democracy is worth die for. >> we are here in the sanctuary of democracy. >> great responsibilities fall to the great democracies. >> freedom and democracy must be constantly guardeded a protected. >> we are still -- guarded and protected. >> it is a master victory for democracy and freedom. >> we welcome the former head of the congressional budget office. for folks who might note know. >> it is a center right think tank to understand the range of economics policies. mrs. trump: economic policy is

very much a part this budget bill passed last night. the suspect tags from the speaker's office is they will get a vote in the house this week. your 30,000-foot view of this bill do you like it? what are your concerns. >> it will avoid a large tax but it is not outstanding tax polls or help with the fiscal problems which are depressing. in terms of what is at stake, it is extension of 2007 law is it won't do were for the economy. there are provisions to improve business investment and research and development and they are positive though modest then there are a bunch of promises

the president did will go in the wrong direction. the rule on tax policy is broaden the base and trade everybody the same. this pulls out special favors for overtime, tips, seniors. it is very different than the 2007. mrs. trump: >> there was a caller we are at $37 trillion. what did this bill did for the trajectory of debt? guest: it makes it modestly worse. i thought the gold stand would do something with us budget neutral and if you do that you would make progress on the fiscal situation. at the oer other end you can't

too excited. host: you talked about the moody's downgrade? . it can look at a borrower and say you will play back but first to downgrade was standard and paors you are to longer triple a. those concerns were about the politics. 2023 sen. fischer: said they are largely shedding a government. this is very different and more, troubling because what moody's says you have a lot of didn't and interest and you might not be able to pay it so we are downgraded to a little bit of risk.

>> i want to play there response and get your response. >> i think moody's is a lagging indicatorment i think that is what think of two. larry sumers said that is when at the downgraded u.s. in 2011. and just like sean duffy said with the air track control we didn't get here in the past 100 days. it is the biden administration and spending the last four years. we inherented 6.7% deficit to georgia d.p. when we were in recession and we are determined to bring the spend down. >> fair enough but under president trump's first administration he had $85 trillion so there is plenty of blame to go around.

>> we were in the rescue portion of covid. the biden administration was in the recovery portion and if not for senators manchin and cinema it would have been $4 trillion or $5 trillion more. your thoughts and his view. >> it is a little disappointing. number one don't pay tpwaeupbgs it doesn't mean. i would like somebody a little more series say this is a problem we we are going to do something. the notion that it is lagging indicator is confusion. the problem rivers and later you find out. that means he is acknowledging away the problem. host: how much debt is too much debt?

is there a moment we will accumulate of debt that will be a breaking point and we will all know it is too much debt? guest: at some point in our trajectory which is ever increasing amounts of debt, international creditors look at that and lose the confidence that you will repay either the interest or principal and they will no longer extend you credit. i don't know what date that is. no one knows. host: will it happen all at once? guest: there have been a lot of so far are debt crises and they have this sort of troubling characteristic it is usually something unrelated to the budget that triggers it. it is like you go bankrupt then all at once and that is a lot true for countries. i think the right way to think about it is having a sovereign

debt crisis is failure but let's take on a d and put our finances in order. we did that in the 20th century. we got better economic response. the standard of living doubld. you get a sense people know that. i don't have the same opportunity my parents have. take care of educating people, make people more productive. host: a caller friday asked why don't we have balanced budget any more? guest: two reasons. we did have a balanced budget at the end of the century. two things have gone on in this century. we don't clean up after crises.

world war ii was a crisis and we had crises that went way up. but then it came back down. in this century it goes up and stays unment we don't clean up after an emergency response so we have more doubt. we will pay a trillion dollars in in this year. the second thing is we have social security, medicare they are more than one half of monetary spending driven by the democrat ago -- demography and that continues. so it is a structural deficit plus emergenciesment host: you are currently the president of the american action form formerly of the congressional budget office taking calls the next 30 to 35.

for democrats it is 202-748-8000. republicans is 202-748-8001ment independents 202-748-8002. as people are calling in this big bill came out remind us what the role of the congressional budget office is, what a score is. guest: a score is how much will this bill money flowing into the treasury the next 10 years and flowing out and what does to do to the deficit or surplus. it shows this year by year and each provision in the bill it is a detailed accounting of the budgetary impact of the bill. the job is to score bills considered by congress so at the know what they are doing. in the process they have to milwaukee evaluations of how programs work and how many will

take up a medicaid provision and get health insurance and they do that based on the consensus in the listen in a nonpartisan fashion. it is a phenomenal place. host: do you think those numbers in place where we get a lot of numbers and this means this, are the c.b.o. numbers the most trustworthy numbers on a bill like this? guest: yes. it doesn't mean they are right. an example when i was there back in 2003 we grated the part d program for seniors and insurance against the cost of outpatient. there was nothing out in nature at that time so the c.b.o. had to imagine who wants the buy the drugs and how would the subsidy

affect it. it was an extraordinarily complicated exercise and we got in wrong by about 25% but they are support important when they are diagnose something new. it is not that they are right but they will try to be equally too high as too low and give you a notion of the scale the enterprise the congress is involved in. host: i want to get into this bill but let me take some calls. this kitty in silver spring, maryland. mrs. trump: caller: we have our president in his day life had people to manage. i'm wondering if that expect how that translates into the administration's policy a

representation of kind of our debt, our standing in the world and how we see police. >> it is a really a good question and i get asked including why is the president letting the tariffs and i'm not qualified to guess at his state of mind. it is certainly the case his first time in office and again as president is not one that indicateses serious about taking on the situation. if you are serious you should be serious about taking on reform and strengthen and preserve social security and medicare and reduce the amount of spending on them. he took them off the table. that says we are not going to deal with it. host: is there enough broad, waste and abuse? .

no. you have to change the programs many the programs for the purpose designed for the 1930's and 1960's, they won't match our democrat ago if i. the part two is if youer. then was to have insurance to cover people's statins. now we are keeping people alive for years and the program has to reflect that. host: what is a fair way to modify which means reduce benefits? who does that impact? if you were being asked design this bill what would you do? >> i wouldn't. i would let the american people decide. here is the reason i'm hopeful despite everything that i have said. i do budgets. social security will go bankrupt

in eight years which they will not have a legal authority and there will be a across the board cut in 21%. i don't think we believe that they will sit aside and let people cut. but if you are 55, there will be a social security form and you know what your benefits are. that is a terrible way to run a pension program and every year people will say what is the deal so i can retire and congress owes them that answer. instead of going to a town hall saying i want to room social security and work at the tasty freeze, they will go to reform so you know the deal and go do it. then there will be a huge fight over the details. host: so at some point you don't think it -- guest: you have to fix it.

that is a good thing and our representative democracy will engaged and there will be a vigorous debate so i don't think any sort of analyst like i will have solutions. we have had many commissionsment they raise the cap on tax so we collects more revenue. they change the ward of be in benefits so we might consider giving the affluent any at all. social security is an insurance policy against the risk that you outlive your resources and a lot of people won't outlive them but you have to draw the line but that is means testing and you can figure out how to index and you could make real progress on

making the program fit the 21st century. host: tom on the phone. caller: i want to ask about the maryland care cuts. the republicans and chip roy want sick people work to give cuts. what is wrong with these republicans. and all of these doge pressure reliefs are any of them going to be legalized in this new bill? guest: two good questions. first, these are medicate cuts. that is the low income health program and i don't think anyone is proposing that anybody who is sick are forced to work. they would have work requirements where people are independent and have no depend r

dependents. that is a philosophy issue saying you should be willing to work in assistance of your fellow americans but i don't think there's any budgetary savings in the work requirements. as for the doge cuts, this is a big deal. there are two kinds of things doge has done. it has reduced federal employment but that is not a serious budgetary activity. we spend maybe $400 million for civilian workers in the federal government. we ran a deficit of $1.8 trillion this year. we are not going to solve the deficit problems by changing the footprint. the something is not spend money. that is impoundment. congress is authorizing

spending. in 1974 president nixon did this and they took him the court and created the congressional budget office and budget process and now it is against the law to impound money. instead a president can say i don't want to spend this and congress has 45 to agree and it comes back or disagree and it goes out. i suspect that the money doge is sitting on will be part of a test case it test the 1974. if the court upholds that minute has to go out. host: we have several viewers who tweet about this program every day and have a conversation. michael has this. how much will taxes increase if the 2007 ta reform is not made

permanent and will or could that help the budget deficit? >> they would go up by about $425 million next year and would help that much. my concern is that abruptly that is going to generate enough head winds to knock the economy sideways or in its weakened state into a recession and one thing that never many proves the economy. congress congress typically turns around and does a big tax cut. i don't think we have done a good job so i don't think we should root for a recession. host: for viewers whoanto watch it, the house rules

committee just ninesed they are meeting to consider the bill and this is the rules vote, the package that is put together and that will be wednesday. i had to triboro -- triple it, 1 a.m. guest: but only c-span has viewers at 1:00 a.m. host: they are amp vigorous but 1 a.m. wednesday morning i should say that is eastern ime. this is genie in marysville, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question. i want to know if -- i'm a welder and i have been experiencing union discrimination and i want to know if there is something in the budget for the working class

people that are trying to work and trying to get employed and there's been push back on women in construction. i want to bring that up to see if there will be something in the budget for policies and procedures that will help individuals like myself that are being blackballed from the industry. guest: the short answer is no and the reason is the republicans are trying it pass this using fast track procedures known as reconciliation. the important restriction is you only get to do that if they are strictly budgets tear. you can't make policy like union or antidiscrimination policy.

