♪ host: good morning everyone on this friday, march 24.

we discussed the future of the country washington post because it uncertain. while decision-makers in washington debate whether to ban the tiktok app or not your turn to tell them what you think they should do. if you say yes to banning tiktok in the united states, dial (202) 748-8000 if you say no dial (202) 748-8001 . or if you are not sure dial (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at text (202) 748-8003. or you can posted on twitter or facebook.com at c-span wj.

we open with the statement saying that something she should -- she thinks that you should van -- the united states should ban tiktok. >> kelly jong is the ceo of the chinese version of tiktok. you are in regular communication with kelly? >> i am not in regular communication with her. >> the bytedance later is her. and then there is a technology board member and and official of the administration in china, is this correct? >> i believe so. they are not in the writing

here. >> all these individuals are affiliated with the chinese communist party's. and they were involved in finance a company where you were previously involved. tiktok tells us you were sharing data -- were not sharing data but leaking information says that you are. you said you were not spying on us but you are. -- this individual has been reported to be the secretary of finance and called for the party committee to take the lead across all party lines to ensure the algorithm is sourced by correct political direction. just this morning, wall street journal reported the ccp is

opposed to selling tiktok by bytedance. and they say the chinese government will make a decision over tiktok they believe that they have the final say over your company. but in your confidence you said that it is not affiliated with the ccp. host: that was part of a five hour hearing with her five hour -- with her -- with the tiktok ceo. they opposed the sale of tiktok in the united states. this morning, we want to know do you think it should be banned here? let's listen to the ceo during his testimony. he was question several times from lawmakers on how it user data would be protected from the chinese government. here is what he has to say. >> how does bytedance, how does

tiktok rather, how do you convince the congress of the united states that there could be a clean break? why would the chinese government sidestep their national law including article seven, article 10 in terms of user data. >> thank you for that question i am glad you asked. our plan is to move american data and risk -- restore american soil. >> i understand that where you are sidestepping i have not read anything in terms of tiktok how you can actually say that you -- spoke in your opening statement about a firewall will attempt to the data. the chinese government has that data.

how can you promise that that will move into the united states of america and to protected here? >> i have seen no evidence that the chinese government has access to the data. the access was not provided. >> i find that actually preposterous. >> i see no evidence of this happening and in order to assure everyone here our commitment is to move the data into the united states and restore it on american soil by an american company and oversee it by american personnel. the risk would be similar to going to any american company and asking for data. host: we cover the hearing all five hours on c-span you can find it on our website at c-span.org. as lawmakers decide whether or not they can ban or should ban the app in the united states we want you to tell us what you

think they should do this morning. as many of you know this came under consideration and are -- under the trump administration and the biden administration now. they endorse legislation greater -- greater powerover foreign owned apps noting the legal path ahead. in 2020 federal judges ruled the administration had not provided enough evidence show that the national security risk outweighed the damage that a band would do to america -- a ban would do to americans first amendment rights. good morning, mary, you say yes to the app. why do you think it should be banned? >> i think it should be banned because, one reason is for the children's sake.

there's a lot of inappropriate things that goes on on tiktok that our kids should not be privy to. >> should that go for twitter, facebook, and other social media platforms? caller: yes, some of it. yes. host: all right. mercedes in nebraska you say no. welcome. go ahead. caller: thank you for having me this morning and thank you for having the show. i say no because it is a first amendment violation. the market provides entertainment and we adapt to it. what i think we need to do now is have a good old-fashioned conversation about national security and americans stepping up and taking the first step. the government cannot do anything ahead of this. they are trying and cannot --

doing the best they can. what is going on in the world in the larger scale of things we need to be careful with what we are doing. in my opinion i think we should stop using the app as an american. we know the risks one of the most patriotic things we can do is abstain from using this product. why not be enraged over our country together at the country not in a way that is combative but in a way that says hey, it until we get this figured out and we know we are safe and that china is going to do what they say because they are trying to do really good things right now we need to just take a step back and reevaluate where we are as a country. i'd like to see an american competitor that answers to it and especially in the meantime while we do our patriotic duty and abstain from giving people information about ourselves. host: you say no to the ban

that people should just stop using it on their own. a grassroots movement. caller: yes, absolutely. host: 41% of americans support a ban of this but 25% say they oppose it and never 70% -- over 70% say they are concerned. luis in new york. you say yes to a ban. caller: hello? oh i'm sorry, yes i am 100% for banning it completely. because our politicians have already gave enough proof that that is a danger for us. that is the danger for our national security. they already have the proof and

prove it many times. host: that is interesting let me hear your reaction to this this is the washington post you say they proved it yesterday. the hearing exposed no new evidence to support lawmakers unsubstantiated claims that the chinese government has abused tiktok to access american user data or promote government propaganda. yet lawmakers appeared outspoken in their concerns about the national rest of the app. caller: ok you want me to answer that? host: yes, i want you to respond maybe they showed evidence that has been out there already. caller: exactly. right. exactly. so. host: ok. caller: i am saying banned it completely. you know what? society -- the way a society is

-- those things, you know, the destruction of a society comes within then they come from the outside and attack. i do not trust the chinese communist party as far as i could throw them. they only want to be more powerful than us. yesterday and the day before the chinese president said this changes are coming. they want to be the leaders of the whole world. they have had enough already here. they own pieces of land and buildings. what a redoing knowing that they are communist? they are never going to change so why should we keep letting them come into the country and have an open society that we have and come after us. host: all right luis and others in new york. just a reminder you have to turn down your television as we

continue to take your calls, texts, facebook coats -- posts, and your tweets. in georgia, good morning to you what do you say? caller: i think no. i think we should be focused -- government employees should not have -- it is a great app, you know? also, the kids are becoming quiet about it but i promise you if you band tiktok that will be --ban tiktok there will be some sort of backlash. and we probably should be focusing on our own because i am sure that they probably use that data as well. i think they should not ban it because i think it is a wonderful app. host: there's 150 million

americans all the app they have 7000 employees in the united dates do you think that makes a difference -- united states do using that makes a difference? caller: i think politicians are using this against china and i am not banning china i am not mad at what they do it is a wonderful app. it really is. host: on your point i want to show the congressman democratic congressman of new york who held a news conference held by tiktok influencers. those who created content on the app who are rallying against the proposed ban. here is a little bit from the rally. >> i want to start with the aspect of free speech. our first amendment gives us the right to speak freely and communicate freely. tiktok as a platform has created a community and space for free

speech for 150 million americans and accounting -- and counting. that includes many of the concept -- content creators that i just met with him i office -- met with in my office. they talked with me about a sense of community and a place that is helpful to their mental health and their sense of belonging and well-being. they talk to me about finding a place where they can communicate with others like them and learn to love themselves even further. i so appreciate them being that honest and vulnerable with me in terms of how they engage with tiktok. host: an argument -- an argument for keeping tiktok in the united states.

