see, and we use it to improve our products from our users. but we're focussed on improving our product. >> i appreciate that. numerous interviews effected by the conduct show google did just that, which is very disturbing and very anticompetitive. in addition, google began to privilege its own site. an investigative report published just yesterday found 53% of web searches that start on google, end on google's website. it keeps users on google's site, even if google doesn't have the most relevant information and it's catastrophic for other companies online. my time is running out. i'll end by saying the evidence seems clear to me. as google became the gateway to the internet t began to abuse its power t uses surveillance to identify competitive threats and crush them. it's dampened innovation in business growth and reduced

access of users on the internet. virtually insuring any business must pay google tax. and with that, i recognize the ranking member for his first round of questioning. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i've been in congress for two years, and that's coming to an end at the end of this year. i'm breathing a sigh of relief. but during the decade of the '90s and the 00s i was involved in the chairman of the science committee and this committee and trying to meet the net universal and open it to everybody. one of the thesis we used is that net should end up becoming basically the debate on issues, not only in our country, but throughout the world. and in exchange for that, this committee and the congress, it entered its service providers

immunity, so if somebody said something defamatory in what they posted, the isps could not be part of a lawsuit for defamation. now, after hearing mr. jordan give a long line of censorship of conservative viewpoints, i'm concerned that the people who manage the net and the four of you manage a big part of the net, are ending up using this as a political screen. conservatives are consumers too. and the way the net was put together in the eyes of congress is that everybody should be able to speak their mind. mr. zuckerberg, mr. jordan's litany of censorship zeros in on facebook. exactly what are your standards

in both filtering out political speech, that maybe some people out there don't agree with? >> congressman, thank you for the opportunity to address this. our goal is to offer a platform for all ideas. we want to give everyone in the world a voice to share their experiences and ideas. a lot of that is day-to-day things that happen in their lives. some of it is political. frankly, i think we've distinguished ourselves as one of the companies that defends free expression the most. we have community standards around things that you can and cannot say. i think you would likely agree with most of them. they ban categories of harm, such as promoting terrorist propaganda, travelled exploitation, inassignmecitemen

violence, intellectual property, and they ban things like hate speech, that could lead to dehumanizing people -- >> if i may ask a specific of you. it was reported that donald trump jr. got taken down for a period of time because he put something up, the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. now, i wouldn't take it myself, but there still is a debate on whether it is effective, either in treating or preventing covid-19. and i think this is a legitimate matter of discussion. and it would be up to a patient and their doctor to determine whether hydroxychloroquine was the correct medication, given the circumstances. >> first to be clear, what you are referring to may have

happened on twitter. but i can speak to our policies. we do prohibit content that will lead to imminent risk of harm. and stating there's a proven cure for covid, when there is in fact none, might encourage somebody to go take something that may haved averse effects, so we do take that down. we do not prohibit discussion around trials of drugs or people saying they think that things might work or personal experiences with experimental drugs.ay something is proven, when in fact it is not, that could lead people -- >> wouldn't that be up to somebody on the other side of the issue to say this is not proven? i know as a fact for people with certain conditions, it's contrankted and it shouldn't. wouldn't that be up to somebody else to say okay, what somebody posted on this really isn't true

and here's what the facts are? rather than having a twitter or facebook take it down? >> congressman, in general, i agree with you, and we do not want to become the arbiters of truth. that would be a bad position for us to be in and not what we should be doing. but on specific claims, if someone is going to go out and say that hydroxychloroquine is proven to cure covid, when in fact it has not been proven to cure covid, and that statement could lead people to take a drug that, in some cases, some of the data suggests it may be harmful to people, we think that we should take that down. that could cause imminent risk or harm. >> thank you. i yield back. i now recognize the distinguished chair of the full judiciary chair, mr. nadler,

from new york. >> mr. zuckerberg, i want to thank you for providing us information during our investigation. however, the documents you provided tell a disturbing story and that is that facebook saw instagram as a powerful threat that could siphon business away from facebook. so, rather than compete with it, facebook brought it. this is the type of anticompetitive acquisition that the anti-trust laws were designed to prevent. in fact, on the day facebook brought to instagram, you wrote, quote, one thing about start ups is you can do it properly -- you were referring to instagram in that quote? >> i don't have the exact document but i've always been clear we view instagram, both as

