senator stennis, senator lott, senator cochran of course recalling senator wicker on the committee picks a long history of service on the rules committee of mississippi senators and we're glad to have you joined that. this afternoon we meet tomorrow at senate resolutions 355 or resolution for improving procedures with the consideration of nominations in the senate. senator lankford introduced this legislation in december of 2017. i think he has talked to virtually every member of the senate democrat and republican about it and his work here we appreciate. the committee held a hearing on the resolution december 19, 2017. the text of the resolution was taken from a resolution that passed 78-16 16 in 113th congress. senator lankford has proposed a simple resolution that if adopted would allow the senate to vote on nominees in a streamlined manner. once a majority of the senate decided to end debate, senators would still be allowed to speak about all but the most serious, the senators will still be allowed to speak on all but the most senior executive and led judicial nominees for eight hour

i don't think the senate can work well with senator mcconnell there. for too long operated in a certain way that has erased any modicum of trust. trust is the essence of the legislative process and trust makes, legislating is difficult and it becomes impossible with the absence of trust and mcconnell has sacrificed all trust because he hasn't been trustworthy. so thinking about this it seems to me that donald trump is in part certainly in large part president of the just function treating anger in the country he is somewhat the result of this dysfunction but mcconnell is the cause people say you put too much weight on one person and i would respond to say how do you think the senate would work if lamar alexander was the leader i could name ten people in it would work differently all these extra factors it still comes down to people who can make a difference. >>host: the book is entitled broken. we are out of time i congratulate you on your book and i hope our audience will take the time to read it. thank you. >> guest: thank you tom

with that, i yield to senator alexander. thank you, mr. mcconnell,nd senator senator durbin, amy. i would like to see what i can say that is constructive. i brought a picture with me of the senate doing nothing, which is what happens when we do what we are doing right now, and nominate derek khan on thursday to be the secretary of transportation and then he would and nextcut off debate monday we confirm them but only one senator speaks. our district judge from georgia, cloture on wednesday, and a week later cut off debate, confirming the next day know senator speaks. the problem is people look at c-span and they say they are doing nothing, and they are as bad as we thought. that is one problem. i would like to see if there's any way i can resurrect the bipartisan spirit that existed and 2011, 2012, and 2013, when a group of former white house counsel's can to me and said, could we do some thing about the tradition of innocent until nominated? nominating andof confirming presidential appointees. where president obama, a democrat and democrat majority -- i am a republican, and i sai

>> senator, yes. as a matter of fact, when you become 13, which is our legal limit or limit -- we don't allow people under the age of 13 to use facebook. you don't automatically go from having a messenger kids account to a facebook account, you have to start over and get a facebook account. so i think it's a good idea to consider making sure that all that information is deleted and in general people are starting over when they get their facebook or other accounts. >> i'll close because i have a few seconds. illinois has a biometric privacy act, our state does, to regulate the commercial use of facial, voice, finger and iris scans and the like, we're in a fulsome debate on that and facebook is trying to carve out exceptions to that. i hope you fill me in with how that is consistent to protecting privacy. thank you. >> mr. cornyn. >> thank you, mr. zuckerberg for being here. i note up until 2014, the mantra or motto of facebook was move fast and break things, is that correct? >> i don't know when we cha

, senator durbin senator schumer senator mccain senator lynn and senator barrasso in each of those two years we took some steps to try to improve the put presidential nominating process. we did some pretty important things. we eliminated 163na positions. we took 272 more and said it's their privilege to move them through more rapidly. we eliminated a secret hole in that took 17 years with senator grassley to be nominated on noncontroversial positions and for two years for some cabinet members eight hours of post-cloture debate. senator reed really wanted us to do that and senator mcconnell didn't really want to do it but we did it anyway because we thought it was good for the senate and the institution. so we did that. here we arere today and back thn i i remember senator schumer sang hoon america doesn't think a president democrat or republican deserves his or her sapick for anybody who should rn the agency. everybody believes that so everyone knows where we are right now. democrats agree for a variety of reasons so their tactic is to slow down the senate by taking a long time to cons