so, you hear talk about things that might be in the bill lake energy policies, border policies, regulation reformsment this will be a win knowing by the senate parliamentarian where they will go through it line by line is this primarily budgetary or nature and if it is not it will come out. it is something both parties have used and in the inflation reduction act they tried to include an increase in the federal minute wage so it seems that is to the likely to make it. host: when a parcel taren do that do they go line by line or does -- how does this work? is it like knocking off jurors in a jury pool. guest: this is a procedure dedicated to report bird because it bypassed the rules of the

senate and no filibusters and he liked to protect it. he loved the rules so he wanted to put it in a box many so the parliamentarians hearing the bill start going through and republicans say that is fine and democrats say no, i don't like that and they make their case. it is called a bird bath. mrs. trump: is that done behind closed doors? guest: yes. host: is it something that would be in front of cameras. host: chaney, washington, democrat. caller: i'm hoping that you can help me make the math work. host: you picked the right guy. caller: as far as the budget is concerned and this is including doge, the fact that we are

practically five months into 2025 and last i check the we are already $319 million over budget. >> we are important that. probably billions would be my guess. host: maybe i didn't get the right number. i'm confused. if doge is doing such a great job, where are they asking for $4.5 trillion more through the next budget, and why are they changing the debt ceiling making it $4 trillion higher as well? guest: the math is very confusing and i would say you

have at least three things going on. for level setting, in fiscal 2025 the year we are in, the federal government will spends $7 trillion. it will sppbtdz a trillion dollars on interest, $1.8 trillion on the annual decisions of congress -- defense spending, money for agencies to do bake research and $4.2 million like social security, medicaid. that is a lot of money and the president has made requests for changes to that $1.8 trillion in discretionary spending for next year. that is not yet law. congress is evaluating those and they will have to pass laws.

the house and senate are considering changes to the big mandatory spending programs, 4.2, to see where that goes and there's a lot of controversy where they are headed on that fronts. the bulk are concentrated in the area that has medicaid jurisdictionment they said they are not going to touch medicaid and social securitiment so those are things going on as they fight about what things will look like starting with a baseline of $7.2 billion. then there's the debt limitment we have run deficits a long time and borrowed a lot and at some point we hit the limit the congress has issued to borrow. we hit that limit on january 1ment sense then the treasury

has been keeping ussen the limit with extraordinary measures which are not particularly extraordinariment we go to the federal employees retirement council and they count toward the limits. we then borrow more from the public and we have cash and pay our billsment then we restore the action packment there can only go so long. they have to raise the debt. the bills are just coming due. i'm concerned given the justin grade by moody's all the eyes on the united states that away might have another episode where we go up to the last something on didn't limit and scare the markets and it would be wise to have a plan to take that off the table. host: you mentioned we will spends about $1 trillion on interest on debts. can

guest: that would be a disaster because that is tantamount to saying we cannot pay and we want to get a payment plan, sort of lower our payments and i think that would frighten international lenders to death and the disaster consume the fact that treasuries, the dollars, the foundation -- they are the foundation of the global financial system. if i am, you know, in argentina or ecuador or france, i can get a hold of some treasuries and i know i can buy some because they are always available and i know i can sell them if i need the cash to pay for this international transaction. it is that willingness to buy and sell the liquidity treasuries and the reason we have that is they are not risky. everybody believes he can always get your money. if you start to get something where you are not sure, you don't want to buy it and now you have ground the international financial system to a halt and we should not mess with that. host: kathy, republican, you are

on with douglas holtz aiken. >> how are you? guest: good. how are you? caller: i'm find it i'm six to years old and i have paid for social security all of my life and i'm tired of people viewing it as an entitlement program. it is not. we paid in it. everybody says we are not paying for medicare. yes, i have $150 a month for my social security benefits, taking out for that very purpose and may i might add that you can go to the government health care website and get insurance for $79 a month. i also pay and then people have been getting free health care for how long? and i also pay for a premium of $140 a month to protect myself financially from that 20% of medicare does not cover so quit telling us that we are not

responsible. we have been far more responsible than everybody for the past 10 or 15 years of this generation. we have been wronged. the government has dipped into this fund. we have had the responsibility of both political parties. i don't want to hear this anymore. we paid our fair share. we lost our pensions, lost our homes, lost our jobs. we have been victims multiple times. you have no idea what our generation has been through. host: let me let douglas holtz aiken jump in. caller: lots of -- guest: lots of people feel that they pay for all of their social security and many has. social security redistributes and there are some people who pay more on a lifetime basis than they ever get out of it, typically the affluent, and some people pay less and get more out of the program then they pay in.

that is a case-by-case basis. edit care was never designed to be fully funded. the original program was just the hospital program and it was a mini social security. you paid to hospitals for the care. but when they moved to doing outpatient care and did prescription drugs and now the medicare advantage home insurance program, they decided to make it premium funded. you pay a premium like you would with a private health insurance fund. they said that is a lot of money. they cover a court of the cost of the program and we will get the rest from the treasury. medicare was never designed to be financially self-sufficient and it is not and nobody pays for their medicare. it gets subsidized by the general taxpayer throughout the life of the program. that is the biggest source of red ink in the federal government, responsible for about a third of all debt outstanding and i think going forward, it would be wise to rethink how all of medicare and sub and maybe put the entire

program on a budget and make sure it does add up each year instead of just always going to the treasury and getting more money. host: 10 minutes i want to ask you what is your view on tariffs? guest: i think this has been a terrible misadventure. i do. tariffs are taxes so if you just looked at this from a tax policy point of view, if you wanted to raise a fair amount of revenue -- what he proposed on april 2 was a $400 billion tax increase. we are all worried about not doing that next year to avoid a recession. he did that on april 2. that was extraordinary and you saw how people reacted. so you would not pick a national sales tax that sort of only covered half or a third of the goods or something. you would have a broad-based anterograde and it's a very regressive tax and tariffs are really hard to administer. host: why is it a regressive tax? guest: it hits the poor harder than the affluent. they are buying things out of

mead and pay the tax. so it's not a good revenue instrument. it's not a good idea, i think, to have a big tax increase and the economy is noticeably weaker now than it was in december. no question about that. and we have different kinds of tariffs. we have these product tariffs like steel, aluminum, autos, and he has promised semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, lumber, copper, and films p at all of these are done under the guise of a threat to our national security. we have to do more of it at home. i think it's an open question whether that ever plays out. certainly, we have done steel tariffs for the third time in my life house -- lifetime. here we are again. it doesn't work. we have got to stop trying to save the steel industry. host: is it bringing in enough revenue to make a difference on the spending gap we keep watching into the future? guest: suppose we have a

deficit, it's nonsense. it never will be. it is questionable whether it is working on it's sort of policy merits. it is not a budgetary item in my view. and the ones on canada and mexico, i mean, canada, mexico, and the united states are a unified economic entity. they are the most damaging thing he proposed and people recognized it so he carved those out to a great extent. we have a 10% universal tariffs. we have never done that. and we have reciprocal tariffs which the latest thing is the secretary said -- >> hello, everyone. this is a make or break week for the american people. house democrats will continue to strongly oppose the gop tax scam where republicans are trying to jam this big, ugly bill down the throats of the american people which will take away health care

, impose the largest cut to nutritional assistance in american history, and hurt veterans, hurt children, hurt seniors, hurt people with disabilities, result in hospitals closing, nursing homes shutting down, and because of the fact that almost 14 million people all will lose their ability to access health care, people will die. house republicans are trying to jam this reckless and extreme budget down the throats of the american people and hide what is in it. which is why in an extraordinary way, they are holding a rules committee hearing to advance the

bill at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. if this legislation is designed to make life better for the american people, can someone explain to me why they would hold a hearing to advance the bill at 1:00 a.m. in the morning? it's because the republicans know that their efforts to take away health care from millions of americans is deeply unpopular. republicans know that the effort to enact the largest cut to nutritional assistance in american history, which will literally take food from the mouths of children, veterans, and seniors is deeply unpopular. republicans know that providing the billionaire donors with a massive tax break for people like elon musk and at the same

time, exploding the deficit by trillions of dollars is deeply unpopular. that is why republicans are going to try to advance this bill in the dead of night at 1:00 a.m. in the morning. trump and house republicans can run away from their extreme budget proposal. we will never let them hide. questions? >> thank you, sir. given the revelations with president biden's cancer diagnosis and the release of the recording, why were democrats not more open to talking about president biden's age in 2024? >> my thoughts and prayers have been extended to president biden. it's a painful moment for him and his family. it's a very serious diagnosis. my expectation that president

biden is going to meet this moment with the courage and resilience that he has consistently shown seems to me entirely inappropriate that at this moment in time when president biden is dealing with a serious and aggressive form of cancer, there are republicans who are peddling conspiracy theories and want us to look backward at a time when they actually are taking health care wherefrom -- away from the making people. as house democrats, we are going to look forward. they literally are trying to take health care away from millions of americans at this very moment in the dead of night. and republicans want to fan the flames of conspiracy theories at this moment? no thank you -- no, thank you.

