He represents much of Silicon Valley. Congressman khanna, as you well know there are a lot of conversations going on legislatively and in the regulatory communities about some of the Tech Companies in Silicon Valley and whether or not they should be more highly regulated. If you could in a general sense before we get into some specific issues, share with us your philosophical thoughts at this time about that. Rep. Khanna two things. First, we definitely need wellcrafted regulation. Regulation that protects peoples privacy online and then makes sure that we have robust competition. But that does not impede our innovation or competitive advantage over europe or other nations. I do believe theres a possibility to get that kind of wellcrafted regulation. But candidly, congress has an extraordinary knowledge gap. People here frankly dont understand Technology Well enough. So we need to educate ourselves and then see if we can have wellcrafted regulation. Second, and equally important, we need to extend the promise of Silicon Valley, of job creation in a new economy to communities left out, to communities in rural america, in communities of color, right now, almost every american is a consumer of technology but few get to participate in the creation of these new jobs and new wealth. We have to do a better job of making sure people from around the country can participate and have access to the jobs of the future. Craig can you give an example of what you mean when you say well crafted . Rep. Khanna for example, on privacy regulation, we want to make sure that before people transfer data, they get an individuals consent. But we may not need an individuals consent if a company is just transferring data about a Third Party Verification for a credit card. I mean, you probably dont want to have to consent every time an ordinary business practice is done to verify that your credit card is actually yours. So we need a regulation that says yes, lets consent before collection of data. But lets make an exception for ordinary business use cases. Thats how, for example, californias privacy law was modeled. Craig congressman khanna joining us at the table to look at some of the specific issues is Craig Timberg of the Washington Post. Hello, congressman. How are you . Rep. Khanna hello, craig. How are you . Im good, thanks. You mentioned something in your opening remarks about a knowledge gap and an issue i thought a lot over the years and let me pose it this way. Every time that theres a hearing on the hill involving technology issues, twitter blows up with complaints saying essentially these guys dont even know how to use their iphones. How are they going to regulate facebook, twitter, google . How do you fix that . These companies in Silicon Valley are paying huge salaries and bonuses and the hot place to be as you know since youre from that part of the world. How can the congress and federal government get better at knowing and Understanding Technology and crafting useful , policies and laws . Rep. Khanna there has to be a greater curiosity and a willingness to learn. I mean, members of congress dont have an expertise in the financial sector. But they take an interest in that. They dont have an expertise in health care. But they take an interest in that. And i think for too long washington hasnt paid sufficient attention to Silicon Valley and hasnt understood what profound impact theyre having on the economy. I would urge every member of congress to come to my district, to spend a few days meeting with technology leaders. Its worse than that members of congress dont know how to use an iphone. There are members of congress who didnt know that apple made the iphone. And theres a particular case where a member of congress was grilling the c. E. O. Of google, arguing that google made the iphone. And then berated him because when the c. E. O. Said it depends what apps you have on your phone whether we can track you, the congressperson said i dont know what apps are and i dont care what apps are. So theres almost a smugness in not Understanding Technology that culture has to change. Host so one of the big news stories in tech this week has been the Washington Posts story about the f. B. I. And i. C. E. , accessing facial recognition data. Essentially on every american in the country, right . We all have drivers licenses and all of our drivers licenses images end up in databases that the government and other authorities can access. Tell me what you thought of that story and the possibility something is going to happen about this issue. Rep. Khanna well, its concerning because as you know the facial recognition is not perfect. It can be subject to racial profiling. And has the inherent biases that are prevalent in society. So i think what is necessary is for us to have clear guidelines for the use of facial recognition or Artificial Intelligence to make sure the technology is being used for good uses, for example, in medicine, making sure that were using technology to actually be able to diagnose things with greater accuracy. Or using Artificial Intelligence to help make access to education more apparent. Or to process a lot of statistics. But that we shouldnt be using these technologies in ways that are furthering racial divides or furthering the erosion of Civil Liberties. Stanford has started a Human Interest center on Artificial Intelligence and technology that ive have great hope for. And theyre going to assemble some of the greatest minds and practitioners in the world to think