♪ host: this is washington journal for february 10. the down spy balloon is the topic of several hearings, not

only focusing on the technology but also the handling of it. legislators heard from the state department officials as they explained the administration's approach to several members of congress express income earned -- concerns over actions. we went to hear from you about your level of concern over the spy balloon incursion and everything that involves that. here's how you can call us. the numbers are on your screen.

once it comes into our space, we can do what we want to fit. u.s. officials are worried that if it's shot down over land, it can be a problem, and the president said it is a gigantic what happened. it happened in a rural area, and it came down to be shot down. they made a wise decision to shoot it down over water. they recovered both of the parts, they are good. that was a recent interview. you can see the photos already. we've shown you some of that with the down balloon itself. also, the reclamation efforts with that. it was on a hearing featuring defense officials talking about the response and hearing from legislators about the concerns they had. one of the legislators questioned the defense official over strategies to deal with potential incursions -- incursions. here is a portion.

>> this was a robust budget last cycle. i don't remember hearing about anything that dealt with balloons in the budget. do we have a plan on how we are going to deal with this the next time it happens? >> senator, thank you. as you know, the national defense strategy from 2022 is pacing with the challenge. >> what about balloons? i got the other stuff, and we deal with it. is there money in the budget for -- if you're not in that pay great, do we have a plan for when that happens again, and i will tell you this. the truth is, we think we know what they're going to collect, but we don't know. thank you.

it is a -- as weak recover the balloon and learn more. last week, there was an understanding of what capabilities they have it >> over time, and this is the last thing, i hope. do you have a plan for the next time we will deal with it? quite frankly, i don't want to see a balloon going across the united states and have us take it over the aleutian islands. no offense to alaska. or to montana. they understand public health and doing damage. it would have been a nightmare, but the truth is, i have a problem with the chinese balloon flying over my state. much less, the rest of the country. host: those were the concerns of

a democrat, jon tester. you can see on c-span now, and if you want to see those take place, we want to hear from you as far as your concern on this our over balloon incursion. you can call the number on your screen. if you want to text us, you can do that as well. you can also post on our social media site. several of you are posting to facebook before the start of the program. from the facebook page, many people are saying as to the level of concern, not anymore with the spy balloon set flu unchecked out of public view. previous administration said my concern is less over china and moreover the lack of response from ours. many say that if, if anything, relying on such methods make us

seem more ahead of them. and alex says i never felt so unsafe area --. with art feed, or on instagram. for calls, we start in idaho. this is michael, republican line, about the concern over the chinese incursion. michael, idaho, you are first up. go ahead. caller: it appears that the military is trying to classify everything so they can't be held accountable by the american people. it is clear to everyone that mistakes are made. serious mistakes. they are gathering more information from this balloon now. this balloon was different from all of the rest. if that is the case, it includes

being armed. we don'know but the balloon could be carrying a small device or a biological weapon, which china is not above using. i think the military has become so woke and worried about everything except their priry mission, which is to defend the united states. we need to dump the generals and start over. host: that is if you are in idaho. here is a bill -- viewer in illinois. hello. caller: i wanted to talk about the chinese spy balloon because it sends a message. you look at a balloon that size, and it flies over montana. i think the chinese are trying to send a message that we have the capability to spy over you, and the democrats, i think it is already been a rush to judgment.

we still need to gather the fact on what happened. but i think the fact that the biden taking so long, and they are not trying to respond. i feel like they are not beholden to this, and it is a reflection that biden is too old, but if we are not going to tackle this head-on, what will stop us in the future. the u.s. is not above spy tactics. i hope the soviet union realizes that these things are shot down, and maybe they are trying to retaliate. we need to come to a negotiation, and make sure that neither country is spying over the other. i think that is what will cause increased tension and could lead to more warfare in the future. host: let's hear from andrew in

louisiana. republican. caller: as far as my concerns that while the balloon flew over our country, i really think that the chinese government knew exactly what they were doing. they flew below the satellite, and while it was over the aleutian islands, i think that is when it should've been taken out, when it was around that area, and a very remote place, rather than let it continue to survey. our whole country and airbases, and military establishment. who knows, but that information wasn't transferred down to the ground. they know everything, but it's just a matter of doing this, and they have planned without --

what our military will do, and it seems like it is more complicated than people realize, and in the political end of this, and that is what it is. an investigation. where does it go? host: those hearings took place yesterday, not only did they include defense officials, and state department officials, but you can go to our website at c-span.org and see the round up of all of the hearings that are taking place in light of the story. you can also see them on our app at c-span now. the front page of the washington post, just before the information taken from the balloon has been declassified or some of it has been declassified in intelligence, and the united states has called out china for spying, saying officials saying that high-resolution imagery captured revealed that the airship was capable of

intelligence operations far beyond the operations of a weather balloon. it was capable of collecting and geo-locating information. intelligence is a form of spy craft involving the perception of communications and electronic signals to gain valuable information. the state department affirmed that it was carried out by the liberation army, the pla, and it has a direct relationship to the chinese military. your level of concern about this china spy balloon incursion, and in texas, independent line, good morning. caller: i spent six years in the military with the intelligence group, and i think the united states military leaders of our government knew exactly what they were doing, they continued in our country because of the intelligence that we were able to assess across our country,

and also, the ability to shoot it down. we shot it down and the right space. i think those were questioning the military leaders for not knowing the ability to gather intelligence, and we should trust in our government and what they did. thank you. host: you heard from jon tester earlier. it was at that scene that a defense official talked about what took place leading up to the shooting of that spy balloon. here is part of what happened. caller: the military recommended taking down the balloon over water. waiting to do so had three benefits. first, it gave us additional time to observe the balloon. again, assessing the capabilities. simultaneously, it protected against intelligence collection which, again, was relatively

traced forward because we knew where the balloon was. second, this allowed us to refine options and decrease the risk of debris, causing harm to civilians. please bear in mind, the balloon was 200 feet tall, with a jetliner sized payload. we consulted with nasa who analyzed and assessed the potential debris field that it would create based on trajectory , weather, and the estimated payload. third, waiting to shoot the balloon down over water improved our prospects at recovery, which are ongoing. throughout wednesday and thursday, we continue to track the balloon, and on friday, president biden was briefed on the execution of a plan to shoot down the balloon over water. this plan included air access that we would use to take down the balloon, as well as joint forces we would use to recover it. we approve the plan, and through that night, the staff and the department of defense, including

joint staff personnel worked to ensure that it was successfully executed. throughout the night, as the president had requested, national security adviser sullivan provided him with regular updates. saturday, for every fourth, president biden spoke with secretary austen multiple times about the mission and its completion on saturday afternoon, when it was shot down and crashed into the ocean roughly six miles off the coast of south carolina in our territorial waters. due to rough seas, debris collection began on february 5. host: go to our website or app to check out that testimony, and all of the other hearings that took lace, and the comments made about this story. in new jersey, it was said, given the level of concern, president biden and our military made a levelheaded decision in our handling of the matter, keeping line of negation open, especially with china. that was the objective.

they were not extremely worried, but i don't think we should be subsidizing the chinese government trade agreement. the chinese are no one's friend. from another twitter feed, the important analysis of parts recovered will determine the criticism of the response. david in wyoming, democrats. caller: thank you for c-span. about the balloon, i think we should be calling it something more than a balloon. it was huge. we just talked about something like that anywhere would be dangerous, and i was thinking about it might've had a biological weapon in it. maybe i watched too many movies, but dropping a bunch of germ warfare on us in our cities, shooting it down, i don't know if we talked about that too much, but that's all i've got to say. think.

-- thank you. host: john is next. hello. caller: a couple of questions. when they first noticed the balloon widened, we tried to take control of it by hacking into their system. number one, why didn't we tried to find a way to bring it down slowly. i don't know that can be got -- done. you could shoot a sidewinder addict, or use capsules in outer space and we land them on the back of a aircraft character -- carrier. why didn't we shoot the whole thing down? i agree with the last gentleman. what if there was something biological. chemicals down there. host: bring in slowly would be

easier or more efficient to examine the contents of the balloon purposely? caller: correct. we should have brought it down and had it right there. let's see what this thing really is. it takes up debris. host: john giving us a call, and saying that the defense department has acknowledged that this craft shot down marks at least the fourth time in 15 years breached our airspace using this sort of technology. officials were informed that there have been similar breaches near texas, florida, hawaii and guam. that is something from donald trump's presidency, targeting assets of our country including japan, in -- and taiwan. on the independent line in maryland, go ahead. caller: i think that the

military should be trusted more when it comes to our safety. if they had shut that down over a populated area, a family member might've gotten hurt, or -- we don't want that. we should trust them and our safety. host: how would you describe your level of conrn? caller: i am concerned about it, but obviously, i am more concerned than just that. host: what are you concerned about most? caller: i am concerd more about our likelihood as americans. i'm noture what china wants to do, and i'm not sure about that, but i don't know. host: donald in michigan. democrats line. caller: goomorning c-span and pedro.

good morning people. mike concern with the balloon is a high concern, but i think the biden administration just took their time to handle the situation correctly. i think we should be thanking the republican party for so much that happens with china. they are the ones that opened the door to china. host: when you say about the incident, high concern, what specifically? caller: like some of the other callers, we are looking at biological agents that could have been getting a lot of our military secrets, so here's the concern. i think the administration acted and it happened twice under the administration. i think biden can't do anything right as far as the republicans.

anything he does, they are going to attack him for not doing it right. this is what we have to deal with. host: we heard from a democrat expressing concerns. it is a bipartisan issue, do you think? caller: this is an issue that both sides of the aisle need to come together and say hey, we need to do some more research on what china is doing and what their capabilities are. that should be a -- one of the problems that both sides of the aisle should be taking care of. host: that is stalled in michigan. if you go to the website of the hill, they have posted a story about any questions of the spy balloon. one of the questions is why did the pentagon know about previous balloon sightings, and the story is one of the most pressing questions from investigators as to why previous flyovers were

not detected. we have a balloon siting from the trump administration, especially the one last week, and there was wondering the biden administration. a commander of the u.s. northern in aerospace defense command said that quote, the main awareness cap to detect these balloons whisper discover retroactively. retired navy admiral with the house congressional panel tuesday said the detective gap is a disconnect in our ability to understand these balloons. 40 minutes left, and if you want to give your thoughts on the china spy balloon and what you've heard, over the last week plus, about it, you can call the numbers on your screen. if you want to text us, you can do that as well.