lawmakers and washington and the president debate whether or not there should be a ban on the app. in new york. go ahead. caller: good morning i could not more with one speaker a few calls back. who, i think, she said that we already have china and here and they are buying up buildings and other things. this country is our deadly enemy. it has been stated by them that they want to destroy us. and why the congress didn't want to wake up until now to this i don't know. the u.s. has been naive habitually. this country i don't know if it has the rights of free speech. those laws are for us. i would not recommend banning everything, but china has made it self very clear on what it

wants with us and it wants nothing but to dominate us. host: ok margaret says she does not know what took lawmakers so long on capitol hill yesterday. the topic of china was all over the place. you have his hearing that went on for five hours, you had the defense budget hearing where the topic of preparations to respond to any aggression to china came up, the secretary testifying on capitol hill about china's meeting with the russian president and other topics. and in the evening yesterday, the new committee looking at the communist government of china. the new committee and the house held a hearing in the ink on the human rights violation against the weaker people -- and the force waiver -- the weaker

people in china and they force waiver -- labor. if you could talk on her website you will see points of interest that will allow you to go through the hearing and get an idea of what lawmakers were asking to witnesses. d in missouri you say no. good morning. caller: good morning. we have a national network of fox news where i don't know if we actually have american citizenship or dual citizenship but the network has admitted to lying to the american public about our election results. my whole issue with tiktok is the fact that does this

hypocrisy in the american government with regard to who we can get our information from. and also, there is the issue of -- i personally have heard some of the questions that congressman have asked and i think it would have been more official to the chinese government to see how inapt our elected officials are at technology. i have yet to hear anybody ask an elected official if they can even use their gmail effectively or any kind of email. for if they even still have a hotmail account. our elected officials don't know anything about technology. they rely upon these industries to tell them what to ask and to tell them what to be concerned about.

and those things we may or may not -- may or may not be relevant. host: yesterday you're talking about yesterday's hearing, the presentation? caller: yes their questions were an embarrassment. if anybody knows anything about technology and how things work if you listen to your elected official talk about these things, it is a embarrassment. we live in a technical society now and the people are -- we are electing do not know what the hell they are talking about. host: let's go back to the questioning by lawmakers yesterday another point with a montage of tiktok videos encouraging users to kill themselves. we will not show the videos but this is what the congressman said ahead of showing those videos. there is powerful content shared on the app. >> i know you know about the

blackout challenge which others may know about the choking challenge that encourages children to bring them to the point of an -- unconsciousness or in some cases stretch -- tragically death. if that is not enough, i want to share his story, a 16-year-old boy from new york who tragically ended his life a year ago by stepping in front of a train area i want to thank his parents again they are here. i want to thank his parents for being here today and allowing us to show this. your company destroy the very lives. your company destroyed their lives. i admire the courage to be here and share the story in hopes that this will prevent this from happening to other families. the content in this page was not

a window to discovery as you boldly claimed in your testimony . it was not content from a creator, that you invited to roam the hill today it is the damage that you cause to children in china. instead, this was sadly a window to discover suicide. it is unacceptable, sir, that even after knowing all of dangers you still claim tiktok is something grand to behold. i want you to see what these families would see. and i think if you want, again, would you share this content with your children? with your children? host: from capitol hill yesterday getting thoughts on whether or not tiktok should be banned in the united states.

com lawmakers a rare occurrence a company ceo testifying before the american congress. the chief executive officer of tiktok praised the rapid growth in the united states and had this to say about its initiative to protect users, especially teenagers. >> two years ago i became the ceo of tiktok. today we have more than one billion monthly active users around the world. including over 150 million in the united states. our app is close to a creator and we are close to 5 million american businesses having new customers and they have grown. as tiktok has grown, we try to take the lessons of the companies that have come before us is specially when it goes to the safety of teenagers.

the vast majority of people on tiktok are over 18 but one of the great demographics of people who are over 35 we spent a lot of time having measures to protect teenagers. many of the measures are for the social media industry. we forbid direct messaging for people under 16 and we have a 15 minute watch time cut off for those that are under 18. their parents can dissipate in their experience and make the choices that are right for their family. we want tiktok to be a place where teenagers can come together and that is why we recently launched and an exclusively educational video about them. those videos already have 160 billion views on tiktok. and tiktok is inspiring a new generation to become a leader in math and science. host: yesterday tiktok ceo

testifying before lawmakers and we are asking you to tell them the lawmakers behind them on capital hill of whether they should ban tiktok or not. and there is a social media law meaning kids need approval from their parents. two laws were signed by the governor prohibiting kids under 18 from using social media between the hours of 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. requiring verification for anyone who wants to use social media in this date -- in the state. it says at the beginning of the story children would lose access to social media apps if they do not have parental consent and other restrictions. that is the first in the nation's law designed to block young people from an addictive platform.

mark in alabama what do you say? caller: in not sure we should start picking winners or losers. in the form -- it is a form of communication that should be protected, if we don't agree with it. i think maybe do something very american with it and maybe tax it that is what i have to say. host: ok with a vast number of platforms available to americans at this time this one is now being singled out. china's real lies are vast and its continues to increase daily. this viewer is referencing the amount of trade that we do in china and how much from the united states is from china. outside of just having the tiktok app on your phone.

cal in new york. you say yes. hello. caller: are you talking to me? host: we are. it is your turn. caller: oh, ok. i think china is trying to learn as much as they can from us and through all different avenues. from farming and fair business and i think tiktok eventually will be more and more and more they want to make it about dependents of china. as it is, we are pretty much they. with our medicals and things like that. and i think we are going to lose. host: alright you got to mute the television this morning. washington post alabama is one of more than two dozen states that have banned tiktok on government owned devices.

almost all of them within the last two months. this is a government panic over a popular app that is known for its jokes and dance routines. in maryland you say no to the van. -- to the ban. caller: correct. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: i think there is a concern for how the user data is handled but there is nothing different about tiktok than anything else like facebook. it did not take tiktok for another 30 jobs or user data to use it appropriately. host: barbara santa fe springs yes to the ban. caller: yes basically because we are at odds currently with

china. geopolitically and not only tiktok but for the things that are happening with russia and china and iran and saudi arabia and the alliances that are being -- that they have entered into. it is the first time that we have had adversaries that we have cut ties with. china happens to be an adversary that is jeopardizing the united states of america with its freedom and everything else. our dependence must in in order --end in order to succeed with the culture and the ideologies that we have whether they be democratic, republican, party lines or just regular united

states freedom. people enjoy it. i have never used it. but, they have to realize that this is beyond that. whenever we have entered into a war or anything like that national security has always become a priority. and that is where we are today. host: ok fort dodge, iowa. you are unsure. good morning. caller: good morning how are you doing today? host: doing well. caller: i wanted to make a couple points. you know everybody doesn't think about things like i do and you got to think about how you have 150 million americans in america. imagine that being like a laser targeting system where they could target certain phones and who knows what they want to do

with you and the targeted phone. we are all forgetting about edward stone. we forget about him not many people have this program called a pegasus and it is a program where they can find people of a certain group to basically turn on your phone without you even being on it. just basically control it. turn it on, use it however they want. the person who -- when you think about where the computer derived from, the cio. host: why are you unsure? caller: i'm trying to make sure people understand that computers are the end of the world not the best thing of the world. the derivative was the cia and the number two billionaire richest man in the world you know, he owns the hawaiian

island out there and it seems funny that the ufos out there are so -- they have a lot of them out there. host: this is a viewer who text us to say, from texas, saying yes, i think tiktok should be banned not only is it a national security issue but it has a negative impact on a younger generation. i have a 13-year-old daughter and i know it has impacted her. tiktok seems to be dangerous on another level. looking at reaction of lawmakers from another individual. josh tweeting out we know the government uses the u.s. as an enemy. we know they are trying to spy on us and compromise the critical infrastructure and we know this gives them access to millions of americans data.