>> two questions just a follow-up on president biden. have you had a chance to speak with him at all since his diagnosis or do you intend to? secondly, just on medicaid, i know for many months now, you have been warning about cutting medicaid. it seems there's renewed discussions about putting it back into the reconciliation bill. what are your chief concerns if that happens? >> i have not had the opportunity to speak to president biden subsequent to the news of the diagnosis becoming public yesterday. i expect at some point in time, i will speak directly to him to more directly communicate, you know, my thoughts and prayers and that of the house democratic caucus chair in terms of the republican obsession with taking away health care from the american people, this is something they have been trying to do for decades. and the so-called freedom caucus

are making demands to push the bill into a more extreme direction. so the question is going to be will a so-called -- the so-called moderate republicans who have publicly claimed that they do not support efforts to end medicaid as we know it and take away health care from the american people, will they push back against this extreme republican effort to make the budget even more damaging to the health, safety, and well-being of the american people? we have warned from the very beginning that house republicans are actually determined to end medicaid as we know it. and we continue to receive proof point after proof point after proof point and now, the fact that the budget has been advanced to this stage is further evidence that despite

all the claims that democrats were not being level about what the republicans intentions are, the bill as it's currently written what enact the largest cut medicaid in american history. that is the bill as it is currently written. and republicans are apparently planning to make it even more extreme. one thing i want to know is done trump to veto any bill that actually would take away medicaid benefits from the american people. if that in fact is the case, is he planning on saying to house republicans tomorrow morning that he's going to veto the bill? as it is currently written, or was he once again lying to the american people? >> thank you, mr. leader. obviously, this week, they are trying to get this through.

as you get closer to july, the debt ceiling deadline. have you put any thought into what the democrats would want from republicans to avert the debt ceiling crisis if they cannot use this as the vehicle to do that? >> we have not because republicans have a date determined that they want to go it alone, go it alone as it relates to trying to meet the needs of the american people which has resulted in this one big, ugly bill they now want to jam down the throats of the american people in the dead of night and that they apparently have concluded they want to go it alone in terms of making sure that the debt ceiling is lifted. good luck. because they have not had a single conversation with democrats to try to protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america. >> thank you, mr. leader. today, the epa administrator

announced the lifting of an emergency order for water testing in flint, michigan and it returned testing to the normal state standards. what is your reaction to this both in terms of how far flint has, but also what work they still had to do in flint and other areas across the country? >> significant progress has been made thanks to leadership from the governor and great leadership from the former representative from that area who made it his congressional mission to help get the situation turned around. there is still work to be done and that is being led in part by representative mcdonald rivet. it appears the action taken by the epa administrator will unnecessarily and harmfully turn back the clock. thanks. >> thank you, leader. [indiscernible] -- to be the next president despite backlash over her

political ties to trump and her lack of academic experience as part of project on a 25 trend of trying to take over boards and undermine hbcus. you mentioned republicans lied about product on a 25. do you view the takeover of hbcus as part of that campaign to undermine hbcus? what is your message to students who are concerned about the leadership being installed at these institutions? >> this particular individual appears deeply unqualified and unprepared to carry out the mission of florida a&m university. and it is my suspicion that she will not last long. at the institution, she will be a failure, and we are not going to allow the trump administration to take over historically black colleges and universities across the country, to whitewash our history, and to

try to indoctrinate the young people of america with the extreme and failing ideology. republicans and far-right extremists are failing. they are failing as it relates to the economy. they are failing as it relates to races that are taking place all across the country, failing in courts and we are not going to let them take their failed track record, one disaster after the next, and allow them to pretend as if they have got some capacity or expertise to come of all things, be leading our historically black colleges and universities. >> thank you, mr. leader. you have worked with mike johnson for about twice as long as mccarthy was speaker. i'm curious how you can characterize your relationship and how you get a chance to talk.

>> it is a forward-looking, candid, and communicative relationship. >> can i get your reaction to this reported $5 million settlement between the trump administration and the family of -- >> the chief of police of the united states, capitol police, clearly and plainly said, and i support the position that the settlement was a slap in the face to the hard-working, courageous and brave men and women of the united states police force. it's totally done without any communication to the chief of the capitol police or his lawyers and appears solely the result of a political

determination that donald trump and republicans are going to try to wipe wash what happened -- whitewash what happened on january 6. this settlement is just an extension of what they have previously done which is to pardon violent felons who violently attacked the capital on january 6 including police officers, and now have all been pardoned and sent back to communities across the country where in some cases, they are re-engaging in criminal activity. donald trump an extreme macro republicans are not going to be able to erase what happened on january 6 no matter how hard they try. >> thank you. i wanted to ask you about the discussion going on right now. obviously, we had a fair amount of new york republicans who are not budging when it comes to discussions but do you have

republicans from other states who are saying otherwise question my one conversation we saw was in one of the hearings where she said it's not affected. they kept asking over and over again, well what about the -- >> tell me about your thoughts on republicans who want to keep -- but then they say taxpayers should not get a break for choosing to live in a high tax area? do you think it's fair for republicans from other states to say something like this? >> states like new york and new jersey and connecticut and illinois and california are donor states. we regularly send billions of dollars more to the federal government then we get back in return. we are donor states. so we are not going to be lectured by people who are actually in what has sometimes been referred to as taker states who actually receive more money every year from the federal

government then they send in terms of taxpayer dollars as to what is fair and what is right. it's actually not fair that you have many states in this country who subsidize other states. new york subsidizes other states. so to provide some measure of relief through the state and local tax deduction, i think is a modest step toward balancing the revenues that come in and the revenues that come out. the people of new york are fine with continuing to be a donor state. while it is unfair to cap the state and local tax deduction at $10,000. and if my republican colleagues were really interested in

providing relief to middle-class taxpayers that they represent, then they would simply say to make clear that this budget should remain silent on the state and local tax deduction because by doing nothing to cap -- nothing, the cap disappears this year. >> thank you. congressman greene said on friday -- articles of impeachment against president trump. where do you stand on that impeachment effort? >> i had a conversation with congressman greene about it but i look forward to that discussion. what can you just characterize in your view what the impact of the bill as it stands right now would be in your district and in your home state particularly in the context of some of these battleground districts you are going to be litigating in a year and a half? >> there are people who will lose their health care coverage

across the state of new york and beyond. approximately 14 million in this country. tens of millions of others are going to pay higher co-pays, premiums, and deductibles because of the significant role that medicaid plays in the health care ecosystem across this country and if you effectively end medicaid as we know it, it will also have an impact that is damaging on people who don't rely on medicaid for their health insurance but are part of the same health care ecosystem. hospitals are going to close. nursing homes are going to shut down. community health clinics will shudder their doors, and people are going to die. when their health care is taken

away from them, all because republicans want to provide a massive tax break to their billionaire donors like elon musk. that is the fundamental question that is before the congress and the house of representatives this week. democrats are going to stand on the side of the american people, their health care, nutritional assistance, access to higher education, stand on the side of veterans and everyday americans and people with disabilities and our children and seniors. andrepublicans are continuing to stand on the side of their billionaire donors. house republicans in particular are once again shamefully bending the knee and serving as nothing more than a rubber stamp for donald trump's extreme agenda. that is why he's coming up to the hill tomorrow, to give them their marching orders. as of house republicans work for

donald trump, jd vance, or elon musk. you don't. you work for the american people and all we need are four house republicans to stand up and do the right thing and push back against this one big, ugly bill and we can actually save the health care of the american people. quincy plan to speak with president trump at all during this process? >> i have no current plans to talk to president trump. >> you seem very clear about your concerns about reconciliation legislation and now as we are heading toward the final stretch here this week, can you talk a little bit about your strategy to push back in the time that is left? >> every single house democrat will continue to be strongly opposed to the republican effort

to rip health care away from the american people as part of their scheme connected to the gop tax scam to provide massive breaks to their billionaire donors like elon musk. we have held town hall meetings in democratic tricks and in republican districts. they have been speeches and rallies and marches and citizens and telephone town hall meetings and press conferences, all of which will continue in different ways throughout this week and beyond. whatever happens in the house this week doesn't necessarily signal the end of the process unless republicans decide finally to walk away from it. and every single house republican that chooses to vote for this reckless budget that will hurt the people they represent is going to be held

accountable. this week, next week, this month, next month, this year, next year. so i would caution my republican colleagues to be very careful about how you proceed legislatively in terms of the votes you are being asked to take that clearly do not serve the best interests of the people we are all privileged to represent here in the house of representatives. >> republicans are using the package to prevent state medicaid funding from going to noncitizens. the governors of minnesota and california have been cutting that off. are they wrong to do that question --that? >> what is interesting is that republicans have tried to make this a talking point when as far as i can tell, the overwhelming

majority of people who are going to be hurt by their efforts to take away medicaid and as a result will lose their health care are american citizens. thus the overwhelming majority of the 13.7 million people who are going to lose their health care because of republican efforts to provide elon musk and their billionaire donors with a massive tax break. that is what is unacceptable. that is what is unconscionable and that is what is un-american. thank you.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> in a nation divided, a rare moment of unity. this fall, c-span presents cease fire, where the shouting stops and the conversation begins, in a town where partisan fighting prevails. one table, two leaders, one goal, to find common ground. this fall, cease fire on the network that doesn't take sides, only on c-span. >> later today, the heads of all six branches of the u.s. military discussed defense tragedy, military readiness, and emerging global challenges. that is at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three, c-span now, our free mobile app, or online at eastman.org. >> c-span, democracy unfiltered. we are funded by these

television companies and >> one connection is needed most, cox is there to help. bring affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls club's, and support to veterans. whenever and wherever it matters most. we will be there. >> cox supports c-span as a public svice along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> up next, representatives michael mccaul and krishna marcy discussed tiktok at a security summit hosted by politico. after their remarks, we hear from former trump national security adviser john bolton who was asked about iran's nuclear program and the president's intention to accept a plane from a government of qatar. [applause]