a competitor and as a compliment to our services. in the growing space around, after smart phones start getting bick and they competed with us in the space of mobile cameras and mobile photo sharing, but no one thought of them as a general social network and didn't think of them as competing with us in that space. i think that the acquisition has been wildly successful. we were able to, by acquiring in them, continue investing it and growing them as a stand-alone brand that reaches many more people than i think either kevin, the cofounder, or i, thought would be possible at the time, while incorporating technology to make facebook's photo sharing products better. so, yes. >> okay. in early 2012, when facebook contemplated acquiring instagram, a competitive start up, you told your cfo, that instagram could be disruptive to

us. and in the weeks leading up to the deal, you described instagram as a threat, saying quote, instagram can meaningfully hurt us without becoming a huge business. what did you mean when you described instagram as a threat? as destructive? and when you understand stugram could meaningfully hurt facebook. did you mean consumers might switch from facebook to instagram? >> congressman, thanks for the opportunity to address this. at the time, there was a small but growing field -- >> did you mean that consumers might switch from facebook to instagram? >> thanks. congressman -- >> yes or no? >> in the space of mobile photos and camera apps, which was growing, they were a competitor. >> thanks. in february of that year, february 2012, you told facebook's chief financial officer that you were interested

in buying instagram. i asked you whether the purpose was to neutralize competitor or integrate, you answered it was a combination of both, saying what we're really buying is time. even if some competitors spring up, those products won't get much traction because we'll already have this deployed to scale. what did you mean when you answered the purpose was to neutralize a potential competitor? >> those aren't my words. but yes, i've been clear instagram was a competitor in the space of mobile photo sharing. there were a lot of others at the time that compete would apps like disco cam and pick please. and companies like tiktok. it was a subset of the overall space of connecting that we exist in. and by having them join us, they certainly went from being a

competitor, in the space of being a mobile camera, to an app at the we could help grow and help get more people tool be able to use and be on our team. i -- >> mr. zuckerberg, mergers and acquisitions that buy up competitive threats, violate antitrust laws. in your own words, you purchased it to neutralize a comppetitive threat. if this was an illegal merger, why shouldn't instagram be broken off into a separate company? >> congressman, i think the ftc had all these documents and reviewed this and unanimously voted at the time not to challenge the acquisition. i think it looks obvious instagram would have reached the scale it has today but at the time it was far from obvious. including companies that were hot at the time and had great

founders and entrepreneurs running them, david moore, i worked closely with him and i don't even think path exists today. it was not a guarantee instagram was going to succeed. it's done wildly well, largely because, not just of the founder's talent, but because we invested in building up the infrastructure and promoting it and working on security and a lot of things around this. i think this has been an american success story. >> thank you. mr. zuckerberg, you're making my point. in closing, i want to end where i began. facebook, his own admission, facebook saw instagram as a threat that could potentially siphon business away from facebook, so instead of compete with it, facebook bought it. this is exactly the type of acquisition the antitrust laws were designed to prevent. it should never have been permitted to happen and cannot

happen again. i yield back. >> i would remind the witness that the failures of the ftc in 2012, of course, do not alleviate the antitrust challenges the chairman described. with that, i'm going to recognize the gentleman from colorado and thank him for cohosting the field. and i think in the critical investigation we recognize mr. buck. >> thank you plrks chairman. i want to offer my appreciation to you. i want to start by saying capitalism is the greatest instrument for freedom this world has ever seen. capitalism has given the united states the freedom and means to defeat the soviet union, defeat fascism and put a man on the moon. it has made america the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. our witnesses have taken ideas born out of a dorm room, and built these dreams into four of

the biggest power players in the global economy. you have enjoyed the freedom to succeed. let me be clear, i do not believe big is necessarily bad. in fact, big is often a force for good. however, i want to address one particularly disturbing issue. in october, 2018, google dropped out of the running for pentagon contract to complete the joint enterprise, defense infrastructure or jedi contract that was valued at more than $10 billion. the stated reason for removing itself from the bidding process is the military project did not align with the corporate values and principals. this is the same u.s. military that fights for our freedom and stands as a force for good across the globe. these are the same soldiers, sailers and airmen that sacrificed their lives to insure you have the freedom to build their company and set your corporate policies without fear