they can control what our kids see and consume. you have mark warner of virginia do senator who is part of that -- chairman of the intelligence committee trying to change -- every company when requested to do the bidding of the ccp services with over 150 million -- americans on tiktok this is a serious national security concern. senator tom cotton saying shou chew refused to say whether chinese employees in tiktok had access to american data. the answer tells you everything that you need to know. and other republican senator finding one of the biggest geopolitical threats that america has ever faced beyond reckless remember the congress is still encouraging constituents to use tiktok despite knowing the chinese government is mining all their personal info. so you can see there is

bipartisan support on capitol hill to possibly ban this app from the united states. but as we showed you there are some members of congress who are supporting it. here is the republican mark he also spoke at the rally in support of the platform on wednesday. here is what he had to say. >> we are not addressing the actual problem. the debate has gone to let's banned tiktok. a couple reasons why. when you watch members of congress talk about issues like this it is cringe worthy. and the content is watching people who are above the average age i think most people use tiktok because they have never done it or you -- looked at it. i have watched the wednesday dance four times that i can count. i watch people do magic tricks

and interviews and food being made. none of that as a threat to the country. we are stronger than the wednesday dance. but most members would know that because they have never been there. there is a real problem and we should be addressing it. it includes tiktok, facebook, twitter, instagram, and other platforms about our data and the privacy of our data and selling our data and allowing this information, but that is not is what is being addressed when people say they want to ban tiktok. there are a lot of people here who are individuals using this as a way to express their creative backgrounds and their community buildings that they have. that is not a threat to the country. what is a threat is when you challenge first amendment rights. what is a threat to the country is when you decide that one company from one country that you want to put on the list is not going to work. but at the end of the day we do

have a job as members of congress to protect our data and misinformation. we are not doing that by a ban on tip -- tiktok. i hope that people of the median age in congress is 67.5 years old right now they are watching this and maybe they will see that the threat is not in the -- in a single platform. host: back to your calls heather in atlanta, georgia. you say no to banning the app in the united states. good morning. caller: good morning that is correct and absolutely not do not ban it. here is lie. anyone who thinks that when we log onto tiktok they spy on us which is probably true but that when they go on to instagram or twitter that they do not they are delusional. they all do that. and i want to say the way they

treated the ceo yesterday, it comes down to bullying. they should be is same to themselves for making china the boogie man. what is going on is that facebook, instagram and all the others are taxing them. so they are the good guys. please stop this. capitol hill stop this. just like you have people in your corner and all you guys are for banning, let me tell you as older americans out there like me who are 57 years old we will vote you out. there is not only young people on tiktok there are old people like me starting their second careers they are. we will vote you out. host: heather do you mind sharing what you do on your tiktok? what is your second career? caller: my second career is motivational speaking i motivate people in different areas and i plan to take it off of tiktok and take it into the real world.

i think this is what they are afraid of. it is a shame nobody likes a bully democrat or republican. i am a registered democrat but i will note the democrats out for this. it is just wrong. host: how many followers have you gained since you started this? caller: i only started 2.5 months ago and i have 11,500 followers and i talked to people online as well. you know, this is sad and who will take these congresspeople out and leave the older people on tiktok like me. there are younger people on their and i know that they are. and there's democrats and republicans and independents we are coming together behind this. host: and heather, have you made relationships on tiktok that you see you could leverage for your benefit? caller: i do.

i actually spent time with someone yesterday. what i do as i do my motivational eking and then people contact me through direct messaging and then we make real-world contact. i have also been contacted by people in media. i went on radio programs in new york that are syndicated. what i am saying is it is a bad idea capitol hill to think -- better think twice. host: mike from new york. he says yes and why -- while we are at it ban all social media. if you're worried about national security or leaked information. good morning go ahead. caller: hello. i feel sorry for the ceo who got grilled. but banning is the answer if we can be positive and look at it. they have a right in capitalism to exercise their business.

and it seems to me that everybody likes it so why would you ban it? but, i think it needs a pause to make sure that the communist chinese connections are not they are. if they are they are, then it should be banned but the problem here is communism and world globalism. it is the nature of the internet and technology to be globalized. elon musk cracked open twitter and shows all the communist in twitter and how they ranked the election and it happened with the ceo of facebook. so this is a technology issue and information is power. you find out about this in an old documentary called future shock that was released in 73. it tells you this is coming. we had 30 some odd years or better to figure out that technology can be dangerous and can be abused just like data engineering can be abused. people need to get smart which

is what is happening and they are shocked to see what has found. powell told hillary clinton to have her own private servers even though it is illegal and she did it anyway and got away with it. there's all kinds of stuff that is hitting at once to blame one ceo and one incredibly successful app as being a problem. let's look at it but banning it is a little unmet -- un-american or un-capitalistic. if it has chinese ties then yes it needs to be cut off. host: we heard your point. in news this morning this happened early on u.s. contractors prompting an airstrike response with the pentagon airstrike in response to the attacks with the officials contributing to militants affiliated with iran. weighing in south lebanon, ohio. good morning what are your thoughts on this? caller: good morning.

i wanted to let you know that i am unsure not saying yes or no on it. this is fact. the government is not looking at like they have in the past was like the real take decks where they had prayers, messages, backwards on the real tape decks that you are does your self-conscious mind would hear it. then you have to take a look at each one of them and make sure there is no secret messages on it. that is probably why some people are dying because of the secret messages and also where they have gotten secret messages where they have killed other

people. and charlene says no to banning the app. ok the answer is no. and i have to say before i do let me just say that yes, tiktok is compromise, but not by chinese-american interest. and by one perpetrator in particular. i have a statement as follows it is this man the texas state district court judge marielle still former governor george w. bush that he implemented tracking -- in new york. we will move on. -- host: we will move on. here is a tweet from an individual saying parents are

responsible for children under 16. there is no need or the government to be on it runs a risk for national security. in south carolina you say yes to a ban? caller: yes i do. good morning it is clear that china is an adversary. that is why i am in favor of banning tiktok. i think china is concerned and americans concerned should be just as strong. i think we should look at everything we get from china. we spend millions on trillions of dollars on chinese products every year. and the chinese president has the nerve to create a route on international television with a resident of russia. that tells me everything i need to know and what america needs to stop doing is unwinding ourselves from china. and everything that we get from china. that is what i think of the subject. host: ok.

john in virginia. he says no to banning the app. hello. caller: hey, good morning. not the band of china, but i want honesty around the conversation it has not, does come up yet. i have not heard anybody cloth the fact that any of the social media companies get information and warrants for information on their users all the time. and we go into different agencies for investigations and all kinds of purposes that we do not quite understand. that is not an option here. the u.s. government will not feel comfortable making those requests. so the reality as it is not about our data, it is not about protecting our data, it is about getting access to our data.

and nobody has said that. as tiktok grows, it is a threat to u.s.-based social media platforms and the data for the u.s. government to do whatever it is doing. host: what about the project texas visio reference many times yesterday. storing the data with the company of oracle in texas with the austin headquarters. caller: right they still have to make their requests to a chinese based company. does request for chinese has access to so they can understand what kinds of data the u.s. government would want access to. trying to figure out out. so the u.s. government will obviously not want to reveal that to the chinese government. and have them basically stay quiet about whatever it is they talk.

that is why they are not comfortable with this. none of the congressman -- other contract. that is why it is about ownership. host: if somebody does something on tiktok, an american does something on tiktok, that is evidence in some sort of criminal case, do you think that prosecutors and the justice system should have access to the video and data? caller: yeah. i do. they are not saying. i think you have to be honest about what your issue is. host: yeah i understand the point you are making. caller: that's why am frustrated with the whole conversation as nobody is getting at that main -- that is a core issue for a lot of different entities.

and they are just not calling it out for what it is. host: from capitol hill yesterday at the hearing the republican representative said tiktok failed to remove content that posed threats to the privacy and security of its users. she showed a video on the app for 41 days that showed a firing gun in reference to the committee. here is the clip and the congresswoman's statement. this quote was taken down -- post was taken down from the platform later on in the hearing. ♪ >> mr. show, that video was posted 41 days ago. it captured me as f at the house energy committee of march 23 this year, this hearing was publicly noted.