brian's neck and -- next in arkansas. republican. caller: good morning, america. i hope everyone has a good day. we are very concerned about this. these missiles are flying over our hospitals. i guarantee you, right now, we are on the highest alert. we need to see what will happen next, and that is exactly what is happening. china is mocking us, and we need to measure the response. how do we respond. i wouldn't be surprised if we don't see it shot down. >> you think there will be a next time? caller: i don't think so. i think they realize how serious this is and how much concerned america is, and they are not being a good neighbor. i pray for all world peace, and

god bless you. it is good talking to you. host: jan in illinois, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. my level of concern is not very high. i think it was handled well. norad attracted. some of the concerns they had about not picking up previous balloons is concerning, but it sounds like they know how to track it, now. i am more concerned about the fact of the matter from my point of view, it is that it is posturing from china. we know the chinese are building up forces across from taiwan, and that is concerning to the people of taiwan and us as americans. we have a trade relationship, and we want to defend taiwan and their integrity, so from my point of view, it is a posturing

thing from the head of china, and we dealt with it well, and i am sure that norad is the tracking mechanism that they need to put in place to track these in the future and it will be there. host: jan in illinois. from alain dunlap, if this was a mere buying matter, china has many satellites collecting some other information. a viewer in bakersfield said that after watching the senate hearing on the spy balloon incursion, i understand how difficult it is to detect large objects floating at 60,000 feet. that is a concern for everyone. on twitter, not concerned at all, what will take it down, the military did so. we are getting a lot of information from the debris they collected, and we have showed you photos of the debris being collected after a spy balloon

was shot down. now, officials have taken control of it and they will analyze it. we are getting a sense of your level of concern overall. you can call and text us and tweet us. folks on facebook, you can always called our -- our line. democrat line, you are up next. >> good morning. my level of concern is may be a one or minus. we have our own spy balloon's everywhere. i'm more concerned about the manufacturing going on in china. when are they going to change that? that is more important. you think we don't have multiple spy balloon's all over china? why would china want to start anything. the united states is trying to make the enemy of china again, and we need to be at peace with every country. it is not necessary. they want to start a war because

it is profitable. no, i am not concerned about a balloon. we have plenty of our own balloons spying on everything. i am more concerned about what you will do? we cannot end our instinct. everything is made in china. what is tesla going to do. what do you do? we have to believe what we are told. host: that was mary. fareed said kari is said that we are watching something unique in history. growing geopolitically -- geopolitical rivalry that is between two nations connected economically. trade and goods an all-time high of 690 million surpasses the previous record from 2018 before the covid-19 pandemic. that number seems especially remarkable when you consider it is in spite of the terrorism

placed on the goods, and placed on u.s. goods in response. it overruns an encounter with the biden administration's new rules with high-technology items. from the people's republic, we are operating on two levels. one is geopolitical were temperatures -- tensions are growing rapidly, and the other is between american consumers and firms which are not governments. these two rooms continue to move forward, and we are working at cross purposes. it seems highly unlikely. that is fareed zakaria. you can read his comments on the washington post website. we will hear from gary next, republican line. pennsylvania. caller: my concerns are very high. the question i have, our partners to the north, the canadians. we have not heard much from them. i am just concerned, for what i understand, and went over their

territory as well. it is very vast. it could have been taken down there. i just think, with the balloon type of thing, as far as biologicals being possible, what the japanese did during world war ii, firebombs with balloons, that's all i have to say. host: can i ask to follow-up on your level of concern? you said high level, but is canada on that list or are there other concerns as well? caller: i just wonder what their responses because it flew through their territory, and we haven't heard very much from them, other than their partnership with norad and the defense system. host: william in florida, independent. caller: thank you for c-span. this is very distressing and eye-opening. this recent events with the balloon. i wish everyone would wake up

and recognize that china is the number one threat to this country. it is not russia. russian -- russian needs to be viewed and watched. they are not the ones shipping fentanyl into the country by the tons. they are not the ones who created a pandemic which wiped out a million americans. they are not the ones who are sending balloons doing loop de loops over norad across this country. people need to wake up and see, we absolutely need to decouple from china and get all manufacturing base rock back to the united states. is it going to take them to attack taiwan and start world war iii before anyone wakes up and realizes the real threat? this is a real dangerous threat to the country. host: that is william on the independent line. we will hear next from john in virginia, republican. go ahead. caller: i have concerns about a

number of things. they could have stuck an emp device on that, and that would create a mess. it goes back to the chinese. they could have very easily, once that thing hit alaska, called up washington and said ok, we have a stray balloon an it is cool. 'm sorry, it made a mistake, but how do we work this out. they didn't do any of that stuff. it was a white balloon. how could you miss that, and th, oh, well, it happened under the trump administration. ne of the guys in the trump administration could think about it, and i haven't heard anything out of general milley about what they missed, so how do you miss a 200 foot balloon? i'm sorry. is 60,000 feet with a balloon from the west out of and it should have been of interest to them, so are number of failures that have to be looked at, and if they had put an emp device on that, it could have cause problems.

host: that is john in virginia. we have spent about a half-hour on this. we will continue for another half-hour with your concerns over the balloon incursion. you can call us. numbers are on the screen. perhaps you want to text us, and you can do that as well. that is all on our social media site. pennsylvania is next. democrats line. hello. caller: good morning. i would like to address -- i have zero concerns about the balloon because i have faith in the pentagon, and there are things they know that we don't know. they most certainly knew about the balloon before it crossed over, even into alaska. a decision was made to monitor it and figure out what they were

getting from it. when it posed no threat, they let it go. all speculation that we could have done this or that, that we knew about the balloon and monitored it, we did in order to gain information. intelligence about what this was giving off. what kind of information we are undoubtedly recording a transmission of the balloon, all the way until we didn't need it anymore, then we blew it up over the carolinas. i think this was posturing by the chinese, and i think the pentagon wants to just let this go without giving too much information. they are very smart, and we are underestimating them. host: what point is there regarding withholding

information on this? caller: we have a highly skilled technological advantage over the rest of the world. the pentagon can detect things we don't understand. our satellite systems are so incredibly technological. i don't think the pentagon wants us to know about everything they can find out. we are very smart in keeping silent on this. and not letting the rest of the world even know about our capabilities. host: let's go to linda in kentucky, republican. linda in owensboro kentucky. republican. one more time, linda. here is jim in ohio, independent. hello. caller: good morning. god bless america, and may god

continue to bless america. everyone thought we were safe until this point in the military, and all of these satellites, all of these things. what a disgrace. unbelievable. trillions of dollars, and we are not safe. what's wrong with the balloon coming over here? what's wrong with them checking out their land. they bought it. they wanted and they can use it. they can put anything on their they want to. if i buy a piece of land, i can put property on there. what's wrong with that. we are selling them land. the whole world is selling them land. they have the right to possess that land. host: but it is the united states. caller: it may be, but they are purchasing it. that allows them to be able to use that land. there shouldn't be any gripe with this. host: and how did you come to that conclusion? caller: are they buying land or

not? host: how would you answer the question? caller: i'm asking you. you should know. host: you made the claim. what kind of land are they buying and how much are they buying. caller: i'm asking you that. maybe you should know that. host: sir, you made the claim. to the point you're making, but please go ahead and finish. caller: they are buying land, so if they own it, they can possess it and use it. to do whatever they choose. host: ok, tom is next. republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't want to scare anybody, but i am a pessimist. it is possible they were confirming the exact coordinates of our silos, bombers, surface vessels and submarine pens. they have access to russia's hypersonic livery system.

these travel nearly twice as fast as the response vehicles. they may have plans for a hypersonic missile defense system. that may help them consider a preemptive strike if we interfere in taiwan. what is not to love about america? we are about to be vaporized. host: one of the hearings on the senate side was from the foreign relations committee. members of congress got a chance to ask questions of the deputy secretary of state. mitt romney, republican of utah, talking about a comprehensive approach to china, in light of the bible's actions. here is part of the change. >> that includes approaches to developing countries and the global trade arrangements, to economic measures we might want to put in place. to research and development

investments. to the military procurement, to global clean munication's -- communications, and access to our laboratories and visas we provide the chinese. international institutions. to our social media strategies, to raw material strategies in our processing here in raw materials to the usaid, to defending the tactics the chinese are using. you get where i am going. a comprehensive strategy including dozens upon dozens of strategic and tactical decisions that are combined and changed over the years. it is essential in my view that we develop that strategy and it is cap in a classified setting. it doesn't have to go on publicly, but we need that. >> we agree with you. we are in fact working on every one of those tactical areas that you identified. every single one. bringing them together for work on each one is incredibly

time-consuming, but we are doing that work. the secretary does have a policy board. we have an international security board. i will take back your idea that we have an ongoing china focus which we don't have as specific. we do consult without -- with outside consultants and experts on the basis of this. the secretary did so in his run up to the potential trip he was making to beijing, which we postpone. i think all of the areas that you laid out are absolutely ones for which we have to be laser focused, to bring together those tactics into an integrated strategy. that is what we are working on doing and have every single mission around the world with a bespoke strategy for their country because every country is different, and china is president and every single one. host: there are ways to hear

those hearings. if you go to c-span. or, you can hear those hearings and the state we've taken and on those topics and other related things. you can go to c-span now app where you can not only hear the streaming hearings live, but the archive as well, and those are some of the ways you can keep aware of what goes on with members of congress talking to officials about their concerns. you get a chance to express your concerns now for the next 40 minutes so. next caller, hello. caller: i love this forum. i really do. i think it is a national requirement that everyone listens to c-span in the morning, but anyway, i think the balloon thing is -- anyone can see that. there is a plan. i live in upstate south carolina. there is a plan on the highways,

interstate 46 that made silicon labor chips. they made the raw peace that is needed in all the computer chips. that company had high waiting. the government is not the enemy of the people. they are a large corporation. they ship back jobs over china or indonesia or wherever. i think it is great that joe biden is trying to bring chip manufacturing back. as far as congress goes, they've made some bad mistakes. they were going to build an accelerator in texas, and i don't know where the information is on that, like the accelerator. sometimes, we are our own worst enemy. we worry about the wrong things.

it is foolishness. host: that is william in south carolina. in texas, hello. caller: good morning, pedro. i have a couple of opinions. i believe it was over the jet stream. you know, i would be afraid to pop a balloon without knowing what it was carrying over the jet stream that would sprinkle across the country. it was shot in -- just off the t of carolina, short of international lines for the ocean. if it was maneuverable, why would anyone think it was accidentally traveling over the united states when it could be turned around and taken back to china. also, i think our military was probably interested in what it was interested in, and they would like to know what they

were trying to spy on. they se signal was jammed. 'know if we have the capability to read technology as it was being transferred back to china. those are just a few points that i wanted to make or have already been made. that's it. host: u.s. engineering picks up on the callers theme. the chinese spy balloon was shot down and was carried to intercept munication. the state department said it was the proof that the espionage mission with the pentagon flew with the spy plane dangling from the 200 foot balloon and had the ability to conduct the signal and intelligence operations according to a state department spokesperson. the spy balloon incursion with russia prompted the state to cancel the trip to beijing.

members of congress expressed outrage, and demanded answers. that is a little bit of the piece of the story that played out over the last week or so, but one other piece picked up by usa today and the wall street journal this morning about those planes that were involved in monitoring the balloon, the u-2 planes, the headlines from the wall street journal, and aging spy planes, saying that the dragon lady which help attract the planes on a weeklong long track are capable at flying altitudes 70,000 feet, unreachable to any other known u.s. aircraft. it has been in-service for almost 70 years. it divides multiple efforts to push to retirement. the life of the b-52 bomber has been extended with a new engine, and other technology. the last chat was delivered in 1989. if you want to read about that,

you can do that with the wall street journal. in kansas, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i appreciate washington journal aligned the populace of the united states to speak. i have a high fear of the balloon. some of the information that callers called in about, they said -- one caller said that if they owned land here, they've a right to fly over it. i just want to ask the caller, can you buy land in china, and if you flew a balloon over there, would it remain or where they shoot it down? another caller said that it is high-tech that took jobs overseas. i followed this years ago. it wars our politicians, republicans and democrats, that sent jobs to third world countries, and it was all in the general tariffs and trades.

