live coverage for wednesday on the networks. the house returns for work on a bill to reverse changes recently made at the consumer financial protection bureau. 10:00 eastern for general speakers, noon for legislative business. the senate is back at 9:30 a.m. eastern to continue work on judicial nominations with a vote expected for a number of u.s. district judge is, live on c-span2. mnuchin goesteven to capitol hill for a hearing before the house financial services committee, chaired by maxine waters. he will face questions on the international monetary system starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern. later in the afternoon, another house panel hears testimony on securing voting systems for 2020. about one hour, we talked to

jim himes about u.s. foreign policy, also a discussion about veterans issues with concerned veterans of america executive director and cofounder and chair vets. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for may the 22nd. the gallup organization's latest poll said american sentiment toward socialism with the top line showing 4 out of 10 embraced some sort of socialism. we will show you the numbers. you can let us know your thoughts. if you support socialism and what to tell us why, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. maybe you are not sure, 202-748-8002. you can call on that line. post your thoughts on twitter at @cspanwj and 400 plus people on

facebook already posting. you can do the same at facebook.com/cspan. when it comes to devilish -- definitions, the dictionary definition says socialism is any type of political theory advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means, production, and distribution of goods. that is one form -- definition of socialism. lastl released in the couple days taking a look at american sentiment toward the idea of socialism. 4 in 10 embracing some form of that. joining us to discuss the theings serves as editor-in-chief of gallup. whatus a little bit about led to this poll. what was the motivation behind it? topic that hasa gained focus in the u.s. over

the past several years, but also something gallup and other institutions that have been around for quite a while have been asking americans about. the news team and i were looking through our treasure trove and historical archive of the questions americans have been asked about socialism and the one you referenced is one the wilbur center for public opinion research fielded in 1942 and it had not been updated. would some form of socialism be a good thing or bad thing for the country as a whole? in april 2019, a few days ago was 43% of americans said it would be a good thing compared to 25% in 1942. said it would be a bad thing in 2019, that went up to 51%. we saw an increase in both --

responsys. 43% say it is a good thing overall. that finding needs to be unpacked in several directions. one of which is sort of on the national level when we ask americans about their positive or negative views about capitalism and socialism. 56% of americans overall has -- have a positive view. view.ve a positive when you slice out democratic respondents, people who support or identified as democrats, what positiveis 57% have a view of socialism compared to 37% on the national level. of 2018 in the summer had a positive view of capitalism, which is where we see most of the change. a lot of folks have focused on

particularly democratic views of socialism, but what has changed more than that is negative views or less positive views on capitalism. 2018 was the first time less than 50% of democrats sort of failed to have a positive view of capitalism. you also sort of mentioned the definition of socialism. wanted to dig deeper as we studied this and asked americans to define for themselves what they thought of when the term socialism came up and what we found just a few months ago was 1 in 4 basically identified -- around 25% of americans identified socialism with social equity or fairness in the system whereas only 17% of americans really define it as some sort of

government controlling the means of production or more closer to the classic definition you laid out. a 17% of people view it as the government controlling the economy, to put it crudely. 1 in 4 said it had something to do with social equity and fairness. we also wanted to ask americans about specific aspects of life and whether they wanted to see the free market or the government as the primarily responsible actor in that sphere. when it comes to technology and innovation, 75% of americans say they want free market to lead. 68% saytion of wealth, the free market. the economy overall, 62% want to see the free market. wages, higher education, the majority saying they want the free market to lead. 44% say thesay --

government should be primarily responsible in that sphere. when it comes to protecting consumer primacy -- privacy online, 56% want the government to be the actor. as well as environmental protection with 66 percent of americans wanting to see the government play that role. go ahead. host: how many people did you talk to? what was your sample size? guest: our samples from most of our nationally representative studies is over 1000 respondents and it is a phone poll that collects landline and mobile phone users. at -- about the results aside from the information you already gave? guest: absolutely. when you ask americans to describe the current u.s. economy and how it operates now, we also got another sort of

mixed response, 40% of americans view the current u.s. economy as mostly government controlled or leaning toward government control. 34% say it is free market or leaning toward free-market control and 25% say there is an equal mix. when you ask about the topic generally, you get interesting responsys. when you ask specifically, americans have formed opinions on how they want to see certain aspects of the economy dealt with. when you ask them overall, it becomes a mixed picture. in election season, as it comes up is we also asked americans in a similar poll what kind of qualities they would vote for in a presidential candidate. 47% of americans would vote for a presidential candidate who was socialist.ribed for a comparison, 58% say they would vote for somebody who was

an atheist, 60% said they would vote for someone who was a presidential candidate who was muslim. vote formericans would someone who identifies as socialist. we would go through the numbers for democrat voters and they have a relatively more positive view of socialism and how americans define it is nuanced. pole and gallup joining us on the phone, mohamed younis. of those surveyed embracing some type of socialism. thank you for your time and explaining this. guest: it was a pleasure. host: maybe this -- you support this idea of socialism and its forms, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. and perhaps you are unsure, 80's 202-748-8002.

-- it is, 202-748-8002. just to go through again, some of those definitions, miriam webster defines socialism as any of the various and economic theories advocating collective or governmental ownership, administration of the means, production, and distribution of goods. it democratic socialism reads as such, democratic-socialist believe the economy and society should be run democratically to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. many structures of our beernment, and economy must radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so ordinary americans can participate in decisions that affect our lives. the democratic-socialist of america executive director will join us friday to talk about these theories. you can look for that segment 8:45. allen says he is not sure in west virginia.

good morning. go ahead. route: thank you and good i believe to a great extent there are advantages and disadvantages to the level of governmental or, for that matter, tyrannical control depending on the amount of greed, selfishness, desire to on thee and so forth part of both the leadership and the population. democracyage of appears to me that it better copes with the weakness of other democracy, asng it becomes more governmental

centered and people via for then,l of one another obviously things weaken. where you have, however, a strong governmental or taranto control -- tyrannical control, as happened with nazi germany and when it rearmed from a state of severe bankruptcy that things can go very quickly and efficiently rather than with multiple and competing areas looking to scramble and get advantage over one another. host: that is allen in west virginia. in ohio, saysay she opposes socialism. caller: the reason i oppose socialism is if you think the government will be able to control things for us, you only

need to look at how poorly they have managed social security and medicare. i started working for a real paycheck when i was 15, so social security has been taken from me for 47 years. i get 2.4% of my money every month now as a social security person. that is poverty living. also, if one of us passes away, even though we both work our entire manage, we only get one of the two paychecks and we can thank carter for that. if we look at medicare, that was something they took from us our entire paychecks. 46, 47 years into insurance we are not even allowed to use and that is so poor, we have to buy another insurance to cover what is not covered by medicare that we paid

for for years. everyone is saying medicare for all, but who is going to pay for it? the government has trouble managing our money, we cannot trust them. virginia,hesapeake, supports this idea of socialism. go ahead. socialisms, i support in a form. i don't think we have anything pure. i don't think pure socialism, just the best parts of socialism. host: what do you think makes for the best parts of socialism? for instance, health , for instance, when we catastrophe, they ask the government to step in with fema and all these

government workers, they have health care that the government pays for. host: you classify those as socialistic in nature? caller: right. we don't have pure anything. we don't have pure democracy. it is the best of all -- of that property. the best of the property of socialism, we can do that here in america. ellis off our facebook page, and you can posted there as well, anyone who has a social security number has embraced socialism. another viewpoint from jason saying social programs are not socialism, absolutely not. do with thething to government controlling the means of production. you can bounce off that and tell us why you oppose, support, or not sure. if you want to spot to the

specific gallup poll that 4 in 10 of those surveyed embracing this idea or some type of socialism, if you want to respond to those numbers when you give your thoughts, you can do so. jim in new york opposes socialism. hello. good morning. headline was a little deceptive in my thinking. i think there are forms of socialism like social security and other programs which people would consider socialistic, but i think if you dig deeper into the data, the free market is still by and large the most preferred method. the democrats seem to be going farther and farther off the cliffs with socialism, but i --ld venture to say even

i kind of cringe when i read that 4 out of 10, it comes across like 4 out of 10 full-blown socialism and i do not think that is the case. host: the guest who joins us -- going us on the phone had to explain some things in context. if you have to go through the website of gallup to look numbers -- let's go to randy in michigan. a supporter of socialism. hello. start by would like to thanking you and all the other -- personally, i don't see how the country would run if we were not socialist.

is paid forline, it by taxes. i just had a knee replaced in march. i paid into this medicare all the way up to 62 like everybody else. $6,000.e cost me up all of my used knee.or medical on one the whole country is socialism because my taxes -- if you want to do that, send me a thing where i can spend my tax money. i don't go that way very often. i don't need an airport because i don't fly often.

as far as i'm concerned, if we want not socialism, then eliminate the military because i have got my own shotgun. thank you, i appreciate the time. host: in illinois, and opposer of socialism, mike. caller: good morning. i am on board with the guy that just said 4 out of 10 people wanting socialism, they want some form of socialism are the people who do not have to pay for the socialism and he is exactly right about the part, we are already socialism because they are taking from us every like people that get food stamps and housing assistance and stuff like that, they think that is their andgiven right to get it they don't understand somebody

has to pay for it, they think there is a giant pile of money someplace where this comes from and that is my comment. the: specifically, you economic grounds as far as people paying for other people or can you clarify that a little bit? caller: on the economic column mostly. all the people supporting socialism are the people that don't fund socialism. everybody wants to ride the bus for free. let's hear from stephanie, also a supporter of socialism from california. caller: good morning, c-span. i support socialism in various anything i believe that supports the people or helps the people, such as -- i think our utilities should be socialized. i think the government should

take over the gas instead of lighting other companies pump gas from our land and sell it back to us. to school, education, social security. it works for canada, they take care of their people. i do think it would benefit the american people in some form to socialized services as well as capitalistic services. our twitter feed, we are already embracing socialism, public education, police and fire departments, hospitals, libraries, on and on. .eople are too easily fooled socialism is not good or helpful to anyone, it removes freedom and independence from life. we will get your thoughts on whether you oppose socialism or don't embrace that kind of

economic theory. you can call us on the lines if you want. 202-748-8000 if you support it. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. maybe you are unsure, 202-748-8002. keep on calling and if you are on the line, stay on the line. this is the hill from this morning on this idea of democrats within the house on various forms of opinion when it comes to the topic of impeachment. the hill saying that chorus grew louder when a larger wave of democrats protesting the near blanket refusal to commit a -- subpoenas, the new calls for impeachment grew noisy enough tuesday. democratic leaders scheduled a closed-door meeting wednesday morning designed to give rank-and-file members and update on the investigative efforts. that is from the hill. when it comes to this idea of

infrastructure, house democratic leaders are expected to go to the white house to talk about that topic. one other thing that has come into play reported by u.s. news saying the white house releasing a letter tuesday night the president sent nancy pelosi and chuck schumer in advance letting him know of the preference for congress taking up the proposed u.s. trade deal with mexico and canada before other issues. once congress has past usmca, we can turn our attention to a infrastructure package. when it comes to this idea of the budget, debate on capitol hill about passing a budget, politico reporting congressional leaders are eager to avoid a series of automatic spending cuts known as sequestration that will take place without a new budget deal. in domesticlion spending cuts, mr. mcconnell and mr. mccarthy worried about $71 billion in defense cuts.