senator corker: senator young. senator young: mr. jenkins, historically roughly 90% of the food that goes into the country of yemen as come in from the outside. it's imported into the country and significant amount of their fuel and medicine is as well. 70% tole 0% -- to 80% of those come from the port. with that in mind, would would be the implications, humanitarian consequences of an attack on the port by the saudi-led coalition? mr. jenkins: with the temporary closure back in october-november, we saw that an extended closure of the port would be catastrophic to the humanitarian needs in the country. senator young: could you throw some numbers? i don't foe if there is internal projections about over certain period of time the impact that would have on the number of people would succumb to disease hunger and so forth? mr. jenkins: i don't have numbers off hand. i do know that the vast majority of people within that -- the majority of people in need in that 22 million number live in the northern part of the country . accessible by th

the clerk: senate resolution 463 authorizing a senator to bring a young son or daughter of the senator on to the floor of the senate during votes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. mcconnell: i further ask consent the resolution be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the fooling senate resolutions submitted earlier today, s. res. 474, 475, and 476. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measures en bloc? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its b

all other senators? ell, it matters a lot because being recognized first permits exactly what i have been talking about. the majority leader, to of rmine what the business the senate will be. more time is the coin of the senate. the about years you've read or heard, because it continues, the ouse complaining about senate. we pass all of these bills that go over to the senate. nothing happens. like dropping it into a black hole. i'm reminded of a story when the democrats were in the majority in both the house and tom foley i think was the speaker at the time, he was asked about one of his young embers, he said who is the opposition, mr. speaker? opposition, the republicans. the enemy, now that's the senate. harking back to what i told the ashington predicted, senate is not a place where things are done quickly. and for a whole lot of institutional reasons, it is a a lot of things don't happen. but remember the founding were not interested in efficiency. high on their list. they were interested in dividing

certainly. >> senator? >> senator? >> senator? >> senator? >> senator kennedy. sen. kennedy: one more question. >> senator? we have lost the support of our allies in western europe. what are you planning to do? sen. kennedy: i would hope that the changes i've suggested and the changes in policies in southeast asia, what needs to be done in order to strengthen ourselves at home will bring back from support -- bring back support for the united states not only in western europe but in latin america and africa and all across the rest of the country. i think that's one of the great casualties of the war, not just the divisions within our own country, not only the divisions within our own country, but the lack of confidence that exists in the united states in other places around the globe. thank you very much. [applause] roger: so it's a whole new ball game with senator kennedy's announcement. the candidate most immediately affected, senator eugene mccarthy, is now with david in the studios of wbay tv in green bay, wisconsin, and in a moment we'll switch out to green bay t

the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until the us senate confirmed michael pompeo as secretary of state with a vote of 57-42. six democrats and one independent voting guests including senators donnelly, high camp, mansion, in king. the chamber confirmed richard cornell to be germany's ambassador. more votes are expected this week with senators have a district work. next week and they are expected back into session on

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: i -- thank you, mr. president. i'm they're give some brief remarks about what we're on right now, which is a congressional review act vehicle to reconsider agency guidance. now, there's nothing that sounds more arcane and wonky than that. the issue at hand has to do with disparate treatment of people when they go into a -- borrow to get a car that there's plenty of evidence that black and brown people are taken advantage of and treated more poorly in the credit context than white people. and so the cfpb went to collect data and to require that people were treated fairly. and so i'll be voting against this c.r.a. vehicle, by i actually think there's a bigger, broader, more concerning issue. and i'm going to be trying to work with the parliamentarian's office and with the leadership of both parties to address it because although it's arcane, it's very worrisome for the senate itself. so the congressional review act passed in 1996 and the idea was totally straightforward. any rul

coons and senator booker, senator tillis and senator graham. i think this is a proud day for the committee and i think that the 14 to 7 vote sends a clear message be that not everyone agreed on this, but a clear message that we must protect this investigation. and investigations going forward as senator tillis noted, this is not just about this investigation, it's really about all investigations going forward. >> for me this issue has really hit hard as a former prosecutor and i spent eight years doing what job and we would have cases come before us all the time where maybe the victim wasn't very sympathetic or maybe you knew the department or it was a white collar case that someone liked in the community and you would always have to see your job as being a minister of justice, that your job was to conflict the guilty and to protect the innocent. that you had to do your job without fear or favor. so that's why my blood boils when i hear some of the comments from people either on tv or threats of firing people, that you have to follow the law wh