also, it is been said in the balloon was over our country for over a week. i believe it was 12 days. they said there was concern about blowing up this balloon over the populace, yet china could have detonated explosives on at any time over a city. that's what i want to share. i know people talk about world war iii. i just feel we are already in world war iii. host: i got your point. let's move to maryland, democrats line. caller: for 40 years, the legislative branch of the united states has outsourced its onshore jobs, and critical manufacturing. standard manufacturing. if you go down the list, works, it amazes me that the legislative branch is now coming

and their eyes are open, they are saying, it looks like we sold america. we sold it off and we sold it to the chinese. if there was a decoupling of the united states and china, the only country that will suffer from that will be the united states of america. i think we saw an example of that when covid took place. when that took place, we no longer are in charge. who is in charge now is china. i think they make an example of that here and across the globe. we will lose, and we will become people for the chinese. trust me. host: robert in new york. independent. caller: hello? host: you are on. caller: great. this balloon floating across the country, painted white, 200 feet across.

the chinese wanted us to shoot it down. once we did that, that gives them permission to shoot down our spy satellites over their country. several years back, they launched a satellite and shot it down, just to see if they could do it. i think shooting it down was dopey. that's all i've got. host: from wendy in atlanta, georgia. republican. caller: hello. has anyone given any thought to when we talk about having spy equipment on it? it almost seems like an inside job. when i say that, i'm talking about somebody on foot, walking around. walking around with a camera. host: how does that relate to the balloon itself? caller: everyone's focused on

the balloon, and its destination. it's hovering, but it is emitting something. someone had to tell exactly where to go and hover. host: wendy on the republican line. we've shown you from the senate side. if you were to monitor the house side, yesterday, there was a vote that took place to condemn the chinese over the spy balloon. it is rare because the vote, when it was done, 419 202 criticized beijing for its incursion, making a case on the amendment that was brought up by the head of the chair of the foreign affairs for the house. they talked about the resolution and the purpose. >> the balloon i believe was a test. a test of this administration. to see how we would respond.

i believe that the president should have shot it down before it entered american airspace. rather than allowing it to cross over the continental united states airspace. make no mistake. this was another intentionally provocative act by the ccp. as i've said often, we disinvited aggression. it will only embolden and empower our enemies. it will embolden and empower the chairman. i've never seen a foreign nation adversary flyover a reconnaissance aircraft that you can see with your own eyes from the ground. the ccp threat is now within site for americans across the heartland. a vision and memory that they will not forget. this is further proof that the ccp does not care about a constructive relationship with the united states.

it is publicly challenging u.s. interest, threatening taiwan, supporting russia's war of aggression in ukraine, and now violating u.s. sovereignty. there is any question whether we should request funds for financing grants, this incident alone should make it clear that the time is now to harden ourselves and our partners against the chinese military aggression. an event like this, mr. speaker, must not happen again. it cannot go unanswered. they only understand one thing. that is force. it is projecting power. we need to project power and force and strength against the chinese communist party. they need to understand we desire peace. but infringing upon our sovereignty, we have let us down our dangerous paths. host: the resolution passed

forger 19 to zero. you can see it on our website at c-span. 10 minutes left for you to comment about the chinese balloon incursion. your level of concern over it. the numbers are on the screen. some of you are texting us this morning. this is anthony in pennsylvania. china has advanced satellites to monitor commute occasions. the balloon was likely a test of our response and we failed. an mp at high altitudes could disable all electrons. china is a clear and is in danger. brian says my concern was the information taken when the media was in the area. another post says the chinese are secure and why they launch

this balloon. since there was no cost that went to the launch with president trump's demonstration, the current president will let them get away with it as well. then, richard from las vegas says, what the heck is the main awareness cap. i am concerned about the level of confidence or dishonesty from our government. i'm not talking about the current administration. let's hear from james in san francisco. democrat. caller: hello. i just heard the congressman say the only thing the chinese understand is force. i think they also understand a loss of business. i would like to see putting a vortex for environmental reasons on shipping that comes in over a 200 mile economic zone. beyond 200 miles, it is covered by treaties. i think a products on their will use the money to give an earned income tax credit. host: how does that relate to

the balloon and the spy incursion? how does it relate? caller: it relates is that they will feel a sting from the loss of business for their people and manufacturers in china. the goods will cost more in the united states. host: james gave us a call. let's hear from jane in tennessee, independent. caller: i want to make -- i called to talk to make a comment about the balloon, but to quick points. i want to share some background. i was raised in a very military family. nonpartisan. knowing that our loyalty and support is due to our commander-in-chief. regardless of party alliance. with that said, i want to make a comment about china buying up our land you don't have to look

very hard. you can find that out for yourself. it states a fact. it is just a little bit of research. i think we should encourage anybody who is unaware or uninformed to do a little research. host: what land did they buy up? caller: they are buying farmland. host: specifically where? caller: i'm not very good with where. host: host: how does this relate to the spy balloon which is the topic we are doing? how does it relate? caller: i didn't hear question. let me finish my point. you can easily find out. anyhow. host: you made a point, and we are running out of time. how does this relate to the spy balloon? caller: about the balloon. they already have all the information they need to take down us at this point, and it

would make a chaotic day, but at that point, they are not doing this for their entertainment. they will invade us by land, air, and sea. anyhow, i'm sorry i don't have the states. i want say montana, but never mind. well i hope i did make my point. you threw me off by trying to give the states. i think they bought land in tennessee. host: i only bring it up because people keep bringing up and i'd like to hear specifics about where it is happening, but thank you for your comment. let's hear from steve in indiana. republican. caller: yeah, this loon does not make a lot of difference about anything. the biden family is already sold any secrets we would ever have about anything we've got in the united states. we don't have any secrets. it's pretty obvious what is going on here with these democratic party already gathered.

they've sold us for years. they're just about money. host: how does that relate to the balloon, which is our topic and your level of concern? why are you not concerned specifically? caller: it doesn't make any difference. china knows everything going on in the united states. we don't have any secrets here. that is pretty obvious. host: that is stephen indiana. from the house debate before it was unanimously condemned, china with its actions, the floor also heard from a ranking member of the foreign affairs committee. >> we all know that the prc -- that it was the prc surveillance balloon. full stop. beijing needs to own up. i think the bite administration for the transparency we learned that this was not the first time the prc balloon has transmitted over u.s. airspace.

in fact, this has happened at least three times. two in the trumpet misprision once in this demonstration. we also learned last week that this incident was part of a larger prc global surveillance operation that has infringed on the sovereignty and threaten the security of nations across five continents. we read this morning in various public forums, like the new york times and the washington post, that we've gained knowledge by shooting this balloon down. in the land of goshen, as we dig it up, we will find more information. we will be able to share it with our allies that collectively make sure that the violation of sovereignty does not continue.

host: bernie in kentucky, democrat line. caller: good morning. disclosure, right now. i am no expert. all i know, what do we really know about the balloon? what we do know is it got away from the chinese government, it exploded across the ocean, and headed into our airspace and went into canada. that's what we really know. i believe this is where the state department steps in and does their job because china wants to. i'm sure the secretary of state and the chinese government, the state department there, they are talking. they are preventing it from s going into military action, and thank god for that. but as far as the story goes, it is like any other story. there are a lot of opinions on it, but it does have a shelf life. eventually, it will expire and

we will move on to something else. that is my opinion. host: ok. alberto, stockton california, independent. caller: good morning. host: you are on. go ahead. caller: should i turn my volume down? host: if you've not right on so, thank you. caller: only 60 seconds, or cut me out. i am in stockton, california. host: what do you think about the spy balloon? caller: ok. i'm neither democrat or republican. i live in the name of poncho villa. host: last call, republican line, hello. caller: i believe the balloon should have been shot down as soon as it entered our space. joe biden and his crew solis out

to the chinese. it is very obvious they made tons of money over it. what went on, i totally believe is not right what he is doing to us, and the story of the united states. host: how does this relate to the balloon? caller: it should have been shot down because it should never have taken over -- they should have shot it down over alaska. when it first entered our airspace.

what the president spoke about is sacha haworth and carl szabo. coming up, the consumer policy council and american financial reform on credit card late fees, part of another component of president biden's so-called -- that conversation coming up later on "washington journal." >> c-spanshop.org for c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books, home to core, and accessories.

there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 eastern a look back to the 1990 nine impeachment trial of bill clinton, which ended when the senate voted to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment. at 8:00, rutgers university professor david greenberg examines bill clinton's path to the white house, his major legislative achievements and his place in the history of the modern democratic party. watch american history tv saturdays on c-span2, and find the full schedule on your program guide or watch online any time c-span.org/history.

>> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what is happening in washington live and on-demand. keep up with the day's biggest immense of live streams and floor proceedings with u.s. congress, white house events, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics at your fingertips. you can stay current with the latest episodes of washington journal and find scheduling information for the c-span tv network and c-span radio. c-span now is available the apple store and google play. c-span now. your friend proceed to washington, anytime, -- your front row seat to washington, anytime or anywhere. >> preorder your copy of the congressional directory for the 118th congress. bio and contact information for every house and senate member,

important information on the president's cabinet, federal agencies, and state governors. preorder your copy today. it is 2995 plus shipping and handling. >> in 1848 husband-and-wife william and ellen craft embarked on a journey of self emancipation. disguised as a wealthy white man they left georgia, avoiding even friends while trying to conceal their identities. an author recounts their harrowing journey north the impact the fugitive slave law has two years later. sunday night at 8:00 on q&a. listen to q&a and all of our podcasts on our free c-span now app.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: here to talk about oversight over social media companies are two guests, carl szabo with net choice. sacha haworth of the tech oversight project and she serves as their director. thank you for joining us. tell us a little bit about your organization in the position you take when it comes to this issues. guest: we were founded about a year ago. a small nonprofit organization. i founded it because over the years, working in politics, i had become increasingly disgruntled by the rampant disinformation being spread on social media platforms and the rate at which it is unchecked. as a parent, becoming dissatisfied with the mental

health crisis being unchecked by social media companies. there did not seem to be enough of an advocacy arm to ensure these tech companies -- by that i mean the largest ones, google, amazon, facebook, apple are held accountable. we were founded over a year ago to push for oversight. that includes antitrust reform. it includes pushing for accountability as far as information, and accountability as far as privacy rights. host: how are you funded? guest: we are granted funds from like-minded organizations. there are number on the website. we also take funding from small and midsized tech companies who share values for more competition. host: mr. szabo? guest: i am from an organization called net choice. we fight for free expression and

free enterprise on the internet. our members include large businesses. some of the members my colleague just mentioned. also small ones. what we see our role as doing is to plow the field so they can compete on the merits. we actually prefer to let the free market decide and we have been doing that for about 20 years. our members come everyone at net choice.org, they are listed prominently on our website. what controls us are our guiding principles. there are times when we make -- that is how we maintain our principled nature. we are somewhere between a think tank and a trade association and that has enabled us to operate effectively for 20 years. host: social media companies

part of your portfolio? guest: absolutely. what is the definition of social media? everyone keeps trying to define it. as an attorney, i teach at george mason law school. details are in the definition. definitions matter. if we are in a place where you can post comments, i could post user reviews. is it something where i can send direct messages, or is it a mixture? definitions matter when it comes to defining your platform. if you want to go the classical examples of facebook/meta or youtube and twitter, absolutely they are members of choice. host: how would you say washington approaches social media and what they do and what are the areas of concern that you think need oversight or not? guest: i think we are far overdue for oversight over tech

companies and we spent the last decade, but the most of the last 18 months to a year trying to fight for antitrust reform. companies like the tech companies that are underwriting karl's organization have spent a quarter of a billion dollars just the last year alone against one bill. carl's organization only spent about one million of that but the million is more the operating budget of my entire organization for a year. that is the fight we are up against and that is what congress sees. we are pushing for stronger antitrust enforcement and carl mentioned the free market, he mentioned competition. the definition of competition is more companies in the marketplace. these four largest companies are monopolies. they have bought up all of their competitors, they use their

monopoly power to unfairly preference their own products, and because consumers do not have any choice, they are forced to return to them again and again so that is a cycle congress needs to address. given the president's state of the union on tuesday, we are looking in that direction. host: our guests will join us for the remainder of the hour. if you have questions, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. let's play a little bit of what the president had to say. let's hear from president biden talking about social media. [video clip] >> we must hold social media companies accountable. it is time to pass bipartisan legislation to stop big deck

from collecting personal data on our kids. band targeting advertising to children. and put limits on personal data the company's collect on all of us. host: the president including this language, what is your response to that? guest: i do not think there any specifics in the statement. there were just healthy principles. one of the things he discussed was privacy legislation. that is something that choice enforced. i've been calling for a national standard for privacy regulation. it is what the american people want. to give you a quick example, if you were to drive from new york to d.c. to virginia, you would be subjected to three different sets of privacy laws. that does not make any sense.