of government interference, unlike in communist china. i also find it interesting that only months after making the decision to withdraw, marine general, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff warned the armed forces committee that the chinese military was directly benefitting from google's work. it made me wonder what values google and communist red china had in common. i asked myself, self, is it that they impris con muslims in concentration camps? could it be they force slaves to work in concentration camps? did google agree with ccp's decision to lie to the world about the covid-19 pandemic? and i thought about google's dragonfly experiment. i wondered if perhaps you agree would the chinese government's use of technology platforms to

spy on its own people and enforce drak ownian security laws. and maybe, since your company is align wou align would the corporate espionage policies, where the policy is to steal whatever can't be produced domestically. this help explain why google wouldn't think twice about blatantly stealing a competitor's product without any hint of at rubugz. during the field hearing in my home state, i heard a story that sounded so brazen and contrary to free market principals, that i thought it must be straight from the chinese parties' play book. google misappropriated lyrics from genius media groups website and published them on google's own platform.

when genius suspected the corporate theft was occurring, they incorporated a digital water mark that spelled out red handed in morris code. your company stole what you couldn't or didn't want to produce yourself. after google executives stated they were investigating this problematic behavior, genius deted determined the scope of the misappropriation. 43% show clear evidence of matching. your company, which advertises itself as a doorway to freedom took advantage of the small company. google is supposed to connect people to information. your corporate values once stood for freedom. one that helped bring countless people across the globe out of poverty. my question for you, do you think google could get away with

following china's corporate espionage playbook, if you didn't have a monopolistic advantage in the market? >> i want to address the important concerns you raise. first, be proud to support the u.s. government. we recently signed a big project with the department of defense, where we're bringing our world class cyber security approach to help protect networks from cyber security attacks. we have products with the navy, department of veteran's affairs. happy to follow up and explain more. we have a limited presence in china. we don't offer any of our services, g-mail, youtube, and with respect to music, we license content there, from other companies and so this is a dispute between genius and other companies, in terms of where the source of the content is. again, happy to engage and

explain what we do here further. >> i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. cook, with over 100 million, in the united states alone and with apple donorship of the app store eliminated, which apps are allowed to be marketed for apple users, you have a problem over small businesses. and they're a decision maker as to whether an app is made available through apple's app store. isn't that correct? >> sir, the app store -- thank you for the questions. the app store is a feature of the iphone, much like the camera is, and the chip is.

and so -- >> my point is -- and i'm sorry to interrupt. the point is apple is the sole decision maker as to whether an app is made available to app users through the apple store. isn't that correct? >> if it's a native app, yes, sir. if it's a web app -- >> and throughout our investigation, we have heard concerns that rules governing the app store review process are not available to app developers, the rules are made up as you go, they are arbitrarily interpreted and enforced and are subject to change whenever apple sees fit to change and developers have no choice but to go along with the changes or they must leave the app store. that's an enormous amount of power. also the rules get changed to benefit apple at the expense of

app developers and the app store is said to discriminate between app developers with similar apps. and also as to small app developers verses large app developers. so, mr. cook, does apple not treat all app developers equally? >> sir, we treat every developer the same. we have opened transparent rules. it's a rigorous process. because we care so deeply about privacy and security and policy, we look at every app before it goes on. but those rules apply evenly to everyone. and as you can tell by going -- >> some developers are favored over others. so, isn't that correct? >> that is not correct. and as you can tell from going from -- >> i'll give you an example. i do has two app store employees

assigned to the app store. >> i don't know about that, sir. >> and they have that same access to apple personnel. >> concluding looking at their beta test apps. >> let me ask you this question. apple has negotiated exceptions to its typical commission for some apps like amazon prime. is that a reduced commission, such as the one amazon prime gets available to other app developers? >> it's available through any one meeting, the conditions, yes. >> apple requires all app

developers to use the payment processing system if they want to sell their goods or services to apple users through apple's app stores, isn't that correct? >> that is correct. >> and by processing payments for apps, that you allow into the app store, you collect their customer data and use that to inform apple as to whether apple should, whether or not it would be profitable to launch a competing app. isn't that correct? >> sir, 84% of the apps are charged nothing. the remaining 16% either pay 15 or 30, depending on the specifics. if it's in the second year of a subscription, as an example, it only pays 15%. if you look -- >> what's to stop apple from increasing its commission to 50%.