>> good morning everyone. today i'm sitting down with republican congressman michael mccaul of the great state of texas. a veteran of the house foreign affairs committee and current vice chair of the homeland security committee. it's a great opportunity to sit down and dig into interesting issues. the congress may last joined us at the munich security conference a few months back. we are grateful that despite the absence of beer and bratwurst, he managed to come back. it's a good opportunity. thank you so much. rep. mccaul: thanks for having me. phelim: i want to go with the news. this is an unparalleled opportunity because of your experience, expertise, and insight. you are no longer the chair of

the house foreign affairs committee. the word on the street is you are going to speak with a level of candor and news breaking grid that we've never had before so we encourage that impulse. going off the news, president trump said that any moment now this week, he is going to have a long-awaited call with president xi of china. besides talking about tariffs, what do you think should be the most important things that are raised from the u.s. side in that call? what would you want to be saying and getting from xi in that call? rep. mccaul: opening markets in china, that's what the president is trying to achieve. from my perspective, given the aggression i've seen in both the taiwan straits and the south china sea, personally in my visits over there, wargame exercises, threatening the philippines in their waters. at the escalation of the

conflict. if we can become more economic, economically tied partners, that helps in lowering the tension. but i have to say, i'm not incredibly optimistic. chairman xi has his goals. he closely aligned with food. -- putin. i call it the unholy alliance. after afghanistan fell, they made this partnership and that's when putin decided that ukraine -- to invade ukraine with the full backing of chairman xi. they are tied to the ayatollah and kim jong-un. phelim: so low expectations? rep. mccaul: i think it will be a healthy discussion. during wargame exercises when i was there, sanctioning me personally, we had threats on the military aircraft over the south china sea, that we were invading chinese sovereign territory. seeing that escalation buildup. it's a great power competition.

we have to recognize that. it's not going to go away. i don't think chairman xi's ambitions are going to change. but if we could de-escalate -- imagine a situation like an invasion of taiwan. 90% of the advanced semiconductor chips are being manufactured out of taiwan. an invasion was shut down 90% of the global supply which is why i introduced the chips act. the other could be the security agreement with the philippines. a miscalculation, a ship is downed in the south china sea, how would that escalate. this could be the world war iii scenario where you have the united states, japan, philippines, australia, u.k. versus russia china, around, north korea. phelim: dark. perfect segue to my next question. you mentioned xi and putin. you have consistently made the case that as goes ukraine, so goes taiwan.

we've seen a level of skepticism amongst gop lawmakers in recent months about commitments to ukraine. i wonder, what is the status of this argument that you are making, in terms of the necessity of supporting ukraine in order to ensure that taiwan stays free, democratic, and free from invasion? rep. mccaul: great question. i listen to leaders in japan, south korea, philippines as far as australia, that program is going to enhance our defense and deterrence. but they all say that. the only intelligence briefings i've had make it very clear that xi is looking at what's happening in ukraine. it hasn't gone well for putin. he was supposed to take it over in for five days. now we are at over three years. xi is calculating all of this in

terms of what his next step is. i don't think he wants to be drawn into the entanglement that will go on like that. i think it has already provided some deterrence. phelim: on the battlefield in ukraine, we have russian troops facing off against ukrainian troops. north korean units as well. the last couple weeks, we've had revelations of chinese troops there as well. we don't know if they are freelancers. is this a world war? are we in a world war right now? were not quite yet? rep. mccaul: proxy war between nato and russia. nato -- article five has not been invoked. however, we are sending the weapons. i passed the emergency wartime supplementals. i would argue had we not past

that, russia would be occupying ukraine today. by passing, we've stopped and had that happen. moldova would've fallen, georgia, the baltic states remain threatened. the russian empire if you will. he envisions himself like peter the great. is putin going to negotiate in good faith? i'm all for peace. biden started a lot of fires and trump is trying to put out the fires. i don't think he's negotiating in good faith. you are seeing the president now and the vice president looking more at putin as like, you can't ask for territories you haven't even occupied and you rain. -- in ukraine. it has to be a fair deal. not peace at any price. my dad was a world war ii veteran. i remember history. chamberlain and hitler's.

appeasement doesn't work long-term. phelim: going with them is, we know that as of now vladimir putin is refusing or has declined to join the proposed cease-fire talks in turkey. this is despite encouragement from zelenskyy of ukraine from the trump administration. given that it looks as though putin really isn't interested in pursuing meaningful peace, what should be the next step of the administration? what should be the next step? rep. mccaul: his refusal to go to istanbul. again, zelenskyy has agreed to the mineral deal. the ukraine parliament has blessed that. zelinski has agreed to 30 day cease-fire. putin's response is bombing ukraine on palm sunday. zelinski has agreed to a 30 day cease-fire.

mr. pruden doesn't show up. there's a pattern here. doesn't take an expert to see the lack of sincerity in this negotiation. i've always predicted, it's a matter of time before the president and vice president start turning their sites onto putin is a problem. the next step, lindsey graham has a sanctions bill that i support in the house. the president has already said $300 million of f-16 parts into you rain. there's a parental draw -- presidential drawdown authority from the wartime bill that i passed that is still available. so i think it would be a combination of sanctions and more weapons. to get him to a place where he will negotiate in good faith. rep. mccaul: -- phelim: jumping back to the indo pacific, i know that you have visited taiwan multiple times. you have a lot of fluency in

that area. on multiple occasions, former president biden has said that if there were ever an attempt by the chinese to invade taiwan, that the u.s. would defend taiwan. at one point he said in an interview that that would mean u.s. troops, boots on the ground. you applauded him i believe for saying that. that violated this idea of strategic ambiguity that we don't say, the u.s. doesn't say exactly what it will do so it keeps china unbalanced. where are we now in terms of tensions across the street? xi's ambitions. china is the largest naval force in the world. is it time for us to put strategic ambiguity in the dustbin of history and say, you invade, here's what we do. what's your thought? rep. mccaul: you stop aggression through deterrence. is it worth the risk or is it not?

deterrence has helped. he's very concerned about that on the national defense authorization. he's also concerned about the weapon sales that i signed off onto taiwan that took -- are industrial base is another issue. it will take five wars to get the weapons and. foreign military financing. on the doctrine of strategic ambiguity, this goes back to the taiwan relations act of 1979. congress started dictating foreign policy, not the executive. we almost had to learn a vernacular when we get to taiwan through a whitey. as to what is acceptable to say and what's not. i found out that if i went over to taiwan and said, i support an independent taiwan, i support violating the one china policy, it sounds great. the problem with it is that it's a redline from china and we know this.

if we start going down that road or taiwan does that, then we risk and invasion. we just amp up the rhetoric and we know it's a redline for china. we make it more likely that they would invade. what it does provide, the 1979 taiwan relations act, is that we can arm them. it says, we will adhere to the one china policy but we can arm taiwan. that's what we've been doing. we need to do it greater. i think the ai part of august, to provide these i -- ai weapon systems in the indo pacific. i talked to the commander. this is what he needs to provide that kind of deterrence, autonomy's vessels underwater that can surface and deliver all sorts of weapon systems. a very agile fast rate. in addition to the nuclear

submarines that we deployed after august. that's the beast of the ocean. chairman xi is very concerned about that. phelim: so the gop platform of 2024 removed for the first time since reagan's era any mention of taiwan. the president has expressed skepticism about the u.s. relationship with taiwan. it speaks about high taiwan -- how taiwan stole the semiconductor industry. he said it would be difficult because it is so close to the mainland. there's concerns about the level of u.s. commitment to the island. what can you say today in terms of how justified or not those concerns might be? rep. mccaul: congress is very committed to taiwan. what worries me is columbia yesterday, they accepted belton road initiative. with that they have to be anti-support from taiwan. we are seeing this all over the world. so that is a concern.

it's up to the american people, whether they think it's worth going to war over for an island off the coast of china. the biggest argument for it and to defend it is that we have a history of defending taiwan. we did it in the emergency ward i'm supplemental. i've been to tsmc. massive factory. again, 90% of the advanced global supply of semiconductor chips comes out of the island. out of tsmc. if china invades, they either own it or break it. when i met with the ceo of tsmc i asked him the ultimate question. what would happen if china invaded? he said, we would likely shut down. imagine what that means for the rest of the world. did you think covid was a problem? this would shut down 90% of the advanced semiconductor supply for the nation which is why we need to bring the supply chain back to the u.s. and manufacture

it more here. phelim: lightning round. 60 seconds. perfect set up. you mentioned columbia is joining the belton road initiative. this is a soft power victory for beijing. they are going all out in terms of the diplomatic charm offensive. usaid was the soft power superpower of the united states. it's been dismantled. you spoke powerfully in 2023 that usaid needs to be strengthened and preserved. where are we in terms of the u.s. soft power abilities versus that of china right now? rep. mccaul: when the diplomats fail, we go to war. it's the committee of war and peace. we were to counter the soviet union in 61. it's an extension of the marshall plan which was very successful after world war ii. now it's to counter china's belt and wrote along with mcc. all these things are important.