through these issues. So obviously theres attention here, right . Im sure if we had the director of the f. B. I. Here with us, hed say we use this technology to you know, to run down terrorist threats, to prosecute and discover child predators, right . So youre talking about protecting Civil Liberties which is something that of course all of us would like to see happen. But where do you draw these lines . I mean, if you cant if you cant go into a facial recognition database to stop a terrorist threat, to go after child predators, you know, is there i mean, i want to ask you, is there any category of crime for which you think that this should be open and categories of crime for which you think it should not be open . Rep. Khanna im not saying we should wholesale ban the use of technology. Obviously if there are useful technologies that allow us to better detect crime or better detect terrorists, then we should use it. But there should be clear guidelines on the use of it and that we need to know that those technologies arent being exploited or misused. So i would want to see data that breaks down on race and on gender, to see whether certain populations are being more subject to the use of the technology or not. I want to make sure that Civil Liberties were actually being respected so that before you had the use of this technology, you had a court that said there was probable cause or that there was some standard that was being met and that you werent using the technology for surveillance violating peoples rights. So i think these are ageold dilemmas that the courts can adjudicate and that congress can pass laws protecting peoples privacy. Just because you have new technology doesnt mean that we throw out the safeguards of the constitution. And im curious, your read on the politics of this in congress. I mean, the post reported back in 2013 that the state license databases were being used by federal and other authorities, up to 125 million americans at that point and now its grown. But im curious have we entered an era in 2019 when Congress Might actually act on this . My impression of congress is struggling to do anything right now other than fight over partisan matters. Do you think theres a real opportunity here for congress to come together on this issue . I do in the house. Candidly mcconnell hasnt done anything in the senate. Thats not a partisan comment, just the truth. So we can pass something in the house that is thoughtful where we do regulate the use of this technology, allow Law Enforcement to use it but safeguard privacies. I think you could get some republicans, thoughtful republicans, like will hurd on board with that kind of approach. But whether you can get it to move in the senate, and whether you can get the president to sign it, thats a difficult lift. And let me change subjects on you for a second. We all know how extensive the our Technology Companies were used to interfere in the president ial election in 2016. Its been one of the biggest stories of the past few years. Im curious if you would look into your crystal ball a little bit. Were heading into another president ial cycle. Potentially its going to be even more hotly contested. And potentially even more countries deeply interested in the outcome of that election. What do you think were going to see in 2020 in terms of social media disinformation . Well, its a big concern of mine. And i dont think enough has been done yet. There is better coordination between the social Media Companies and Law Enforcement. But one thing that needs to be fixed is social Media Companies should be sharing information with each other of bad actors. Right now, that isnt happening. So, for example, if you go open up a fraudulent account in wells fargo bank, you cant the next day go open it up in bank of america or citibank. The banks will share that kind of information. But if youre a bot on facebook thats interfering or sowing discontent and facebook bans you, you could the next day go on to twitter or go on to youtube. So we need better platforms where these social Media Companies can share information and share best practices. And we need a real commitment in terms of resources that they will be prepared to remove any actors that get by and have a they get viral, and have a suspicion of foreign interference on the election. Congressman khanna, at some point is this censorship . Rep. Khanna well, its censorship if youre influencing speech. I mean, obviously, you want to make sure that these platforms are open to speech. But i dont think its censorship if youre saying that the russians shouldnt be allowed to have targeted messages to africanamericans in communities to suppress their vote by engaging in blatant falsehoods. I dont think that that standard is censorship. And its coming from a private company, not from the u. S. Government. So i wonder, you raised the question about whether the social Media Companies are doing enough to share information. I wonder, is it realistic expectation that a bunch of private Companies Whose main motive is going to ultimately be profit that they be the ones to defuse this threat and protect our democracy . Is that a reasonable ask . And if not, whose job is it . And is that entity doing that job . Rep. Khanna i dont think we can leave the burden just on private companies for the reasons you say. I mean, their primary responsibility is for their shareholders to making a profit, as well intentioned as they may be, their charge is to their companies and not to the