>> sir, we have never increased commissions in the store since the first day it operated in 2008. >> there's nothing to stop you from doing so. >> no, sir, i disagree strongly for that. there's a competition for developers, just like for customers. so, the competition for developers, they can write their apps for android or playstation. so, we have fierce competition at the developer side and the customer side, which is essentially so competitive, i would describe it as a street fight for market share in the smart phone business. >> has the app phone ever retaliated against or disadvantaged a developer who went public about their frustrations with the app store. >> sir, we do not retaliate or bully people.

strongly against our company culture. >> time has expired and the chairman recognizes gentleman from florida. >> you made the claim that facebook is an american company with american values. do any of the rest of you take a different view? that is to say that your companies don't embrace american values? great to see none of you do. i'm worried about google's market power, how it concentrates that power and ultimately, how it wields it. project, maven, was a collaboration between google and department of defense, that google pulled out, siting ethical concerns and you maids that decision, following receipt of letter from thousands of your employees saying google should not be in the business of war. my question is did you weigh the input from your employees when making the decision to abandoned the project with the united states military? >> congressman, thanks for your concern.

as i said earlier, we're deeply committed to serving the military and u.s. government. we've undertaken several projects since then. we do take employees input into account. as the company, we were new in the cloud space at that time -- >> thank you. that's a sufficient answer. you did take their feedback into account and in fact, some of your googlers have asked you to exit other partnerships as a consequence of ethical concerns. they've asked you to stop doing business with american law enforcement, saying police broadly uphold white supremacy and that sgogoogle should not b engaged in services to police. as you know, you provide email and services that help keep our cops safe when they're doing their job. and so my question is here, in front of congress and the american people, will you take

the pledge that google will not adopt a bigoted, antipolice policy requested in the most recent letter? >> congressman, we have a long track record of working with law enforcement when it is supported by due process and the law, we push back against all broad requests, be transparent about the requests we get. but we have a long history of following the law and cooperating with law -- >> i understand the history. i'm asking about the future. to the law enforcement watching today, can they rest assured, that under your leadership, google will not adopt these bigoted anti-police policies? >> we've committed to working with law enforcement in way that's consistent with law and due process in the u.s. >> i greatly appreciate that and i know that will be comfortable to the police who utilize your services. you mentioned in your discussion

about china that your engagement in china was very limited. but yet google has an ai china center. the chinese academy of sciences published a paper that enhanced the targeting capabilities of china's j.-20 fighter aircraft. you collaborate with chinese universities that take millions upon millions from the chinese military. in fact, one of your googlers, while under your employ, was sited in chinese state media saying "china is like a sleeping giant. when she wakes, she will tremble the world." the former secretary of defense says the lines have been blurred in china between commercial and military application. and general doneford says your company is directly aiding the chinese military. and the person who serves on

google's board of facebook, accused you of treason. so, why would an american company, with american values so directly aid the chinese military but have ethical concerns about working along side the u.s. military on project maven? and i understand your point about cyber security and those things. but project maven was a specific way to insure that our troops are safe on the battlefield. and if you have no problem making the j-20 chinese fighter more effective in its targeting, why wouldn't you want america as effective? >> congressman, with respect, we are not working with the chinese military. it's absolutely false. i had a chance to meet with general dunford personally bp it's very, very limited in nature. our a.i. work in china is limed to a handful of people working on open sourced projects. i'm happy to share and engage in

the office to explain our work in china. >> when the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says an american company is directly aiding china, when you're working with universities and employees are talking about china trembleing the world, it seems to call into question your commitment to our country and values. i see our time has expired. i hope we have an additional round. >> mr. chairman, mr. zuckerberg, as you know, the proliferation of facebook accounts was a key tool in the strategy of russian interference in the american election of 2016. american law enforcement, the senate, the house, have all found vladimir putin engaged in the sweeping and systematic campaign to undermine our american democracy in 2016 and to work for a victory for donald trump.