senator: thank you. senator kaine. senator: thank you, mr. chairman. during negotiations during the iran nuclear deal, you objected and you stated that it is under 2000 sorties to destroy the nuclear capacity and iran. a number of people opposed to the deal, but you were unique and thinking military action was preferable or easier than some folks were suggesting. where did you get the notion that destroying iran's nuclear capacity could be done with 2000 air sorties? your career as member of the house until committee? dir. pompeo: i believe that is right. i believe i was serving on the intelligence committee at that point in time. kaine: did you have any reluctance to share that assessment publicly? to publicly discuss it would be 2000 sorties to wipe out the iranian capacity struck me as odd. dir. pompeo: no classified information was contained in that simple statement. kaine: wouldn't that number implies the specific? dir. pompeo: 2000 is a pretty big number, might have been 1000 or 3000 and there was no aim to communicate. senator kaine: but you are

deficit over the last 15 months are senator harris, senator sanders, and senator merkley. oklahoma it's because they're fiscal conservatives. i think it's because they didn't atpwhree with the priorities in these bills. but they're the only three that haven't participated in increasing the deficit. we all have participated. i voted gepts the spending. some of you voted against the tax bill. but let's face it. i mean, both sides of the aisle. totally remiss as it relates to deficits. and i mean, i listen to this partisan bickering over blaming people, it's ridiculous. we are absolutely not capable of dealing with our country's finances and of course a big part of it is the american people don't really want it to be controlled. i want to get back with you on the numbers. i know my time sup. the thing that is confusing to me, i notice that, and i'll . ose with this, on page 117 .7%, anot the growth at average increase growth of .7% over the 10-year period. and we were looking at an average growth increase of .4% paying for this bill. that was passed. the tax reform bill. and

a senator: madam president. mr. peters: the senator from michigan. mr. peters: are we in a quorum call. the presiding officer: the senate is not in a quorum call. mr. peters: madam president, i rise to oppose the nomination of c.i.a. director mike pompeo to be the secretary of state. i voted against confirming mike pompeo to be the director of the central intelligence agency because he lacked the experience and the qualifications for the position. his time at the c.i.a. has done nothing to assure me that he now has the capabilities to lead the secretary of state. -- the state department. as a member of the house of representatives mike pompeo made repeated discriminatory remarks about muslim americans. he has argued that the muslim-american leaders have a special obligation to denounce terrorist attacks and he has falsely claimed that they have failed to do that. i'm proud to represent a dynamic muslim and arab-american community in michigan. i have seen that these patriotic communities are often the first -- they are the first to denounce senseless acts

and i worked with a bipartisan group of senators. senator durbin. senator schumer. senator mccain. senator levin, and each of those three years we took some steps to try to improve the presidential nominating process. and we did some pretty important things. we eliminated 163 positions. they don't have to be confirmed. we took 272 moran said they are privileged, you can move them through more rapidly much we eliminated secret holds that took 17 years for senator grassley. we eliminated 3,000 noncontroversial positions. and for two years we said for sub cabinet members eight hours of post cloture debate and judges two hours debate. senator reed want ds us to do that. senator mcconnell didn't want us to do that. but we did it anyway because we thought it was good for the senate as an institution. so we did that. now here we are today. and back then, i remember senator shoe manaschumer saying should believe that, he said everyone believes that. so everyone knows where we are. democrat for variety of reasons. so their tactic is to slow down the senate by taking a long period of time to

senate. senator langford introduces in december, 2017 -- senator lankford introduced this in december, 2017 and his work we appreciate. hearing onee held a december 19, 2017. the text of the resolution was taken from a resolution passing 78-16 in the 113th congress. senator lankford has proposed a resolution that if adopted would allow the senate to vote on nominees in a streamlined manner. once a majority of the senate decided to end debate, senators would be allowed to speak about -- but the most serious senators would still be a lot to speak on all but the most senior executive and judicial nominees for 8 hours. the most senior nominees, debate hours, district judges as they did in 2013 and 2014 would go to eight hour debate. i support the resolution and look forward to a vote to send to the floor for the senate's consideration. the senator addressed two main issues. first of all, we should agree the president should be a point that should be able to appoint officials to carry out their ag