security of the United States. So i think ultimately its the responsibility of congress. The encouraging thing is ive had constructive conversations with minority leader kevin mccarthy. He understands these issues. His son actually works in Silicon Valley, and hes quite savvy about technology, leader mccarthy is. So im hopeful that we may be able to work on legislation in the next couple of months that addresses this issue of better preparing our Technology Platforms from the threat of foreign interference. So lets say you pull that off. Is the white house at this point, is the president an impediment to measures that might protect the country from social media disinformation . Well, i have to say, ive worked with the White House Office of innovation and matt lira there on a couple of constructive projects. The president signed my bill to modernize federal websites. Were working on reducing paperwork in federal agencies. So my hope is that the White House Office of innovation would recognize that this isnt a partisan issue. I mean, you could see Foreign Countries wanting to interfere as much on the liberal side as the conservative side. We should reject that and i hope thats how the white house will look at that time it and not make this partisan. Congressman khanna, one of the conversations thats being held here in washington at least is perhaps censorship of conservatives on social media. Do you think thats a legitimate complaint . I dont. Its quite absurd on its face given that i dont think donald trump would be president if it werent for social media. And the joke in Silicon Valley is that secretary clinton got 99 of the donations but donald trump got all of the buzz on social media, on twitter and facebook. Their campaign was better unfortunately at using it than our Democratic Campaign was. So the idea that these platforms are biased is just not true. Do you consider facebook and twitter like the Washington Post a Media Company . I do think theyre a new Media Company. I think theyre a hybrid. I mean, theyre not the Washington Post in that you know, if i write a letter to the editor to the Washington Post, the post gets a lot of letters but is not two billion letters. So its easier to monitor content and to edit content. On the other hand, i dont think facebook can just say were a platform when so many people are going to facebook to get their news. So the question is, what is their responsibility . They cant have to fact check all two billion users content. But maybe they have some responsibility if a post goes viral, if its close to an election, to take down propaganda or put in another perspective. I think theres a whole field on new media ethics that is missing. We need a Journalism School for new Media Companies to come up with some rules. I mean, for example, the reason the Washington Post, if i were to say or today on cspan if i were to say since ive been elected, weve had 20 Economic Growth in my district, the reason no one would print that or youd question back is not because you fear im going to sue you. Because there is some sense of standards and ethics that is involved in journalism. We need some standards and ethics to evolve in these new Media Companies. So let me just change the subject on you again. I think you have a couple of young children. I have children of my own and when i talk to people, one of the things i hear most often is how do i get my kids off their iphones, right . How do i get them to stop playing fortnite so often . Can i get them to go to the park and play baseball . Im curious whether you feel like both the companies and the federal government has done enough to protect children, their privacy, their time and even from, you know, content that we as parents probably wouldnt want our children to see . Has there been enough . And if not, what could be done to make it better . Rep. Khanna we need to do more. We have very young kids and we dont let them use the phone and i like to read to them. But even at this age theyre very young. If they see something on the phone, theyll want to go to it. So its a challenge for for parents. Here let me give you a concrete example of something that the companies can do better. I had a friend in the constituency and my constituency and he has a daughter whos a teenager. And she was getting creepy messages frankly from people who wanted to request her as a friend. And my friend got very concerned that this was taking place on instagram. So he wanted to go change the privacy settings on instagram. And this is someone who is very savvy in technology. And it took him 15 minutes to figure out how to change the privacy setting so that his daughter wouldnt be subject to that kind of online harassment. So at the very least, we need clear standards that gives parents much tighter control and much easier ways of navigating the online world to protect children. You know, senator markey has a bill to update the child Online Privacy protection act. He has working on a bill that would control the kind of content as it is now, a kid just needs to enter his or her phony birthday and say that theres such a day they can access websites on alcohol. They can access pornography of any variety. What would be the right federal Government Role here and what are the chances that this congress could move on this . It seems like the kind of issue that would have reasonably bipartisan support. So whats the holdup on these things . I think senator markey is very thoughtful on these issues and i certainly would be