we are a transportation based country. we travel all the time. our privacy rights and principles should remain the same regardless of where we are situated. that is why we need a national standard for privacy laws. i support the call but the devil is in the details. when it comes to privacy laws out of europe and california, they failed completely. you do not see them being enforced at all. instead you have laws on the books. getting to the issue of protecting our children, i'm a parent, i have a nine-year-old and a six-year-old. my wife is on the front line of what we see when it comes to parents and children and social media. what i always get worried about is the government deciding what is best for me and my family or some of the laws we have seen introduced to turn that power over to social media platforms and asked them to do the parenting. that is completely inappropriate.

you can try to set age gates but you have plenty of children who are very determined. you have 21 and 30-year-olds who are very immature. the idea of setting a standard of age as the basis on which we operate does not make sense. instead we need to give parents more power. one of the things that is being looked at in states like florida and indiana is to have a curriculum centered around social media, much like callie cheese -- how we teach reading and writing and arithmetic, we need to teach social media use and that is the way to go forward. guest: everything carl says should come with a general warning. the fact that he is funded by social media platforms negates a lot of what he has to say. i have two children under four. i shudder to think what kind of

online ecosystem is waiting for them when they asked me for social media. there are policy options being debated in congress. we have to hash out the differences and get privacy laws on the books, not only nationwide standards but also something that protects our kids privacy. the cost of doing nothing is too high. that is what carl seems to be suggesting. you cannot give it to the government or social media companies because they will not self regulate as we know from the big tobacco fights in the 1990's. what is the option? i do not hear an alternative. what i did hear president biden say is i heard him stand over a divided government, something he can deal with pretty well as a master of the senate, and say the word antitrust from the largest bully pulpit in the world.

that is the first time a president has uttered the words antitrust in a state of the union address in nearly 50 years. the last time a president said antitrust in a state of the union address was the same year c-span was created. that shows to me that president biden is going to preside over a new era of taking on the largest monopolies of the modern age and that is the four big tech companies, google, apple, amazon, and facebook. guest: quick response. one of the largest companies on the planet is often left out of this discussion. microsoft is the largest corporation on the planet. for some reason they are never mentioned in the companies you listed. one of the challenges we see when it comes to antitrust laws is what has been exposed from things like the twitter files. the ability of government to lean on social media platforms, lean on businesses to promote and remove content they like or dislike. we just had a case this week for

the antitrust case that went against the federal government. it was a frivolous case, the federal trade commission -- the statement from the person who brought the case was it is ok we lost. we are trying to rewrite the law. i am sorry. i am somebody who believes the laws do not come from the president or the executive branch or from bureaucrats, they come from our elected representatives in congress or our state representatives. at the same time think about all of the taxpayer dollars wasted and flushed down the toilet. that is money that we are paying as we see an incredible deficit ahead of us. my children, your children, will be paying this debt. yet we need to rein in the government control.

the answer is not to create new laws and give more unrestricted power to the government to spend taxpayer dollars attacking american businesses. instead we should use the laws. when it comes to antitrust law is easy to prove -- it is one of the easiest cases to prove. unlike murder. murder is hard to prove. you have to so intent. antitrust is easy to prove. all you have to show is market power and consumer harm. the thing that is being ignored as there is no consumer harm. in fact there is no market power. meta's launch is getting eaten by tiktok. host: let's take some calls. travis and washington, d.c. democrats line. your first up. -- you are first up.

caller: you talked about the meta case that the ftc took the loss. i think it would be a lot nicer if instead of having to install these different apps on my phone my iphone just had all of the google stuff. i think apple should be allowed to buy google. do you think apple should be allowed to buy google? guest: that is an interesting question. i have not thought about whether apple should be able to buy google. i will tell you that i'm not an anti-antitrust absolutist in any way. ticketmaster, just last week there was a hearing on capitol hill. we talked about bipartisanship. you had senater richard blumenthal get up and say congratulations ticketmaster,

you found bipartisanship. we all dislike you. i do not throw around the term monopoly lightly. today ticketmaster has more than 80% market share. their parent company live nation controls the artist and they control venues. prices have gone up on the service fees. quality has continued to depreciate. that is a market that has failed. what i would rather see our government to his rather than bring loser lawsuits like we saw with meta-, why are we not going after the obvious antitrust enforcement actions like those against ticketmaster. host: i'm get a let -- i am going to let ms. haworoth in on this conversation. guest: the government is going after ticketmaster. i do not throw around the world monopoly lightly. the existence of an monopoly can

be -- there is also bipartisanship on going after the tech companies. the bill last congress was bipartisan and bicameral. the caller mentioned apps, there was an apps bill that was also bipartisan and bicameral. those passed with overwhelming majorities, and any tech related bills that came to the floor also passed with bipartisan majorities, not to mention the fact that 75% of americans support rating in tech companies . when carl wants to check these criteria as to whether or not companies are monopolies, 90% of searches on the internet powered by google. host: let's hear from nelson in florida. independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a little concerned about the issue of having yet another

oversight by the government taking into consideration the history of the government regarding its political biases over private industry and over the tech companies. we only need to look at what has happened with some individuals like hillary clinton, who put out misinformation on donald trump. adam schiff who said the russians were controlling donald trump, and the list goes on. putting more political oversight over private industry will only cause those who are doing the oversight to use companies as

their political pawns. unfortunately, i have lost confidence in the government when it comes to things of this nature. host: thanks, caller. guest: antitrust reform does not address content moderation. it simply rains and the powers of the four largest tech companies, who have been acting illegally. they have illegally been referencing their own products over that of their competitors. they have illegally been colluding with one another to preserve each other's core monopolies. carl talked about the idea these four companies compete with each other. they would love for you to believe that. remember who pays carl's agreement. they have an agreement that they have core monopolies. facebook has social media,

amazon has the online marketplace. at the end of the day they do not compete with one another. the question as to whether or not they should merge -- clearly a merger would be more detrimental to the economy. host: to the point about the government itself having the ability to oversee, how would you answer that question? guest: i think we need to give our government the tools to rein in the most egregious behavior of tech companies. clearly they're not guard to self regulate. we saw the big tobacco fights in the 1990's when they were denying the fact that they did harm to children, did harm to people who smoke cigarettes. we have a similar situation where these social media companies have negative externalities. they are a detriment to democracy. it is a detriment to our kids and our teens. talk to any educator.

it is clear we have a mental health crisis among our kids and our youth. what surprises me is there people who are willing to advocate for these platforms ability to continue to serve videos or serve content to kids promoting self-harm, promoting anorexia, encouraging depression, included -- encouraging suicide. that is what we should stop immediately. guest: quite a lot to unpack there. first of all, if there's any illegal action today, that means there is a violation of existing law, which would mean we do not need new laws. we just need enforcement. unfortunately the government agencies, they are heavily funded. they got several hundreds of billions of dollars from the covid relief package alone, not to mention the inflation reduction act. i think the caller brings up a very important point. the more power you hand to

government the more power they have to control speech. the greatest threat to democracy is loss of free speech. that does not necessarily come from private companies. as we have seen from the stock prices, from people leaving facebook, people leaving twitter or coming back to twitter, people vote with their feet. when the government is involved, it is much harder to move. we learned just yesterday from the twitter hearing that both parties were pressuring social media platforms to remove content they liked or don't like. that is scary. that should scare every single american. government control speech is the worst thing possible. heading evermore antitrust power to the government to arbitrarily enforce without relying on facts and figures, that is a dangerous tool for the government to have.

at the end of the day if i were operating a business, and i have operated a business, i do operate a business, if the government comes in today, whether the department of justice or the irs and says if you did this small thing i will not bring in enforcement action against you, that is a tough trade-off for me to have to stand up against. the caller is right. the answer is not more government. the answer is we need the government to do its job and rather than view these fluorosis -- these frivolous lawsuits like we are seeing, go after the obvious bad actors. host: this is a viewer in las vegas. democrats line. caller: i would like to ask exactly how they break up amazon , who basically owns everything online? how would you go about breaking it up? if you are the ftc how would you go about doing that? it has been brought in front of congress and they have done

nothing and they have asked zuckerberg to self regulate himself. as an intelligent human who studies political science and is well-informed and government, how will they break them up? does anyone know? guest: great question. let's go back to amazon itself. i always love bringing out statistics. amazon market share is about half of that of walmart. walmart is twice the size of amazon. i spent a lot of time on amazon, but i also shop at target, walmart, whoever has the best prices. how would you break it up? that was the fundamental question before congress last time where they decided not to move forward on legislation that would make it easier to break up amazon. they found prices would go up for everyday consumers. if amazon were the sole seller of aches, i would be much better

off, i think we would all be better off because my wife is telling me eggs are too expensive. simultaneously the government considered this legislation and they found two day prime delivery, the fact that i can press buttons and it is there in two days. let's roll back the clock 20 years. you you still have to pay a fortune for delivery. god help you if you needed it in disco weeks. we all remember ordering from mail order catalogs. what we have now? almost every online seller offers free shipping. almost every online seller offers just two day delivery or less. they did not do that out of the goodness of their heart. they did that because they were competing with amazon. amazon was able to provide great features and that is why those businesses are some of the most

beloved while simultaneously a study came out the other day and the number one problem american see with the country is government. they put it ahead of the economy, they put it ahead of crime. the number one problem american see his government. the last thing we want to do is give government more power to disrupt our lives. guest: amazon does not provide the cheapest products and that is the whole point of the antitrust bill coral and his colleagues spent $250 million advocating against. host: this is senator klobuchar's bill? guest: yes. amazon does not necessarily provide the cheapest products. it provides its own products and that is the problem. consumers do not have a choice. i can drive to target or walmart , but where will i go online to buy something? amazon has 100% of online marketplace. there is nowhere else to go.