senate? think for the reason you stated there is a lot of concern among republicans about losing the house. the senate majority, the senate republican majority is seen as a firewall by republicans and we have seen some new fundraising numbers today from one of the major outside super pac's, the senate leadership fund that is run by a close mcconnell ally. they are getting good numbers. attributesof the pac that to donors having the perception that the senate is the firewall and they need to give if they want to make sure that holds. even though it is difficult to see the math work to where democrats win back the senate, it is within the realm of possibility. that is definitely a focus for gop donors. heard the senator hoping they can get through regular order on appropriations deal with nominations. perhaps there is a rules change or perhaps not. are there any major pieces of legislation the senate is going to be able work through in the remaining months? >> i think that despite the optimism,

two votes for senator eugene mccarthy. senator george mcgovern.otes for our distinguished vice president hubert humphrey. [horns blowing] vote is ash carolina follow. 44.5 votes for humphrey. votes for senator mcgovern. ore.otes for governor more north dakota, 25. >> madam chairman, north the coda is a state that modestly -- casts seven votes for senator mccarthy. 18 votes for vice president humphrey. howard: the north carolina vote, after the delegates were released, shows votes for vice largestt humphrey the ,rop in humphrey or mccarthy any of them. the greatest difference with had of any of them. there are only one, it too, or three votes most. >> -- for senator eugene mccarthy and 94 votes for vice president hubert humphrey. >> ohio's vote. they also gave two votes to mcgovern and one for ted kennedy. 94 votes forote is vice president humphrey, 18 for senator mccarthy, 2% of mcgovern and one for senator kennedy. oklahoma, 41. casts .5 vote for phillips. for mcgovern. mccarthy.for senator 37.5 votes for vice president humphrey. >> the oklahoman

>> no, senator. the first lines of our service say you can control and all the information and conduct you put on facebook. >> the recent scandal is obviously frustrating not only because it affected 87 million but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years so back in 2011 it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another instance where the data was failed to be protected. when he discovered cambridge analytica had fraudulently obtained all of this information why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> what we learned in 2015 had thought data from an app anveloper on facebook the people and shared it with we did take action. we took down the app and we demanded the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect it was clearly a mistake to believe them and we should have followed up and done a full audit than and that is not a mistake we will make. >> y

senator menendez. -- ranking member senator menendez. menendez: you and the director of national intelligence attended a briefing at the white house with several government agents. up,he briefing was wrapping everyone was asked to leave the room except for you and coates. the president started complaining about the fbi investigation and comey's handling of it. two days earlier, comey had confirmed the fbi whether trump was coordinating with russia during the 2016 race. thees discussed investigation with other officials and decided that interfering with comey would be inappropriate. director, this account strongly suggests the president asked you and director coates to interfere with comey's investigations into contacts campaign's with russia. what did president trump say to you in that meeting? mike pompeo: i am not going to talk about that. setting, it is appropriate for the president to have an opportunity to talk with his senior leaders. the article's suggestion he asked me to do anything improper is false. z: did he ask you to do any

you, senator harris. senator kennedy. >> mr. zuckerberg, i come in peace. [laughter] >> i don't want to have to vote regulate facebook, but by of that ll, a lots depends on you. i'm a little disappoint indeed this hearing today. i just don't feel like we're connecting. o let me try to lay it out for you from my point of view. a really smart guy and i think you have built extraordinary american lot ny and you have done a of good. some of the things you have been magical.o are utopia we d digital have discovered has mine fields. there are some impurities in the facebook punch bowl. they got to be fixed. fix them.k you can now, here is what is going to happen. a whole going to be bunch of bills introduced to regulate facebook. they pass you whether or not. spend $10 back home, million on lobbyists and fight go back home and help us solve this problem and, too, one is a privacy problem, one is a propaganda problem. privacy rt with the problem first. let's start with your user agreement. here is what everybody has been today and i l you say this gently. user agr