a negotiated agreement is better than the alternative. the others arguing back and forth about the length of a stop bill.pgap spending know when it comes to the idea of subpoenas, you saw that hearing yesterday where don mcgahn did not show up. another subpoena, 2, 1 issue to the former assistant to the president, ho picks. also, annie donaldson. if you go to axios, there is a copy of the subpoena attached in which some of the information democratic leaders are looking for including statements by michael flynn to the federal bureau of investigation regarding contact with sergey kislyak. the investigation of michael flynn, sean spicer's public statements about michael flynn's resignation. if you go to the axios website

and click the link, you can read the subpoena document for yourself and what things are being asked of ho picks. connecticut is next, this is tom who opposes socialism. thanks for waiting, go ahead. caller: thanks, pedro. haven't called in for quite a while. the source of the topic today is ," which, like so many other things, you say the person is going to be calling and i will be interested in learning what his background is. i don't believe any polls. the only poll i believe is election night and the democratic party is going to be. i don't know what they are going to do when they lose. i am in the state of connecticut and we are now a socialist

state. our former governor is now a professor in boston, mr. dan malloy and i remember when the state was properly run. host: when it comes to socialism, why do you oppose it? history,f one reads read about arthur deal set up by eleanor roosevelt, franklin's wife, that was a socialist community. thelieve in thomas -- revolutionary war, the wealth of nations, adam smith, which i have read it several times and i suggest the viewers read adam smith "the wealth of nations. thank you. tom: thank you very much, from connecticut.

oliver in michigan, a supporter of socialism in ferndale. caller: i agree with most of the people talking about supporting socialism through our interstates, fire department, all that. there is also socialism when it comes to bailing out banks and .ailing out the auto industries that is a form of socialism, that is a modern form of socialism. giving themuate economic assistance to owning the means of production? caller: i make that equation because i feel they are using our money to bailout a capitalist system. the auto companies could have

not been bailed out and just fallen on their own and succeeded as they should have been. basically were corrupt, completely corrupt and the united states, our government, obama, bailed them -- with almost $800 million $1 trillion worth of our money and that was in the modern sense, our socialism of today. everybody goes back to the marx.ical socialism of , russianmarx communism, that is not socialism. host: that is oliver in michigan. rory go to california,

opposes socialism. it us why. caller: i would say this. it is like american communists, they don't have anything, like the princes from old. people don't pay attention and they end up having dictators rule over them. a real democracy is not with the democratic party, it is republican these days. you make money and you keep your money, you don't have other people tell you how to do, what to do, and keep taking your money. that is basically what i mean. host: rory in california calling on this idea of socialism based on a gallup poll. 4 in 10 embracing some type. more information available at the gallup organization. call us in the next half-hour whether you support, oppose, or maybe your are -- you are

unsure. one of the names that comes up in this conversation, senator bernie sanders, democratic-socialist to many times has he -- as he is making his campaign for presidency, is asked about this. here is his take on it. [video clip] >> what do i mean when i talk about democratic socialism? it certainly is not the author -- authoritarian communism. this is what it means. it means we cherish, among other things, our bill of rights. franklin delano roosevelt made this point in 1944 in his state of the union address that never got a whole lot of attention. it was a very profound speech. he said, we have a great constitution, the bill of rights

protects your freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, all that stuff. you know what it does not protect? ?it does not protect and guarantee you economic rights. let me be very honest with you. i believe in a democratic civilized society, health care is a human right. government should make that happen. [applause] believe every young person in this country, regardless of his or her income has the right to get all of the education they need. that is why i have fought hard, with some success, to move toward making public colleges and universities tuition free and very substantially reduce student debt. [applause] and i believe there is something wrong in america today when you

have millions of families paying 40%, 60% of limited income to put a roof over their heads and that millions of working-class families, young parents, cannot find quality and affordable childcare. i happen to believe we have to address the issue of grotesque -- the very rich getting richer, middle-class struggling, 40 million people living in poverty and what it means to me as we expand medicare, provide educational opportunity for all americans, rebuild our infrastructure. government serves the needs of all people rather than just wealthy campaign contributors. that is what that means to me. host: franklin in bristow, virginia, says he is not sure. morning.ello, good helpnk socialism should

children and elderly people and socialism, it is almost like using salt when you cook. if you use too much salt, you can ruin your food. you have to be very careful in you use incialism our society. host: you believe you can take some aspects of socialistic ideas or economic theory and apply them, but you don't necessarily have to take the whole thing? caller: the minimum enough to protect children and the elderly, i think. if you use too much, you know what happens in all the other countries who try socialism. jay ine will go next

maryland instead, marilyn, a supporter of socialism. good morning. caller: good morning. call.you for taking my i support socialism and just like many callers, social .ecurity is a form of socialism i definitely agree with bernie saying health care is a right. i want to comment on some collars earlier saying there are people taking advantage of handouts they are getting because they feel like it is god-given money, we are doing something good for the nation. it is not just what benefits me. it is what can i do to benefit the whole nation and this is what it is for being an american

. a lot of gop supporters are from the rural areas, they have no problem taking trump's handouts for the farmers, but then they have issues with the term socialism. them taking that handout is part of socialism except they fail to recognize it. that is all the comments i want to make. thank you for taking my call. host: on our facebook page, sadie saying it would be great, but we are in a far from perfect world. .ocialism is an absolute no go apologize for that, all facebook saying socialism may not include bridges and fire departments, but it includes social security and medicare. if you demand or take social security and medicare, you are socialist. callers have expressed --

you can call the lines and post on social media. let's hear from john in maryland, opposes socialism. caller: socialism is a bad thing and here is why. if socialism worked, the number of people on a socialism programs would decline. over the last decade, we have seen the amount of people on these programs have increased. the private sector is best suited to apply these programs. with the government, they have to pay for union later, so a pothole now takes seven people to fix. when you use socialism, the amount of people you have to tax runs out. california is a great example. socialism is a terrible idea, absolutely a no go. thank you. host: if you go to the heritage foundation's website, you will

see the daily signal. they conducted an interview with .athy mcmorris rodgers she said she visited several high schools and talked about the idea of socialism, especially as espoused by democratic members of congress such as bernie spanner sent alexandria ocasio-cortez. [video clip] what is most frightening is they are openly promoting a socialist agenda for america and this is the first time i have ever seen it quite at this level and i am reminding high school students that i visit and colleges that socialism and human rights do not coexist. look at the history. socialism does not celebrate every person, individual rights

and human rights and make sure their potential is being reached. socialism is a few people that make decisions for the rest of the country. host: here is james in washington state, says he is not sure. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: okay. a lot of people i think they get confused about socialism and the term communism. i think what a lot of people misunderstand is that socialism is really like having good insurance, like good health care insurance. if we look at -- in the united states, if we look at our school system, our police system, fire departments, infrastructure that is the roads we all drive on every day and all of the things

that most of us benefit from, social security, we all pay into .t and we all benefit from it on the others to bit, the thing concerned about is we are using this giant poll of taxes .president trump doesn't seem to pay any taxes. pay into taxpayers, we this system. i think what we are most afraid of is some of our tax money is multinational corporations and banks and huge corporations that pay for bankruptcies of huge corporations, the trump foundation, for example, the

whole trump network, this is really wrong. all ofs away the money, the money that is collected by the federal and state governments to be used for otherwise really good programs like our schools. we could have great medical coverage for everybody and you can let the private insurance companies run their own gamut the way they want to do it. host: that is james in washington state. david in new york, a supporter of socialism. hello. caller: yes, thank you for the call. i was 18 when i voted for ronald reagan and i believe in this program, that trickle-down economy. no socialism, yet we need it. we need it.

he took money from social security to bailout chrysler and this government has been taking money from taxpayers and bailing now ther things and goose is cooked, the people on the bottom are suffering. i am on disability. ronald reagan said people on disability needed to start paying taxes. our president of this country now has not been paying taxes, has been taking away from the social programs. host: how do you think socialism reverses that or changes that? caller: people need to start paying taxes and people on the bottom who are suffering, like myself, on disability and i pay my taxes at the end of the year and the president of the united states has not been paying taxes

. opposes massachusetts, socialism. go ahead. caller: socialism is a form of mind control or brainwashing. why do you oppose it? caller: they would create an enormous underclass poverty we have never seen before and the end of the middle class. host: how so? caller: everyone would be on assistance, there would be less jobs, less choices to buy food. host: that is jay giving us a call in massachusetts. the lines divided differently in the sense that if you support this idea of socialism, 202-748-8000. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. maybe you are unsure, a couple of people have called this

morning telling us that, 202-748-8002. , this viewer says not sure when it comes to this idea. tell us why? caller: i am not too sure anyone really knows what socialism is because it seems like they are talking about random welfare, so i am not sure if i like this socialism people are describing. what as fars far -- as this idea of socialism itself? i am not too sure i am familiar with the socialism american callers are familiar with. from what i have studied, socialism is simply the workers seizing the means of production, so workers would on the company's. most americans seem to have that confused with basic welfare. host: if you go with the

textbook definition of socialism, which we have showed you a couple times, is that something you can buy into? extent ass, to an long as it is for the people, by the people. personally, i think it should be by the people and not by the state. host: when you say to an extent, is there a sense where it goes too far or should there be some middle road when it comes to this approach? what is your thinking on that? weler: personally, i believe should reform the first, if that is what you are asking. i don't believe in seizing the means of production through violent or authoritarian means because that will collapse into an authoritarian regime, which is not necessarily what socialism achieves. socialism is supposed to empower the people of the world by giving the resources back to the people and power back to the

people out of the hands of the capitalist class, in my opinion. about 15 more minutes on this topic if you want to make your thoughts known. if you support this idea of socialism. maybe you are unsure like our last caller. if you are on the line, stay on for a bit. if you are calling, you can keep calling. steven mnuchin expected on capitol hill today for a hearing the house front of financial services committee chaired by maxine waters. the topic is the international finance system. the topic that will come up is probably the topic of tax returns. late last week they published this story that chairman waters shenn last friday said would push -- ask steve mnuchin at hearing today underwrote that his claim president trump did

not instruct not release president trump's tax returns to congress. tax returnsurn over being requested and said he did not have conversation with the president. he made this decision on his own. i question that. you can see more of that hearing to see if that topic comes up. on c-span 3, c-span.org, you can watch. usa today the president is set to the ken cuccinelli top position at the homeland up illegal the topic immigration. the appointment was confirmed by a white house -- discuss an appointment that had not been publicly announced. this reported by the new york times initially. the trump administration has been shaking up leadership for weeks and the president said he wants the department, which oversees the border and immigration enforcement to immigrate -- and force his

policies. if you go to the washington examiner, there is a story taking a look and going back several years saying senators told the head of the fbi and federal bureau prisons to explain why john walker lane is said to be released 2.5 years before the end of his sentence. richard shelby of alabama and maggie has been -- maggie expressed concern he was being freed despite indication he had not announced radical islamist beliefs. 108 other terrorist offenders are due to be released in the coming years. if you want to read more, the washington examiner has that story. opposes socialism in pennsylvania, heather, good morning. caller: high just went to school for four years and i am studying to be a social worker what i was

taught. voted against obamacare because it was unconstitutional and received a b. that is not really why i called. i did learn our food stamps, medicaid and medicare and social security it -- is mandated that is not socialism. somebody called and said social security was socialism. .hat is not true somebody else called in and said america is about socialism, no it is not. it is the exact opposite. it is about liberty and freedom and individualism. if you vote for socialism, you are voting for the global, you are voting for globalization. that is not what america has been about. host: specifically what is it

about socialism you oppose? caller: it is not individual freedoms. you will lose everything. i cannot believe it is even a question america has the thought in their head. host: this is based off the gallup poll win 4 in 10 expressing and embracing and you heard our guest earlier on. we thought we would share the pole and hear your thought about it. to someone who is not sure, brooklyn, new york. rio, hello. rio in brooklyn? let's try one more time for rio. in kalamazoo,bbie michigan, supporter of socialism. you are next up. hello?in michigan, caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead.