the question is how we break them up? that is not what antitrust reform would do. antitrust reform is simply give government the tools to rate in the power of the tech monopolies to rein in the most egregious behavior. let me tell you a little bit more about that. i mentioned amazon. you go to a grocery store and you walk into the grocery store. amazon not only owns every single aisle of the grocery store itself but it has put the products at the front of each of the aisles. the first thing you see is an amazon product. then when you go to check out, guess who owns the person checking you out? and then you leave the door and there is a security guard walking you to your car on the way out. he is also checking ids on the way in. amazon itself has declared their

competitors are not the companies -- their actual competitors are the companies who try to sell their wares on amazon marketplace. amazon is directly competing with small businesses, with third-party sellers who are forced to use their platform to sell their wares within that grocery store itself. host: let's hear from iris in michigan, independent line. caller: good morning. i would suggest that you shop your mom-and-pop store to keep the kitchen table people functioning. make a living without depending totally on groupthink. people like me like to keep the old businesses floating and see stores open and parking lots do

not look like skating rink's. you say the government should do their job. what is their job? do you pay taxes or are you incorporated? i do not go on the internet. i do not have a cell phone. i am an elderly person and i like the way i think and i have my individual thoughts and i do not have to join an organization to function. host: thank you for that. i want to talk a little bit about the state of the union. one of the people who talk about this idea of antitrust was a republican, josh hawley of missouri. i want to pay a little bit of what he had to say. [video clip] guest: we do need to take on -- >> we do need to take on social media. you should need to be 60 years old at least tobit is social -- 16 years old at least tobit a

social media account. so there is protection there. we should break up big companies. google ought to be broken up. i think there is room for bipartisan support. let's protect kids and help parents. >> is that anti-competitive in nature when you talk about these -- breaking up these companies? >> these companies are anti-competitive. the way you make these market competitive is to break up these companies who are treating our kids as a giant social media experiment. host: carl savo to his comments and the idea that republicans are joining in on this idea of antitrust? caller: i am sure it met a shareholders feel completely differently. meta shares are down 66% this year alone. that is because of robust

competition that exists in the market laced. yours in the number one social media platform in the world is tiptop. it is not instagram. tiktok did not exist four or five years ago. competition is robust in the marketplace and that is the reality of the situation. where we do not see competition is in legacy entities. one of the chief advocates for antitrust reform, his home district is home to -- cvs who just announced -- we have heard nothing about that. that is the type of thing that should scare us all. these are the types of mergers that government officials have taken their eye off. they are going off -- they're going after the shiny thing, the

internet, where competition is a click away. google is worried about microsoft search because of chat gpt. these businesses are fighting all the time and the stocks reflect that than their share prices. simultaneously i have heard very little about the largest acquisitions and many of the other marketplaces. that is where the ftc and the doj should be looking at. the other component is social media with respect to access. if you look at the history, we considered starting the age of internet access at 18. that was the original proposal years ago. congress passed a law 20 years ago. the supreme court said no, that is a violation of first amendment rights. then congress pulled it back. congress said what about 16? it turns out it was many democrats and many republicans

who opposed setting the age of 16. the main reason for that is 15-year-olds are looking into evolving at a rate you cannot necessarily have your parent looking over your shoulder if you want to get information. it is anti-lgbtq comet is anti-equity. if someone wants to go to a pregnancy center, imagine asking your parents permission to access the internet. the only way to make this operational is to literally ask for the id of everyone on the internet to verify you are who you say you are. if i can lie about my age, that will not solve the problem. louisiana just enacted a law where you literally have to give every your id to access certain parts of the internet. imagine the government knowing every website you go to every post you make. guest: it puts carl in a sticky

position because josh hawley is calling for the opposite of what the tech platforms that fund carl's organization promotes. the facebook whistleblower documents leaked last year revealed that these companies are designing an algorithm to get kids addicted. these kids are designing a product to keep kids online to continue to serve them content that keeps them online, that makes them depressed, that serves them ideas for self-harm. not only did they designed it but they did it knowingly. they commissioned studies on the teenage brain. they've have commissioned studies on the child's brain. that is terrifying. i do not want to social media company harvesting the date of my kid, following my kid around on the internet all day and then selling that data to the highest bidder. that is what is terrifying. that is a great example of the bipartisan agreement that congress has that americans have

over the oversight of these platforms. nobody should have to deal with someone looking over their shoulder as they're just going online talking to their friends. host: sacha haworth joining us for this conversation. carl's a boat with no choice -- carl szabo with no choice. let's hear from mike. he is in new jersey. caller: kudos to c-span. you have an excellent conversation with two knowledgeable people. they both make very good points. i will talk to carl. he said something about the sears and roebuck catalog. you're pretty young. i do not think you ever ordered out of the sears and roebuck catalog. you said something that lawmakers make laws. the white house does not in the

executive branch does not, which is true. in reality lobbyists like yourself make the laws. you push them through the legislatures, the legislatures with their staffs try signing it into law. that is true. the other side is i do agree with you that you have to be careful. there is a fine line between controlling information and letting information out. the government has to be careful and not overreach itself. thank you for taking my call it is good to hear from you. guest: thank you. as a professor i often find myself talking way too much in filibustering my class. do not tell my admin people at mason i said that. you make a really good point. i am a lobbyist. businesses have interest. where we differ at choice is i do not represent a single one of

my members. not a single one of my members sits on the board of my trade association. we operate by principal. i need to give a shout out to two of my members so you know other places to buy stuff, ebay and ansi -- and etsy, because they are the ones calling for the antitrust breakups because it will help their businesses. we at net choice believe businesses should compete on merit. on the issue of the lobbying, one of the things i would be interested in seeing more of it is the reason i am "a lobbyist" is because i run a company. there are a lot of nonprofits out there that might as well be lobbyist. one of the things that is often times missing in our lobbying disclosure laws is we never find out about that type of activity, only because they operate from a nonprofit status.

that is a real blind spot the government should look into to increase the transparency for all americans who fund those groups. at the end of the date anyone who calls for changes in law or advocates for legislation, you should all be held equally regardless of tax status. guest: you also take funding as well. if you want to talk about disclosure enacted to be a that is an area we should be -- disclosure in academia that is an area we should be transparent about. i do not remember if the caller had a question. host: he said you ultimately have to gauge the government's ability to do what they need to do without going too far and that is a slippery slope itself. guest: totally. i do not think it is a slippery slope but i think you have to weigh the pros and con's in any legislation. that is why senator plash lee --

that is why senator grassley and senator klobuchar's bill was the product of an 18 month bipartisan investigation by people smarter than myself into how to write a strong law. carl mentioned 20 years ago. 20 years ago we were wondering whether our computers would crash during y2k. our sensibilities in our understanding of technology has changed since 20 years ago. the last time we tried to pass an age restriction on the internet. what also changed, social media themselves. there was not social media 20 years ago. i grew up without facebook. i do not know what would've happened to my mental health if i grew up with a facebook account. we were just in the chat rooms in those days. i think we have to look into bipartisan legislation to reign

in these companies unchecked power, but also to determine how to keep our kids safe online. i know congress is working out the details. host: here is anwar in d.c. independent line. caller: i believe both of your guests are wrong when it comes to this issue. i believe they are looking at the companies instead of looking at themselves. what i mean by that is parents have the responsibility to watch their children. like the lady was saying if they are depressed or they are bulimic or god forbid want to commit suicide, that means you as a parent are not doing your job. if your child has no self-esteem and they give everything they have or view everything from these platforms, which you by because your children do not have $700 to go out and buy an iphone.

you are ultimately responsible for your child. if you're not doing that then do not blame the companies, do not blame anyone else, blame yourself. that is my comment. host: sacha haworth, why don't you start? guest: parents have a responsibility, no doubt. what the caller is misinformed about is what the parents are up against. like carl said, you can lie about your age to get on the internet. you can make an account anywhere. the companies then take your data and sell it for a profit. the moment your kid goes online, the game is lost. i think parents do do a good job of looking out for their kids. most parents do. parents would be astounded to discover what their kids could be served within two clicks if they go to youtube. there are studies that show your

only ever two clicks away from a radical antigovernment recruitment video. or you go on instagram and you are one click away from the algorithm serving you tips on how to get skinny. what parents are up against is a behemoth of an algorithm that is designed to keep your kids online, that is designed knowingly to keep your kids addicted, and i do not think anyone has a full appreciation of what parents are up against when we try to protect our kids. host: mr. szabo? guest: i want to thank the caller for his comments because being a parent and the 21st century is tough. being a parent is tough. it is your job to set rules and restrictions for your children. it is the children's job to push

those boundaries. the number one killer in america every year is heart disease. heart disease. even during covid. what makes you three times more likely to suffer from heart disease? childhood obesity. my kids love candy bars. they love happy meals. candy bars taste good. chicken nuggets taste good. it is my time when they say i want a candy bar, to say no. you're going to go eat normal food. you're going to go eat vegetables. that is tough. it would be much easier to say have at it, here's a bunch of money. this is where parents do need help, they need help in the realm of education. we have tried this in the past. we had something called the v-chip installed on every television. host: i am old enough to remember. caller: most people don't.

it was designed on every tv and was designed to do content blocking. most people don't remember it because nobody used it. we have a real dearth of education. the federal trade commission has a specific job in consumer education. they have not updated their education materials and social media since 2017. they got hundreds of billions of dollars. parents need help. they need to know the tools and know the tips. the answer is not to bury our head in the sand and pretend our kids will not be smarter than us. our 17-year-olds will not find ways around the restrictions. that is a road to ruin. instead education is the tool. host: bob is in west virginia, democrat line. caller: aita question about -- i had a question about tiktok. if it is totally controlled by

the chinese you think this could be a bigger threat to america than the chinese balloon? guest: absolutely. if tiktok were controlled by the ccp i would be worried. they are not. they are private company in china. wall street journal had an article about this the other day. they have spent about $1.5 billion teaming up with oracle to silo every single piece of user data in the united states, overseen by oracle and certified by our intelligence administration. with respect to the other concerns with china, that is a huge conversation that our nation does need to have. it is not just tiktok. almost every single device in this room come in our homes, everything, has been touched by somebody from china in its manufacturing. we need to ensure our supply chains are secure.

the biggest data breach in u.s. history or solar wind about two years ago, texas-based company, and two, the office of personnel and management at our federal government, where myself included in most federal employees had all of our most classified top secret clearance information part of a data breach. i agree with the caller that we need to keep an eye on what is going on with china. simultaneously we need to do a lot more here at home to secure our critical infrastructure. guest: tiktok is deserving of scrutiny. there are hearings planned and lawmakers looking into the national security angle of tiktok. it is not just simply based in china but is owned -- the chinese parent company of tiktok has close ties with the chinese

communist party. that is a potential national security concern. there've also been questions of algorithmic bias on tiktok suppressing information about voting booths come about voting dates, which we know is an insidious way of suppressing democracy on a platform that is increasingly used as news by a lot of our youth in america. either we should be looking into it. i know my organization and others are as well. as far as china, i want to mention, carl mentioned the supply chain. that is what president biden name checked in his state of the union. the chips act addressing competition in the semiconductor industry, the inflation reduction act addressing competition in the clean energy economy and looking ahead to future investments in infrastructure. we also need to be manufacturing more of our materials in the united states. as a final point i would mention

the four big tech companies have massive interests in china. apple until recently produced most of its materials in a taiwan. facebook has pursued expansion into china and has helped china sensor its own citizens. amazon manufactures items in china and has used slave labor in china. that sounds like hyperbole. it is not. it brings up another point about the largest companies in the world. i am paraphrasing others when i say that when a company reaches a certain size, it becomes something more than the nation in which it was founded, and that is a risk for national security, and is a risk to our economy. host: only a few minutes left. i want to get both of your thoughts.

these conversations go back to section 230 in the communications decency act. describe what it is and where are you as far as making changes to that? guest: essentially is moderating the content on these platforms. my organization's belief is that it is somewhat of a red herring in this debate. unfortunately democrats and republicans are never going to agree on this issue. we are almost at a permanent stalemate. essentially republicans like to say platform sensor conservatives. democrats want more oversight over the content that shows up on these platforms. as far as the debate in congress , there is a reason why facebook, amazon, google, apple have ads funding section 230. first of all they know it would never happen.