i think that is an interesting point to raise but more concerning is the fact it named as chairwoman by name. your own community guidelines state that you have a firm stance against enabling violence on or off tiktok. we do not allow people to use our platform to threaten or incite violence or to promote violent extremist organizations and individuals when there is a threat to public safety and and account used to glorify off platform violence we ban the account. this video has been up for 41 days it's a direct threat to the chairman of this committee and the people in this room and it still remains on the platform. you expect us to believe you are capable of maintaining the privacy and security of 150 million americans when you cannot even protect the people in this room? i think that is a blatant display of halloran roble people who use tiktok are -- of how

vern roble people who use tiktok -- how vern roble -- >> noble work it is a significant number but i will get back to you on the details. >> you said significant so are you saying that you have a ballpark at all you can give us that it is 10% of your force. >> it is an important number out want to be precise and i will get back to you. >> do you happen to know how tiktok if tiktok can effectively ensure that spanish-speaking

users between the ages of 13 and 17 are not targeted by the out of voting harmful content. >> we have a strict policy for our users in the teenage age group regardless of what language they speak. we want to make sure they are secure on our platform regardless of the language they speak. >> i know i am trying to ascertain resources that you may put into spanish-speaking and spanish-language. last year the congressional group met with tiktok and this was a source of discussion addressing the spanish would disinformation and misinformation. it remains an urgent priority for the spanish caucus and hispanics across the country can turn to social media for violent information. we heard earlier in the hearing that there was a video and tiktok post threatening the chair of the committee. it had 40 days before it was

taken down. i am concerned if you and your team does not have the resources and capabilities to fight back, what kind of capability does it have to bring down disinformation for spanish speakers which i am assuming is a smaller fraction of the workers that you have been tiktok. host: the congresswoman had that line of questioning yesterday the washington post noted recently that a higher portion of people in the united states have used tiktok in the past month compared to white people 67% compared to 29%. do you say yes or no on banning tiktok in the united states? caller: absolutely. good morning. we have callers today i watched a lot of the hearing yesterday and a couple things no one is mentioning, number one, in china, u.s. social media companies are banned.

so they want to come over here and have their company but let's keep in mind they do not let us have our companies there. that tells you everything you need to know. the second thing you go on tiktok former basketball layer is permanently banned. he set up in a town and he tried to talk about their leader. and it was totally banned for violating their viewer standards. so you can go on facebook with being tackled and you can go to instagram and twitter and talk about this but you did not -- their leader but you cannot do that on tiktok. that tells you everything you need there. the one thing that i would like to share is in society there is a need for this. one lady from atlanta said -- vine about 10 years ago was similar. i do not know technology or social media well enough of what you did not take off the way tiktok has.

but we have in san francisco all the people and the social media this is a land of innovation let's create something the government can be overseen and freedom of speech can be seen. technology and user-friendliness can exist and replace tiktok. host: but at the same time do you think the social media companies should be held accountable and monitor the content on their platform? caller: the idea of the social media companies have all of our data is absolutely true. those who are on tiktok would also be on facebook, twitter, whatever your data is already out there. but if the government wants certain data or certain companies have to align with u.s. regulation and tiktok is not doing that. i would say it was very

depressing to hear yesterday if you did not know the representatives by their party in district you could not tell a republican from a democrat yesterday. i don't remember in my lifetime watching a hearing where everybody was so invested in the lie. it was refreshing and i do think you're going to see a ban. we need it. i think there is a place but you cannot have china controlling it. host: a note on twitter of the ceo bands the app for kids. this ceo's kids do not use the app china banned the app and the ceo refuses to announce this treatment of the uighur population. and they refuse to have us by the house committee. that is on the state of yesterday's testimony on ceo meeting of tiktok.

ron is here tell us your views. caller: the whole argument is absurd because when you look at every computer you we use all the network equipment, iphones, everything can be issued to the military or intelligence. they are all chinese made the only difference between that and tiktok is under it is -- it is under u.s. ownership. they are making profits on the back of forced labor. so all the companies are making tons of profit and paying off individuals all -- everyone is happy. tiktok is crazy successful and are companies are like we cannot compete we need to make profit off of this company. so if you listen really carefully, the argument is typically not to get rid of tiktok, is to force them to sell to another entity.

when they say they want tiktok to be sold listen really carefully they it is about making sure the rich americans profit off of tiktok. it has nothing to do with national security. like i said we are covered with chinese technology in all levels of our society even in the military. it is all chinese technology. so that argument is all about the money. host: enough said. steve it is your turn in tennessee. caller: thank you i have three points to make. first of all, the hearing yesterday that i watched was an absolute disgrace on the part of our congress. it was mostly grandstanding and never less a talk. as for tiktok itself, it needs to be divested for many interest in china. we have more than a dozen or so major social media companies.

and they'll do the same thing. that leads me to point number three. congress has failed on its face to do anything about the dangers associated with social media. about half of social media probably does some good and provides a platform for people to speak their varied opinions, the other half of it is a flaming disaster. it hurts children, it hurts our elections, there is so much false, dangerous, garbage on social media. unfortunately it is targeted to children who are unable to differentiate between what is true and healthy at what is not. congress needs to pass laws on social media so they are not the single most powerful entity in the country and that is what they have become. all of us work with computers the first computer of today i've been working on computers my

whole life i'm pushing 70 my next birthday. never have i seen such abuse of technology and it was predictable from day one in congress -- day one. and congress has missed both opportunity to mitigate to -- the damage social media can do. host: when you follow the supreme court this term on whether or not the social media platforms can be held accountable for content. caller: i have followed that. and i am familiar with these clauses and it needs to be revealed. host: are you talking about section 230? caller: yes ma'am. host: kathy in ohio you say no. caller: yeah, i feel like -- that -- this platform -- tiktok keeps young people healthy.

they are not out on the streets causing problems because they are too absorbed in their tiktok world. and i just don't see anything wrong with it although i do think that true social should be taken down now. host: we will leave it there with kathy's thoughts. we will take a break and when we come back we will talk about the parent's bill of rights act that is on the floor in the house today. we will talk the democratic congresswoman suzanne and member of the education labor committee and democrat who is offering an alternative to what republicans are voting on and debating. at the bottom of the hour republican andy biggs joins us. we will talk about the house republicans agenda and the role of the house freedom caucus as well as legal issues facing former president donald trump.

we will be right back. ♪ announcer: since 1979, in partnership with the cable industry, c-span provided complete coverage of the halls of congress from the house and senate floors to congressional hearings, party briefings and committee meetings. c-span gives you a front-row seat with issues, debates with no commentary, no interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. book tv, every sunday on c-span two, filters leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. at that :00 p.m. eastern, former president -- author john address

to offer suggestions on how to increase the value of education and bridge the divide between african-american culture. afterwards, a science journalist explores the origins of patriarchy and how it spread to societies around the world for her book "the patriarchs". she is interviewed by an author and media director. watch book tv every sunday on c-span two andind a full schedule online at booktv.org. announcer: sunday night, on q and a, on his book children of the state, best-selling author and journalist jess han visits the workings of the juvenile justice system in the u.s., focusing on three juvenile programs in san francisco, wilmington, delaware, and new york city that handles minors at

different stages of the juvenile justice problem -- progress. >> when a kid walks into the cell in shackles and sees the balls behind him or her, even if it is only for an afternoon, something -- while something gets sorted in the courthouse next-door, even if just for a couple hours, that sound and feeling his life altering. announcer: jeff han and his book "children of the state" sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q end. you can visit -- what all of them on our free c-span now app. announcer: there are a lot of places to get political information but only at c-span do you get it straight from the source. a matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, ceased and is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happened here, or here, or

