of faith in politics people in charleston and columbia. i went with john often down to selma, to march across the bridge with him. at his invitation, several years the session in selma at the chapel. john and i talked scripture a lot. i told some people i thoughts john, more than anybody had ever met -- i had ever met, had internalized not just my favorite old testament scripture is found in

michael 68. do justly, love mercy, and walk [inaudible] nobody i ever met fulfill that scripture the way john lewis did. we talked about those types of things a lot. he was faith-based in everything he did. he internalized it, he lived it. tactical.le more i have not lived at the way john lewis has. host: he continues to lie in state this morning up on capitol hill. the departure time in moments from now that he will be returning to georgia where he will lie in state there as well. what you think of president trump skipping the celebrations in washington this week? i wasn't all that

concerned about that. the fact of the matter is, -- trump hasmp i shown us time and time again what he thinks about people of color, people like john lewis. those, i call them foot soldiers in the movement, were marching across after age, peacefully church service on a sunday afternoon, about 600 of them, -- afternoon, about 600 of them were met by officers and were beaten. , at theare seeing today behest of this president, are people being brutalized in portland.

they are not doing anything except peacefully demonstrating. a navy veteran, standing there asking questions, had his arm broken by batons the way john's head was beaten and, all by this president. to me, it would have been very hypocritical for the president to even come here and honor john. and whong what you are and what he is. host: let's get to calls. and nick in spring valley, new york. a republican. good morning. caller: i wanted to confront mr. clyburn on two things no one has confronted him on. he said federal agents are gestapo agents. gestapo put people in gas chambers, so i would not be quick to compare people to that. when the congress is passing the bill, he said why do you always complain [inaudible] this guy gets away with

everything because he's black. he has to be confronted on that. guy is an anti-semite. guest: i have no idea what he's talking about. he must be watching some other program. he is using words i did not use. not that i disagree with his summations. i have no idea what he's talking about. host: gary from indiana, it democratic color. caller: good morning, greta and representative clyburn. i considerate a distinguished honor to speak with you and i'm upset i can't be there to shake the hand and get the autograph. anyway. number one, it it's all about character and not color. the kind of person you are perceived to be should not be contingent on your outward appearance. look at charles manson, martin luther king, good examples. said, i will point

this out too, sir. this government should be running under one mantra, people first, not how much money you could make or how much profit you can garner from sending child's overseas and disregarding -- sending jobs overseas and disregarding other people. if these people were so concerned like the previous guest talked about, why don't we let these people keep their jobs? guest: thank you very much. i do agree with you. that is the first order of business. for families, to be secure, first communities to really have hope. that is -- for communities to really have hope. i am a south carolinian through and through, and i wrote my memoirs, calling them blessed experiences. i set out of all of my experiences, -- i said all of my experiences have not been pleasant. i talked about my experiences in south carolina.

where the montreux is, while i breathe, i hope." i believe that very strongly. andgive hope to families, when you do not propose government programs that provide hope for people, you are destroying the fabric of what this society is all about. willther than worry about i be building a new fbi building, what is the emergency in that? by's give people some hope extending unemployment insurance. we are cutting unemployment insurance, the supplement to unemployment about $400. at the same time, asking for $2 billion for the new headquarters for the fbi. that doesn't make sense. staff areeven extend

people who are unemployed. buildinglking about more aircraft carriers. that is what they put into this bill. i agree with you, sir. the first order of business ought to be secure families by giving them hope. host: maggie in georgia, republican. yes, i just wanted you to know that donald trump is like a superhero. he's the only one fighting for the people. demoncratsts -- the are doing nothing but trying to run their mouth and destroy him. it is such a shame. i'm voting republican all the way down. born in thehey are usa, no matter what color they are. thank you. guest: there wasn't a question there so i don't know what to say.