second, they believe they can write the laws, like many lobbyists do. guest: just to make crystal clear, google has never run an ad supporting an amendment to section 230. they have a case that has oral arguments before the supreme court defending section 230. section 230 is one of the best tools for small businesses. there is a reason why some large companies may support performance section 230. what it does is it makes lawsuits less expensive. it makes it easier to dismiss a lawsuit for $40,000 rather than 50. it shows -- one of the thing section 230 does is it protects disparate viewpoints.

what it basically says -- will pick on facebook. if somebody does not like it, they sumeet, not facebook -- they sue me, not facebook. facebook is not liable. by doing so we can have disparate views that are not mainstream. they can have discussions on reopening schools, something that is not mainstream because they do not have to assume liability. it also makes it easier for small businesses -- net choice right now has two lawsuits going before the supreme court. simultaneously we have a lawsuit against the state of california where they are trying to suppress free speech in violation of first amendment rights.

section 230 is one of the greatest tool for democracy and free speech and the types of discussion we need to have with each other. guest: it is not small businesses that are the brunt of the lawsuits. it is the disinformation spread from influencers that are often paid for social media platforms that are allowed to run rampant subverting our democracy and the process. if you are somehow chopping up our words and serving them to people watching at home, using an algorithm of your own making, that would be a more accurate description of the role social media companies like facebook play. they have algorithms, they editorialize the content on their sites. they are acting more like a media company. the idea that they are some benevolent or nonpartisan town

forum that just happily allows people to shout whatever they want they don't put their finger on the scale is totally absurd. host: ron in illinois, independent line. caller: you brought up that section 230. i've been talking about this. if it was properly implemented it would be ok. it claims the social media sites are a town square and everybody can talk because they have first amendment rights to talk about ideas and such. we all know that certain ideas are being squashed. that is not why i called. earlier, carl, you mentioned laws come from legislation. and i say that is true or that used to be true. remember mail-in voting? that got jammed down our throat

without legislative approval. it is still there. if you talk about you get accused of disinformation. how about the vaccine mandate? we side the nuremberg agreements after world war ii and we said no civilized society whatever mandate vaccinations. what did we do? we mandated vaccination. host: bring us back to the social media component because that is why our guests are here. caller: if we talk about mandates we get banned off of social media. didn't you know that? guest: i am a conservative and i get frustrated all the time with content moderation decisions. it is frustrating. they are private businesses. they get to decide what is best for their users and their customers. what should scare us all is what was unveiled a couple months ago, what was discussed in the house, which is how our own

government was pressuring social media companies to act against their own interests, against what their customers want. that is what we should all be scared about. i can quit twitter and i can move on with my life. i got quit the u.s. we are learning how the government is doing a run around the first amendment to suppress speech. there is good news. there is legislation in the house and it should enjoy bipartisan support because we learned how president trump was allegedly trying to suppress content on social media called the protecting free speech from interference act. as a federal employee we operate under something called the hatch act. the hatch act says if your government employee you cannot engage in clinical actions. this is merely extended to make crystal clear that applies to social media platforms. whether you're a democrat or a republican or independent, you

should be supporting this legislation because we need to make sure it is not the government. guest: i have not looked into the legislation. i am happy to look into it. when you are talking about who writes the laws, you have to be clear about the amount of spending that is being spent on the part of tech platforms. tech companies to lobby members of congress. especially to maintain the status quo. $350 million -- a quarter of a billion dollars spent against antitrust reform last year between pain ads and lobbying on the hill. not to mention the fact that zooming over their heads is the threat of spending against lawmakers in an election. i think that is a fight organizations like mine are up against and we try to meet with lawmakers and we try to advocate as fully as we can for antitrust reform for measures the american

public supports. host: because technology changes so fast, i want to finish with this. what is the next concerns about technology and government oversight, but triply what we have seen, what are the next concerns you might have over what is in the future? guest: on chat gpt, are we done with the take-home essay, our kids just going to use the bot to write essays? that is terrifying. his early days. what we have seen in the past is tech giants gobble up competitors just like instagram. instagram did not start as part of facebook.

lifetime optimist here. if you take a moment and think about it, you good food delivered to my house. another person can get a product delivered in a state i have never been to. that is the thing going on today. technology is empowering all of us to work how we want to work and sell what we want to sell to whom we want to sell. what we are best to do is limit the government to better use these amazing tools. host: sacha haworth of the tech oversight project.

it is techoversight.org. take you both for this conversation. we are going to go to an open forum. (202) 748-8000 for republicans. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. ♪ >> there are a lot of places to get political information. it only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. if it happens here, or here, or

anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. ♪ >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two, features lding authors discussing their latest nonficon books. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, following access to president biden and his top advisers, chris will with his book "the fight of his life," inside joe den's white house. at 10:00 p.m. eastern, my corn bird shares r book, which looks at the functions of committees and examines their strengths and we this is. she is interviewed by american enterprise institute senior fellow kevin gosar. watcbo tv on c-span2 and find a full schedule on you program guide, or watch online at any time on booktv.org.

>> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse through our products, apparel, books, home to court, and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. every purchase helps support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> c-span's american presidents website is your one-stop guide to our commanders in chief. find short biographies, video resources, a rich images that te stories of their lives and presidencies. all in one easy to browse c-span website. visit c-span.org/presidents to begin exploring this rich catalog of c-span resources today.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: a way you can participate if you want to text is (202) 748-8003. you can also post on our social media sites as well. the topics of conversation was the president's concerns about the state of social security, the future of medicare, the future both of those organizations. brought up rick spock -- rick scott in his proposals. here is part of the president's speech from yesterday. pres. biden: look, now you may have seen we had a little bit of a spirit of debate at the state of the union. [laughter] i guess i should not say anymore. [laughter] particularly social security and medicare. republicans seem shocked when i took out the pamphlets they were using about cutting medicare and social security. read from senator scott's proposal. read from the proposal of the

senator from wisconsin. by the way, the last person who said that on the floor of the senate. but there were about 4, 5, i don't know how many. i reminded them that florida's own rick scott is the guy who ran the senate campaign committee for republicans last year. had a plan to sunset -- maybe he has changed his mind. he has seen the lord. [laughter] he wanted to sunset, meaning if you don't reauthorize it it goes away. sunset social security and medicare every five years. that is not likely to get voted on, but i tell you what, it's likely to get caused -- cut drastically if you have to do it every five years. the idea the senator from florida wants to put social security and medicare on the chopping block every five years i find to be outrageous. you might not even believe it -- i won't do it again, but i well. [laughter]

12-point american rescue plan. one of the points, all federal legislation subject to every five years. congress can pass it all over again. look, if it doesn't get reauthorized it goes out of existence. congress wants to keep it, they have to vote on the same thing. host: that is the president in florida yesterday. one of the other people talking about social security and medicare was the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell. he said in an interview that a proposal to sunset social security and medicare was not a "republican plan, but one supported by rick scott. scott, who is unsuccessful in his run against mcconnell, proposed the plan in 2002, to sunset all federal legislation after five years. this was senate minority leader mcconnell on a radio show saying, that was a scott plan,

not a republican plan. clearly the rick scott plan is not the republican plan. that is the view of the cpp -- of the speaker of the house as well. we'll will hear from scott, it is an open form. this is from st. petersburg, florida. republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is not roberta, it is robert. host: i'm sorry about that. caller: thank you so much for open form. various items of discussion. i wanted to refer your callers back to last new year's eve, december 31, happening in atlanta georgia, which was the national collegiate football championship, which selected the college football championship for the year. ohio state played the university of georgia, and georgia won 32-41.

that is the second time ohio state has played georgia, and both times ohio state has come away the loser. speaking of ohio state being the loser, the last two times they played michigan they came away the losers. host: lucretia in iowa, independent line, good morning. caller: good morning. i'm concerned about the development of neural sensors. elon musk is developing one, and there are a lot of patents that people are applying for. i wonder who is giving the public information about their usage, and they are not regulating as far as i can see. host: one of the stories that came out yesterday concerned former vice president mike pence being subpoenaed by the special counsel overseeing probes into former president donald trump. according to multiple sources reported by abc news, those sources telling the organization

that the subpoena from jack smith requested documents and testimony related to the failed attempt by the former president and his allies to overturn the 2020 election, which culminated in the january 6 attack on the u.s. capitol. the subpoena follows months of negotiation between federal prosecutors and the former vice president's legal team. mike is in new york, democrat line. caller: good morning. i solved the mess about congressman santos and how he lied about his biography. i want to understand something. president biden in the state of the union condemned republicans from wanting to sunset social security and medicare. i'm not sure you know that senator biden, in 2007 he said,

i think, he said very clearly, hopefully you will play it, that he wanted to sunset all federal programs and made it very clear social security. why doesn't he deserve all of this hate george santos is getting for lying to the american people? host: roberta in san diego. caller: hello. i just went to farmout income tax -- to file my income tax. the republicans got rid of the irs agents, so before the new people came in they passed something that spent 1.7 trillion dollars, and they also got rid of every single solitary deduction for every charity in this country, including st. jude's, whichever ones go --which everyone goes to and no one pays. all of these places i used to give money to, you cannot claim

on your income tax anymore as a deduction. thank you, all of you democrats out there. you think your party is so great. that is what they did to every citizen in this nation. shame on everyone of you. host: just a reminder, cnn is reporting in its first vote on legislation the public in-controlled house approved a bill monday that would resend the nearly $80 billion for the irs, with key gop lawmakers making the exaggerated claim that the money would used to be hiring 87,000 auditors who would target hard-working americans. that would have to be approved in the senate, signed by the president as well. let's hear from mike in sarasota, independent line. caller: good morning, c-span, thanks for taking my call. i had a comment on the prior section about big tech and censorship and disinformation. the first amendment to the constitution prohibits congress from making any law that

abridges free speech. section 230 allows large companies to abridge the free speech of large numbers of people, shape their speech, hide their speech, prevent them from speaking. section 230 is unconstitutional and needs to go. host: west virginia. this is mary. mary on our line for democrats. hi. caller: hi, how are you doing today? i'm calling because i want to give everybody a vision of the bottom-up, middle-out of economy that is coming into fruition right now. it is not in any of the textbooks. now, i am a 2017 graduate from liberty university, with a masters degree in executive leadership. and i would know what the academic holds today.

it is a beautiful vision. it is not something that is a forever phenomenon. in bringing the bottom up you are bringing everybody into the middle-class. the middle class has the resources and support system to do what they want to. our kids are telling us, we what you want to do. we don't know that concept in our daily lives today. we are too influenced by the sports-like behaviors put out. shouldn't be in politics, because we are dealing with people. when you think i'm-up, middle-out, it is actually the fulfillment of maslow's needs assessment pyramid. take a look at it. those needs assessments are what biden is filling in so that the self-actualization at the top of the pyramid is a reality for

every free person on the planet. host: that is mary in west virginia. reporting by the hill this morning saying doctors have ruled out a new stroke after senator john fetterman, the democrat from pennsylvania, suffered a stroke on the campaign trail last year, was hospitalized wednesday night. according to doctors at george washington university, the result of an mri as well as tests doctors ran, ruled out a new stroke. that was from his communications director, and a relief. this story goes on to say, though the scan and other tests excluded a stroke, the senators being monitored with an eeg which measures electrical activity in the brain. so far there are no signs of seizure, but he is still being monitored. let's hear from gary from virginia, republican line. caller: hi. i just wanted to comment on social security.