development finance corporation. all these things will be part of a rescission package that will entertain after reconciliation. they can't eliminate organizations, departments that are created by congress. i think we will have that exchange. i think eliminating all your soft power just draws us closer to conflict. phelim: amazing discussion. 17 minutes goes by like nothing. thank you for taking the time. thank you. thank you so much. [applause] thank you for joining us. for our next conversation, i have democratic congressman

roger chris murphy from the great state of illinois. ranking member of the house select committee on china. he's joining us today to talk more, dig more deeply into china and other topics. personally for me, i spend more time speaking with you and your team then i do with a lot of of my closest relatives. so to actually sit down -- we will talk about it later. but for you to sit down with me today like this, it's like a combination of christmas and thanksgiving rolled together without the worries about buying dolls. rep. krishnamoorthi: don't buy more than 30. phelim: wonderful to have you here. i want to start off with a question that i just asked congress meant mccall. i would love to get your views on this. going with the news is that anytime now, it's possible that

president trump is going to get on a call with china's leader. you are the ranking member of the house select committee on china. you know this relationship like nobody's business. what do you think should be that -- what do you think that call should be about? what the president should be communicating to him? rep. krishnamoorthi: it should not be a big beautiful plane. apart from that, i think that there are a couple things that come to mind. one is, we want the ccp to understand that on a bipartisan basis in the united states, whether you are a democrat or republican in congress, we will do everything to deter economic military, technological aggression that's being practiced by the ccp toward us but also our allies, friends, partners. the second thing which is very important is, we are very

concerned about the ccp's military aggression, especially toward taiwan. also in the south china sea. we are going to band together with our friends, partners, allies to deter that. the third and final thing is, on the trade issue, we would like to have a stable trading relationship with the ccp. however, that is in part dependent on whether they are going to stop with their economic aggression. the most important of which are the economic dumping of goods beneath the price, the cost of producing those goods, to basically destroy their competition. as well as ip theft among other things. rep. krishnamoorthi: you met -- phelim: you mentioned taiwan of course. you just came from a hearing on the hill about promoting deterrence, ensuring that there isn't a chinese invasion of taiwan. you have been releasing and

introducing a series of bills about taiwan that fund taiwan. allies act. today there's a new bill you are introducing about the six assurances. so tell us, what are you concerned about right now? given this point in time in the u.s. china relationship, what's happening on the side of the pacific, what's happening there, what is making you really concerned about the status across the taiwan straight? it's always been tense. why the tension now? rep. krishnamoorthi: first of all, congress has always been the ballast in this relationship. whether it was the source of the taiwan relations act, which really governs a lot of the relationship between us and taiwan. or now this legislation which we are talking about. the successor into zach which helps to codify the six assurances that the united states gave taiwan with regard to the relationship.

one of the reasons why people are very concerned is maybe because of the equivocation that we are hearing and some of the rhetoric coming out of the white house. in my experience, when you engage in that kind of equivocation, you are showing weakness. weakness invites aggression. the aggression here that we could see would potentially precipitate a type of conflict that we just talked about in the hearing this morning. it could lead to a 10% drop in global gdp or a $10 trillion drop in absolute terms, and would make the height of the pandemic look like a walk in the park. that is something that we as americans right now, who are already feeling jittery about the economy, want to guard against at all costs. phelim: going with the news again. so the president has, on a swing through the middle east, a

subtext of this -- of this trip end of the meetings he's having is to offset or counter china's growing influence in the region. there's an intersection of china, the u.s., and tack which you have been thinking about very carefully. can you tell us what your concerns are about china's influence in the middle east? what can the u.s. be doing about it? particularly with regards to technology. rep. krishnamoorthi: sure. i think it's important for our constituents, for americans to always lead the world in high-tech. we do have world beating companies such as nvidia, such as google and other major companies here. what i'm always concerned about with regards to the middle east and china is that, for instance, if we allow for this world beating technology to then be

sold to companies in the middle east, then it could go into the wrong hands. namely the ccp. the ccp right now desperately wants to get its claws on the highest end chips coming out of nvidia or amd or intel. under our export controls, they can't directly purchase those items. however, if you have an intermediary such as g 42 in the uae -- by the way, there's an interesting reason why it's g 42. it's named after the number that was identified in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, about the answer to all complex problems. the answer to this conflict problem that we have with these high-end chips to an intermediate company in the uae, which is dollars to donuts infiltrated by the ccp. they are going to steal this stuff. phelim: i didn't expect that we would be mentioning the

hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. think you for that. i want to ask you. we've teased with taiwan trade, tech. i will bring out the fourth one. tiktok. obviously we have an extension. the president offered an extension to the dealmaking in order to bring this to a company that beijing doesn't control in thus enters the data theft aspect of it. what concerns do you have in terms of these extensions? if tiktok continues to operate with any type of limitations peering at where are you on this? rep. krishnamoorthi: i think the reason why this law passed with a huge bipartisan support was because of the concern about data. the potential exploitation of the data by the ccp. so the longer that there's a delay, the more potential for that data to be exploited.

at the same time, we want tiktok to be safe. we wanted to be purchased by a trusted company or a company from a trusted country peering at unfortunately, what's happened here is that the chaos of the tariffs and our trade relationship with china has now gotten in the way of bytedance successfully selling this company. apparently we were on the verge of a deal. it was going to be signed. that's when i think liberation day hit us. it basically imprisons this deal in the talks that are happening with regard to trade. phelim: i want to ask you a question that i ran by representative mccall that i think is really important. this issue of soft power. the news this morning is that columbia, the country, is joining the belt and wrote initiative. that's a soft power win for

beijing. at the same time, one of the main tools of u.s. soft power around the world, particularly in terms of countering china's growing influence, was usaid. so tell me, what are your concerns about u.s. soft power projection in terms of being able to counter china's bottomless investments? rep. krishnamoorthi: if not both hands tied on the back, at least one at this point. usaid was our only offering to a lot of countries. >> we will leave this program here. you can finish watching it on our website c-span.org. live now to remarks from president trump.

>> thank you. it's an honor to welcome all of you to the white house. the famous oval office. first-ever metals of sacrifice to three heroic law enforcement officers from long beach county, florida. i went to the service. it was crazy. just horrible. earlier today, ryan masters right here introduced a bill to ensure this new metal will be awarded to any law enforcement officer or first responder who gives his or her life in the land of duty. i also want to recognize laura for their work to make this metal.

thank you. i appreciate it very much. thanks as well to attorney general and bondi who was with us. thank you very much. thank you very much. so busy. she is so busy but she wouldn't miss it. secret service director. wherever you may be. byron donalds. state representative nate weingartner. dan newman. thank you everybody. really great that you're here. i want to express our gratitude to major paul bear coda. mr. paul. captain ryan. thank you captain. lieutenant chandon. sergeant scott. thank you very much. deputy sheriff christopher baron. thank you very much sir.

and deputy seraph chris cameron. and all of the palm beach sheriff's office. many people are here representing that incredible office. i know it very well. very special thanks as well to alexander are no who was a tremendous person with his father. they own tiffany and they really devoted tremendous time and effort dabbing us design this beautiful metal. thank you very person with his much. i appreciate that you came all the way from france. the incredible team at tiffany & co.. they are doing great. he's a fantastic leader. you know about the great arno family and the fact that you came for this is very meaningful, actually. after capping this beautiful m

-- crafting this beautiful medal, people are loving it, this will go on for a long time. unfortunately in one way is very sad, but properly respect the ones that lost their lives today. we remember three remarkable heroes who will become the medal 's first ever recipients, so it's a big honor. corporal luiz piaz, jr., and ignacio diaz. they are represented by family members -- that was devastation, they were devastated. we are profoundly grateful to be joined by their loved ones. the corporal's former wife, doris, thank you very much.

and his son cameron. good looking son, too. deputy wallace's wife, denise. deputy diaz's daughter alexandria. thank you very much. i wonder thank you all, and that the officers we recognize today were really close friends and colleagues and they dedicated their lives to protecting the people of palm beach county and well beyond and they were beloved by everyone and respected by all. really top-of-the-line people. countless times when i was in florida they probably saved -- they saved a lot of lives. they were going around saving a lot of lives. their reputation was incredible. they served in motorcades for presidents, presidential motorcades. very dangerous job, actually. i was deeply honored to attend their memorial service last year. in a horrific accident in

november, the officers were working to restart one of their motorcycles on the shoulder of a road when they were struck by an suv struck dead center. and all three perished from their injuries. essentially they perished immediately. this was a terrible tragedy. it shook the entire palm beach community like very few events i've ever seen. all of florida mourned their alaska man our entire nation joins in honoring these three incredible patriots -- all of florida mourned their loss, and our entire nation joins in honoring these three incredible pictures taken much too soon. to all of those who love these brave men, we are deeply sorry for your loss and internally grateful for their sacrifice. there great, great sacrifice. respected by everybody. we will never forget the debt they own all of these great law enforcement heroes who have given their lives to keep our

communities safe and make america strong again. so many unbelievable people in the police department and other departments. first responders, firemen, a lot of brave, credible people. now i would like to ask my son eric trump to say a few words, followed by congressman mast, and alexander arnault will be giving out the medals, and i will present the medals of sacrifice. thank you very much. eric: mr. president, thank you very much. my father and i attended the funeral and i cannot tell you how moving the experience was full on support question was asked, why is there no medal, medal of valor, medal of sacrifice that commemorates law enforcement officers who have fallen in the line of duty. congressman mast said we are

going to take care of this problem. the first call made was to the great arnault family who owns tiffany's and they said without hesitation they would be honored to design something absolutely beautiful that is a tribute to these incredible officers and ems responders and here we are six month later with something that is truly beautiful. i want to thank the tiffany's family and the arnault family for all the work they put into their entire team. this has been a nonstop effort. i want to thank the congressman. without the congressman and his staff, we would not be here today. i want to thank the president. this medal will be given for hundreds and hundreds of years to come. and i want to think on behalf of the entire nation and our families incredible families of the palm beach sheriffs office and your incredible families. they made the ultimate sacrifice, and we all appreciate

your dedication. many of us knew them, met them, and we love them very much. today hopefully this is a great tribute to them. i know because of our wonderful president that it will be for years to come. thank you very much. rep. mast: i would start by thanking all of our law enforcement officers. the job is always dangerous, and you do with still every single day. i would thank the families. the job, as you are a reminder of, is often deadly. i want to thank you, mr. president, because for the first time in our nation's history, you are willing to say to all of our first responders, all of our law enforcement, all of our firefighters, we're going to recognize that sacrifice from the office of the presidency for each and every one of them. and that's never taken place before, that recognition. it is a job that is always dangerous and often deadly, and

there is a debt that can never be repaid, but you are willing to recognize the document so thank you, mr. president. --recognize the debt, so thank you, mr. president. pres. trump: thank you. >> president, congressman, thank you very much tiffany in the process we are very honored to make these medals. tiffany is a maker of american heritage. making the medal of honor in the 19th and early 20th century. it is natural that we follow with this heritage just as we work on other very important american heirlooms. this medal was made in providence, rhode island, and our largest factory in the u.s. it is plated in 24 karat gold just like the ceiling of this office, and represents the coat of arms of the united states. mr. president, thank you very

much. pres. trump: would you like to say a few words? rep. donalds: first, to the families, we are so sorry for your sacrifice. but your officers practice represented palm beach county, but the entire country with honor. mr. president, thank you for your leadership. you will always honor first responders in the united states of america. . pres. trump: ok. so. want to help us out with this? you are the one who made it. [laughter] that's beautiful. so can we ask the families to step up, please? would you like to help us?