debbie, in michigan. are you there? caller: yes, i am here. host: you are on the air, go ahead. caller: my biggest problem with all of this you are talking about is i think our system is corrupt because we need a flat tax. we need no loopholes. host: you are calling saying you support socialism. start with that, tell us why. caller: because we pay in to these programs with the promise that when we reach a certain age like social security or whatever is going to be there for us. however, so many things occur politicians and the corruption, the special interest, that we cannot seem to get a balanced budget. we cannot make sure our kids get educated.

we cannot protect our own savings because it is always code on what some tax dictates and it changes constantly. we find in a situation now, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. it requires we have these programs and these socialist programs. we cannot live without them anymore because we cannot get any justice with our economy. calledeveral people have in this morning saying social programs are different than socialism because they are paid by taxes, but you don't make that distinction. helpr: socialism is to .eople it only requires it when you achieve that type of

equality in your government. that is why i think a lot of people would like more socialism because we cannot get that justice. we cannot get social justice. host: let's hear from mark in manassas, virginia. opposes socialism. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i think there is a misunderstanding amongst americans who support the idea of socialism. in principle, socialism is ideal. when i am an american who does not make a lot of money and i hear the government is going to provide universal health care, they are going to provide universal college tuition, they universal paid family leave and things like that, it sounds great, it sounds like something i really want to participate in. the reality is these programs

come at a major cost for the taxpayer dollars, which affects our income tax. from my perspective, my wife and i are very fortunate to be in a middle-class tax bracket where we make enough money that we don't qualify for social programs right now, but we also don't have a savings account. we are in the middle where we are taking care of our children and we have a house and cars, but we have the hope that if we keep working hard, sooner or later we will be able to gain the things we really want in this world. i feel like if we were going to socialism, if people don't have that hope they are going to be able to make it on their own, they have the hope the government will take care of them in these areas, but they don't look at the tremendous cost it has to our opportunities. host: that is mark in manassas, virginia, why he opposes socialism and why. you have probably seen in the

last 12 hours or so that hearing that had the hud secretary ben carson being asked about acronyms of certain programs, the topic of oreos coming up, the headlines of publications highlighting that hearing. if you want to see the hearing for yourself, go over to our website at c-span.org. if you type in ben carson's name, you can see the whole hearing in which dr. carson was asked about housing programs, how he responded, the overall topic. that is available to you. we show you these hearings, not only this hearing, but others with no interruption so you can get a total sense of what is going on. david in maryland -- missouri, supporter of socialism, hi. caller: ben carson did not know procedural things and he asked

to reclaim his time when he did not have any time. i think everyone that wants to voice an opinion on socialism it is a strong matter one way or the other needs to take a socialism class. our public parks, our roads. the man that said states are filling potholes because of union workers, most states don't have union workers in their highway departments. there is only a few that do. all the unions are being -- another socialist program and co-ops. our national park system -- the lady was a schoolteacher. we have to pay for these things and the poor gentleman trying to keep up with his family, maybe if he was not paying so much in health care cost and all these

even home insurance and more social governance over these programs, you would have money to put back. i think a lot of people make comments against socialism who have not taken a sociology class. thank you very much. host: that is jack in massachusetts. i am sorry, that was david in his very. this is jack in massachusetts, says he is not sure. i am not sure only because i disagree with the context of everyone using socialism as a budget -- buzz word, key point -- talking point to express they are for or against -- what policies they are against. the propaganda machine that the republicans have been using with the term socialist is the new

red scare. basically, socialism is not communism so they cannot call people communist, so they call them socialist, which is the communists ando the idea of the historical context going back to europe in the 20th century. host: you are not sure about the concept yourself, tell us why. caller: i am not sure people understand what people are talking about for services the government has been giving the american people for the last hundred years is not socialism. it is democracy. hello? what they are saying is that certain people that are proposing certain things are socialist and they are using it as a buzz word to frame them -- make people stand up

against policies and ideas. it is that theoretical ideological battle being waged through propaganda. host: if you take the classic definition where the government owns the production and distribution, is that something you would agree with? caller: that would never happen in america because of the corporate machines controlling our society. socialism is not the correct term that people are embracing. int: let's go to jamie missouri, opposes socialism. hello. caller: hello. good morning. i oppose socialism because i think it would make us a very lazy nation. the united states is built by a lot of hard backs, a lot of good men and women working very hard.

sydney. will go to alexandria, virginia, a supporter of socialism. good morning morning, go ahead. caller: just like the last caller just said, people worked hard through the years to build this country. now those people are older and andable to work as hard therefore, you need younger people to assist them, paying their system that in elder years will be in good shape for them. things that everyone wants to hold onto that last dollar. they have to realize that the system is not going to work without them in it, just like the affordable care act -- there was a mandate and people paid into the system.

as they pay and the system becomes stronger, their input will decrease. i was in the u.k. years ago and my son had an ear ache. took him and called a cab to the clinic. the doctor saw him within 15 got as and we prescription for medication and .e were out in 30 minutes we paid absolutely nothing. that is peace of mind. that kind of system works for that alone, peace of mind. host: chris from florida, an opposer of socialism. hi. caller: yeah, i'm opposed to socialism basically because it's a bad idea but the problem more

-- people still don't understand anything anymore to be quite honest with you. i called a couple of weeks ago or something like that. you guys were talking about the mueller report and you had two lawyers on. i asked them a few questions and the lady was on there. she wanted to ask what i was talking about before i hung up. host: before you go, we're short on time to the topic of socialism. why do you oppose it? caller: take for instance the gentleman who gave $4 million to the people at moore college. you know that guy? host: that was in the news, yeah. caller: i wish 350 of us would get some of that. you think that's fair? he gets to decide what he does with his money. but socialism, somebody else gets to decide for you, right? you know what i mean? it's kind of like saying hey, your mom -- you.

that's socialism. so many -- host: last call on the topic. we will turn the page and talk with representative jim himes, democrat of connecticut. he's going to talk about foreign policy challenges, the use of sanctions, the topic of iran when "washington journal" continues. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2018]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. isit ncicap.org] >> c-span's newest book "the presidents" ranked america's best and worst chief executive, provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true story gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shape our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacy they

have left behind. order your copy today. c-span's "the presidents" is as a hard cover or ebook. >> sunday night on "q&a" watch our interview with yale university historian joanne freeman on her book "the field of blood: violence in congress nd the road to civil war." >> in and of itself, it's dramatic. guys were throwing punches, it's a massive encounter, but what was really interesting to me was people at the time looked at it and what they saw was a group of northerners and a group of southerners, lots of them armed running at each other at the house of representativess and several of them said this doesn't look like a congressional fight. this looks like a battle,

against north and south and hat's really striking. and it's not that striking because it's a civil war. >> sunday on c-span on "q&a." "washington journal" continues. host: we welcome back representative jim himes, democrat of connecticut, a member on intelligence and here to talk about issues of foreign policy. good morning. guest: good morning. host: what this likelihood that we will move to some sort of military conflict with iran? guest: i was feeling better than i was four or five days ago. four or five days ago, we were hearing from the administration that iran was taking all these aggressive moves and we had taken any number of the aggressive moves any past couple of months here, reimposing sanctions despite the fact that our allies in europe and elsewhere are not doing so, threatening to ultimately send a carrier strike coup, the list

goes on. i'm still concerned but here's the interesting thing about this and the reason that senator murphy and i decided to write an op-ed about this, i've been a pretty tough critic of this president, he understands that another conflict in the middle east after iraq, we know how that turned out, this president has really good feel for the fact that another conflict in the middle east would be a big problem for this country. what i worry about is john bolton and some of the resident's hawkish advisors. host: it's hard to imagine why any american would be putting them into the war. what changed your mind? you said you had some concerns. what changed your mind? guest: well i think two things. number one, you know, i don't

have a ton of insight into what happened in the white house but my sense is the president got wind of the fact that we were moving towards the brink of a conflict and we saw this happening with valenzuela as well. there was that tweet that he made sure to tell his people that he was not planning on going to war with venezuela. yesterday in the briefing that we had, it was a classified briefing. so i can't talk about a lot of what happened in the room but the secretary of state said multiple times, it is not our intention to go to war and that's the reason that the president reasserted himself here saying we're going to be more careful. host: what's the good balance then between this idea of deterrent that people talk about? guest: i think and i hope that this is happening. both the iran and the united states is happening. there are places in the persian gulf where our forces are a couple of miles apart and that is a very dangerous situation. people make mistakes. they miscalculate professional

soldiers and yesterday they highlighted that as a risk so the first thing is to take a deep breath and say step back, wait. it's not in anybody's interest to get into a shooting war. i was a supporter of the iran deal, understanding that it was not the perfect deal but the fact is and this is an unarguable fact that that deal took iran from being two months away from having a nuclear weapon to being probably beyond a year, stop down their nuclear production. it didn't change their behavior. but it took us back from the brink of iran being a nuclear power. we should expand on that deal. let's talk about other behaviors and make the restrictions on the deal longer but the president has chosen a different path which is a much more antagonistic path. host: where does sanctions fit into that? guest: well, sanctions, remember, the nuclear sanctions were lifted once iran signed the

nuclear deal and complied with it and that's another thing that the more hawkish advisors are ot mentioning. iran is in compliance with the nuclear deal. and so those nuclear sanctions were lifted. other sanctions weren't. sanctions that were related to ballistic missiles, they weren't. so let's go to the north korea playbook. and the president is saying went to do a deal. let's take that same look to iran. let's not threat then war. let's keep negotiating to keep trying to change their behavior. host: are economic sanctions part of this to iran? guest: yeah. host: should they stay in place? guest: sure. they're there to try to change iran's behavior to try to -- with respect to developing missile technology. it was only the nuclear sanctions that were lifted as a result of the deal. host: our guest with us until