here, or anywhere that matters, america is watching on c-span, powered by cable. announcer: washington continues. host: we want to welcome congresswoman suzanne bonamici, a democrat from oregon, who sits on the education and labor committee. she has been ranking member of the top democrat for early education subcommittee. thank you for being here. the house this week is considering legislation of the parents bill of rights act. i just want to show our viewers what is in the legislation and then have you react to it. school districtsuspublicly post curriculum foation. states must provide a copy of any revisions to the state academictandards. teachers must offer two in-person meetings with parents each yr. parents have a s of when schools develop or update

student privacy policies and parents must consent before any mental health or substance abuse screening takes place. what do you think? guest: i got very excited when i found that were talking about parental involvement in education because it is something i have a lot experience with. i have spent 15 years being an active parent volunteer, serving on committees and in classrooms. when i really looked at the so-called parents bill of rights , which has been changed quite a bit by amendments added in the process, i am concerned about the direction of it. i worked at parent-teacher organizations like the pta, i worked with educators and civil-rights groups and came up with an alternative. the students and parents bill of rights that will make a significant difference. the concern i have about the parents bill of rights, as introduced by the house republicans, which is a partisan bill. we did not have input in that

and basically all of our amendments were rejected. it will lead to lots of things are not helpful for parent involvement in education. host: like what? guest: there will be a life time spent by educators coming up with lists, keeping lists of today, making photocopies of professional window -- professional development materials and curriculum materials. the requirement of having two meetings per year sounds great but they would not accept an amendment to put reasonable limitations on that. if you have 100 people show up at a school board meeting and everyone wants to talk for an hour, that is a huge burden. of course parents should be involved in their students's education about what concerns me as well are provisions that are added to the bill that will require teachers to out lgbtq student to their parents. that is very concerning and unsafe. if there are lgbtq parent -- students who have not come out,

there is a good reason why not. should not feel safe. host: i should note that the provisions i read are just some. there is more to them. let's take a look at what you are proposing. a bill of rights for students and parents. a well-rounded education, authentic involvement, student civil rights, education and democracy. can you put more meat on the bones? guest: we now have more than 250 organizations supporting this bill. from the pta, civil-rights groups, to teachers, and parents union, and groups of parents from across the country. because what they want to see is something constructive, something positive, that makes parents and teachers collaborative rather than adversarial. the approach we heard in what we have seen across the country is an adversarial relationship.

people, of course, can get involved. we want them to be involved but we want it to be collaborative. i think back to it has been a wild since my kids were in school but i still top of parents and teachers all the time. parents want to be involved but often times work long hours and to not have childcare. sometimes they do not speak english and are concerned about a language barrier. we need to break down barriers and have parents be involved but we also want to protect the rights of parents and students, and not support discriminatory policies like we see coming from the so-called parents bill of rights. a lot of my colleagues say this is putting politics over parents because when you see what has happened in some of these states like florida, virginia, where parents become adversaries, that is not constructive. it is not helpful for the parents or the educators and certainly not helpful for the students. the collaborative approach with authentic parent involvement is what we are looking for. get that host: we want to

involve our viewers to come to the conversation. tim ed kraus, (202) 748-8000 -- democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us as well at (202) 748-8003. this is farm -- from the washington legislation. the 30 page bill would update the -- excuse me, i am having trouble reading. 65 elementary education asked to enforce that public schools make certain information available online including class curriculum, reading lists, library lists and the school budget. it goes on to note that in the october 2022 fox news poll, 54% of people responded that they were concerned parents did not

have enough say over what their children were taught. guest: the elementary and education act came back in the civil rights act. for a while it was every child -- no child left behind and now it is every student succeeds act. a lot of the information, you are right, is already available. the parents are not involved -- it is not because there is no parents bill of rights that they are not involved. we want evidence-based practices , have programs that help parents become engaged in positive way. what concerns me is this notion that one parent can say, i have a list of library books and i do not want students reading this book. if you have 30 kids in a classroom entry parents say we do not like this book, and 27 parents say i do, that is a huge problem. they are micromanaging what our educators are doing. what of my colleagues said yesterday that if one parent wont stop their child out of

reading a book, that is -- wants to opt their child out of reading a book, that is one thing. but to remove five -- remove it from everyone else is a problem. host: in total, 64 laws have passed and conservatives and pundits have capitalized on this discontent. in total, passing at least six laws across 45 states that restrict what children can learn and do at school according to the washington post analysis. for our viewers in one of those states, we want to get your thoughts on what is happening where you lift with the congresswoman. let's go to daniel in virginia, republican. hello daniel. guest: hello daniel. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have two questions. first question is where guest mentioned she was not in favor

of having students out into their parents who are lgbtq. but my question is, as a teacher, they are required to report if they think a student is being abused in any way. so our law enforcement officers. as a teacher, if they were to think a student was going to be abused or was being abused, it would have to report that already. how does that jive with what you are saying that a teacher cannot tell their parents because they are going to be somehow in danger. second question is, we have these -- what are your thoughts on school choice? obviously, we have public schools and we have to pay taxes. are your thoughts on having a certain amount of money for each student? we spend a ton of money on each student in tax money. what are your thoughts of parents being able to choose where their students go to school and have the money tied to the individual student?

and if they want to have a different program for education or send their students to a friend school for any reason, they can take that money and tied to to the student and send the student to whatever school they want? guest: first, this is typically state law but there is mandatory reporting for educators and others who are mandatory reporters if a child is being abused. that is to keep kids safe, absolutely. the problem with requiring teachers to out lgbtq students is often times, and we have heard this, students are concerned they will not be safe at home. they are not at a point when they can out themselves to their parents that is a concern. that is why i support the privacy rights of students in that instant. about 43% of homeless you are lgbtq. we have heard students talking about out into their parents and going home and being thrown out of the house. that is not good for students or

families. in regards to school choice, i support choice within the public school system. there are lots of great magnet programs or public charter schools where they have to comply with all of our antidiscrimination laws and take all student and educate students with disabilities. i do not support vouchers but support choices in the public school system. a for your question. host: solomon in ohio. guest: hello. good morning. caller: i was actually calling for the topic of mr. cho and tiktok but i was told we would change this topic. i am not a democrat at all. should i call back? host: will move on. thank you for being honest. glenn in arkansas, and dependent. caller: good morning. i have two questions. how many dollars have you collected from the teachers

union to be a communist? in other thing is i would like to have somebody explain to me what an lgbt is. i have not heard of one. there is not one that has ever been born. guest: thank you for your question. i am proud to help many people who i am honored to represent. i am not a communist. host: denise in maine. republican. guest: good morning, denise. caller: good morning. how are you today? guest: good, and you? caller: good. we had an incident where a counselor, behind the backs of the parents, bought a student a rap to wrap her breasts. do you see that as acceptable? guest: those are decisions that

should be made with health-care personnel. i do not know about that case by leafy health care decisions up to the person. but thank you for your call. host: texas republican chip roy spoke out yesterday in support of the republicans's parents bill of rights the distillation and this is what he had to say about democrats opposing it. [video clip] >> let's make sure people know the truth. parents have the right to know what their children are being taught, parents have the right to be heard, parents have the right to see the school budget and spending. parents have the right to protect their child's privacy. parents have the right to keep their children safe. that is what my democratic colleagues are objecting to. notice how they are objecting. notice what they are trying to do.