in his book, cambridge analitica. they recount how the russian assault on america in the research depended on facebook. quote, when they launched in summer of 2014, the goal was to change politics by changing culture. facebook data, algorithms and narratives were his key weapons. the team used the tools to identify people who exhibited the three traits in what they called the dark tried a. narcissism, machiavellyism and they proceeded to bum bard and act vite people and increasingly dark and manipulative messages from fake facebook pages too, get them to vote for trump, and

more importantly to actvate them as white nationalists. and he addresses this politically in the country, in terms of sewing the terrible ethnic and racial divisions you see in america today. they polarize america around race and religion and activate antisemmites. but it didn't work so well for americans. so, mr. zuckerberg, which parts of the narrative have you addressed? or do you just see that essentially as the cost of being a forum in a marketplace for ideas? is there nothing that can be done about the use of facebook to injenengender social divisio america? >> congressman, thank you. since 2016, there have been a lot of steps we've taken to insure the integrity of elections. it's more than 30,000 people to

work on safety and security. we've built up a.i. systems to find harmful content. including finding more than 50 different networks of coordinated and authentic behavior, basically nation states trying to interfere in elections. >> let me pause you for a second. because i'm interested ichb that. the stop hate for praofit campaign -- and they're targeting facebook right now for a boycott because of the rapid spread of hate messages online. the presence of googleoorks and other right wing extremists groups to disrupt and anti-semitic content flourishes on facebook. they're asking you to remove the pages and join the move for civil rights by not allowing that kind of content.

their boycotters include a lot of big companies including heineken and so on. but you seem not that moved by their campaign. and i wonder what you think of what they're asking you to do? >> congressman, thanks. we're very focussed on fighting against election interference and we're very focussed on fighting against hate speech and our commitments to those issues and fighting them go back years before this recent movement. since 2016, the defenses that the company has built up to help secure elections, not just in the u.s. but around the world, i think are some of the most advanced any company or government has in the world now. we routinely collaborate with law enforcement and intelligence agencies and are able to sometimes identify threats coming from other countries before governments are even able to. in terms of fighting hate? we have built really sophisticated systems. our goal is to identify it

before anyone sees it on the platform. and we built a.i. systems. and as i mention, have tens of thousands of people working on safety and security w the goal of getting this stuff down. so, that way, before people see it. and right now we're able to proactively identify 89% of the hate speech we take to own, before it's seen by other people. i want to do better than 89%. ideas like to get to 99%. we have a massive investment here. >> my time's almost up. can you just address the proliferation of fake accounts. i know annually you get 6.5 billion fake accounts produced there, but in some sense you have a profit motive linked to that because that's what's reported to your investors. are you working zealously to try to fair it out these fake

accoun accounts used to spread hate and disinformation? >> the time expired, but the witness may answer the question. >> absolutely we work hard on this. we take down billions of fake accounts a year. a lot of that is just people trying to spam people for commercial reasons. a very small percent are nation states trying to interfere in elections. but we're focussed on trying to find those. having harmful information on our platform does not help our business, it hurts our business. they use our services less when they do. so, we invest billions a year in doing so. >> i yield back. the committee will stand in recess for ten minutes while we fix a technical feed with one of our witnesses. >> all right, so we will await this 10-minute recess here. you've been listening to the

ceos of google, facebook, and alphabet testifying. i want to bring in our experts to talk about this. starting first with cnn tech reporter. i wants to bring in our business reporter to talk about this. what were the top lines that really stood out to you here? >> yeah, and we're seeing facebook is getting mostly the questioning here. and a very long, months' long investigation on the part of this committee. they obtained over a million documents. thav they've done hours of behind-closed-door questioning from stock companies and representative jerry nadler asked about the acquisition of

instagram in 2012. and they've released communications from zuckerberg as describing instagram as a threat. and nadler said to zuckerberg you know, rather than competing with this platform that you viewed as a threat, you guys just acquired it? and zuckerberg responded that yes, the fcc did apriprove the acqu acquisition. i thought that stood out also. the fact jeff baiezos, i don't think we've heard from him since his opening statements. but maybe more questions for him after the break. >> yes, they're fixing something, a technical difficulty. so, hopefully we will hear more from him. what stood out to you? >> we haven't heard from jeff bezos' a technical feed that lasted that long. and i have to say i feel like

some of the law makers didn't read the sign that said this is an antitrust hearing. this is about competition concerns. do these guys have some form of power is important as fake news is, as fake news accounts, whatever it is, it's not about this hearing and it's not about this investigation. if this was the court of public opinion, these guys have gone nowhere fast today in proving any kind of consumer harm. and that's what you to prove if you want to take action and law changes or make law changes here. this is kind of a disaster for these guys. they've gone nowhere fast. >> julia, it's not unusual for tech ceos to get other questions that might be pertinent to what's going on in the news but you think it's counterproductival here? >> i think having all four of the tech titans in a room,