8:30. if you want to ask him about the issues of foreign policy, you can call him at 202-748-8001, for republicans and independents, 202-748-8002. you can tweet us your thoughts @c-spanwj. if iran proceeds to a nuclear state, what do you think? guest: it is a good reason to be supportive that stopped them in their tracks to being a nuclear state. it's horrifying that north korea is a nuclear state. they're unpredictable. they don't engage with the world. that's a horrible thing. pakistan as a nuclear state doesn't make me particular happy. not a hugely stable government. and the last thing we need is a maligned actor that is destabilized to have a nuclear weapons capability. if you have a nuclear weapons capability, our military leverage over you largely goes away. and so of course we do not want iran to be a nuclear power but the fact is that the iran deal

signed you were president obama stopped them in their tracks. and now, the measures that the president is taking by withdrawing from that deal, without the support of our allies has iran saying maybe we will start work on that. host: are you convinced it would change the mindset of iran? guest: i wouldn't say it changes their mindset. remember, this was a transaction. we said to iran in exchange for lifting some of the sanction, you will stop all nuclear activity. the iranian regime is a bad regime. they are into destabilizing the region. they attacked our troops in iraq. make no mistakes. but the mother of all fears is that they developed a nuclear when. there's a fear that it might be used against israel. that is so important and in my mind, all of the stuff is bad behavior but to me, that is the

worst of iranian behaviors, an attempt to develop a nuclear weapon and that is why we should stay let's start there. let's take that off the table and move on to the sponsorship of terrorism, and all of the ridiculous rhetoric and let's negotiate you away from those things. host: were those behaviors then you speak, was that reinforced from the intelligence briefing that you adhered yesterday? guest: the briefing yesterday was really about the last couple of weeks, what the situation on the ground is, how we got there. what's happening more broadly is this administration, thanks, they've got a list of 12 things they've handed to iran and they say if you do these 12 things, we will talk about lifting sanctions. nobody believes that iran is going to say oh, ok, america. we'll do those 12 things. that is not going to happen. and so the question is so what's the strategy? the strategy appears to be to raise the pressure so intensively that iran which has

its own politics responds. and if iran responds and this is why we're having this conversation, the united states could find itself in yet another war right next door to where we had a war in iraq where we spent trillions of dollars and lost many americans to achieve the results that we had today. host: this is a first call for you. this is on our democrats line. from north carolina, ralph, you're on with our guest representative jim himes. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. himes. i'm a black man. i'm a democratic voter. i know a man sat me down years ago and told me about anger. the republicans have been angry since president carter's administration's dealings with iran. and i've noticed this president that we have in the white house. it was an obama deal. everything that obama done, this turning to be bent on

everything back in a different direction as if it was some kind of white anger associated with it. tell me that this situation right here is not seemingly an anger against the obama administration. guest: there's no question that if you look at this president, president trump, anything -- look, he says it himself. this is not me channeling the president. he says it himself. anything that president obama did, this president considers awful. and by the way, it's cost him huge. we're talking about iran, where here's a little thought experiment for you. if trump, president trump could get the deal in north korea that barack obama gotten iran, he would jump at that deal. if north korea didn't have weapons and allowed inspections and all of that stuff, he would jump at that deal and he would be all over twitter for days talking about what a masterful

negotiator he is. yes, it is about obama in the case of president trump and it's hurting him. the affordable care act which has been talked about for thousands of hours on this channel and elsewhere, it wasn't the perfect deal. it didn't do everything but it covered 20 million americans and it told americans if you have a pre-existing condition, diabetes or you had breast cancer or something, you could still be covered. when the president says we're doing away with the affordable care act, the american people elected democratic congress a democratic house and the president said we're protecting pre-existing conditions. nobody believes him because it was part the affordable care act which was president obama's legacy. host: from homer. this is independent line. homer in broken bow, oklahoma, independent line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. can you hear me ok? host: you're on. go ahead. we can hear you fine. caller: thank you. congressman himes, your comments

about professional military leading in washington. i'm also mindful of the ofessional ambassador in the war where we fought in that region to committee americans there. we're essentially fighting a war of words and i think we're in for a serious catastrophe and i believe our leadership is basically doing a bad job. guest: well, we are fighting a war of words, no question about that. what i worry about is that we could find ourselves in a war or something more than words and i do believe that the secretary of state who by the way, i consider a friend, mike pompeo, i think he is a decent guy but he's got a real blind spot on iran and i saw this yesterday in the hearing and i can't go into the details of the hearing, but the

secretary of state just gets an obsessed glean in his eye when it comes to iran and of course, john bolton the national security advisor, he hasn't been shy about it. he's been saying for years and the american people need to understand that we don't have a particularly good track record at changing for the better. the society is in the middle east that we invade or intervene militarily. our military does a superb job. zam hussein, gone, bloomberg, gone. but the next day, americans are dying and american taxpayers and citizens instead of seeing their money improving schools, investing in our rails and airport, our money is going to building projects in places like raq and afghanistan.

caller: aside from the money that obama sent to iran with cash, how come we never see one democrat criticizing that deal? is it because king obama made the deal? and omar, why is she on the foreign affairs committee after she calls israel evil? should she be getting classified information after calling israel evil? thank you, sir. guest: apparently, president obama has some critics in montreal, canada. let's stick with the nuclear deal. i said on the -- i sit on the intelligence committee and i see pretty much every month what our intelligence community report on

iran compliance and the reports of the international makesic -- makes and it is the conclusion of our intelligence community in the united states that iran has been in compliance with the deal. so i know there's all sorts of people out there who are looking and hoping that iran has not but that has will be the conclusion of the intelligence community that we spend ten's of billons of dollars on every year to support. look, you can say i don't like the iran nuclear deal and a lot of us thought about how to vote on that thing. because yeah, you would want a deal where iran, permanently, forever says we're not developing nuclear weapon but at the end of the day that the other side gets a vote the deal. it stops in its tracks completely stopped iran's progress towards nuclear weapons. and if you think this debate is

hard, wait till you get to have that debate over what we do when iran has a nuclear weapon or when there is war in iran because they are close to having a nuclear weapon. because i have very little doubt that if they are a couple of days away from testing a nuclear weapon, either the united states or the israelis go in and militarily eliminate that infrastructure. you don't need to love the iran structure and say it's pretty good moving from two months to one year away from the nuclear eapon. host: a couple of tweets. one saying the house intelligence chairman canceling a meeting to taken a enforcement action against the d.o.j. after a laid-off by the department. could you expand on that? guest: as you probably know,

pedro, the intelligence committee is one of the many committees in the house right now associating with the administration in terms of getting people to come and testify. the fact that there is no enforcement action and that could have been a contempt vote, but that means that the chairman is making progress in terms of getting the testimony that we want but i read about it in the paper just like everybody else this morning. host: the department of justice accepted an offer is a first step towards a compliance and this week will be turning over to the committee. 12 categories of it. guest: and just to give you a little bit of background here. remember that the mueller report was about counterintelligence. did russia move on from iran? was anybody in the trump

campaign conspiring with the russians to do that? the first question is yes. russia intervened in a big way on behalf of donald trump. and the question -- the answer to the second question, was there a criminal conspiracy on the part of the trump campaign was no. that doesn't mean that the trump campaign behaved well. they didn't. they didn't report the help from the russians but the reason i say that is at the core of this thing is exactly who was compromised, how did the russian dos what they did and a lot of the redacted material in the mueller report will relate to that because if we pick something up because we enter intercepted a phone call, that ould not be made public. host: let me show you a quick headline from the "washington post" saying it calls for an impeachment from the president.

do you buy that headline? guest: i continue to support the speaker's strategy here. and i hear that all the time. there are a lot of people who say it's time time people the president. and i think that's driven by two things. it's driven by emotion because this president's behavior has been outrageous. you know, you don't even need to read too much in the newspaper. we've forgotten the fact that he wrote checks in the oval office to porn stars assumed that he had an affair to quiet her down. if president obama did that, he would have been in jail. i understand that people saying we should begin impeachment proceedings. but look at the success that we had in court this week with judge maeda, not just telling ma czar that they had to provide the requested information to congress but if you read that opinion, and it is a historical document. the president complied with the

law. they are not above the law. they provide what their overseer and congress and the judiciary are the president's overserious want. and so my point is that we're inning in court. and my point is we're winning in court. the speaker is push the investigation that are happening. let's stick with her and watch that strategy unfold. she's uncanny in her ability to see what the enpoint is and to be disciplined about getting there. host: if those decisions stop happening in your favor, does that change the tune or at least change your mind as far as pushing for impeachment? guest: those court decisions are not going to change. we could have a long argument

over whether the president should cough up his tax returns. the law in this case, there is no ambiguity. the law says that the i.r.s. shall, not ambiguity provide tax returns to the chairman of the ways and means committee. by the way, my republican friends saying this is all fishing expedition. there will come a moment that they are going to want to use the various authorities that they are trashing right now. but my point is the law is beyond clear. and there's a story out yesterday that said the i.r.s.'s legal team saying the law is clear. you got to turn over the tax returns but nunce, the treasury secretary said no, i'm not going to do that. so we will win in court. host: this is from prescott, arizona, scott, you're on with our guest from the democrats line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. my thanks to c-span. back in 1978 and 1979, i was a united states sailor in the gulf of oman. this was the start of the

iranian revolution. we were continuously shadowed by a soviet union navy cruiser and they continually broke our lines of formation, got between us and the u.s.s. constellation mainly just to irritate us and dem -- demonstrate that they could do it. my question is directed to congressman himes what, does he think of the possibility of the soviet involvement would be if we attacked iran? guest: thank you for your service to the country in a very angerous region. the russians are a far cry from the military power they were in the 1970's when you were serving. they have a hard time sort of keeping their military deployed. they are deployed pretty aggressively in syria. so the threat that they

represent militarily is a lot less significant than it was in the 1970's. however, putin is not a dumb guy and he recognizes that he can cause a lot of trouble without necessarily needing a couple of aircraft carriers. if the united states found itself in a conflict with iran, there is a reasonable chance that putin would choose to do exactly what he's doing in syria and venezuela, which is helping the other guy just because we're on the other side. iran is pretty close to parts of russia and you could imagine support, intelligence sharing and you could imagine putin deciding to help iran just as he has decided to help syria for no obvious reason but to assert their power and stick a finger in the eye of the united states. host: from new york on our independent line, alex, hello. caller: hello, good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i'm a democrat, but i think iran would never stop threatening our forces.

we've smashed this country to pieces and gets every small country out of it. we have to as the prisoner say, abolish -- they are doing us harm in the past four years. and this is something that should be -- as even democrats and others supported. they do not stop malicious activities, otherwise, they deserve to have a great economy like our lovely president has made for us. but before we have that, we must take the -- out of their dirty hands to make sure that they are not able to do anything against -- and great country israel. thanks. guest: ok. i didn't get the question there. make no mistake, iran is a very dangerous and very bad regime. and i don't need to go into the

whole list of activities that they're doing around the region. whether it's the rhetoric they used against israel or the missiles that they provide hezbolla as the gentleman pointed out, they do a lot of very, very bad things in the region, including sponsoring the militias that attacked our troops in iraq. so nobody disagrees with that. the question is what should we do about it? and i think the answer to that question is before we open up another war, and again, we have seen how wars end. look at iraq. look at syria's a disaster right now. syria became a hornet's nest for isis, afghanistan is not where we would like it. so is libya. another country where we helped ake out a very bad dictator. our military is second to none. we could probably take out the regime.