host: do you have a reaction to what she said about the president and publicans? guest: she is free to vote for whomever she pleases. my mother and father were both republicans and they did not see as something they had to do to get somebody to vote for them. i'm sure in 1964, when the soon-to-be republican came out and left the democratic party because of the civil rights act of 1964, my parents, both republicans, did not vote for goldwater that year. they voted for the democrat. i suspected they voted that way because they believe in their own civil rights. they believed in voting rights. they believed in fair housing. they believed in taking care of people in the golden

years with medicare. peoplelieve protecting with medicaid. they believed in the higher education act. they believed in protecting the environment. all of which were a cause of lyndon johnson's great society program. by the way, they all still exist today. these people who say democrats are sitting here doing nothing, i ask her to rebuke that for me. thate she is high enough her children and grandchildren would not need the element of secondary education act or higher education act. these are all proposed by democrats. i don't call that nothing. host: congressman james clyburn, democrat of south carolina, served in the leadership in the house in majority -- in the house as the majority whip and is on the select subcommittee on coronavirus crisis. the guest until the top of the

hour. we will go to joe in oklahoma city. it democratic color. caller:-- caller. caller: hi, joe. [laughter] i'm a little nervous but i would like to get an answer. if we are looking at the life of john lewis and i have to think about what happens to people that start off wonderful, fighting the good fight, and kind of morph because they get involved in the political system. for example, if the candidate has been arrested for fighting to stop black housing discrimination, marched with martin luther king, and campaign for jesse jackson. and another candidate wrote the crime bill, attacked anita hill, and embrace racist, so you have bernie sanders who did these things, and joe biden who did these things, how can you in good conscience endorse joe biden? that is what i think happens.

you guys start the great fight, but want to get involved with the dnc, corporate money, and wall street, suddenly you have no conscience. i think the first 30 years of john lewis was wonderful, and i think he sold his soul like you did, because you endorsed joe fit towho isn't even walk in bernie sanders' shadow for fighting for equality and rights. host: congressman? guest: i think the gentleman is pretty selective. i supported joe biden. i remember the 1994 bill. i supported that and joe biden wrote it. bernie sanders voted for it as well. i would ask him, when was the last time you have seen a boat to ban assault rebels -- vote to ban assault weapons?

also, the violence against women's act was in that bill. we had community policing, all of that was in the bill. i would say to the gentleman, we voted for the crime bill in 1994. i would ask them to remember what happened in november of 1994. that is when we lost the majority, when they took over the house and took the good stuff we put in the crime bill and took it out. the 1994 crime bill reduced mandatory minimums. changed,94 crime bill are we responsible for that change? no. we lost the election in 1994. the republicans took over the house and gutted the bill. the same thing they are doing with the secondary education act. you may call it anything you want to call it, but that was

the bill created as part of the great society program. when republicans came in, they changed it. you might remember they gave it a pretty name. george w. bush called a no child left behind. my daughter is a public school teacher. program has ais great name but is leaving all of our children behind. so just because you changed the name doesn't mean you are getting rid of the program. the same thing is reverse. you keep the name and you put in this bad stuff. that is what happened to the 1994 crime bill. the gentleman ought to take a look at what really happened. i would say in conclusion, i do not compare joe biden to the almighty. i compare him to the alternative. the alternative today is donald

trump. host: tom in california, independent. caller: hello. host: tom, good morning. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? thanks for taking my call. i have a couple questions on this black lives matter's deal. i am an independent. , and howou blame trump can i take -- how did they take breaking targets and looting the stores, burning them down, acting like savages, and i have to pay out of my taxes to clean these people's crab up talking black lives matter. host: congressman, a little difficult to understand him but he was talking about the people that do the looting, the destructive behavior, not the

peaceful protests, and taxpayers having to pay to clean it up. guest: i will say to the gentleman this, i was out there back in the 1960's, and i know. like i see it happening today. i saw a former congressman, now the attorney general there in minnesota, chief ellison, i saw him on tv last night. he was talking about white supremacists who are dressed up in black, camouflaged themselves to look like somebody black and going around knocking out windows. investigating it and i will tell them, there are against theple black lives matter movement. movement is trying to show this country the way to go when it comes to law enforcement. when it comes to health care,

education, the environment. the black lives matter movement is simply saying, "my life as a black person should matter these for you not to put environmentally challenged industries in my district, in my community." that's what the black lives matter move is about. i shouldn't have to suffer as a neck person, a need to my -- knee to my neck and snuffed the life out of me. that is what it is all about, so don't tell me some foreign people, some of whom i will believe will be financed by sinister forces. we all know the russians are doing things to spread this information throughout -- disinformation throughout. i would say to that gentleman, you are the subject and victim of a lot of disinformation as well as subversion.