there's a lot of overlap between their businesses. but we can't get focussed, we can't do a deep dive to understand the power, the importance. you haven't even heard from jeff baize oesz, of course. but when you talk about a company that has 40% or approaching 40% of the e commerce market in america, there are certain questions to be asked about the pricing powers. do they increase access to consumers and that benefit them? or do they have a level of power and control that ultimately could feedback and suppress innovation? and that somehow hurts consumers? because that's what has to be proved here. having these four guys in a room is not conducive to getting real answers here, i don't think. >> we're getting sidetracked. >> it did feel like talking to the ceo of the parent company of google, that you heard more from the law makers than was revealed

by the ceo. what about you? what are your big takeaways here? >> there was an early exchange when we first dipped in to the q and a involving google, that is emblematic of the larger picture. they've grown and grown in the obama and trump years. but belatedly, the law makers are looking at it. when you or i search on google now, when we type in a question, often times the result is a google answer. google is finding the answer or directing you to a google site. that is a change. and so, that is an example of possible consumer harm. google says that's an improvement, a benefit because the best, fastest answer. there you go. that's the tension, the story. and then the parallel track where you have republican law makers accusing them of anticonservative bias.

let's remember the claims about bias in tech platforms are not backed by data or science. these are stories, not statistics butted we're probably going to hear more of that from republicans. >> big takeaways for you? >> well, as a basic matter, the big question is whether or not the companies have harmed competition. so too, the extend these revolve around hate speech, those are not key issues. what's really important for the law makers to determine is getting the evidence they need in order to determine whether or not the companies have harmed rivals or harmed consumers in ways that ultimately undermine competition in the marketplace. >> and brin, one of the things, listening to mark zuckerberg, talk about the acquisition of instagram and the language he

used to say we viewed them as a competitor and we viewed them as a compliment to facebook. and he talked about that now instagram is on the team. i mean, these ceos are there with the goal, which is to make what they do seem a lot less cut throat than what it is >> absolutely. the arguments zuckerberg is putting throughout is instagram is a compliment to facebook services and only facebook could make instagram into what it is today. and he argued ainate time the federal trade commission didn't challenge the merger. but that was then and this is now. the fcc is a very different place with different commissioners and it's also currently looking, actively, at past tech acquisitions and if they were anticompetitive, even

if the agency didn't realize that at the time. to highlight the decision not to oppose the merger, simply draws attention to the fact that they could now arrive at a very different conclusion. >> so, what do you want to hear, assuming we do get to hear from jeff bezos, what do you want to hear from the head of amazon? >> i think the big question there is going to be how amazon uses search from independent retailers that use their platform? i think the line of questioning will follow to say are you looking at this data, how independent retailers perform on your platform and figuring out a way to acquire them or compete with them. and bring products to market that you can basically undercut as people using your platform. that's a theme throughout this. google was asked during the hear

figure they used their data to figure out how to quash competitors and there wasn't a clear answer on that. and also i think we heard questioning about google's work in china. i thought it was interesting in mark zuckerberg's written testimony where he says facebook was proud to be an american company. and that is quite relevant at the moment, when you think about tick, tiktok and how the the trump administration is essentially looking to ban the chinese-owned app from the united states. i think we'll hear more about that when the session resumes. >> it is interesting to hear some of these simple questions that are yes or no and you're not getting a yes or no answer. maybe the answer is yes, some of the times when we hear the ceos side stepping that. if i could have all of your lovely voices stand by for me.

next, republican congressman willy gomert tests positive after he was within feet of the attorney general. and now. who has time for wrinkles? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair®. we've got the retinol that gives you results in one week. not just any retinol. accelerated retinol sa. for not only smoother skin in one day, but younger-looking skin in just one week. and that's clinically proven. results that fast or your money back. unless you're attached to your wrinkles. one week is all it takes. neutrogena®.