the question is what replaces it? and it's as likely as not that it's replace bade worst regime or no regime. no regime is what we see in places like somalia. what we see in areas of syria. what happens when you have no regime? people like isis start training and develop weaponry. so as frustrating as it may sound and as satisfying as it would seem to see bombs dropping and missiles flying, that doesn't end well. military war and tools should always be the last resort behind aggressive attempts to change iran's behavior. host: the treasury secretary is set to hear today. what is the likelihood that they will talk about it? guest: it's probably about 100%. you know, again, this is sort of an uncomfortable moment for the treasury secretary. there's no ambiguity of the law.

the legal opinion on the i.r.s. about the need to turn them over. but yeah, i think we will have an interesting conversation. i'm very interested -- i've been working some time now on the decision of treasury to lift "treasuresn olig and from the vault"ly let congress know that. congress voted not to lift those sanctions but they did. and today, he is a very wealthy man. i'm not sure what that signal it sends but we're going to have a conversation about that. host: if you want to see it on c-span2 and our c-span.org website, republican line, david, go ahead. you're next up for -- this is lin, i'm sorry. lynn from texas on democratic line. caller: thank you.

i turned into your program a little late to hear him but what about this impeachment? i don't agree. i do not agree not having impeachments right now. you need to get the congress back to legitimating again. get this guy out of the office. that's what i feel. get him out. get him gone. get the service back to where it needs to be. the guy is taking over this country, period and i don't like that. i've been in here a long time and being a citizen. host: ok, thank you, caller. [laughter] guest: you got a conversation right before i came in about socialism for after an hour. the gentleman is right in the sense that the congress particularly the house majority got elected because we promised better health care, because we want to do transportation infrastructure. we want to build better bridges and highways and airports and railways because we want to take corruption out of government. that's, i think, a lot of my

colleagues believe the reason that we were handed the majority in the house and we got to do that. and the reason i make the reference to socialism was i was getting annoyed listening to that conversation. there are maybe two or three members of the house and the senate. i'm thinking bernie sanders who called themselves democratic socials -- socialists. no one else does. everybody else is a totally supporter like i am of a capitalist system that is regulated to keep the disaster that happened in 2008 from ever happening again, hopefully it's regulated to make sure that regardless of where you're born, you have opportunity and that money doesn't all concentrate in the hands of the wealthiest people but the democrats are focus on what that gentleman was talking about. we want to improve structure. you're going to hear about that today. went to make it easier for people to send their kids to school. the republicans had no answer to that. so instead, they're saying really? minimum wage? you want a big minimum wage?

you want to make it easier to send your kids to school? you want to improve health care? injure a socialist. that's what ronald reagan did with medicare. he said it was socialist. this is the oldest and most tired play that they have when they don't have ideas to answer our ideas on infrastructure and education and retirement. they just say you guys are socialists because they know that word scares the american people. that is a dark, incorrect and ultimately damaging thing to them because democrats are about advancing things like better health care, better education. host: infrastructure will be a topic of discussion. now the president saying he would like to see the trade deal pass before they on to infrastructure. do you think that should be an either-or proposition or can you to both? guest: sure, we can do both and we're pretty close on the trade deal. my sense is that there's a couple of things, pricing of pharmaceuticals and enforcement issues that are keeping us from

getting the question collectively. if nancy pelosi and schumer and the president can wrap up a big deal, there's other stuff out there too. if they can do a deal with this president that gets us towards an infrastructure deal, that's a huge win for us. host: what is the biggest issue right now when it comes to passing a budget? guest: it's the traditional fight. the republicans and their budgets have indicated they want to spend tons more money on the pentagon but want to cut educational funding and cut health care funding the democrats want to spend more on education health, those sorts of things. and probably would say hey, the pentagon has gotten a ton of money. and so that's a fair argument. that's why we have a budget debate. the numbers were big. it's well above the targets or what the sequester levels were

and so it's going to be a tough one because the answer regardless of where we end up is going to be largely thanks to the tax cut of a year ago, very, very substantial deficits. host: representative jim himes, democrat of connecticut on intelligence and also a member of the financial services committee. thanks for your time today. guest: thank you, pedro. host: you heard our guests reference these topics. you can comment on some of the things happen going on. there is that discussion that you heard about going to the white house by house leadership to talk infrastructure, how democrats also planning to meet and talk more about impeachment and then the treasury secretary, steve mnuchin set to go on capitol hill about 8:30 this morning, a few minutes from now to talk issues when it comes to the president's tax returns and other issues. all those up for discussion if you want to give us a call. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002.

make those calls now and we'll take them when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> sunday night on "q&a," watch our october 2018 interview with yale university historian joanne freeman on her book "the field of blood violence in congress nd the road to civil war." >> guys throwing punchs and batums. it's a massive encounter, but what was really interesting to me was people at the time looked at it and what they saw was a group of northerners and a group of southerners locked -- lots of them in -- locked up and armed saying this doesn't look like a normal congressional fight. this looks like north against south. this looks like a battle. and that's really striking. and indeed, it certainly did

look like a battle and it's not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's "q&a." >> c-span's newest book "the president," perk's best and worst chief executive provides insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. true stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. order your copy today. c-span's "the presidents" is available as a hard cover or ebook. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. and independents, 202-748-8002. if you go to "politico"'s page

and its website, you'll see that back and forth house democrats are having with their speaker nancy pelosi saying that leaders sparred on monday, whether to begin impeachment inquiries against the president. it lists those leaders and follows up saying that's fostering a meeting that will take place today between the leadership of the house democrats and the members. taking a look at the topic of impeachment. you can follow along as that goes out today. and steve mnuchin before the house financial service committee talks about the president's tax returns. 2kd committee -- tax return. you can follow that along on c-span3. let's start with tom. he's in wisconsin, republican line. hi.

caller: when are you going to have a republican guest on? host: we're going to be featuring some veterans and we do have republicans on from usually the daily basis. but go ahead. caller: there's -- you just had a man on there, a congressman. he has many lies about this --ce that was written by the host: caller, are you there? tom from wisconsin, are you there? gone. let's go to polly in north carolina, democrats line. caller: hi. i just wanted to say to the gentleman that you had on the congressman because i am a democrat that when it comes to impeachment, it's never the wrong time to do the right thing. i don't know what the hesitation is necessarily except that democrats are paying too much attention to polls or showing

some fear of polls. and i just think i believe in my heart deep down that it's never the wrong time to do the right thing and i just wanted somebody to hear me say that. host: polly, before you go, you heard our guests express some hesitancy moving forward. what was wrong with his argument, i guess? caller: you know, it just sounds like a fear of the political repercussions and i don't think this is a time -- the time to be worried about that. it's country before party. and it's country before your job, which i know for a lot of politicians in general, that's a touchy topic. but i would rather go down with more or less than, you know, and lose the fight than not -- than compromise the whole time and not have anything to show for. host: ok. again, democratic leadership on this topic of impeachment.

expected to go to the white house today to talk infrastructure and in light of the last 24 hours, possibly even discuss the passage of a trade deal with mexico and canada. and steve mnuchin on capitol hill talking about the president's tax returns. you can see that and we're showing you a little bit on c-span3. if you want to follow at c-span.org too. katherine in new hampshire, independent line. hi. caller: hi and good morning. i have a comment and i don't know how it could be done, but i as thinking we could spray a marijuana, prozac or peace happy site dly chemical mist over in iran and north korea where they're working to produce nuclear weapons and the mist would cause the workers at these sites in iran and north korea to chill out, become less

interested in making nuclear missiles. and the world needs to relax and take deep breaths and be into good days instead of destruction and death and that's what they should be talking about. host: from lawrence in illinois, republican line. hi. caller: hi, pedro. you know, i guess i'm going to be off topic, but the girl that took my call was gracious enough to let me speak anyway. i was listening to the earlier conversations on socialism. and i called before. it would be nice if you had a dictionary there or actually put up the definition of what these words mean because there's a big difference between political socialism, economic socialism and those type of things. st: we did show a dictionary of socialism, but go ahead. caller: social security is not part of socialism. that's paid by the taxpayers. it's funded by the taxpayers. but just a general comment.

the upcoming election, off lot of politicians posing the question of is education a right or a privilege? is health care a right or a privilege? is clean water and air right -- you can fill in that blank with anything. and the answer to that question is it's neither a right nor a privilege. all those things, education, health care, everything you could put in there is a commodity. while we're here on this earth, it's a commodity. and the only intelligent conversation to have between republicans, democrats, independents is how do we pay for commodities that we deem to be essential to sustain a decent life? how do we pay for them for ourselves and how do we pay for them for those for legislate reasons because they're -- legitimate reasons? because they're too long, too old so people who can't afford

to pay for them by themselves? host: ok. janice in louisiana, democrats line. hi. caller: hi, pedro. i can talk about iran or i can talk about socialism. what would you like for me to talk about? host: well we got a couple of topics going but since iran falls into the general topic of our last conversation, go ahead. caller: ok. on iran is what i'm going to do then. i don't think iran is on the verge of a nuclear weapon stockpile. a short red with period of dictatorship which was unfortunately supported by this country. and then the iranians hated america. but then the iranians finally overthrew the shaw but unfortunately supported the leadership of the islam region

leaders of one of the main sects of islam, which was an enemy to iraq, the other main sect of islam. for a while, that new generation of iranians began to like america because of iraq and then the good leadership of obama. host: so janice, with all that said particularly as we are experience back and forth the discussion about iran what, would you like to see going forward when it comes to that country? caller: what would i like to see -- what? host: what would you like to see going forward? should we hold off a match? renew the iran nuclear deal? caller: no, let's try to understand about obama. he did not give them our money he gave the iranians back their money that was invested, not ours. and no, we should not go to war

in iran. host: ok. that's janice. some of the, you know, as far as in the discussion from our last topics. but if you want to comment on these three things going forward for the next 15 minutes or so, you're we can to do so. it's the house democratic leadership meeting with their body to talk about issues of impeachment. that takes place today. also taking place today, house democratic leadership going to the white house. see if they can come up with egg specifics on an infrastructure deal and talk about trade issues maybe a part of that and the treasury secretary, steve mnuchin, on capitol hill, talking about amongst other things, the president's tax returns. that hearing taking place on c-span.org and our c-span3 channel. we'll go next to denise. denise is in kentucky, i.n.t.

line. caller: how are you doing if host: fine, thanks. go ahead. you're on. caller: i just want to know, there to s their -- impeach? host: how would you answer the question? caller: yes. host: caller, how would you answer your own question? caller: what's there to impeach is what i want to know. host: meaning what? caller: i mean what does that do for americans? that's not helping us. by working to impeach. host: why do you think it's not helping? caller: what's there to impeach? you have to be guilty of something to be impeached. host: ok. let's go to diminish. fort worth, texas, democrats line. caller: hi. how are you today? host: fine, thanks. how about yourself? caller: i'm doing well. i'm a minority in texas, but i don't care.