>> thank you, really appreciate it. pres. trump: want to stand right over here? ok.

>> i would like to thank you very much for honoring my husband and others, and making it so very special for him and all the people. it's a club you never want to be in. it just means the world. thank you. thank you very much. >> appreciate it. pres. trump: would you like to say something? you want me to go today, or here? >> i viwed my dad as superman,

someone my whole life i looked up to. an amazing guy. it's horrible that this happened to three families. but i'm glad that something was done about it. we got represented and everyone in the future will be. thank you. pres. trump: thank you very much. he would be very proud of you. >> thank you, mr. president.

pres. trump: would you like to say anything on behalf of the force? [indiscernible] >> mr. president, on behalf of sheriff bradshaw and every member of the palm beach sheriff's office, we can't thank you enough for recognizing the extreme sacrifice of our three brothers. words really can't express how thankful we are. pres. trump: thank you very much. and we have a fourth, and we are going to give this to. hopefully never given out. an incredible sheriff you have done an amazing job. you have it should something

happen. ok? and i hope it never has to be given out, frankly. thank you very much. well, thank you. do you have any questions for what you saw? so important. people talked about it for years. i want to thank brian mast for what he has done. the congressman has been unbelievable. he's a great representative. he org chart, you wanted to do it -- she worked hard -- he worked hard, wanted to do it right. we could've have done easily when white, but we wouldn't get it done by tiffany, the fact that the arnault family stepped up is absolutely incredible. a name like that, it means something extra. but these were incredible people and they are looking down on you right now i dare very proud, very prep -- and they are very

proud, very proud of all of you. it's too bad we had to be doing this. i was there with you that day. there was a rough day. thank you very much. if you have any questions? yeah. >> do you have plans to give this award to any other families posthumously who find themselves in the same position having made this sacrifice? pres. trump: frompres. trump: previous? we are looking at the possibility. a lot of people die in the line of duty, when you think of it. we haven't had the situation arise -- this was a terrible situation. we haven't had it arise yet, but we are at going back a little bit, see what we can do about that. >> on your call with president putin today, you mentioned that the pope would like to take a role potentially in talks.

does that mean the u.s. is taking a step back -- pres. trump: no no, i think it would be great. at the vatican, maybe you would have extra significance. it was discussed yesterday. people told me he would be honored to do it. i would imagine they would be. i think it may be helpful. tremendous bitterness, anger. and i think that could help some of that anger. having it at the vatican, in rome, i think it would be a great idea. thank you. >> mr. boozman -- mr. president -- >> thank you, mr. president. two and a half months ago ukraine president zelenskyy agreed to the cease-fire that has been on the table all the time. over the accent of your conversation with president putin today -- what was the extent of your conversation with president putin today of having him agreed to that same cease-fire on the table?

pres. trump: what we have been very strongly is let's get this thing going. i had many leaders of european nations on the line with me right after the call. we have to get that thing solved. 5000 young people every single week, on average -- i've seen satellite pictures. you don't want to see these pictures. we will have to see what happens. this was not my war, this is not a war that would've happened if i were present. this is not my war. i'm just here trying to help. we spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this war, and yet that's not -- frankly, we made much more than that in four days in the middle east. it's a lot of money. this is about thousands of people dying every single week. 5000, 6000 people dying every single week. just like you have the relatives here, wives, children,

everything, these soldiers -- in ukraine, in russia. and then their parents never see them again, except pictures of horrible scenes, because i've seen some things, i've never seen anything like it. >>. our thanks to the members of law enforcement here and condolences to the families. we are very sorry for your loss. mr. president, on ukraine and the call with president putin, you said you thought nothing was going to happen and no advances would be made until you and putin got together. you still feel that way? pres. trump: i think something is going to happen. very big egos involved, i'll tell you. big egos involved. i think something is going to happen. if it doesn't, back away and they want to keep going. this is a european situation. it should have remained a european situation. should have remained. because the past administration

felt strongly we should be involved, we got involved much more than europe did in terms of the money and all of the things that we gave. we give massive amounts -- i think record-setting amount given to a foreign -- there's never been anything like this. both weaponry and money. in europe give a lot also, but they didn't give anything you're what we gave. we gave probably almost three times the amount. the whole thing is a sham. the level of death is just a shame. kaitlan: do you ask president putin to meet with you? pres. trump: about what? kaitlan: about ukraine. pres. trump: of course we did. i've known him for a long time now i said when we going to end this bloodshed, this bloodbath -- it's a bloodbath. i do believe he wants to end it. when i made the call, i spoke to heads of different countries. germany, finland, italy, as you

know, u.k. on the line today, and a couple of others. they were in turn calling everyone -- ursula was there from the european union, she was terrific. and we spoke for a long time about it. they got a problem. it's a big, big problem. the terrible war, it's very hard to extradite themselves away from what has taken place over there. the amount of anger, the amount of hate, and the amount of death, it's very hard. very tough situation. i said to him, gotta get going. and i did say also, i thought you couldn't do it, i would step away, because what are you going to do? we wouldn't have boots on the ground. but we do have a big stake, and the financial amount that was put up is just crazy. it's crazy. this isn't for us, this is for

somebodyl else. the amount of money we put up is record-setting. never been anything like this. and that includes weapons. never been anything like this. >> on the medal, how far back do you intend to look to consider for the recipients? and on your call today, if putin proves to be the obstacle to peace, is further arming ukraine on the table? pres. trump: i have to think positively. i just can't believe they would allow this to continue. this would've never happened if i were president, most people admit that. and it didn't happen for four years. in october 7, that's the attack on israel, that would have never happened. so sad to see it. i think there is a good chance we can get this done. i believe putin wants to do it. if i think putin didn't -- that's what i do, my whole life is deals, one big deal.

if i thought that president putin did not want to get this over with, i wouldn't be talking about it. i would just pull out. >> what did you hear that give you confidence he wants peace vs. fighting time -- biding time? pres. trump: i think he's had enough. it's been a long time. this has been going on for more than three years. right? it's been going on a long time. >> wen yu in-- when you important vladimir to stop on social media and he didn't, did you bring -- pres. trump: you have to talk louder death -- >> you previously employed him to stop, vladimir to stop, and he didn't. did you bring that up on your call today? pres. trump: no, i didn't bring that up, but i said it's time, you gotta stop this thing.

i think he wants to stop. i thought there was a very good chance, 50-50 chance that he would say "i want to take the whole thing." i didn't know what he was going to say. and then they have a different kind of problem. i believe he wants to stop. >> you mentioned twice just now about backing away or walking away if it looks like it is going to be an intractable problem. do you have a redline in your head of what would cause you to back away -- pres. trump: in my head, but not something i'm going to announce the deaf million my head. this is not my war. we got ourselves entangled in something we shouldn't have been involved in. we would've been a lot better off, and maybe the whole thing -- it cannot be much worse. it's a real mess, it's a deathtrap. i would say i do have a certain line, but i don't want to say what it is because it makes the negotiation even more difficult than it is. yes, please.

>> mr. president -- thank you all for your sacrifice, i'm so sorry for your loss -- you mentioned the bloodbath you want to see end in ukraine. you said you believe putin wants peace, but he just attacked ukraine yesterday. what makes you think that -- pres. trump: well, nobody said don't. they are fighting, they are attacking each other, and people are dying of the time. fighting a war. is it terrible? yeah, it's terrible. i do think it's terrible. >> president biden -- not asking about reconciliation. why haven't you increased sanctions on russia? pres. trump: because i think there is a chance of getting something done, and if you do that, you could make it much worse. but there could be a time when it is going to happen. yeah? >> with the ratings down -- >> do you want to respond to

president biden being diagnosed with cancer? are you going to call your predecessor? pres. trump: i think it's very sad, actually. i'm surprised the public wasn't notified a long time ago. to get to stage nine, that's a long time. i just had my physical. you saw the result of that particular test. i think the test is a standard to pretty much anybody getting a physical. we had the doctors at the white house and over at walter reed, which is a fantastic hospital. i did a very complete physical including a documented test. i pasted. you proud -- i aced it? you proud of me? if i didn't get it all right, these people would be after me. i think frankly anybody running for president should take a cognitive test. they say it is unconstitutional, but in that particular case having a cognitive test wouldn't be so bad.