how does the world one weereopen for business? to return to the workplace, safely, companies will need the right tools. that's why salesforce created work.com it's an all-new suite of apps, expertise, and services. to manage this crisis today, and thrive tomorrow. everything companies need to return to the workplace. let's reopen. safely. $$9.95? no way.? $9.95? that's impossible. hi, i'm jonathan, a manager here at colonial penn life insurance company, to tell you it is possible. if you're age 50 to 85, you can get life insurance

with options starting at just $9.95 a month. okay, jonathan, i'm listening. tell me more. just $9.95 a month for colonial penn's number one most popular whole life insurance plan. there are no health questions to answer and there are no medical exams to take. your acceptance is guaranteed. guaranteed acceptance? i like guarantees. keep going. and with this plan, your rate is locked in for your lifetime, so it will never go up. sounds good to me, but at my age, i need the security of knowing it won't get cancelled as i get older. this is lifetime coverage as long as you pay your premiums. it can never be cancelled, call now for free information. you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction about your final wishes to your loved ones. and it's yours free. it's our way of saying thank you just for calling. so call now.

is more important sthan ever.rp where's my tablet? you have to remember the names of your grandkids, pets, your son-in-law. favorite son-in-law. and the eternal question, where did you put your glasses? sure, you can spend the day looking for things that you misplaced. or you can take natrol cognium. cognium improves memory and recall in healthy adults.

it's safe and is shown to be effective in multiple human clinical trials. six letter word for head? noggin. stay sharp. stay you. with natrol cognium. and my password? a book that you're ready to share with the world? get published now, call for your free publisher kit today! breaking news. republican congressman louie gohmert testing positive for coronavirus. the texas republican was seen walking behind attorney general william barr yesterday on capitol hill. neither were wearing a mask. and then they went into the hearing room. yesterday another committee meeting, again no mask. manu raju is live for us on capitol hill. tell us what you're hearing there and what lawmakers are saying, manu? >> reporter: well, lawmakers are

taking aback by it, because a number of them have been in contact with louie gohmert, or have seen him interacting with members on the floor of the house. as he's been doing frequently for weeks now and it is something that i've observed watching from the house gallery, watching him interact with members sitting down next to them on the house floor, talking to them. i i've never seen him wearing a mask on the house floor. as he's carried on. in fact, i'm asked him directly why he didn't want to wear a mask and he said, in late june, if i get the coronavirus, i will wear it and then i said to him, well if you could be an asymptomatic carrier of this virus, something that health experts say is a reason why you should be wearing a mask, and he said i'm not afraid of you because, he said, i'll give you the exact quote, but i keep getting tests and i doan have it but i'm not afraid of you but if i get it i'll wear a mask.

now he did talk to a local texas station just earlier and he explained why he thinks he got the virus. take a listen. >> i can't help but think that if i hadn't been wearing a mask so much in the last ten days or so, i really wonder if i would have gotten it. but i know moving the mask around, getting it just right, i'm bound to put some virus on the mask that i've sucked in. that is most likely what happens. >> reporter: so there is a lot to unpack there. one, that flatly contradicts the science and what actual public health experts say, is that you don't get the virus by wearing a mask. in fact, that is something in which you wear a mask to prevent yourself from spreading the disease and to protect yourself.

also louie gohmert has been wearing a mask and he's not seen around the housewaring a mask. in fact, he doesn't wear one on the house floor. he has worn it during the house committee meetings because it is required but pulled off as he is speaking. it's unclear when he thinks wearing a mask may have caused him to get the virus. but that is as i say not supported by the science and certainly not supported by what we're hearing from the centers for disease control and others who say it is imperative to wear a mask. and as you mentioned earlier, brianna, he was seen interacting with bill barr, the attorney general outside of the committee yesterday. barr, we're told, will get tested after the interaction. >> if we could put some of the pictures back up of louie gohmert in various settings. including in committee hearings where, for instance, here is one he's in the hallway, no mask. he's near people would are

wearing them. but bill barr is not wearing one. here he is with a face covering, not covering his face which would render a face covering useless because it is supposed to cover one's face. here he is in a committee meeting not wearing his mask as he's speaking which is not particularly unusual. but you have to consider, manu, let's just talk about the risk factors for -- i mean, he's not speaking in fact. but let's talk about the risk factors of people around him. because if he is someone who was presymptomatic or asymptomatic and we watched him yesterday in a hearing room, he was there for an awfully long time. he was talking. he's inside where transmission is higher than it is outside. and so as he's speaking, and we know this, this is basic science, the virus is air solized, so in the hearing room