interested in look at his legislation. I think what the federal government should do is issue clear guidelines of what Tech Companies need to do to make privacy settings easy for people to use, to make it clear that parents have maximum control over these technologies as is allowable. And to make that something that you dont have to navigate 20 minutes to be able to do. So i think thoughtful, clear regulations will help. I will say this, though. I mean, look, weve had new technologies come into society that have both positive and negative impacts for decades. I mean, people are probably more corrupted in some ways by the influence of tv. If you look at a study at stanford, a lot of the polarization he argues happened because of television, not social media. Does that mean that television is a bad platform . No. Im glad im doing this interview. Im glad television allows people to connect. But what is important is how we use that technology and how we make sure culturally that we arent addicted to those technologies and so i think we have to have a conversation about how we still foster Critical Thinking and still foster active learning and regulate the use of these technologies among kids through parents and civic organizations and schools. Congressman khanna, theres been some talk in washington about repealing section 230 which limits the liability of these social media sites to whats posted. What are your thoughts . Rep. Khanna i think it would be a mistake. I voted against repeal part of those section 230 protections when it came to sex workers. And what youve seen since that bill has passed is a lot of sex workers have now been forced to go on the streets. And its actually led to an increase in sex trafficking because they arent able to use the internet for communication about safety and in ways that they had in the past. So i think removing 230 restrictions would be would lead to a lot of unintended consequences. And it also may put us at a competitive disadvantage with europe and other countries. Lets talk about antitrust for a second. Rep. Khanna yes. When i started back on this beat in 2012, the big story or so it seemed at the time was the f. T. C. Was going to crack down google and it had gotten too big and europe was going to crack down on google. So the f. T. C. Piece of that never really came to pass in a way that people envisioned at the time. Here we are seven years later. Theres a lot of talk about antitrust. There is a larger universe of companies that are getting a political conversation around that. Im curious, you know, what you think actually could practically happen . My impression is that the antitrust laws in the United States are not terribly well geared to deal with this sort of you know, what you meet call the problem of bigness that exists in Silicon Valley now and the way that that is potentially a threat to innovation. Tell us a little bit about what you think the federal government could or should do to deal with these Big Companies. Rep. Khanna well, we need to have thoughtful antitrust enforcement that doesnt allow companies to privilege their own platforms. So i think the Microsoft Case was a great example. Microsoft, the windows platform, wasnt allowed to use internet explorer. They couldnt tie those together. That allowed netscape to emerge and google to emerge. The courts didnt break up microsoft but microsoft shouldnt be able to privilege its own platform. Similarly, amazon shouldnt be able to privilege its own platform every time you go on amazon to shop you shouldnt just see amazon basic products come up. There should be a neutral platform for all types of products. I think that kind of smart regulation that still has the consumer welfare standard at heart, is probably where youre going to see antitrust enforcement. And does that mean new legislation . I remember again in 2012, all of the talk was how do we how do we make an antitrust argument about a product thats free, google . And people seem to love. Right . It was it was very hard to frame that debate around meaningful consumer harm. At least that was the view of the regulators at the time. You know, people love these companies. Is there is there a way does there need to be a legislative fix if theres going to be more robust antitrust enforcement . Rep. Khanna i think legislation that gives more resources to the f. T. C. And Justice Department is important. I think legislation that says we need to look more critically at mergers, not just horizontal mergers but also vertical mergers and the impact that that is having on jobs and wages and competition can be helpful. But i dont think we should go to europes standard. Europes standard is it doesnt matter just what the consumers care about and welfare. You can actually have antitrust interference enforcement to protect a competitor. And theres a reason that europe hasnt had a single real success story, maybe spotify, in technology, and is lagging behind the rest of the world. Congressman khanna, i want to quote quote you and have you expand on this. Quote, in retrospect, the federal trade commission should not have approved facebooks acquisition of instagram and whatsapp in 2012. Why did you say that . And did it hurt you politically in your district . Rep. Khanna people know im an independent voice in my district. So they they take what they like and they also know that there are times im going to disagree. So i dont think it necessarily hurt me. Though there are people who disagree with that opinion certainly. The reason