it is a page as old as time in the democratic pay book -- playbook. fear mongering, racial division, peddling the lies of hatred, saying somehow the legislation that would empower parents and give parents the right to know what their child is being educated with, know what they are being told, that somehow that is going to lead to banning of books. what they are afraid of is of a parent being able to come in, armed with information of what is being taught to children, armed of what is in the library, and holding schools accountable. holding educators accountable. that is precisely what my democratic colleagues do not want to occur. they are afraid of sunshine going into the classroom because they know, that after covid, the bail has been -- the veil has been lifted on a corruptive education that has been for too

long indoctrinating our children with racial division and hatred. parents are now awakened. they have seen what has been occurring behind the veil. because the veil was lifted. host: your reaction to congressman roy. guest: with all due respect, i appreciate his drama by do not agree with what was said. all the things he talked about, of course we support. what is happening within the classroom, of course we support budget transferring. that is not the point. it is not about fear mongering. it is about caring for students and wanting students to be in a safe place where they are getting well-rounded education with parents involvement. i disagree with congressman roy. all the things he talked about are all included in what we are talking about which is a well-rounded education, authentic parental involvement, getting all parents involved. of course there is budget

transparency. i used to walk around and knock on doors until everybody here is a website where you can i doubt exactly what the district is spending -- you can find out exactly what the district is spending on administration and teachers and special programs. that is not information we are talking about hiding. we are not talking about hiding what is in the library. we want to make for the books stay in the library. we look at states that have passed extremist legislation, teachers are afraid to teach and afraid to speak of the authentic history. that is something we feel strongly about. there was a pull from the parents union that shows parents want students to learn accurate history of the country. we have teachers right now who are afraid to teach because they do not know if they are going to be in violation of some law that tells them they cannot teach something. for example, what might except -- upset someone or someone's standards that are truly unrealistic. our students learn.

how do we teach kids how to be critical thinkers if we are removing books and taking away things that may be controversial and cause discussion? one of my colleagues, representative jahana hayes, was the national teacher of the year and spoke on before the other day about a conversation she had with her son after reading the kelly mockingbird. he was really concerned because the n-word was used and he is a child of color. they had a conversation about it. that is what educators do. it is not about hiding anything or about fear mongering. it is about keeping students safe, ensure they are not discriminated against, they are saved in school, and getting critical education that prepares them to be critical thinkers. want parents involved in that and that's why we work with parent groups. i am proud to say the national pta is supporting my students and parents bill of rights. host: charlotte. guest: good morning, charlotte.

caller: good morning, representative. i am calling because i appreciate the fact that i am a child from the 50's and 60's elementary school, prior to the 1965 civil rights and education law coming forward that gave us this new structure of laws that we now live under in the frame of the beginning. i live in tallahassee, florida. in my neighborhood, we have a blue-ribbon elementary school with 896 children. i doubt very seriously that those parents, at a blue-ribbon school that provides innovative and inviting classrooms and a well-rounded curriculum as you stated, and support services, as

you stated. we cannot allow public taxpayer money to be taken away from our blue-ribbon public schools, which mostly 32 states have in the constitution that they must provide a well-rounded public school environment. we have ptas and parent-teacher conferences. host: what is your question for the congresswoman? esco -- caller: my question is, what i want her to explain and to integrate in her own bill that she says she has. i listen to the bill -- host: we have other people waiting. can you ask your question? caller: have the congresswoman to tell the nation about all of the interactions parents and

teachers have right now. parent-teacher organizations. guest: ok. there are many very active parent-teacher organizations. i myself was a very involved parent area that is what we want. we want parents involved in education in a positive way. i appreciate that you appreciate your neighborhood school. host: mary in columbus, ohio. democratic color. caller: how can a book be bad? i do not understand. after the battle to get a kid to read is to find summing the absolutely like. if they want to read about any matter, you can explain what you are feeling. sorry, i am dealing with a screaming baby. i will take your comments off-line. that is just my point. i read romance novels which are total trash when i was a teenager.

as long as you are reading, you get comprehension and you get recognition. guest: i appreciate that. of course, we want children reading. i have spoken with teachers who say it would be great if my students would read. it is hard to get them off their phones. that is why we have educators who are trained to help pick appropriate books for students, looks that will get them learning and reading and thinking. that is the what -- that is what we want. my colleagues talked about indoctrination. i heard a teacher say, if i was indoctrinating a student, i would get them to wear deodorant and turn in their homework on time. if something makes students feel uncomfortable, let's have a conversation about why. that is what education is about and that is what will prepare students to be rigell thinkers we need for the future. host: earning in pennsylvania. independent. good morning. caller: good morning.

it looks like america is getting further and further alienated from its people and the establishment. i have been going to school board meetings. hardly anybody shows up. the school board goes over the curriculum. they believe that they think they know what is good for the students. in the meantime, the students do not know how to read, write, or even think for the elves. i am asking this question. how is lgbt, transgenderism, crt and more going to make them a critical thinker when most employers pass on kids coming out of school. they cannot think, they cannot talk, they cannot act. guest: just to clarify, what is lgbtq, we just do not want students discriminated against. it is unfortunate that student -- people do not come to school board meetings. we want people to participate

and make their voices peacefully heard and have input. school boards are elected locally. if people are not happy with what the school board is approaching, they can run themselves or vote for someone else in the next election. that is about local control and that is why we have local school boards to make local decisions about districts. i hope more people attend school board meetings. thank you for going to them. appreciate it. host: caroline is watching in georgetown, delaware. republican. guest: hello, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for the representative about parents' rights. not the lgbt stuff and not about books. but educating the parents about the dangers of adhd drugs and the connections to the fentanyl depths, and the teachers'role in

promoting adhd drugs. i want to know what, in this new bill, is going to protect the parents from teachers taking the attitude that my child is board -- bored, and i am putting him on drugs because he is disruptive instead of teaching the child. guest: as far as i know, teachers are not prescribing drugs and should not be unless they are.. of course, we need more special-needs teachers and more help for students with disabilities. i do not know of teachers prescribing drugs. host: not prescribing. i think she was saying encouraging parents to put kids on the adhd drugs. guest: teachers are not qualified to do that. they may be offering a opinion.

host: larry, south carolina, independent. your turn. are you there? caller: hello. guest: good morning. caller: excuse me. -- sorry. host: question or comment for the congresswoman? caller: on books that are in our children's' library, they would be able to read. something -- an 11-year-old in the library. guest: i was not following. something about a book and a library. sorry. host: tell us what is going to happen today on the house for

with this legislation. guest: today, we are voting on where amendments offered on the l. we will see how those go. several were offered today. i didn't have an amendment to substitute different provisions -- i had an amendment to substitute different provisions but that was voted down. we will vote on the amendments and on the underlying bill. host: tune into c-span right here on the house. we will be covering it gavel-to-gavel. thank you for your time. we are going to take a break and for me come back, we are going to be driven by republican congressman andy biggs. we will talk about the republican agenda, the house freedom caucus and legal issues facing former president donald trump. stay with us. ♪ announcer: american history tv,

saturdays on c-span 2, export people and events that tell the american story. at 7:00 p.m. eastern at the virginia headquarters museum, that was crazy for cia employees as a resource for their ongoing work and is not open to the several republic desk not open to the general public. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a political science professor talks about the life and presidency of jimmy carter. exploring the american stories. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span two is find the full schedule on your c-span guide or watch anytime on c-span.org/history. >> the name of america, which belongs to you in your national capacity. >> four score and several years ago.