i think we have to keep going because the federal retirement system is based on a three-tier system, which means you get a check from social security, you get money from your tsp account, which is like a 401(k). and you also get retirement from opm. so when you are throwing out something like social security might be coming to an and, i don't think they can. because it is already built into , probably one million retirees. you can look up the first system. so, if they have to implement a change by increasing the age when you qualify, then that might be something to take into consideration. but when you already have a plan out there for retiring federal

civilians, you just can't forget about that. you must keep the system going. host: that is gary in woodbridge, virginia, talking about social security. you heard from president biden, making those claims against what republicans want to do to it. it was senator rick scott yesterday talking about the same topic in an interview. >> given the fact the president is using it as an attack line, was it a mistake to propose this? sen. scott: no. first off, nobody believes i want to cut medicare or social security. i've never said it. in that same plan i said congress needs to tell the american public how they're going to make sure those programs don't go bankrupt. here is the difference between joe biden and me. i have never proposed it. in 1975 he has a bill, a sunset bill. it requires every program to be looked at at least every four

years, not just cost, but worthiness. and he said, when i argued we should freeze federal spending, i meant social security as well, i meant medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, i meant every single, solitary thing in government. i have never proposed it. he proposed it and fought for it year after year after year. >> you are talking about what he proposed in 1975, almost 50 years ago, but he has said he is twisting your words. isn't that the same thing? sen. scott: mine is clear. if it is worth keeping, we are going to keep it. in his case, he proposed a bill to sunset everything. i have never done that. i have been very clear. i am not for cutting social security and medicare. he proposed it year after year after year to reduce medicare

and social security. i have never done that. i think we have to preserve those benefits. >> you say he is twisting your words, but you say some republicans want social security and medicare to sunset. you wrote, all federal legislation sunsets in five years. if a law is worth keeping, congress can pass it again. you are a republican. you said if it is worth keeping, congress can pass it again, but no one, i think, has confidence that if something comes up for a vote every five years congress is going to be able to make sure it stays, especially something that vitally important to so many. sen. scott: i have been clear, i'm not going to do it. in contrast, let's remember, a few months ago all democrats voted -- and bill -- and joe biden signed a bill -- to cut $280 billion out of medicare. >> that is not true, senator. we talked about this the other day when you are on the program.

the inflation reduction act, reducing drug spending is not cutting benefits to medicare. host:host: again, that from cnn. a couple of headlines to show you. it is the former house speaker, nancy pelosi, who is making a push. former new york representative sean patrick maloney, to be the head of the labor department, to be the next labor secretary. in light of the news about marty walsh's departure. also the congressional black caucus endorsing the head of the department of labor, as secretary walsh is expected to depart. the cdc touted her accomplishments and legal career. sue has worked in that role since july 2021. jeff is next in maryland. democrats line. caller: thanks very much. thanks for c-span. it is a great service. i have a couple of quick comments. wanting -- i want to

congratulate biden on giving a great state of the union. he was anything but sleepy joe, and showed he has battle-ready and a candidate for the next election. he did a great job pushing back on republicans. you could see juxtapositions of them saying they want to cut social security. at one point they wanted to privatize it. now is a good time to maybe get them to come on board and do what it would take to fix it, which would be get rid of the cap for income of how much people are paying in. one other comment about santos 's, i haven't seen people asked, where were the democrats running against him shoot -- who should have been able to demonstrate that he was, you know, this guy before he got elected? thank you very much. host: we will hear next from hugh, republican line. caller: lots of great points. i think what is happening already is the democrats have

attacked our social security currently. every year with medicare not voted in by the president, each year people are getting charged $2000 per person, plus per couple for thousand dollars. in five years that is $20,000. in 15 years it is $50,000. straight out of the social security check. don't mess with them, they will take it straight out. so, social security has been messed with by the democrats, on top of the 14% inflation, on top of not having energy security. we have some coming across the board. who the hell are they? there is a super bowl coming up. it is not just football teams, it is countries. we could do that tomorrow

morning, stop the border from chinese coming in. i will hang up. host: reporting in the reno gazette-journal this morning, a story that redwood materials secured a commitment from the federal government for a $200 billion loan for its massive battery recycling facility east of reno sparks. a significant boost for the company as it looks to ramp up domestic operations. the department of energy loan, which will be used to develop the campus at the tahoe reno industrial center was announced. the department of energy and redwood materials have agreed on loan terms, but the company needs to perform additional steps to finalize it. these could be legal or financial, according to the energy department. it shows what the federal government is doing as far as this loan is concerned. it is part of an effort to establish a battery supply chain.

caller: good morning. i concern is social security, and has been for the longest time. obviously i'm older. it is going to be a key concern for me. i was shocked to hear senator early caught on tape a few years ago, and actually on the senate floor he wants to -- his own words -- get rid of social security, medicare, and medicaid. it is one republican. scott, on the other hand, from florida, who operated a business with medicare for he became governor was so blatant in his fraud he paid $600 million to fraud on medicare. that is another reliable source, ok? there is one other senator which i have forgotten the name of. the point of it is, there are

little bits and pieces being attacked. in 2003 people -- not senator, governor -- president george w. bush wanted to privatize social security. everybody was against it. look at it right now. half of social security -- not social security, medicare -- is already privatized. the republicans have succeeded. you have been duped. and by privatizing it, folks, you are going to lose that. when i go to the hospital, very first thing they say, which program do you want to do? they shun when they hear advantage. they shun it because it is a ripoff. host: that is josephine. let's hear from mike in tennessee. democrats line. caller: yes, hello. host: go ahead. caller: ok. on the matter of the republicans wanting to sunset medicare and

social security, i think that they do want to get rid of medicare in the sense that they want to get rid of original medicare. and once that is done they get it switched back into the private industry, then they will turn medicare advantage into a voucher program and shift more of the cost onto the seniors. that is the plan. it always has been. according to the trends, it is working pretty well. host: the hill reporting that d.c. police have arrested and charged a 26-year-old man for the assault of representative angie craig. according to the metropolitan police department kendrick hamlin, allegedly assaulted craig in the elevator of an apartment building on thursday morning. hamlin was "acting erratic and as if he was under the influence

of an unknown substance in the lobby of craig's building, where he followed her into an elevator and began doing push-ups." greg responded by throwing hot coffee on him to defend herself. craig defended herself and suffered bruising, but otherwise was physically ok, her chief of staff said earlier in the day, adding that there is no evidence that the incident was politically motivated. let's go to mitchell in pennsylvania, republican line. caller: yes, good morning. i am a licensed insurance agent, and the medicaid expansion has allowed for noncitizens and other people to be subsidized for medicare if they pay in. they only have to pay in for 10 years, and there are third-party insurance companies that administer the benefits for seniors.

so, essentially, the expanse of medicaid is taxing the resources of -- it is totally taxing the resources of medicare and social security. plus, you -- if you work still, as most seniors around 65 still do, 60% of your social security is taken away. so, the attitude is that it is some kind of welfare system. we paid into it for decades, and you could technically get more than you paid in over the years.

the wall street journal reporting that request made by the house judiciary committee. the oversight committee saying in a letter, mr. bidens lawyer questioned the legitimacy of the republicans investigation, adding it lacked a purpose. they referred to the young mr. biden as a citizen and said the panel was "cicely what is prohibited by the supreme court." the near certain claims have the effect of undermining the house committee. peddling your own committee -- your own -- turns you into the queen of hearts shouting. one more call from colleen in iowa, republican line.

caller: am i on tv? host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i'm calling because people, wake up. you are looking at social security. i get very low social security. when it passes to you cannot double dip, i've been working since 14 to 60, three times off, seven times off, and i will never see my social security. it goes back into the system and if your spouse is going to be getting two pensions or whatever, you cannot have both. i am paying for these people in my neighborhood who never worked a day in their life, getting social security, and another thing.

biden is one of the worst presidents i have ever seen in history. the only thing he did good, to get popularity was when he passed those checks. he cut 160,000 jobs on the keystone. he says he's union. he sure don't know his union stuff. i'm married to a railroad man. host: thanks to those of you who participated. one more segment to go, earlier in his state of the union president biden highlighted the need for eliminating so-called "junk fees come cup fees charged by credit card companies for large -- for late payments. we will talk with elyse hicks, consumer policy counsel. that discussion taking place when "washington journal" continues. >> preorder your copy of the

congressional directory for the 118th congress. it's your access to the federal government with bio and contact information for every house and senate member, important information on committees, the cabinet, state governors. scan the code at the right to preord your copy for early spring delivery. it's $29.95 plus shipping and handling. order at c-span shop.org. book tv every sunday on c-span two features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. 8:00 p.m. eastern, following access to president biden and his advisers, chris whipple gives an insider account to the presidcyn progress. then at 100.m. on afterwords, the book "inside congressional committees,"

examines their strengths and weaknesses. she is interviewed by devin gosar. watch book tv every sun c-span 2. watch online any at book tv.org. >> be up to date in the latest in publishing with book tv's podcast about books with current nonfiction book releases, plus the bestseller lists as well as industry news and trends through insider interviews. you can find it on c-span now, our mobile app, or wherever you get your podcast. >> there are a lot of places to get political information. but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues,

c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. it happens here or here or here or anywhere america is watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on credit card late fees with elyse hicks as the consumer policy counsel. thanks for joining us this morning. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us about your organization and what it does in the space of credit cards, and how are you funded? guest: americans for financial reform is a nonpartisan nonprofit made up of 200 organizations and we were formed in the wake of the 2008 crisis. we are working to lay a foundation for a stable and fair, equitable economy for all people.

we are funded by grants and donors who feel we are doing great in this work. host: before we go to specifically what the president said about credit cards, talk a little bit about exactly what your organization sees, how your organization views them and what issues you have with them. guest: so the overall thing that we feel about credit card late fees is we agree with the proposed rule to make credit card late fees more proportional to what credit card issuers are actually putting out or spending to collect on these late fees. we think that the president's speech was in line with how we feel about credit card late fees. host: let's hear from the president from earlier this week at the state of the union talking about those credit card fees. [video clip] president biden: credit card companies charge an average of

$31 whenever you cannot pay your bill on time. that's on top of the interest you are already paying. now, nobody is saying that you shouldn't pay your fees on time and no one says a bank should lend you money for free. but that's what banks charge interest for. but the obama-biden administration passed the bipartisan law that said banks cannot charge late fees that are significantly more than the late payments cost them in the first place. it doesn't cost 31 bucks for a bank to process the late fee but that's how much they are charging you now. folks, that's a junk fee. if there ever was one. and it can drain hundreds of dollars a year from the pockets of hard-working american families, especially folks who are already struggling to make ends meet. host: the president, from earlier this week.