don't tell me i'm responsible, protest andve a someone is coming to subvert my protests, that is what is happening, and happening to the black lives matter movement. host: next is a democratic caller. caller: hello? host: we are listening. caller: i know everyone is talking about their special subject. my subject is, to tell you the 15 judges, they are trying to embezzle my house. judges, 15 of them, and i did not get restitution. now, the tenant is trying to embezzle my house. something needs to be done about operates,e d.c. court because this has been very unfair to me.

number two, in the d.c., the real property taxes keep going up. and they charge $9,000 for a two story house, just because all around it has been built up. that is very important. host: beverly, congressman, those are local issues, but if you could take them on broader scope, do you have any reaction? guest: i feel strongly we must do what is necessary to have affordable housing for people in this country. inespective of decisions life, we should make housing affordable. that is the way most low income people, most poor people deal with wealth, is in houses. i don't know exactly what the situation is, but i would contact the office of the delegate for the district of columbia, and her office would

be glad -- and i'm sure her office would be glad to be of assistance. it may have to be delegated down to the district of columbia with mayor bowser and some of her people, but the fact of the matter is we ought to do what we can to make sure that housing is accessible and affordable for all americans. host: congressman, you are the chair of the select subcommittee on the coronavirus crisis. doing, the committee what is it's role, and what have you found so far about the federal response? guest: we are working to make sure that all expenditures by the federal government, in this instance the cares act and two ask before it, what we have cares two, we passed the house heroes act.

if you add up what we have already appropriated, $2.5 trillion, what we have in the heroes act, three trillion,llars, -- $3 another act is $1 trillion. we have no idea what the total appropriations will be, but my committee's job is to make sure that all of the federal resources are utilized efficiently, effectively, and equitably. one of the things, i just sent out letters. we know we may be on the verge of getting a vaccine. part of my job will be to make i'm that the vaccine -- sending out a letter today on that subject -- make sure the vaccine was made available to andybody in a efficient effective manner, and equitably. i'm old enough to remember the

polio vaccine and other vaccines. arm,accine was shot in the another was a drop of serum on a lump of sugar. what community has the shots and what community has the lump of sugar? we need to make sure that whatever the vaccine is, and there's probably more than one, that it is handed out efficiently, effectively, and equitably. we have already returned to our coffers five times more than we have ever been appropriated. host: will democrats in the house agree to a number less than what was in the heroes act? could you compromise with republicans? guest: that is what politics is all about, about to find a level

of comfort that will be called common ground. common ground is somewhere between where you are and where your opponent might be. it is all about. we get into trouble if people saying it has to be my way or the highway. democrats do not operate that way. we want to come to the table, we want to sit down with the leadership in the senate and try to find a way to find common work, on select community -- fee itd-19, be it covid-19, be it justice in -- be it justice ine policing. it doesn't have to be my way or the highway. we do say though, if you cannot give a tip people that need food stamps, and rather you want to build a new fbi headquarters,

that is not where we are. that, to me, is a nonstarter. host: what else will democrats not agree to? agree to newl not f-16s, new jets. when we need to do something with state and local governments. there is not one city i would be able to find in the proposal of the heels act to do anything to protect state and local governments. do you know how many small towns keep their if they local governments open? how many states will become for my eyes, how many people will be laid off of work? along, thecoming only place i could find a job was public employment. we had to find a job at the now, all of a and sudden, you're going to tell me we are going to let the cities and states dry up and lay off

people? they are trying to close on the post office. host: unfortunately, i have to interrupt you because the house is about to gavel and so we had to say goodbye. james clyburn with the majority web -- clyburn, the majority whip, thank you for your time sir. the chair lays before the house communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, 2020.gton, d.c., july 29, i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker day.tempore on this signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2020, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties. with time equally allocated between parties and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. but in no event shall debate