>> ask not what your country can do for you. announcer: throughout american history, presidents delivered speeches during exoneration, sizing challenges, and farewell. on saturday, watch our 10 part series that defined a presidency on american history. through the words of george washington and abraham lincoln and ronald reagan and barack obama. this week will future the first president george h w bush's address 12 days after leading forces and war against iraqi president saddam hussein. and the hard work of president bill clinton in 1990 five talking about race relations at the university of texas in austin. he cited the work of those who had gone before like lyndon b. johnson and dr. martin luther king jr. and had a new opportunity to construct a racial divide. >> this moment of the racial divide is clearly out in the

open. it presents us with a great opportunity and we dare not let it pass us by. announcer: watch our 10 part series. beaches that defined a presidency. saturdays at 9:25 a.m. on american tv on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: we are joined by congressman andy biggs on capitol hill this morning. he will start with the news that has been dominating the headlines this week. that is the potential indictment of the former president for alleged hush money. what do you make of the case? guest: i think it is really interesting to watch the district attorney try to convert a misdemeanor into a felony. that is what is happening here, especially after two previous prosecutorial agencies said there is nothing here.

i think it is kind of a species attack on the former president. having been one to prosecute and defend cases, it seems over-the-top quite frankly. host: there has been called from your colleagues, republicans on capitol hill, to investigate the da in new york. do you think that is appropriate? guest: it may be. the appearance is he took a significant amount of campaign money himself from a particular individual or group that was backed by an individual. he campaigned on this notion of just going after president -- former president trump. it looks like it is politically motivated and politically biased. if that is the case -- and we are investigating other polluting -- politically biased aspects of the government, and if the icy case, it should be looked into.

host: the editorial board this morning says republicans are taking the bracket bait. they say his local police power is protected from federal intrusion as per the constitution's separation of powers. on your screen, we are showing our viewers from axios the general counsel for the district attorney saying writing a letter to republicans and listing four ways in which he argues the house gop's request for testimony is improper. the first being that the letter seeks nonpublic information about a pending criminal investigation which is confidential under state law. the second, it requests are an -- the requests are an unlawful incursion into new york sovereignty under the 10th amendment. your response. guest: i think it is really fun that liberals have finally found a valid use for the 10th amendment that they have been aggregating for literally 100 years.

that is good. i am glad we are all going to start talking about the 10th amendment again. i have not seen the letter or the response. i would like to see it will take a look today. host: what do you think comes next with this case? guest: it looks like they have been having problems finishing up the grand jury hearings. so, the question really is, ultimately, are they going to deliver an indictment or not? i guess we will wait and see. i think it will be -- i think it is a political and a prosecutorial mistake. have to wait and see. host: do you think the former president did anything wrong here? esco no. based on what i have seen. think about it. let's compare it to other cases. evidence in the public domain indicates michael cohan paid for this, stormy daniels signed an acknowledgment that there was no

sexual relationship and this was not hush money. but you know what? in my world, the legal world, we call this a civil settlement. that is really what happened. in your world and my world, currently, we see a lot of agreements signed. that is what was part of the civil suit litigation. so, to come in and say that was a misdemeanor because it was not accounted for properly in a financial forum, and then try to elevate that to a federal elections commission complaint really seems like a stretch. again, i get back to this point where it is over-the-top. it seems to me that it is further initiative of derangement from my colleagues who can just not leave the donald trump alone even in the u.s. congress. host: i want to have you respond to congressman ted lieu, the democrat. this is what you said on the

house floor. [video clip] >> in addition to doing stupid stuff and trying to pass extreme bills, public and have now gone on a rampage about what the manhattan district attorney is doing. without even knowing what the purported charges are, or what the grand jury evidence is. what if the evidence is overwhelming? what if it is rocksolid at an american by the name of donald trump committed crimes? how do republicans know? they do not. you know what else they cannot explain? what donald trump's former attorney michael: was arrested, indicted, convicted, and went to prison for participating in a legal hush money payment scheme to stormy daniels. not a single republican leader complaining now set a thing about what happened to michael cohan.

they cannot explain why they are holding donald trump to a different standard. michael served prison time for participating in a legal hush money payment schemes to stormy daniels. america, we should apply the same standard to all americans. no one is above the law. not the form dusty former president enablers, not the former president's attorneys, and not the former president himself. let's let law-enforcement do their work. let's let the judicial process do their work. let us wait to see if there will be charges and what the charges may be and what the evidence is. then, a jury or judge will get to hear this evidence and american people will see this and a prosecutor will have to show the -- beyond a reasonable doubt whether evidence is. let me conclude with this. every american, including donald

trump, is entitled to a presumption of innocence in a court of law and that presumption will also be applied. let's just imply the lot equally the way our founders wanted it to be done -- apply the law equally the way our founders wanted it to be done. host: host: -- host: -- guest: first, he could misconstrue why michael cohan what to jai he did not go because of improper statements. he went to jail for committing perjury. i think ted no sides and should come clean on that. he distorted the michael case. the second thing is, i think it is rich that now he is saying that donald trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence and that we should allow this. ted and i served together for a good number of years. ted has been actually one who has attacked not just president

trump but other members of this body, and the public, and said they committed crimes and try to paint them with this brush. when he said they are entitled to be presumption of innocence, he did not give anybody else the presumption of innocence. the third thing is i think it is interesting that we spent a lot of time talking about this but we do not talk about bill clinton and the apollo jones case or hillary clinton and $1 million. we do not talk about how she got off with a fine when they were actually using campaign runs to her -- funds -- funds to hire people to promote the still jones case. i understand it. it is politics but i am not sure that it is a fair coverage that it should be. ted definitely, going back to my

original point, misconstrued or misstated the michael cohan case. host: you are the chair of the judiciary subcommittee on crime and federal government surveillance. tell us what is the committee, what is its purview and what are you looking at? guest: it has a broad jurisdiction on purview. on the crime side of it, i think we want to look at things that we see as potentially two-tier justice systems. that is one thing. i also would like to start eliminating federal laws that are duplicative, where the federal government should actually not be weighing in on certain cases. why do you have a federal law that does what every other state law does? that's gets back to the 10th amendment arguments that were

discussing -- that gets back to the 10:00 an argument that we were discussing earlier. then the federal surveillance component of this committee. the big issue coming up is the reauthorization of a portion of the fisa act. we get said that, we want to look at that and i have been spending -- looking at this and there has been abused by both parties who have used it to spy on americans. that should not be continued. number two, it needs significant reforms. i have already talked to some democratic colleagues tend to think it should be abolished or significantly reformed. i have talked to my republican

colleagues who voted for the rate of five years ago and are now saying it needs to be reformed. i am hopefully going to be able to work with both sides to get something meaningful done our government will quit being weaponized in his surveillance mode against american citizens. host: gym in cloverdale, oregon. go ahead. caller: yes. do you realize that trump lied when he was being sworn in. he promised to protect the u.s. and everything foreign and domestic. donald trump wants to pardon the traders -- traitors that were convicted of suspicious conspiracy? what is wrong with the republicans? guest: i appreciate the call.

i am not sure i understand what you are saying. i think you are talking about the former president saying that if he gets elected, he would issue some pardons or clemency to some of the people that were arrested and prosecuted on january 6. not all work convicted of seditious treason. in fact, none were. that is important to understand. the second thing i would say is many of them were convicted of misdemeanor trespass. i think that is important to understand as well. host: david, mississippi, and dependent. caller: do you think those that conspired in the white house to overthrow the country with donald trump and jeffrey clark and all that should be held accountable? exactly why did you ask for a pardon for mark meadows?

guest: i did not ask for a pardon. that has been completely debunked. but, lies persist so that is going to happen and i am big enough to withstand the perpetual life in that way. the second thing is, there has been no indication that anybody attempted to overthrow the government with someone named jeff clark who i do not believe i have ever even met. thank you for the perpetuation of the false narrative of the left. host: usa today with a headline in november 2022 that stuart rose, the oath keepers founder, was found guilty of seditious conspiracy. guest: ok. well, i did not follow that case. host: karen, alabama, republican.

caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the grand jury for president trump. there is a witness, robert costello, who appeared before the grand jury who was collins previous lawyer and said collins is actually lying. when he went to the grand jury to testify, he said that the prosecutors really did not want to get to the truth of the matter. when they would ask questions, he would make sure he got the entire truth out there. now, i feel like they are postponing the grand jury because they cannot get an indictment against president trump which is the ultimate goal. it is like they want to see what can stick and it is ridiculous. every person in this country should the worried about it. or not to but it is a two-tier justice system and that is not right. the other thing i wanted to ask about is if congressman banks

knows anything about the biden family's corruption and payments from china. guest: the grand jury -- even when i was practicing in this area, i viewed grand jury processes as -- with intense skepticism because of the lack of oversight. i cannot tell you how many times we had to suppress indictments that came from grand jury's. in the statement, michael cohen's former attorney came out with a grand jury saying that michael cohen was lying rated we do not know what actually took place until we can get a hold of the transcripts. i hate the fact there always seems to be selective leaks but in the public domain, there are documents where michael coping cited a letter saying -- where

michael cohan cited a letter saying that donald trump did not pay hush money, signed by stormy daniels. what i hate is that donald trump has probably been the most investigated in the united states history and here we go again. i cannot member your second question. host: it was about the reporting of the biden family ties to a chinese energy company and the payments. you heard about this from the energy and commerce committee investigation. guest: the oversight committee. yes, i've set on the house oversight committee. a lot of the information is coming from suspicious activity reports and there are more than 150 of those. by the way, for any one individual or any one company in the u.s., it would be unusual for you to even get one from financial institutions.

but hunter biden had more than 150 because there was a bunch of awkward transactions in his various bank accounts. not the least of which is a payment of over $300 million paid to a w account. then $1.3 million being funneled to at least jim biden who is the president's brother, hunter biden, and the president's former daughter-in-law. a girlfriend for a period of time named halley. we do not have all of the information on this except that the payments was made by a chinese energy company that does have allegedly ties to the chinese communist party which is the dominant logical party of china. host: the washington times has a front-page story about this this morning. as you probably know, they are

looking at rob walker who set up a lobbying firm and where the money was given and distributed from. it says walker's washington web before getting tangled with hunter biden. he was a creature of washington moving to cabinet secretary eight, two lobbyist and international dealmaker. what can you tell us about what you know? guest: that is right. that is why we are trying to get mr. walker to come in. it is a tree here. it is a bunch of different branches that need to be examined. mr. walker is one. i am trying not to name other names until we have confirmation that we are going to get those people in. yes, he is a key person of interest here. host: what is the timeline for your committee's work? who will we hear in c from next -- and see from next?

guest: i am not sure who the term and will bring in next but we anticipate mr. walker. my understanding is we are working with mr. walker to try to get him in for a deposition. host: richard in new jersey, democratic caller. caller: i want to say that two thirds of the people in this country do not want to be socialist. on the other hand, two thirds of this country do not want to be fascist either. i explained the left. i was very worried that trump would become a candidate of the republican party. i was hoping that would not happen. i recently switched to the other way around because there was an -- a worst scenario. the worst scenario is that donald trump, if not the nominee, will run as an independent candidate. i think you can always -- almost

guarantee that. a three-way race is not too bad but if someone gets in on the left, you can have the same situation as what happened in germany in 1933. the majority was against hitler but he still got the most votes. that is a dangerous situation. i am praying with holy water that he does become the candidate for the republican party and they will lose even bigger than they did last time. that would be the best scenario. i have a question for you. two years ago, did you go to the cpap meeting? were you one of the people who stood up and gave a well-known fascist dictator of hungry a standing ovation like the rest of them? that is my question. guest: i think i was probably at cpac two years ago but i did not even know about him being there. i came in and i spoke into that i left -- spoke and then i left.

note to your question. i do find your allusion to socialism versus fascism interesting. from a political spectrum point of view, and i assume that you are asserting that donald trump was some kind of a fascist. i tend to view the spectrum very different. i view the spectrum as being on one end, people who are authoritarians and want to control people's lives is much possibly can. they want as much government power. on the other end, i see people who preferred no government which would be an article. then you have everywhere in between. i would say with certainty as do not believe donald trump was a fascist.

i think the authoritarianism i see in the country today comes from the left and the socialists. they are the ones who wish to control everybody's lives. that is the way i view that spectrum. host: who do you want to be the candidate for the republican party in the 2024 election? guest: i am comfortable donald trump. i came out with donald trump a long time ago and i do think you will be the nominee. i think there is a good likelihood he will become the next president of the u.s. host: what do you think about the election case in georgia and the rowley former president played their -- the rowley former president played there? guest: everyone is going after donald trump incessantly and i think this is another bogus lawsuit and prosecution. i think that is what is going on constantly. i find it almost pathetically

sick that our country has devolved to that point where you are going to take one guy who is going to be the target. he is a disruptor. if you are in washington, you know this, the power of the lobbyists are great, the power of the staff is great and the power of bureaucracy is great. donald trump said he was going to disrupt the status quo. he came in and try to disrupt the status quo. it is bizarre to me that you can investigate a guy almost nonstop for several -- seven years and run through two impeachment and everything else and still, you cannot ever let him alone and let him stand with his positions and policies, which were overwhelmingly appreciated. i guess some people do not like his personality. by his policies, and lots of people didn't like. host: kathy in arkansas, independent.

caller: hello representative andy biggs. i have been watching and i am just hoping and praying that people use common sense to see that president biden is behind all of this. he does not want donald trump running again but we want president trump back because he was the best president we have ever had. and, i believe in the rule of law that we are tired of this talk, talk, talk. we want indictment on the biden crime family. we know he is corrupt. would you answer me? are we going to get indictments on the biden crime family? guest: i do think the bidens -- some members of the biden family have probably engaged in some criminal conduct. but we do not have police power

in the legislative branch. the police power is in the executive branch. i can tell you that even if we find or produce any evidence that indicates the criminality that exists and warrants further investigation, or maybe even prosecution, it would be given to the department of justice. but under this department of justice, led by merrick garland, nothing will happen because it is just -- has just been weaponized. i would say that you cannot have freedom unless you have the rule law. if you want to know how bad the rule of law is, just go down to any border section of the u.s. and watch the law being flaunted every day and talked about. sec. mayorkas ordered his people not to actually enforce the law. we have a rule of law crisis in the country which means we also have a freedom crisis.

host must show in new york. -- host: must in new york. caller: thank you for everything you do. the question is directly pertain to the january 6 defendants who are being held captive in the gulags. first off, the shaman -- it came out he had not done anything and he was walked through. all these media outlets that continually say tucker carlson dr. them -- doctored them. i wonder if they asked to see the same tapes as mccarthy. is he going to have any retribution or another hearing so they can look at the exculpatory evidence? and last thing, zachary rao's, a former marine, the fbi has put

in his defense -- host: we have to let the congressman go in one minute. do you feel cover ball responding to what you heard? guest: i have actually thus i am one of the few members of congress who has gone over and watched these videotapes. we were just tracking the shaman to see what was happening. we found the actual footage is consistent with what tucker carlson put out. second thing, if it is true, the allegation that the fbi and full traded a defense counsel -- which i have seen and read those reports, the defense counsel has communications with his client. that is criminal conduct in and of itself.

that prosecution, that case should be dismissed completely. you basically biased and poisoned the fruit of that tree completely. this is what i mean when i talked about weaponization of the government and people having trouble getting it -- a fair trial in this country today. regardless of where you sit. i think a lot of americans see this and i certainly see this. host: congressman suzanne bonamici, rep -- andy biggs, republican of arizona. thank you for taking a moment to talk with our viewers. we have to let him go. he has to carry on with his day. the house is gaveling in any minute this morning internet :00 a.m. for legislative business. on capitol hill, u.s. trade representative's will testify with the biden administration's trade agenda for ho