the senate before tom left the senate, before senator coburn left the senate. hopefully we can get it across the finish line if not today but in the very near future. american taxpayers deserve a government that can tell them how their money is being spent, and that's all this bill is trying to do. it's not complicated. it's trying to get important information to the people who are paying the bills. don't they have a right to know where all the money is going? it improves a publicly accessible online database with information about federal programs, including the funding for the program and the activities that it comprises, the authorizing statutes and relevant rules and regs, the individuals the program serves and the employees who work to administer it, and copies of recent evaluations or assessments provided by the agency, inspectors general, or the government accountability office. the truth is much of this information, including the program inventory itself, is already required by the government performance and results act or gpra. it passed this body by u

with senator kunz, senator booker, and senator grams. -- senator graham. i believe the vote sends a clear message that not everybody agreed but a clear message that we must protect this investigation. the investigations going forward --sen. tillis: did, this is senator tillis noted, this is about investigations going forward. for me this issue has hit hard as a former prosecutor. i spent eight years doing that job. we would have cases come before us all the time where maybe the victim wasn't very sympathetic or maybe you knew the defendant, or it was some kind of white-collar case of someone people liked in the community. you would always have to see your job as being a minister of justice. your job was to convict the guilty and to protect the innocent. that you had to do your job without fear or favor. that is why my blood boils when i hear some of the comments you are on tv or threats of hiring people that you have to follow the law where ever it leads you. you doesn't mean you don't have discretion sometimes to be compassionate about how you follow the

of history of the senate. you know, we're trying to return to some comity here. the omnibus bill was very good working between speaker ryan, leader pelosi, leader mcconnell, and myself. we are going to talk about doing the appropriations process on regular order and going back to the days when we did that which i know the majority leader wants to do that as do i as does senator shelby as does senator leahy. something like this, so partisan and so unfair and so unacknowledging of the his -- unacknowledging of the history that has gone before doesn't help the sense of comity in the senate. i urge republicans and democrats alike on the rules committee to reject this terribly ill-advised proposal. now, on another matter, mr. president. over the last few months house republicans have heaped enormous pressure on the dpiewrt attorney general rod rosenstein in a transparent attempt to bullying into providing documents pertinent to an ongoing investigation, something we've hardly ever seen before, something that really

>> senator, yes. one of my critiques of the arrangement we reached with iran was it was insufficiently close to such a standard. >> so you support the gold standard? >> i do. and while i've not been part of the negotiations, senator, i know that the state department and the department of energy are working towards achieving that. >> so would you oppose any agreement that was less than the gold standard? that is, that ultimately permitted for uranium enrichment or plutonium processing technology on the soil of saudi arabia? >> senator, i can't answer that for you. i can imagine we got close but not quite to the full definition. the answer, i guess, is yes, i can imagine such a scenario. >> how do you think iran would respond if we pulled out of the agreement with iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where saudi arabia could receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment equipment? how do you think they would respond? >> senator, this is precisely my concern with the iranian agreement. >>

senator lee? >> i would like to offer an amendment. >> please proceed. >> are there copies? >> mr. chairman as i offer this , amendment i'd like to -- >> was it filed? has it been filed? >> yes, it's been filed. let me pull it up. it's amendment caption alb-18495. >> we have copies? >> yes. >> this is the cornyn amendment? >> yes, and i'm offering it. we have a couple issues here. with respect to the underlying legislation, we're told that if president trump fires special counsel mueller that it would spark a constitutional crisis, one that threatens the rule of law in america. not content to wait, the committee's solution apparently is to do the job ourselves by advancing the legislation we're considering today, legislation to which my amendment responds. there are two constitutional provisions at issue by the underlying legislation and that i try to address through my amendment. the first is article two's vesting clause which provides the executive power in the united states government shall be

>> no, senator. actually, the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another instance where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information,why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015, that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app. and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them. and we should have

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: thank you, mr. president. i want to briefly address an issue that has been raised in the context of the vote we will have later today. as you know, mr. president, later today we'll be using the congressional review act to repeal a very ill-conceived regulation imposed by the cfpb. now, some of our colleagues, some outside this chamber, have suggested that it's somehow problematic to use the congressional review act, to use this device for the repeal of a regulation that's promulgated by guidance as opposed to those regulations promulgated in accordance with the administrative procedures act that we usually refer to as a rule or a rule making. the reality is that the applicability of the congressional review act to a guidance, in my view, is very obvious and very well established and should not be controversial. i understand people might like the cfpb's rule, which i don't, but to suggest that somehow because they issued it through a guidance rather than through the appropriate