when you take tests, as a male, that test is very standard. it's not given to everybody, but it is given just about. and it takes a long time to get to that situation. i think to get to stage nine, i give you take a look, is the same doctor that said that joe was cognitively fine and there was nothing wrong with him. if it's the same doctor who said there is nothing wrong there, that's been proven to be a sad situation. the auto pen is becoming a very big deal. the autopen is becoming a big deal because it seems like it was the president or whoever was operating the autopen. you have to look and you have to say that the test was not so good either. there are things going on that the public wasn't informed on i think somebody is going to have to speak to his doctor, if it is the same, or even if it is two

separate doctors. why wasn't the cognitive ability --why wasn't that discussed? the doctor said he's fine and it's not so. this is no longer politically -- this is dangerous for our country. all these questions on ukraine and russia, that would've never happened. the other thing you have to say is why did it take so long -- this takes a long time. they can take years to get to this level of danger. so look, it's a very sad situation, i feel very badly about it. and i think people should try and find out what happened, because i'll tell you, i don't know if it had in the to do with us, but walter reed is really good, some of the best doctors i've ever seen for i don'even know if they were involved. but a factor was involved in each case -- maybe it was the same doctor. somebody is not telling the

facts. >> president zelenskyy of ukraine says the ukrainians are ready for a cease-fire, ready for peace negotiations. in your mind, is ukraine getting enough -- pres. trump: i would rather tell you in about two weeks from now because i can't say yes or no. look, he's a strong person. zelenskyy a strong guy. is not the easiest person to deal with. but i think he wants to stop. it's a very bad -- it's a very bad thing that is happening. i think he wants to stop. but i could answer that question better in two weeks or four weeks. i hope the answer is he wants to get it solved i want to thank everybody very much, and on behalf of the united states of america, we greatly on your family, friends-- honor your family, friends, everybody who

had to suffer so much. you have three great men who are looking down on you and they are very proud right now. they are very proud. this is the oval office, and they are a big part of it now. they are a part of the oval office, the white house. and thank you all very much. [applause] >> mr. president, when are you going to tell -- >> thank you all. right this way. head this way, thank you. thanks, guys. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2025] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> get c-span wherever you are

with c-span now, our free mobile video app that puts you at the center of democracy, live and on-demand. keep up with the date's biggest events with live streams of floor proceedings and hearings from the u.s. congress, white house events, the courts, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. catch the latest episodes of "washington journal," find scheduling information for c-span's radio and tv networks, plus a variety of compelling podcasts. available at the apple store and google play. download it for free today. c-span, democracy unfiltered. >> this show and c-span is one of the few places left in america where you actually have left and right coming together to talk and argue. you guys do a great service in that. >> i love c-span, too.

that's why i'm here today. >> answer questions all day, every day. sometimes i do fun things like go on c-span. >> c-span is one of the few places americans can all go for >> c-span has such an honorable and important mandate admission in this country. >> i love this show. this is my favorite show to apologize because i get to hear what the american people care about. >> american people have access to their government in ways that they did not before the cable industry provided c-span access. >> that is why i like to come on c-span. this is one of the last places where people actually having compositions, even people who disagree. >> thank you, c-span, for all you do. >> it is one of the reasons this program is so valuable because it brings people together were dissenting voices are heard and hard questions are asked that people have answer to. >> the federal communications commission or anna gomez took

part in the discussion on freedom of speech, politics, and media with the tech freedom president. this is about 40 minutes. >> good morning, welcome. i'm from the competitive enterprise institute come on in j two of the text -- day two of the conference on issues of a free speech and federal agencies and their constitutional limits. today we are going to focus on the federal communications commission. i am going to let the illustrious baron from tech freedom fill you in on that. for now, thanks for being with us. >> thanks, jess, for hosting us

at cei. i hope you will tune in to watch yesterday's discussion on the federal trade commission and the department of justice. today we are talking by the federal communications commission, which was long ago doug by some the federal censorship commission. these concerns are not entirely new. today maybe they've been taken to the next level. i'm pleased to have with us for a fireside chat fcc commissioner anna gomez. you have been speaking very forcefully about these issues. let's hear what you have to say is a long communications lawyer an expert in the field. thanks for coming. >> thank you, berin. thank you for having me. our current political moment poses challenges unlike anything i thought i would face as an fcc commissioner. this administration has been on a campaign to censor and control since well before day one, and

since day one the fcc has been implementing the will of the administration and undermining the first amendment at every turn. in fact, battling the administrations campaign of censorship and control is the theme of the first amendment tour i announced last month wasn't i've been honored and humbled by the amount of support i've received while talking about these issues. i felt the need to start taking our message in defense of our fundamental first amendment rights and freedoms outside of washington because i have been aligned by recent actions by this administration. administration. and those who know me, know i am not an alarmist. but here is what concerns me. the first amendment has protected our fundamental right to freely speak and to hold power to account since 1791. it is foundational to our democracy and yet today the greatest threat to that freedom is coming from our own government.

silencing dissenting voices is not a show of strength, it's a sign of weakness. it comes from a place of fear, and that win out in the debate of idea. the fcc target r targeted news networks, independent reporting by public media and internal practices by private companies. these are dangerous and unprecedented actions by an independent government regulator. and groups across the ideological spectrum agree with this assessment. over the last year i've found myself aligned with voices i never imagined i'd agree, however, we all share a belief that the first amendment is fundamental to democracy and is worth fighting for, even and especially when it's politically inconvenient. the actions this fcc has been taken threaten a free and independent press, undermine the first amendment of free speech protections and exert

undue pressure that compromises the autonomy of private enterprises and more broadly actions across the federal government have demonstrated a disturbing pattern of silencing dissenting voices. here are some of the most egregious examples. they've initiated investigations and floated debilitating regulation schemes that target national network broadcasters for their news rooms, editorial decisions and harass private companies for their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and threaten tech companies that respond to consumers demands for consent moderation and fact checking. separately, they have attempted to shutter voice of america and sought retribution against lawful residents that protest administrative policies, banning books and seeking to erase history from public record and from our national museums and they're targeting law firms, unions, and all of those who have the skill and

the will to stand up for the victims of this campaign of censorship and control. and of course, i cannot leave out the fact that they have been firing presidentially appointed senate confirmed commissioners of multi-member independent agents. the administration seems intent on targeting anyone who dares to speak up and disagree with its extreme agenda. today i want to talk about the fcc actions that are antithetical to the communication the act, the agency and the guarantees of the first amendment. let's start with broadcasting. the fcc licensing authority is being weaponized to chill speech and punish the press. we're witnessing a dangerous precedent, the transformation of an independent regulator into an instrument of political censorship. this fcc made clear it would go after any news out let that dares to report the truth if that truth is unfavorable or inconvenient to this

administration. this isn't the first time the fcc has faced administration pressure to weaponize its broadcast licensing authority. both fdr and kennedy attempted to pressure the fcc chairs to silence voices that criticized the president and his administration. in both cases, the fcc chair stood up for the integrity of the agency and refused to capitulate. that is what courage looks like. fcc chairs refusing to wield the agency's licensing authority as a weapon in contravention of the first amendment of communications act even in the face of political pressure. and i want to be clear, the consequences of silencing broadcasters go beyond undermining informed civic engagement. there are serious health and safety implications. local news provides life saving information during emergencies. it serves veterans, seniors, and rural communities, the

partisan politics is now putting these resources at risk. the fcc should not be in the business of controlling access to vital local information. we should be promoting free and open access to the news. unfortunately, the administration's efforts to censor and control appear to be working. some media outlets find it easier to retreat in the face of government threat veiled or otherwise than to be responsive to their audiences. as i'm sure you're aware, bill owens, the executive producer 60 minutes resigned because he no longer felt he had the independence that honest journalism requires. this is deeply concerning. we need journalists who feel free to report the truth, even when it cuts against our political biases. and corporate give journalists independence they need. a free press requires journalists.

voice of america and radio were once models of press freedom in process of propaganda regimes like russia and china. efforts to shutter these institutions to undermine their independence, sends a global message. america no longer practices what it preaches. the press is the fourth estate, the delicate system of checks and balances upon which american democracy is built does not function without a free press. another area of concern is online speech. with digital platforms now serving as the proverbial square, government efforts to sensor and control have also moved online. i'm talking about the effort to reintrerpt or undermine section. and just as it's attacked, it's attacking digital media platform that provide fact checking and content moderation

that users want. claiming such user supported moderation constitutes censorship, the administration has pressured social media companies to stop these practices. now, the supreme court has been clear on this issue. content moderation by private companies is itself a form of speech protected by the first amendment. fact checking, filtering, and moderation are all legitimate responses to user demands. and the government's duty under the first amendment isn't to second guess the market offerings, it's to stay out of the way. i acknowledge there are many valid concerns about online safety and congress may well determine section 230 needs reform. until that happens, section 230 plays a critical role by enabling digital platforms to establish rules of behavior in their own little corners of the market. fcc proposals to weaponize section 230 are not efforts to

solve the problems with online platforms. they are attempts to increase government control of online speech by exposing platforms that want to facilitate user supported fact checking or create welcoming online environments to debilitating lawsuits. this is not about reining in, this is about censorship and control. finally in the vein of government control run amok, i want to talk about one more critical topic, we must protect the independence of independent agencies. the fcc is supposed to make decisions based on law, facts, and technical expertise, not politics. we take our direction from the constitution, the law, and the public. that is what congress intended, specifically it affirmatively declines a place of vast power of media regulations in the hand of the single individual. afterthoughtful deliberations,

congress concluded that a multi-member, multi-party commission was the best choice. the relationship between the power vested in the fcc and the duty to uphold the first amendment was unambiguous from the inception of the agency. while commissions have had disagreements across history, by and large we've understood the responsibility of ensuring that those on the outside look to us as a stable, independent and expert driven regulatory body. problematic as we've seen at other independent agencies such as the federal trade commission, the consumer product safety commission and the equal employment opportunity today, they've been fired. it's illustrillustrative, it ca have dissent.