with a number of lawmakers, democrats and republicans, at times speaking and not wearing masks so they are there not protected from his germs, right. >> reporter: yeah, and look, there were probably interactions that we don't see inside of the hearing room. there are ante rooms where they congregate. and his practice is typically not to wear a mask, it is safe to assume that he probably at certain times while interacting with members yesterday was also not wearing a mask as he was interacting with them in close quarters. and i could tell you, i saw him last week, last wednesday on house floor interacting with a lot of members. that is a week. we don't know if he was infected then or a few days before or a few days after. but certainly last wednesday i watched him for several, at least a couple of hours, i kept popping back into the house cla chamber and he was still there during an extended vote series.

he was sitting next to chip roy, a texas republican congressman and sitting both next to each other and maskless and caring yn on a extended conversation and we reached out to see what he is planning to do here. but that is obviously a concern that a lot of members have, a lot of aides have, whether or not louie gohmert may have exposed them to this. brianna. >> manu, definitely. stand by. i want to bring in dr. carlos del rio from emory. and, you know, one of the things that the -- the key thing to take away here from congressman lou louie gohmert who has testified positive and refusing to a mark, he's surmising, doctor, that he got coronavirus because he did wear a mask. what do you think about that? >> well, he's obviously wrong. and you don't get coronavirus for wearing a mask. you get coronavirus because you don't wear a mask. an it is very clear that he wasn't wearing a mask. i think i want to emphasize

again that the reason we wear a mask is to protect ourselves and others from getting infected. i wore a mask to protect you, and you wear a mask to protect me and it is very important that everybody wears a mask. there are many types of masks. if i want to protect myself, i need a n-95 or a kn-95 which is what we use in the hospital seeing patients with covid. but if i want general predirection and decrease my chance of getting infected, i need to use a cloth mask or a surgical mask. the cloth masks are very useful for people to not infect other individuals. so congressman is wrong. he didn't get covid for wearing a mask, he got covid because he wasn't wearing a mask and he was probably around other people not wearing masks. >> so how at risk are other lawmakers who, because look, we know he was in close prom imity -- proximity, speaking, not wearing a mask and not

social distancing with lawmakers and are they at risk and what should they be doing. >> they are at risk. and not only those not wearing a mask but those that were wearing a mask are at risk because if he's infected an not wearing a ma mask, i'm not protected. if i'm wearing a regular cloth mask, my chances are decreased but not ab septs. they go down to 30%. so those wearing masks were at risk because he wasn't wearing a mask and he was already infected. >> and so what would you advise then for lawmakers who are now trying to figure out what they need to do and what would you say for committee hearings where obviously you have at least a member who is infected and speaking without a mask on and even though there is other lawmakers with a mask. >> i'm going to say what i think is really important that somebody said, is that we need a

national mandate to wear a mask. we need to stop playing with this. we can stop transmission of this virus if we all wear a mask. and i know wearing a mask is uncomfortable. i don't like it. but right now it is necessary. and i think we all should do it. it should be for a short period of time, maybe four to six weeks. dr. redfield said four to eight weeks but if everybody wore a mask we could decrease the chance and i think it is time for congress to implement a national mandate on that. >> dr. del rio, thank you for joining us. and our coverage will continue now with brooke baldwin. we will take it. hi there, i'm brooke baldwin. thank you for joining me. you're watching cnn. here is what i could tell you. president trump is in texas right now. texas. the state on the verge of surpassing new york for the total number of coronavirus cases well over 400,000.

but the president is not there to talk covid. nope. instead the president has been meeting with supporters and a fund raising committee and this hour he will tour an oil rig. the lack of focus on this pandemic is even more galling when you consider that the fact that the u.s. is coming off the deadliest day since late may. more than 1200 deaths were reported yesterday. nearly 150,000 americans have now been killed by this virus. and as just devastating as the situation is right now, a respected medical group is warning that it could get much worse. listen to this. the association of american medical colleges said that we risk seeing, and this is a quote, multiple hundreds of thousands of deaths in this country if we do not get this virus under control. so, how is the president responding to this incredibly dire situation? he is once again pushing hydroxychloroquine, the drug that has been proven over and