>> no, senator. actually, the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another instance where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information,why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015, that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app. and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them. and we should have

i just want to commend my colleagues who worked on the bill, senator kunz, senator booker, senator tillis and senator graham, only her on this committee for this important work. i am glad we are going to have this come up for a vote, and i join senator feinstein and asking that any amendments the be bipartisan in the spirit of this bill. i would like to thank our out outes who have spoken against the danger of ending -- -- of upending this investigation by firing the special counsel or deputy attorney general rosenstein. i know you, mr. chairman, has said it would be suicidal if the president were to do that. i thought that was very direct and to the point. i also know that senator kennedy and i did a joint interview in which he voiced concerns about this, as did other members of this committee. i think it is very important. as a former prosecutor, i believe that you have to have bipartisan support for the law, and that that is one of the goals of this committee is to uphold the rule of law. we must allow director mueller, who is a republican appointee, uphold the rule of law. someone who

>> no, senator. actually, the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another incidence where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica stop using any data that they had. they told us that they had. we should have followed up and that is not a mistake that we will make again. >> you did that and

he became a senator in 1990. at one time he chaired the senate affairs committee. this is about 15 minutes. mr. akaka: madam president? the presiding officer: the the senator from hawaii. mr. akaka: madam president, i rise to give me remarks and my aloha to the united states senate. madam president, before i begin, i want to say that my good friend, my colleague of 36 years, my brother dan inouye, hawaii's senior senator, i wish him a speedy recovery and return to the senate. mr. president, i -- i mean, madam president, i rise today to say aloha to this institution. i have been honored to be a member of the united states senate for 22 years. it has been an incredible journey that i never imagined. as a senior in high school going to kamemha school for boys, which was noted as a military school, my life was changed for school. when i saw japanese fighter planes attacking pearl harbor. like most men in my generation, i joined the war effort. my path was forever altered. when the war ended, i believe i was suffering from ptsd. it was an act of congress that allowed me

>> senator, yes. as a as a matter of fact, when you become 13, which is our legal limit, our limit we don't allow people under the age of 13 to use facebook, you don't automatically go from having a messenger kids account to a facebook account. you have to start over and get a facebook account. so, so i think it's a good idea to consider making sure that all that information is deleted and in general people are going to be starting over when they get their facebook or other accounts. >> i will close because i just have a few seconds. illinois has a biometric information privacy act, our state does. which is to regulate the commercial use of facial, voice, finger, iris scans and the like. we're now in debate on that. facebook is trying to carve out exceptions to that i hope you will fill me in on how that is consistent with protecting privacy. thank you. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator cornyn. >> thank you, mr. zuckerberg, for being here. i note that up until 2014, the mantra or motto of facebook

>> no, senator. actually, at the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so back in 2011, it was a settlement with the ftc and now we discover yet another incident where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app. and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to believe them. and we should h

chairman. >> senator udall. senator moran is up next. i will say again that after a couple more questioners, we will probably give the witness another short break. >> thank you. >> we are getting about two-thirds through the list of members here to ask questions. >> mr. zuckerberg, thank you for your testimony and thank you for your presence here today. on march 26th of this year, the ftc confirmed it was investigating facebook to determine whether its privacy practices violated the ftc act or the consent order facebook entered into with the agency in 2011. i chair the commerce committee subcommittee that has jurisdiction of the federal trade committee. i remain interested in facebook's assertion that it rejects any suggestion of violating that consent order. part two of that consent order requires an facebook "clearly and prominently display notice and obtain users' affirmative consent before sharing their information with any third party." my question is, how does the case of approximately 87 million facebook friends having their data

moran: thank you, senator shatz. senator from oklahoma, senator lankford. senator lankford: thank you, mr. chairman. i am one of those skeptical individuals that has not evolved on this issue of marijuana. i have a hard time believing if only more of our parents smoked more marijuana our kids and families would be so much better, employment would be so much better. i have a hard time believing that. several billion dollars the appropriations committee has allocated to them to study pain medications that are nonaddictive to address that. we haven't opioid epidemic. i would rather not swap and opioid epidemic with addiction to marijuana and say we solved the problem. we did not solve the problem long-term. i would love to be able to maintain this. there are ways to manage other different kinds of thing to manage pain. my preference would be that our nation does not become more and more addicted to marijuana to solve our opioid addiction. let me mention a couple things. budget-related -- you made recommendations moving things around specifically with atf. ,i w