i'm going to vote the way i feel is right. to ouse was put there oversee things that are happening and it's very obvious that what trump is doing is hiding stuff he's done. start the impeachment inquiry. see what's there. get the documents and do what they have to do. host: what do you think ultimately -- let me ask you this. if that process took place, what do you think is the benefit? caller: well, the benefit is people need to know what's going on. he is hiding stuff. and it's very obvious he's hiding stuff. he does not want us to know. why else would he not be stopping everybody from talking about it? i from the very beginning thought he was a shady person. why would someone who files bankruptcy so many times guiding us? we're not balanced because of

all the money he's giving to his people. host: ok that's michelle from texas. let's hear from alfred from california, the republican line. caller: hi, good morning, pedro. thank you for taking my call. the question of impeachment, my question would be is that actually my comment is that, you know, the democrats took over the house to legitimate -- legislate to make good and the concerns of american people and obviously, it's more investigation after investigation after investigation. and one more thing that i want to say is when congressman himes was on there, he took more calls from democrats than republicans and that showed me that i don't know if you guys weren't taking the calls from republicans or democrats. i don't want to say you guys are biased because i really like you guys, but, you know, that's my comment in regards to legislation. that's what they were elected to

do is legislate. and that's not what's happening and that's what concerns me. host: so the impeachment discussion, you are saying they're not of value? caller: no, they're not. a lot of people have been deceived that he's hiding things. he's the most transparent president that we've had. and the mainstream media continues to throw out lies and they continue to listen to it and those are saying if you continually repeat a lie over and over and over again, eventually you're going to believe it. host: one of those legislatures at the forefront of the impeachment discussions. this will be on shealy jackson, member on the house judiciary committee told reporters she plans to introduce a resolution of investigation. that could be the start of impeachment proceedings against the president. the opening comments in that resolution say that the

judiciary committee will investigate whether sufficient grounds exist or to the exercise he power -- host: those are comments there. when it comes to topics of impeachment. gabriel in maryland, independent line. hi. caller: hello, thank you. good morning. host: morning. caller: yes, what i want to say is, you know, criticize, you know, your political party or any type of political rhetoric. i got a question. how can a person become the president of the united states thout disclosing their tax information, their tax information and their financial information? how is that possible? that's the question i have.

and also, with regards to impeachment, i think like, you know, people are asking the congress are you going to impeach trump? the question is has the president done things to for him to be impeachable? because to be impeachable, his behavior -- it's not the congress's behavior, it's his behavior that determines whether or not if he is impeachable. the question is has president trump, you know, constitutional, competent, the most nstitutional, you know savvy guy, i'm being sarcastic, obviously, he's not very well read, but has he done things and i think the clear, clear, clear answer is yes. he has done things. and he has obviously openly

obstructed justice. so obviously, he has done things to warrant an impeachment. host: let's hear from frank in bay side, new york, republican ine. caller: i don't see how you cannot impeach this president. he took the mueller report and throw it out completely. just what he's doing right now, obstructing the people from testifying and he sure makes himself look guilty if he's not guilty. host: let's go to ian in california and democrats line. hello. caller: yes. good morning, pedro. this is ann. and i wanted to talk about the impeachment. i think we have the wrong idea right now. we need to learn more on the impeachment. host: why hold -- when you say the wrong idea right now. can you expand on that?

tell us why. caller: yes, i believe that impeachment is going to be, but right now, i think we need to know more on what is a president who lies every day does not deserve to be president. t the thing is that he is -- he's the power, but he is not the power. we, the people, are the power. we elect people. so what i'm trying to say impeachment right now is -- i think we need to have all the people who have voted for that man to learn more about him because the president of the united states is above reproach and this president is not. host: why do you think we're going to learn other than what we've learned over the last month or so, especially with the release of the mueller report? caller: well, the mueller report is true and correct. i haven't read all of it yet.

i'm working on that. but the mueller report are executives who run under trump, they just go tell him what he can do. and then they don't even know what law he already made. and the same thing with all of our people who work for our government. and the working people, we need to peach him but not right now. host: ok. that's ann in hot springs, california, calling in. the "wall street journal" highlights some of the details when it comes to the upcoming trade trip that the president will take to japan. this is highlighted by alice this morning. saying the president's trip beginning with his arrival in tokyo is set to include to the final day of the assumeo tournament in the city where he is going to present the winner's trophy. it was last week that mr. trump put off the decision for six

months on whether to impose the auto imports but he said it was so great as to threaten and empower the national security of the united states. this story highlights that the u.s. has been clear when it comes to what it wants when it comes to matters of agriculture where it is seeking lower tariffs such as pork or beef. republican line, this is kathy. kathy in englewood, florida. caller: yes. i just want everybody to know that the republicans are strong and standing behind our president and if you don't believe me, just show up to a rally. we're a thousands strong versus a hundred from the democrats. host: meaning what ultimately? caller: meaning we're standing behind our president, we're standing up for him fighting for deep states. the democrats are running scared. look at them. nancy pelosi and schumer. i mean, those guys are crooks. there is no way the american

people should be getting behind them. absolutely no way. and the democrat callers, the stuff they're saying is ridiculous. the news is totally biased. everybody knows that. host: ok. when it comes to democrats, several events taking place today. impeachment will be a discussion that takes place when it comes to the leadership of the house democrats. they expect to have that meeting at an all-member meeting at 9:00 this morning to see the back and forth that's going on between leadership and the membership when it comes to topics of impeachment. the white house today, the matters of infrastructure set to be discussed with democratic leadership. we read you the story and showed you a little bit about what's going on when it comes to the president's desire to see the u smca passed and steve mnuchin on capitol hill. let's show you a little bit of that hearing. >> we learned last night of a second opinion which was written by the i.r.s. chief council's

office. are you aware of that letter? that memo? >> i became aware of that memo when it was we got an inquiry in from "the washington post" and it was recently published. i'm not sure who the author of that was, but i've seen it in to the "washington post." >> ok. so when did "the washington post" inquire of you about your knowledge? >> i believe the day before yesterday called us up and we confirmed that we -- that i and the commissioner were not aware of that letter and had not seen it. >> but you have since that time reviewed that memo? >> i haven't reviewed it. i look at it literally on the way up here. someone handed me the printed copy of it. i would not describe that i would review it. >> did somebody make you aware that the law does not require the ways and means committee finance chair or chief of staff claw reason or purpose for the request? >> again, i haven't -- again, let me just say the legal advice that we've relied upon and, again, i understand there's

three branches of government and when it comes to constitutional issues, there could be different interpretations and that's why there's a third branch of government to interpret that. host: i'm sorry, i'm reclaiming my time. you are at least aware that the conclusion of that memo contradicts the conclusion that you're relying upon? >> no, i actually don't believe that's the case. that memo i understand is addressing a different issue and is not addressing the issue that we in the department of justice looked at. but let me just say that this is not a letter that came to our attention earlier. >> i'm reclaiming my time. who in the i.r.s. would make the decision not to run this memo up the chain? >> i have no idea. >> are you going to find that out? >> we are trying to find out who wrote the memo, when it was and why it wasn't distributed, yes. >> have you had any conversations with the president at any time during your prior to our confirmation or today or

today about your desire or willingness to provide the president's tax returns to congress? >> i've had no conversations ever with the president or anyone in the white house about delivering the president's tax returns to congress. >> i want to switch gears and in -- ut the columnist host: and that's just some of the things that you'll hear at that hearing with steve mnuchin. you just heard him talk about the president's tax return. much more expected when it comes to back and forth on that topic. go to c-span3 to monitor it and also on c-span.org. we're going to hear from two veterans groups to talk about issues of foreign policy concerned veterans for america's dan caldwell and jon soltz talks about veterans issues and their collaboration on changes to ward off measures in congress. that discussion now on

"washington journal." ♪ a, sunday night on q& interview on the book the field of blood, violence in congress and the road to civil war. >> scores of congressman in a mass brawl, it is dramatic, throwing punches, it is a massive encounter but what was interesting to me was that people at the time looked at it and saw a group of northerners and a group of southerners

running at each other in the house of representatives and several of them said this does not look like a normal congressional fight but north against south. it looks like a battle and that is striking. and itlook like a battle is not that long before the civil war. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> tv was once three giant networks and pbs. in 1979, a small network with a big idea, let viewers decide on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the door to washington with unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power and in the 40 year cents, the landscape has changed with no monolithic media and broadcasting given way to narrowcasting and youtube stars

are a thing but c-span's big idea is more relevant than ever. no government money supports c-span. it is a public service by the cable and satellite providers, on television, online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind. c-span's newest book "the provides insights into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered by interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shape our leaders and challenges they faced and the legacies they left behind. order your copy today./ asis available c-span.org/thepresidents.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion of foreign policy with veterans groups, we are joined by 202-748-8000, senior -- by dan caldwell, and by jon soltz. thank you for joining us. you have announced efforts to lobby capitol hill on matters of foreign policy. talk about the perspective you come with on this issue. guest: in 2006, to help people win elections that would oppose george bush's war in iraq. 700,000 people strong in our organization. very concerned about our lack of restraint and foreign policy with u.s. forces fighting all over the world under legal authorization from 2001.

not a democrat or republican problem, a bipartisan issue. it has been an issue important 's us and now working with dan organization which had been our opponent across the board outside of foreign policy. did work last year on the yemen bill and we found common ground between our organizations that mirrors what you see in congress , conservatives and progressive members of congress concerned about the inability of congress to do their job on foreign policy. host: same thing as your efforts as you oppose so many issues. do good andotto is no one do harm. rivalryhad an intense over the years on a host of have hadrganizations many political battles in races

across the country but we found common ground and found some shared goals. we are putting together our resources and leveraging our grassroots armies that we have respectfully built across the spectrum to ultimately advance policies we believe will lead to a better foreign policy for the united states. the issue is that the foreign policy we have been pursuing, especially over the last 17, 18 years, has not made us safer. wasinvasion of iraq probably one of the worst foreign-policy disasters in american history if not the worst and has led to problems in the middle east today. we need to make sure that does not happen again and one of the ways we think we can help pursue a better foreign policy is by urging congress to reassert its role in shaping american foreign-policy. that is the focus on this week with our grassroots armies on capitol hill meeting with members and urging them to go

with the barbara lee bill to repeal legislation that rand paul and senator udall. is it and what does it do and how does it shaped the current way we do foreign-policy? 9/11: it was signed after with support from everybody. at some level you could argue it is justified but under president trump, u.s. forces has died in yemen, some all you, iraq, syria, libya, afghanistan. i do not think any american remembers when there was a vote to send u.s. trips into -- u.s. troops into somalia. congress is not doing their job and they are still using this authorization to send u.s. troops to fight organizations in

africa that did not exist on 9/11. a newsflash that he u.s. soldier has died in combat who died -- was born after the towers fell. host: the authorization says the president can use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations and persons he determines planned, authorized, onmitted a terrorist attack september 11 or harvard organizations or persons in order to prevent future acts of international terrorism against the united states. what is wrong with the wording? guest: it is not necessarily how it has been written but how it is being interpreted. both the obama administration and the bush administration and now the donald trump administration is using the law, clearly designed to authorize force after 9/11, which was justified, we had to punish and

kill those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack, we did not oppose that action. it is being used to justify conflicts that are clearly not related to 9/11. many of these groups we are going after in africa and other parts of the middle east did not exist on 9/11. they have no relationship to the groups or individuals that were responsible and may have audio -- they may have ideological similarities and affinity for osama bin laden but these organizations are not part of the 9/11 conspiracy and they are still using the authorization which is clearly past -- to hold those responsible for 9/11, and without anars, many in game and no sense of accountability. we feel congress having these debates over these wars and these discussions will foster a better foreign-policy and a better strategy.