you talked about the consumer financial protection bureau, their goal or what they want to do for these fees. tell us more specifically what they are looking to do. guest: i'm going to take it back to the card act of 2009. the card act -- and the president did mention it -- was established to protect consumers from predatory credit card fees. that is interest rates without disclosure or notice, excessive late fees, and arbitrary and fluctuating due dates. so when the credit card act of 2009 was passed, congress bipartisanly past that deal. the federal reserve board went back into thousand 10 and created this immunity provision for card issuers and banks, saying you can raise your late fees year after year under the guise of inflation. so now we have $30 late fees for

the first offense and $41 late fees for a subsequent offense, which is costing americans $12 billion a year. the cfpb has proposed the rule to go back to the card act to make sure that late fees are reasonable and proportional to what it is costing card issuers to cover these late fees. that's about an eight dollar fee. which is going to save americans $9 billion a year, about a 75% savings on credit card late fees. host: if it goes from $30 to $41, to eight dollars as a cap, do you think that would encourage people to skip out on paying knowing if you are going down for $41, it is only going to be eight dollars if you miss a payment? guest: the rhetoric is that late fees, the thing about late fees,

they are trying to encourage people to pay on time. but if you are in a low income situation or a subprime borrower, and the banks know this when they choose to issue you credit, tacking on a late fee is insult to injury. if you are unable to pay, the credit that you are using plus the interest which is about 120 billion dollars a year that americans are paying on interest for credit cards, plus a late fee, they are setting themselves up. host: the american bankers association weighed in on this proposal and this is part of what they said. the proposl ha consumers by reducing competition and increasing cost of payment. sces ands in contrast with act. credit card issuers wi forced to reduce credit lines, tightening standards, and raising apr's for all americans

including the millions who pay on time. how would you respond? guest: we've heard this before. we've heard when congress passed the card act. the banking industry will say we have to raise interest rates, be more stringent and particular about who has access. why would the cfpb want to hurt the people they claim to help by denying them access to credit? a study done for years after the card act suggests that the industry and banks and card issuers did not raise interest rates. they did not become more stringent with giving access to credit, hence them preying on subprime consumers. that study showed the card act saved consumers $11.9 billion a year. the cfpb's proposal has the same effect. it could save consumers $9 billion a year.

the only thing the industry is worried about is not having that extra cushion at the end of the year for the bottom line. host: our guest is with us until 10:00, and if you want to ask about the proposal and what president biden said, eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. . mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. how are late fees typically calculated? how does that calculation come about? guest: right now, credit card late fees are adjusted for inflation as well as a credit card late fee can be 100% of what the minimum payment is. a lot of these numbers are kind of arbitrary and the provision has given industry a lot of leeway. they don't even have to prove

that this inflation adjustment is coinciding with the cost that it costs them to do business regarding late fees. host: the cfpb, according to its reporting, they charged $12 billion in late fee penalties. this bond to that. -- respond to that. guest: it was $14 billion. it went down because of the stimulus packages the president at the time issued. consumers were actually paying down their credit card debt. it was down from $14 billion. host: the americans for financial reform's elyse hicks joining us. our firth call -- first call comes from ruth in california, go ahead. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i'm glad you brought up the subject of bankers and the banking industry with relation

to credit cards. my credit card is issued by my bank. my bank is also associated with experience, which is one of those credit agencies. so this wrote -- this is related to the whole thing of harming your credit and all that. they are constantly sending me emails that say, you could pay down your balance better with one of these credit cards with a balance transfer, yada, yada. so i look at them and they do have a pretty good idea of the information that's in my bank account because they are associated with my bank. so if i apply for these cards

and am turned down, i'm not so upset about being turned down as the prospect which was given to a really good chance of getting, quote unquote, this choice chosen especially for you. but when we apply for a credit card, even if we don't get it, they have to do this -- do what is called a hard credit check if that is the correct term. host: thank you, go ahead. guest: what ruth is speaking on, and it is in large part prior, with experience being hooked up with banks and they are sharing

information. that's a totally different issue entirely. but yes, when you do apply for a credit card there is a hard inquiry on your account. ruth is really talking about data privacy which we can get into another call another day. host: a viewer off of twitter asks -- how much does the average american pay in late fees compared to finance charges? guest: americans as a whole are spending $12 billion a year on credit card late fees and about 42 million americans last year admitted to actually missing a payment. that could be because of anything. auto pay wasn't set up, you simply forgot. it's not because people don't want to say and also because the cfpb wants to eliminate late fees altogether. it is a myriad of things. people are paying a lot, $12 billion in late fees. host: dan in pennsylvania, go

ahead. caller: way -- why do banks give people money back and take money from people? they take money from people who pay late fees, $30, and they give people back 1%, 2% on credit card if you pay it off on time. why would banks not extend the credit that people need instead of taking from one person and giving to another? guest: that's a great question. normally, people with we call them super prime consumers who have over 700 credit scores are actually the ones getting those incentives because they are in a better place. when we are saying "incentives," we are talking about money back

when you make purchases because they pay those off. they are not in the cycle of carrying a balance. it seems like lower income subprime and bipoc communities are caught in the cycle of not being able to pay off their credit cards and being subject to late fees. a lot of these smaller banks and credit unions who are in the card issuing game kind of prey and want to do business with subprime consumers because they know from the outset they will not be able to pay the credit interest and then tack on a late fee. they use that revenue, which is a substantial part of their bottom line, about 15%, to move the bank or the credit union along, or to make money in that way. so it's not set up for those who cannot pay. that's where the bulk of the money is being made.

host: this is mark off of twitter saying and making the statement -- if credit card late fees are eliminated they will charge the rest of us fees to make up for the lost fees. this will backfire and the credit card companies will no longer approve high risk applicants. guest: going back to the card act, there was all of this rhetoric before. it ended up saving consumers $11 billion. this is just rhetoric industry is pushing. they will probably not, most likely not raise interest rates. they didn't do it with the card act. they probably aren't going to do it now. they probably will not be more stringent on who gets access to credit because they depend on subprime -- subprime borrowers and consumers to -- the profit

center. there are over the limit fees, convenience fees. we are just talking about late fees. there's a myriad of other fees we are not talking about. host: is it possible to negotiate with a company over late fees? guest: it is possible and i've done it. it happens. i've done it and paid the bill the next day because i just forgot, and they waive the late fee. i'm not saying card issuers and banks are totally against haggling or negotiating with the credit card late fees, but we are talking about a cycle of poverty when people are just not able to pay. this is month after month after month and they dig themselves in a bigger whole. host: here is kevin in texas. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: credit -- and i'm just an old country boy with common sense -- but would you define

credit as this? it is a two equation problem. the ability to earn and the ability to pay it back. is that a correct statement? guest: i can agree with that. caller: then what you are talking about is charity. and charity starts at home, correct? guest: no, that's not what i mean. caller: well, i would say we learned from the students who didn't pay their loans, the government loaned the money, they had no ability to learn -- earn. now they have no willingness to pay it back. really it is just charity with my tax dollars. host: thanks. anything to that? guest: no. host: simone in north carolina.

could you tell me a little bit about -- as far as the cfpb's proposal, what status, has it been put into place or what's the timeline as far as where it's at? guest: this is a notice of proposed rulemaking so the cfpb just stated that they are looking into this issue and they have framed a rule that the eight dollars is reasonable and proportional to what banks are paying, and they still have to go through the process. they have to listen to how this will affect industry. i have to go through a comment period. we don't expect a final rule until maybe next year. host: once they go through the comment period they could enact the rule with no steps after that, right? they could put it into place? guest: i'm not at liberty to

speak on what the cfpb can and cannot do. i don't work there. they normally go through a period where they listen to industry as well as consumer advocates like me. and they are pretty fair in listening to both sides. i think they will put a lot of time and effort into getting this right. host: if the rule does go forward, is it open to legal challenges? guest: it will be. host: simone in north carolina, go ahead. simone in roanoke rapids, hello. we will go to jerry in texas, good morning. caller: ok, just changing the name makes a big difference. organized crime is now big business. credit card interest used to be called loansharking. host: jerry, go ahead.

let's try simone again from north carolina, hello. all right. this is gary in kentucky, hello. caller: hello. credit is based on your ability to pay it back and when you sign in for credit card, you get a service agreement. you know the deal going in. you know the high charges that could be entailed on your bill, so on the part of the consumer, somebody standing in for these people, it is part of their responsibility. if you make a late payment on your house, they foreclose on you. this is just part of consumer, i don't know, overreach. host: that's gary in kentucky. guest: thank you for your comment.

what we have seen is credit card companies are charging us five times more than it actually costs them to collect on these late payments. again, we are not saying late payments should be totally eliminated. we are saying that credit card issuers and banks shouldn't make money off the backs of people. we are talking about 10% of their total assets going to junk fees and credit card late fees are junk fees. they should be making money off the backs of that. if it costs something, they should pass on the cost to consumers, yes. i'm saying that's not $30 or $41. that's five times more than what it's costing them to collect. host: eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000 and the mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. robert from texas texted -- i support capping credit card late

fees out of personal experience. i use to have the worst time paying off my credit cards because of those fees on the interest. also, cap the interest at a maximum dollar value. guest: they don't have the power to set a user recap for anything -- usury cap for anything. adding insult to injury, especially if it is not causing the bank -- costing the bank to pay that much to collect. host: from pennsylvania, rick. caller: all of the comments have been extremely interesting. i just want to say one thing. these students take a loan because they have no ability to pay for college. they go to college, become professionals, and contribute to

our economy in many different ways. however, the banks set up these predatory systems of payback. i don't see the difference to giving some or all of the student loans in accordance with the same systems used to give some or all the debt of companies, medical pharmaceuticals, and banks and their buyouts. it needs to be a balance. inc. you for your time. -- thank you for your time. host: ms. hicks, anything to that? guest: i guess just going back to the other comment trying to -- credit card fees to student debt, the same debt -- they are two different avenues and

aspects. there are predatory practices in student lending land and i also -- there are also credit -- predatory practices in credit card fees. to mesh those two together, predatory practices is any financial set up that puts consumers last and industry first is just wrong. host: there was aomment about thcredit union nationaling from association, theside saying their association strongoseshe proposal as any reduction in late fees safe harbor will have a significant negative impact on small commity-based credit unions. it clearly warrants the review of a small panel and it is irresponsible to bypass the statutory regulations which was

designed to calculate the impact on small entities. our credit unions going to be affected disproportionately or do they take a different approach when it comes to late fees? guest: it depends to -- on credit card late fees more than the big banks do and that's just a numbers game. they also are extending credit to subprime borrowers a lot more than bigger banks. that's also a numbers game. credit unions may have something to learn about they may get priced out of the card issuer game, but i will say this. this is your business practice to make money on the backs of low income people, and you are intentionally preying on people you know cannot pay the credit you are issuing them plus the interest plus a late fee. maybe you shouldn't be doing

business in that area. host: simone in north carolina, go ahead. caller: i'm a senior, 69, have been through the flu, raging diabetes, so it has been hard for me to pay my creditors. goldman sachs, one of the biggest banks around, sent an armed police sheriff to my house which is so embarrassing. is that a normal way to collect money, to pay the creditors, show up? guest: no, that is not a normal way to collect on any credit. you probably should make a complaint with the cfpb and the -- on that. host: karina. caller: a gentleman called in and said people know what they are getting into when they get these cards. that's not true. if you are late on one card,

they change all your agreements on other cards. they jack up the interest rate to 29%, which used to be illegal back in the 1980's. i hope she gets her low late fees through. host: is what she said about how it extend to other cards you may hold, are they potentially impacted? guest: the credit card act, that used be something and that's why the credit card act came into play to forbid that. that should not be happening and if it is happening, it is running afoul of the law. host: sheila in connecticut, hello. you are next up. guest: good morning.

taking these for lack of knowledge or for money because there are so many. it seems almost they -- they are

taking our money intentionally because it's a business -- it's their business to do so. are they trying to put into place the stock buyback? . >> there is a report out that looks at the top banks. what they found is that those banks set up shop in communities and counties that are living below the national poverty level and communities -- households are not making the median national income. yes, banks are definitely preying on low income consumers