>> yes, senator. although, to be clear, we don't offer an option today to pay for people not to show ads ad supported service is aligned with the mission to help connect everyone in the world. we want to offer a free service that everyone can afford that's the only way we can reach billions of people >> so, therefore, you consider my personally identifiable data, the company's data, not my data, is that it >> no, senator actually, the first line in our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook >> well, the recent scandal is, obviously, frustrating, not only because it affected 87 million, but it's part of a pattern of lax data practice the going back for years. back in 2011, there was a settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another incident where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that fraudulently obtained all the information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in

>> no, senator. actually, at the first line of our terms of service say that you control and own the information and content that you put on facebook. >> well, the recent scandal is obviously frustrating not only because it affected 87 million, but because it seems to be part of a pattern earn of lax -- pattern of lax data practices by the company going back years. so back in 2011 it was a9 settlement with the ftc, and now we discover yet another incidence where the data was failed to be protected. when you discovered the cambridge analytica that had fraudulently obtained all of this information, why didn't you inform those 87 million? >> when we learned in 2015 that cambridge analytica had bought data from an app developer on facebook that people had shared it with, we did take action. we took down the app, and we demanded that both the app developer and cambridge analytica delete and stop using any data that they had. they told us that they did this. in retrospect, it was clearly a mistake to belie

>> senator, yes. one of my critiques of the arrangement we reached with iran was it was insufficiently close to such a standard. >> so you support the gold standard? >> i do! and while i've not been part of the negotiations, senator, i know that the state department and the department of energy are working towards achieving that. >> would you oppose any agreement that is less than the gold standard that allowed for uranium enrichment on the soil of saudi arabia? >> i can't answer that for you. i can imagine that we got close but not quite to the full definition of the gold standard. i don't want to hypothesize so the answer is, yes, i can imagine such a scenario. >> how do you think iran would respond if we pulled out of the agreement with iran while simultaneously agreeing to a deal where saudi arabia could receive plutonium reprocessing and uranium enrichment? how do you think they would respond? >> this is precisely my concern with the iran agreement. >> right. so that's the question i'm asking you

democrats chewing up hours of senate time on nominees that literally no senator opposes. i understand my friends on the other side have a number of disagreements with the president. that tends to happen in politics. but that's no excuse at all for this historic obstruction of noncontroversial nominees. bad for the senate. it's unfair to the american people. that's why i support senator lankford's efforts to enact the very same rules change that a large bipartisan majority agreed to back in 2013 when the democrats were in the majority here in the senate. it would empower the senate to process nominations more quickly while preserving ample opportunity for debate. it is precisely the rules change that my friend, the democratic leader, supported back in 2013. i joined in that bipartisan effort along with a number of my fellow republicans. it passed 78-16. 78-16. the white house may have changed hands, but the last time i checked, fair is still fair, and common sense is still common sense. so senator lankford is giving my democratic colleagues their very own chance to show th

chairman. >> thank you, senator scott. senator sullivan? >> thank you, mr. chairman, general, good to see you and thanks for all you're doing. i want to ask you a very -- just off the top. your command does so much and it's so critical to the war fighter, to any kind of military operati operation. i think it's unsung how much work you do and how we can't function as a u.s. military without you operating effectively, efficiently. what's the top issue that keeps you up at night right now general, in the biggest challenge. >> first, let me thank you for acknowledging the great men and women who live in the cornfields of il who are watching you in watch parties all across the command. >> they do a great job and they're unsung. >> then you pumped me up because all of my self-esteem is derived from how good they are because i don't do much anymore. our number one threat, senator is cyber and protecting commercial industry in the cyber domain. >> so you have some control over the cyber domain as it relates to the military but it's much less control in the commercia