as some have said, repealing this law one not remove the ability to defend ourselves against imminent terrorist attacks. we will still have the capability to do training and other types of engagement. some say to repeal the law we remove our ability to respond to imminent threat but that is not true. we think this is about these endless wars and not about counterterrorism or responding to the threat of terrorism. host: do you think that it should be modified or dropped? what is the best approach? guest: let's debate it. and a second conversation about what it looks like. lee's bill barbara legal standard. this does not mean we cannot defend ourselves. this is about us reaffirming

congress's role under the constitution and regards how a country goes to war and being awol for 18 years is not what we are looking for. we want to repeal it and have a conversation of what it looks like. is there an organization that related -- that is related to 9/11. question, two-part having a serious conversation about repealing this, democrats three or four years ago said we need a new aumf but do not want to strong on the obama administration but how do you feel when obama is gone? this is larger than an administration problem because all three administrations have been throwing the military over the world and congress not doing their job. repeal it first and then have a conversation about how to repeal it. we do not want to go to zero with some of these countries but

we are not close to that conversation which is negligent of our congress controlled by both parties over the last 18 years at different times. our objective is to show congress that people who serve in war want to talk about it because too often they refer to the brass and the pentagon who are derelict in their duties to protect the soldiers under their command and would rather say, easy for me to get the money for this program. host: jon soltz and dan caldwell it to talk about foreign-policy issues. iraqk them a question, and veteran call us at 202-748-8000. all others, 202-748-8001. dan caldwell, a little bit about your organization and military experience. guest: i served in the marine corps for four years and spent time at washington, d.c. and i went to the first marine division and i deployed with

them to iraq and in 2008 and 2009. the organization, we are veterans grassroots advocacy organization whose mission is to preserve the prosperity we fought and sacrificed for and we do that by advancing policies and we strengthen -- to strengthen our nation and veterans by focusing on educating veterans military families and also americans on important public policy issues and mobilizing them and activating them to make sure they have their voice heard in the policymaking process. that is our focus and what i think separates us. other organizations are focused mainly on providing services helping people get benefits and things like that, they do a little bit of lobbying, but our focus is advancing good policy. guest: the largest progressive

veterans group in the united states with 100,000 veterans, if you are a veteran who does not feel represented by veterans groups who have been a wrong -- around for a long time, we will fight for progressive values and we spent a lot of our time on the political side, advocating on policy we feel is progressive and good for the united states. kosovolly, i served in on active duty. part of the first armored division and was in iraq in 2003 and served in baghdad. in the summer and fall of that year. 2011 andck to iraq in was in charge of a team in , and was there at the very end of the initial pull out. host: we have calls for both of you. a veteran in toledo, ohio, tim.

caller: i am a navy veteran. it goes with i want to say. capitalism and the whole nine yards, a lot of people are getting to the point they just react with emotion and not being able to think logically about it. i was in the navy in 1981 overseas and i remember it,apore, i thought about what capitalism really means, it means money is the most important thing in the world and i do not think that is what our society is supposed to be. they say money is the most important and socialism says people are the most important thing and you have to find in the middle. host: since we are talking about foreign-policy, what issue would you like our guest to address in

terms of foreign policy? caller: the same way, if we want freedom the way we want to live here we have to acknowledge other people should live the way they want to and if iran should be an islamic country, that is their right. -- if i couldng ask a presidential candidate a when wouldt would be you ask u.s. troops to die in a form country? --ould hope their answer that does not mean we love and support autocratic regimes world, but when you look at the problems u.s. troops had in somalia or iraq in the last part of the 20 century, and early 21st century, you have to look at why did things fall apart in bosnia with a political agreement in place and u.s. forces were enforcing that.

the will of the people is important and i would argue there is no will for u.s. troops in the middle east until you can get the saudi's and iranians and russians and the gulf states together to have a conversation about the future of the region. in reality, u.s. troops are caught in the middle. guest: we believe that our system of government, liberal democratic system and a free market system, is the best system of government. as part of that, we do not think it is right to impose that on the world. canope world -- the world build a society in mutual benefit but when we try to impose that in iraq and afghanistan, the results are disastrous, not just for americans but for the people there. in afghanistan, based on their

culture and dynamics in the country, they are not ready for our system of government and trying to impose it by force does not lead to good outcomes. should use force overseas when there is a clear threat to american national interest with a clear objective and clear outcome. we do not think trying to impose these systems of governments, our system of government across the world, helps secure our national security. host: is it time for u.s. troops to leave afghanistan? guest: absolutely, american troops should start withdrawing and we hope the peace process continues and we are pleased the donald trump administration is pursuing that but we do not need to have a massive military presence in afghanistan for the peace process to continue. guest: the problem in afghanistan was ever scope was too broad. when we use it as a platform to kill osama bin laden, if the

military had played a better role in the conversation, that would have been the decisive point for withdrawal under the boundaries of the 2001 bill said. host: john in tempo, florida -- tampa, florida. >> as a civilian i have the highest respect for our veterans and it breaks my heart that the same bad actors that got us into the unnecessary invasion in iraq 16 years ago are the same bad actors pushing us to go to war unnecessarily with a much larger country of iran, which probably four years has sent sleeper cells across the porous mexican border. there will be buses blowing up in the states if we go to war with iran and it would be a bigger disaster than the invasion of iraq. that has been the greatest single u.s. disaster in foreign-policy and these bad actors are corporate and control

the republican party and the like to party of israel -- li cud party of israel which controls our politicians. war with iran will be a disaster and not in our interest as the iraq invasion was not in our interest so keep our veterans to do the service they are intended to do, protect america. host: your assessment of iran and what you think should happen. guest: this is a dog and pony show. dan can talk about what is going on inside the white hat -- white house. insight have a lot of but have some on the military side where my friends still serve. i see this as saber rattling right now. the iran thing is complicated. ,hen i explain to people

without the academics involved, the war in the middle east, there are two wars, radical islam against western troops and target, but the real larger war is the war between the saudi agents and iranian agents in syria and yemen. wholeou look at iran as a and my personal experience in iraq, iranian agents were in iraq in 2003. the invasion in iraq was a huge they pray for iran. -- victory for iran. ofeasonable actor is sort one of the most powerful local people in the country outside the democracy and the iranians where the winners and in 2011 when i was in northern iraq, syria and -- syrian radicals

came over the border and killed iraqi forces and when i went to another city in my second tour i was thrilled by iranian made rockets and u.s. troops have been caught in the middle of the war for a long time and there is a huge risk they are putting our military in the region by saber rattling unnecessarily with the iranians for domestic political consumption. guest: i think president trump said it best when he said during his state of union that great nations do not fight other wars. it will be an endless war. iran is not a good actor in the region. jon gave reasons they are not good. with north korea and other countries -- iran is fairly isolated in the region when it comes to regional actors that are not aligned with them, saudi's, uae, pakistan who has had their ups and downs.

they are checked by other regional powers. power because of our invasions and power in syria but that is not a powerful nation, weekend by their civil war. you have israel and the egyptians and the jordanians that are working to check iranian power. the caller mentioned mistakes we have made leading up to the iraq war and i hope we learn from those mistakes. we think president trump instinctively does not want another conflict in the middle east and his heart is in the right place but our concern is there our actions taken that may force us into what is right now an unnecessary war. and a war with iran would not benefit anyone, it would make us less safe, troops in iraq, qatar, bahrain, saudi arabia. it would be a bloody mess and

not be easy, it would not be just a few airstrikes but a long war. host: john bolton, secretary of state mike pompeo, advising on these issues. guest: in regards to john bolton, i have told other people , i am not in the room and do not know what he says to president trump. in the past, he has advocated for foreign policy different from the president. him being in the ministries and with different views is not necessarily a bad thing but when it becomes bad is if he is ultimately impeding the foreign policy president trump wants and the foreign policy the president has advocated is more restrained. we would not agree with everything he has said or done by the vision he laid out is for a more restrained foreign policy. we would be concerned if ambassador bolton ultimately working behind the scenes undermining the president's

foreign-policy vision. mike pompeo, he has been more clear in saying that i am here i serve the president, a -- may have had different ideas in the past but ultimately i will work with the president and help him accomplish his foreign-policy vision. guest: i agree. i have less information into the inner workings but bolton is a concern because he has been wrong about everything and he did not serve in vietnam and does not know the price our troops pay. if president ran to the left of -- the president ran to the left of hillary clinton on these issues. when you saw h.r. mcmaster convince him to put additional troops in afghanistan, a huge failure, you see some of those same leanings from john bolton.

without general mattis at the pentagon, you lose a check in slow rolling the presidents ideas. i think bolton is concerning because you see the back and forth this week of -- on iran whether it is a good idea or bad idea and it seems like administration is not on the same page. if the president said i say it homeough, bring the troops , we will thank him because he is the president. i say that with integrity that it seems like there are forces inside the administration not listening to his intent as they have their own interest and bolton seems to be a culprit. host: los angeles caliphate -- los angeles, california, a veteran. caller: how are you doing? during the current the policy on, transgender military members,

the initial statement from the white house said senior military members were in line with these decisions but thereafter, the coast guard leader said he was not in agreement. conflicts to highlight between statements made by senior military and the white house. it seems to be a continual trend where the current administration makes claim that the military is on board with issues and actions when they do not seem to be. could you comment on that? host: thank you, color. guest: mattis played a role in the transistor -- transgender issue. we think transgender member of the military should be able to serve openly.