i said that is i think Mark Zuckerberg would have been able to answer the question when he came to congress, who your competitors are. And he wouldnt have had to fumble around. I mean, he kind of said twitter. But he could have said twitter, instagram and whatsapp. Unfortunately, he wasnt able to give that answer because facebook acquired both instagram and whats app. And we lost out on competition. Now, facebook will tell you that instagram will never have become instagram if facebook hadnt put in the resources and they will say if we dont allow for these mergers, we may hurt new startups whose exit plans are to whose exit plans are to be acquired by a big company. So these are complex issues. And theres not a clear answer. But my general sense is that we should at this point have a strong presumption against these Big Companies acquiring potential competitors or copying potential competitors as facebook may have done with snapchat. And that will assure the public that new platforms may emerge. Craig were now two years and some months since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke. And we are entering a new election cycle. There was a lot of focus on facebook. There was a lot of focus on some misdeeds by Cambridge Analytica. But in a way the big story that revealed to us was how much everyday social media, you know, what we think of as the dust we leave behind online, can be turned around and organized and used to influence voters. It seems to me thats just as true today as it was two years ago. Has anything changed . And if not, why not . Rep. Khanna i think its actually more true today in terms of the influence that social media has. I do think that these companies are making progress to removing hate speech, to removing foreign interference. They have a ways to go. And i do think that theyre making some progress on protecting our privacy. Again, they have a ways to go. But we have to have a much broader conversation in this country about how we make sure that social media is used in a constructive way to enhance democracy instead of undermining it. And this is a conversation weve had. I mean, years ago, we went through a period of muckraking journalists with newspapers and standards evolved and newspapers were seen as constructive players in democratic debate that encouraged deliberation. And i think we need the same kind of reflection on social media. How do you use those platforms to democratize access to communication, to allow new voices, but to have spirited, thoughtful debate as opposed to just name calling . And i think thats something thats ongoing. Its a project that the country needs to undertake. Ok. So conversation sounds good. But youre of the part of a deliberative and legislative body. Are there Things Congress should be doing about this people are outraged . I presume they still are. Are there Things Congress should be doing to keep political campaigns from using our data to change the way we think about our votes in ways we struggle to perceive . Rep. Khanna absolutely. We need to pass strong privacy laws. And i have an internet bill of rights which articulates a few clear things. We should never have Data Collected without knowing about it and our consent. We should know whats happening to our data. So in the Cambridge Analytica case facebook should have had a responsibility to immediately notify people when they were transferring their data. They didnt do that. People should also have been able to inquire at any point with facebook what was happening to their data. That law wasnt there. So, i think if you pass a basic protections for people online, you would avoid things like the Cambridge Analytica scandal. The speaker had asked me to craft an internet bill of rights. I did. Those principles are this there. Those principles are in their. And finally congressman khanna, would you own a huawei phone, why or why not . Rep. Khanna i would not. I want to see america develop the next generation of technology. Right now, 5g is still a ways away. And apples in my district. So when they come out with a 5g phone, ill buy that one. But china is scary in certain ways. And the way its using technology. And i say this not to demagogue the issue. Obviously we need to cooperate with china when it comes to climate change, when it comes to tackling terrorism, when it comes to tackling disease. But the way they have stolen intellectual property, the way they have embedded Technology Companies with censorship, i think is concerning. And we need to be careful in terms of what role huawei will play. Host congressman ro khanna represents the silicon area in congress and he has been our guest this week on the communicators. Along with our guest reporter Craig Timberg of the Washington Post. Gentlemen, thank you very much. My pleasure. Rep. Khanna thank you. All communicators programs are available as podcasts. Simply search cspan the communicators. For 40 years, cspan has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and Public Policy events from washington, d. C. And around the country, so you can make up your own mind. Created by cable in 1979. Cspan is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. Cspan, your unfiltered view of government. The white house did not release a weekly address. Representative Carolyn Malone gave an address on the advocating the 9 11 fund. The 10 year cost is estimated at around 10 billion. Majority leader Mitch Mcconnell has said he plans to bring the legislation to the senate floor before the august