and it's my duty, i refuse to stay quiet while the government chips away at fundamental rights by weaponizing our regulatory authority. this is how i'm using my voice. i encourage you to use yours, too. and if i'm removed from my seat on the commission, let it be said plainly, it wasn't because i failed to do my job, it's because i insisted on doing it. thanks. [applause] >> thank you so much. and thank you for doing your job. it really is-- it's a testament to the principle that you bring to the office that you're willing to stand up for the first amendment and as indeed, that you found agreement across the political spectrum, which is really what we're going to talk about today. we are going to play a clip after you from commissioner mike o'riley who founded many

of the same concerns back in 2020 and indeed, as you said, he was essentially fired for that. his term had expired, he was not renominated and his pending renomination was revoked because the administration, even then, was unwilling to tolerate any kind of dissent from their agenda, even when it was stating longstanding conservative principles. so, my question for you, so, given all of this, what is to be done? what can ordinary people do? >> first of all, again, thank you for inviting me to be here and you and i have known each other for a long time and we don't always agree on everything, but it's always nice when we can. so i have embarked on this first amendment tour, defense of first amendment tour, to call out what i see alarming by this administration to control and censor. i'm doing it because i think it's important that we raise

awareness because it is very much a threat to our democracy if we allow this to continue. but also, because as like to say, freedom isn't free. people die for our country and for our values. so it is important to have the courage to speak up and speak out when we see these -- this trampling of the first amendment protection. so, i want people to be informed and i want to encourage people to speak out because if we simply become compliant, that also begets compliance. instead, i hope courage begets courage. there isn't much of that in washington today. in part because there aren't enough people like you speaking out. new for doing it. you noted that the commission may change. the president may fire you.

legally the reason i think that that hasn't happened yet, the commission needs three votes just to function, just to have a quorum and right now, they're sitting at four. your fellow democrat has said he's going to resign in the spring, and the third republican is just awaiting her final confirmation vote. so we could very soon be in a situation where there are three republican votes on the commission. at that point i don't expect the administration to be willing to tolerateening any dissent on the commission. what do you think is lost? we talked about it yesterday. setting aside the legal question whether the president has the right to fire the commissioners, what do you think is lost from the commission when there aren't a diversity of voices and a back and forth? >> yeah, your question is exactly the right question. why do we have more than one administrator of the federal communication? the reason we have more than

one is because of the diversity of experiences, voices, even political ideologies is important to making good policy. when we surround ourselves with yes people, it actually leads to poorer outcomes and that's what the fear is here, right? we have an administration that has decided that there is no such thing as an independent agency and that anyone can be fired if they don't support and think exactly the same way as they're being told to think. well, at that point there's no point in having multiple commissioners, is there. ... for years republicans, free-market organizations, groups like tech freedom have encouraged the courts to

overrule the chevron doctrine, that it doesn't apply in questions that involved political significance. that is what the court did, it essentially said that agencies would not get broader deference in their interpretations of ambiguous statutes, and instead that the agency's interpretation will be judged in part on the quality of its reasoning and how well it is considered on the facts in the record. it seems ironic -- indeed, skidmore difference is the term. skidmore deference and the degree of respect would depend on how will the agency had done its job. seems ironic now that even as agency republicans have won this prize, they seem to be undermining themselves. it would seem to me you would be in in a better position as an agency having had both sides hashed out an issue, having had a minority voice, dissent,

having to improve the reasoning in order to explain the commission's position, would seem to me you literally would be better off in court even if it taking a hard-line conservative position having had some other to disagree with you and being able to say we considered those arguments and we've addressed of them. now they will walk into court without the benefit of that reasoning. are they not shooting themselves in the foot? >> it is a shame when we lost the chevron deference for a lot of reasons, not the least of which everything you just raise such a right. what's interesting is this commission so far is taking most of its actions through enforcement and not through rulemaking. why is it doing so? because you cannot appeal a threat. you can't appeal a letter that accuses you of that acts.

you cannot appeal a letter tells you to stop content moderation or using a particular tool for fact checking. not a that is appealable. all of that is meant to chill speech and to control behavior without any consequences in the legal, legal consequences. there will come a time when, in fact, the fcc will act. section 230 is a good example. whether it's an interpretation or a rulemaking eifert both are possible, i don't see how that survives either loper or major quests. >> will talk about this in some detail but for those just watching, section 230 is the longest maybe in it possible, created today's interactive internet as opposed to services like netflix which is its are you content that they want to show you. it makes it possible for website to host content generated by users, by preventing the

american legal system for being weaponized against that content. 2020 the trump administration propose to reinterpret section 230 to make it easy to sue websites when they moderate content or to sue them for hosting content if they moderate content in ways that someone thinks are unfair politically or biased or whatever. that's the rule that's about to drop. it's very plain what they're trying to do. they are trying to favor some kinds of content moderation. that is moderation to protect kids for example, that in the statute. that would be favored. what we disabled with all the other think people remove today, hateful speech, and we're not just talking about small lies or who won the last election. we're talking about removing neo-nazi speech, speech is perfectly lawful that today website just don't want to host responsible websites but under

this version of section 230 it would be coerced into doing that by the threat of litigation. what truly at stake? what you say to ordinary people who may think section 230 is some kind of favor to big tech company? >> yeah, you said it very well. wonder the things, just one thing to point out, is that the analysis under the first trump administration on section 230 relied heavily on chevron and lack of competition amongst providers which both have been debunked by now. >> tiktok emerging out of nowhere, for for example, o. >> blue sky, macedonia. i forget, threads. so yes. i think what's really important to understand about, there's several things that are important to understand about section 230. the first is it's actually in the first amendment.

it is meant to prevent having private companies expose debilitating lawsuits. but these private companies have a first amendment right to have a product and to moderate that product in any way they want. they can fit souls become a neo-nazi website and they are protected in that right. they can also become a whatever far left website it would be, and it would be protected. they could also be the grandmas knitting said circle that is decided to have an online chat to talk about the right kinds of yarn to use in their products, and that is the right. and they may say, this is all we want to talk about and we will take down any content that criticizes the president, for

example, and that is the right. it is there first amendment right to do so and the supreme court has said so. such is from a broad perspective from a freedom of speech perspective, this is what i worry about is being told that you cannot take down content. in other . in other words, you have to host speech. >> i want come before goading gy audience there's a great line from 1960 sdc the sec order with a said hosting content, let me find this. essentially it says that being a hearing and speech markets in the name of encouraging speech is no different from censoring speech directly. doesn't matter if you frame the justification as being pro-speech which is what the administration claims to be doing online. it's still covet interference in the media.

notice the supreme court said last year the first amendment applies equally to the internet. protects the right of websites, not to host speech of the don't want to host that speech. as you note without section 230 that right is effectively meaningless. you have to litigate that in every case and if you host billions of pieces of content, everyone can see you easily, your first senate right would be meaningless if you did have 232. it's like four forms, republicans accuse before. >> that's a good point but i scored to say most recently the supreme court also said it is a government job to post the marketplace of ideas. similar to what you heard in 1960. >> the courts of been saying that for decades. >> i do worry by the way that yes, we don't want the large companies subjected to, i don't care, but large companies can defend themselves when they get

subjected to these types of lawsuits. it's the smaller nascent providers would be the one to suffer and that's why we had section 230 to begin with. conkers said wait a a minute, there's something here that is off-balance and want to make sure we can promote these types of online platforms. >> indeed the law applies equally to all providers and users of interactive computer services. president trump himself has invoked section 230 when he was sued for retweeting someone else's content. it's ironic that they are now trying to unravel the law. we have a lot of expert telecom lawyers, a range of perspectives any ideas come really across the political spectrum. i wonder if anyone has a question for commissioner gomez? if you'd like to ask a question, come up to the mic so the audience can hear your question. harold feld from public knowledge is going to ask i'm sure a great question.

you will be on our panel about broadcast licensees later today. if you come over here. >> which one? >> over here. >> thanks. first of all, sorry. i need to be on camera. >> yes. >> first of all, thank you very much commissioner gomez for everything you are doing, you know for being willing to stand out there. i agree with berin. i think unfortunately once a trustee who is a perfectly fine nominee and this has nothing to do with her, but once she is on will have a sense of what's likely to happen. but i have a question actually and berin will cringe when i see the net neutrality here can

specifically, that one of the think some of us argued about in terms of why we need it, net neutrality protections was our concern about political manipulation, that it would be tempting for people in office to lean on the broadband providers and say hey, how about just a little bit of messing with folks when they try to give contributions to the other side? not anything they can obvious, but stuff that just makes it harder for folks on the other side to campaign. and this is something the sec at its roots goes back to the relation of radio. there was a lot of concern about the ability to influence licensing, create government control of radio.

after the sixth circuit opinion, is anything that can be done if this turns out to be the case? or should we just expect that there's going to be pressure on isps to put its thumb on the scale when it comes to these political websites? >> yeah, i'm glad you asked. first of all he reminded me why i hate the term net neutrality so much. because part of the reason, forgive me, this is why i prefer open internet, but even at is worrisome, is because we were accused of trying to control the internet. when we were proposing to have guard rails on the conduit to the internet, which is what

you're talking about. we wanted to make sure that consumers were protected and that they have the guard rails around the services and that they benefit from the service in a procompetitive manner. but instead we were accused of controlling the internet. now this admission is trying to control the internet. when you talk about controlling the event you are talking controlling access to the content of the internet and that exactly what we talk about here with section 230. the fear you raise is a good fear because we are seeing this administration pull every leverage that it can in order to silence and to control information. unfortunately, we see many ways we have lost and losing the open internet protections that we adapted that this is another, and hopefully by calling it out, the companies will think twice.

>> the sixth circuit is harold referred to was a federal court of appeals finally saying that the fcc's interpretation of its title ii authority went too far, that it did not conform with the statue, it could that regulate broadband providers as common carriers which seems to be the end of the fcc's ability to impose net neutrality rules on the basis of title ii. but at least, a question want to ask harold and i -- [inaudible] >> well, harold nose come maybe it will go to the supreme court. i don't think that will go very far but you can try, harold, go for it. good luck, harold. but to me this has always been a kind of a fool's errand because when this question got litigated in the d.c. circuit after the 2015 order which reclassify broadband title ii service from it to charlie rose first amendment question was raised. the judges