transgender troops are buried in arlington cemetery and have served our country and it is on america not allow them to participate -- un-american not to allow them to participate as who they are. i feel terrible for the community. the military went through training to prepare for this. the obama administration. members of the military that were transgender were able to come out and say they are transgender. ofputs them in a conundrum knowing there are transgender members but having a policy and it is disgraceful of the trap administration as they are desktop administration -- the trump administration. the military is not always in a position to say what they want. it is a huge issue for our country when you openly discriminate against a group. guest: we have not taken a

position on this issue. we are not supposed -- opposing or supporting it. messages,is the mixed that is never good for a military force, particularly one engaged in combat overseas. we think like general mattis said, we need to focus on making sure we had the most lethal and capable force without distractions. it is working its way through the courts. that is ultimately how this issue will be resolved. host: the guests are dan caldwell from concern veterans for america, their senior advisor, and jon soltz. key west, florida, hello. caldwell, you said the iraq war was potentially the

worst foreign policy mistake in the nations history but may i if you would say perhaps it was not? those who supported the war had another agenda and the agenda they are supporting today? it is not in the best interest of the american people. was in theentors background who makes the decisions and i asked him about a serious foreign-policy decision they made, i said, what about a vote of the people? he said, you do not turn the to people of a nation who do not know anything about international finance. you would not turn your home over to someone 12 years old and who knew nothing about your personal velocity. the country has been taken over by a group of people who do not

have our veterans in mind. going to war with iran, what for? is a former member of the united states marine corps. it is time for us to stop this. host: thank you. agree --strongly strongly disagree with regards to iraq, the evidence is clear that it is one of our worst foreign-policy mistakes, if not the worst, the next 5-10 years, we will probably say it is the worst. even if things stabilize in the next 10-15 years, the damage of the short, medium, long-term do not justify this intervention. in regards to how our country makes decisions, we are not a dictatorship, we are a republic,

democratic republic, that is one of the reasons our nation has become the greatest on earth and probably be greatest in human history. guest: an interesting point he made about -- was the war a mistake? it was a mistake of the united states military and the taxpayer. a mistake for the american who cares about national security but the iranians are the banners. -- are the winners. kurds are better without saddam hussein, yes. in america, the war has been terrible for the country. that what makes complex arguments that tom cotton, he wants to wage war with iranians. where you sit is where you stand.

warironic part of the iraq is that it was created and manufactured from this town and it hurt our country but may have benefited different actors in places around the world. host: texas, a veteran, thomas. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. most of the moderators, i respect you, your causes are appreciated by all of us that have served. my comment directs to the issue of should we go to war without congressional approval. absolutely not. we should not. the problem is one of control and power. congress cannot get out of its own way. they have not been able to for 20 years. vile hates syndrome is so that no matter what the president supports, they are against.

this is obvious in interviews in the last three days. the president does, and we do see he does not want to be fighting wars in the area of the world. let them do what they want. on the flipside, trying to listen to the truth, without the fake news filter, and try to get we believe truth is teddy roosevelt syndrome, a good syndrome, walk tall and carry a big stick. we do need our forces to be visible and have the capability in case -- and have the right people to do that. on the other hand, to go over there without our congress to vote and say yes or no, is wrong. we have to fight for that. host: that was thomas. thank you.

guest: congress should always vote. i think some of the best advocates in our history or restrain foreign-policy, the president has 90 days under war powers. a responsible president would go to congress and authorized or ask for approval for any long-term commitment, which is why we are here today and why veterans are here. we agree with that. there is a chance for bipartisan work on this issue. advocates that wanting more restrained foreign policy but he cannot hear our message because he is on twitter and his personal sort of issues with certain groups or people become personal and that does not enable him to find common ground. which he could on things like this. guest: the dynamic he identified

with congress about wanting to win these issues, something we are trying to change because congress has punted across three administrations on war and peace, some exceptions, recently the first use of the war powers resolution to condemn and stop the american role in the saudi led war in yemen. president trump beat of that, we were -- vetoed that, we were disappointed. we want to help congress get to a better place as they used to be more active in shaping american foreign-policy and we think that is the first set -- first step to better foreign-policy. this is not something that just started happening in the donald trump administration, it was under democratic congresses, republican congresses, unfortunately something that has the going on for a long time. really going back to the end of

the cold war. you have seen this long slide of where we are today. host: a new york times article highlighted the alliance of yours. talk about your appearance on this program and how easy was it for you to come together on this issue? what was the process? guest: it is hard to overstate how vicious at times our disagreements have been. there are things we have said about each other we probably do not want to repeat in polite company. we have been on the opposite sides of a lot of political fights and policy five, but probably about six months ago, we had an invite to come on this show. i have goneine and back and forth on twitter, i have called him a socialism, nasty things, i came on the show to promote -- i was in arizona

seeing family for thanksgiving and i came on the show to battle but it was a civil conversation and we found we agreed on a lot on foreign-policy. you had affiliated groups, part network working with vote vets on the human issue and we thought they are coming to the table in a serious way. let's talk one-on-one and see where we can find common ground. we are working together with members from our organization to enjoy meetings and offices on the hill this week. guest: i did not want to come on the show. [laughter] host: today? guest: no, in november. i said, i do not want to yell at dan caldwell. i yelled at his predecessor over war. against the iraq war.

on.d not want to come the yemen thing health. -- helped. we were part of a coalition in florida against each other in a senate race. we were part of a coalition to allow people with felonies in florida to get their voting rights back. that was probably the first time. we started to see potentially an opportunity. to talk to him. and i have not been polite to each other in the past, i figured it was best to give it to someone else and we said, maybe we can do something great. is we can come together on this one issue and

maybe make a big fundamental change. we cannot bring back begin its or tax payers but our kids will pay for this war. but can we help the next generation maybe not go to war that never stops because congress said they will not have the courage to do the job they were elected to which to approve -- which is to approve foreign-policy. host: karen, go ahead. caller: i am an army veteran from 1979-1971. -- 1979-1981.y we had to wait three years before the wind back to a -- before we went back to an area but now they come back six months, nine bunds and they go back -- nine months, and they go back, what has happened to this? guest: there are some hardship

tours where if you return for the war -- from the war, the ininating 72 -- vietnam 1972, we redesigned the military and every time the military goes war,r, 30%, 40% of the they have to come from the reserve. never in the history of the united states -- when you watch a special on 50 years, it will be how many times did you go? it was the 19-year-old drafted in your parents generation. what we have done to the american military is unprecedented and i do not know the long-term costs. there are some protections for the active guard when it comes to the amount of deployment. it is unprecedented what we have

done. the reason the guard and reserve were forced to participate because the public would not feel the effects of the war. in theamerican children right age to serve in iraq or afghanistan didn't. deployment,epeated i think that, despite the broader strategic foreign-policy failure, what our military has achieved at a tactical an individual level is amazing. a lot of heroism. a lot of people standing up in the face of deployment, going back again and again and performing honorably and very proficiently, that is a testament to this generation of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines. physically,ost on

mentally, family relationships. , we, on a capability level lose our ability to compete against great powers. jon can talk about this better. --st: this is a large as you issue going forward, we do not have people that command battalions at the army level that have a lot of experience force on force in major conflicts. the russians have revamped their military and have done very ukrainetactics in the using artillery and rockets. there is a concern across the river at the pentagon our conventional capabilities to fight a large ground force battle. it has been degraded. to get somebody proficient at 15 or 16 years in the military, they need to have experienced doing force on force

conventional conflicts and we have been protecting mosques and driving patrols and feeding civilians. that has degraded some conventional capabilities. host: cincinnati, ohio, john. caller: good morning, brothers, thank you for your service, i did two tours in iraq. 2009, 2010. i want to thank you for bringing up veterans issues. something i believe is of concern for us going forward, not just the things that affect veterans, we have the issue where we are dealing with troops services.edical we have had a rejection --

reduction of workforce where we need to get services to make sure our bodies are well taken care of post military service. i would like your opinions on how we can better advocate for veterans issues now that we are out of the service and look forward to a brighter future. briefly, one thing i heard yesterday on the news, the post-9/11 war generation will be the next greatest generation of leaders just like john mccain and i would like your input on that as well. thank you very much, gentlemen. guest: i hope our generation does step up and serve in leadership positions across the country honorably and with integrity. hopefully you will see that happen more in the next years. in regards to the medical question, this is an issue we had a diversion of opinion.

we at concern veterans for americans had been focused on reforming the v.a. with better integration than private care providers and we believe in choice between the v.a. and community providers. with the veteran population changing and becoming smaller and more dispersed with different medical needs, we think that provides the best model for caring for veterans. , this ismedical system an example where congress has kicked the can down the road, they made fixes that have been good but it is delaying longer-term problems and congress needs to go back and take another look at the military conversation, retirement. and look at implementing some recommendations around military health care. guest: in regards to veterans leading, we had a great election as we sent dustman $17 million,

million and got a great group of veterans elected, gain control of the house and three veterans are running for president on the democratic side. the roleery good about veterans will play and veterans are playing a much larger role in the political debate than the amount of people we represent. we have a young generation where only one person serves and afghanistan veterans are playing a larger role in civics than the size of the group that serves. i feel bullish about veterans getting involved. health care is where we do not agree. we want to see a strong and robust v.a. when veterans return from war, every war has new wounds and the consolidated care gives us the ability to identify problems and experts to deal with these issues, whether post-traumatic stress or amputees.

this is why we think the most optimal course of action going forward is to strengthen the v.a. that does not mean you should drive four hours to go to the doctor. this is how dan and i got here, veterans are applying for long-term disability benefits with the v.a. that is a huge bill. it was $100 billion for the iraq war and every year for 12 years. no one took into the of paination the price with veterans for their lives and the best way to prevent making veterans is to stop fighting endless wars. when you talk about veterans care in the country, you talk about prevention, you have to look at the military and that is the issue that brought us together because we disagree on how to take care of veterans but why are we rearrange and the

deck chairs on the titanic. ? host: dennis in port st. lucie, florida. guest: you guys make so much sense you should run the department of defense. you guys makeer: so much sense you should run the department of defense. i have learned a lot from you today, thank you. .uest: i appreciate that i live in sarasota, i will never run for office but if you want to go fishing, call the show. guest: we have a great chapter in port st. lucie, i was there in february speaking so look us up and go to our website. and one of our staffers will get in touch with you. host: you mentioned the pentagon. we talked about ambassador

bolton but what about the acting secretary? guest: he is a boeing guy. eisenhower,lk about not because he was a republican or democrat, he represents a different era. he said you have to be careful of the industry. i will not hold that against mr. shanahan. i have a strong vision for american foreign policy and he represents a speed bump. liked somebody more robust with their opinion on the use of military force. guest: we have not taken a position on the current act dear -- acting secretary shanahan, we hope he will support a more restrained foreign policy and ultimately he will look for ways

to make the department more efficient and make sure we are paying taxpayer dollars more wisely. putting an end to the endless cycle of increasing the top line money and understand that that is not sustainable in the long term. part of it is because we do not have a restrained foreign policy. that drive the top line more than anything and there are still waste and inefficiency within the department. there was progress made the last few years and the pentagon is doing the first audit. i would hope patrick shanahan does not undermine that. there are some in the department that do not want to see the article he did because if they find stuff they do not need, less dollars go to the contractors. we do not want wasted money. if they find they do not need to buy something, like the first round of the audit found three

dozen blackhawk helicopters that were not on the books of the army. that is helicopters they do not need to buy. we do not want unnecessary waste and unnecessary abuse of taxpayer dollars in the system. what will drive the pentagon budget is a more restrained foreign policy. host: steve in maryland, you are on with our guests. guest: thank you for your service, i did 20 years active in the military and 1.5 years of reserve duty. regarding endless wars, such a contentious issue, wars are endless. this is the human condition, fortunately. look at the 20th century. today, you look at issues like boko haram kidnapping girls in the congo and we stand on the sideline. saddam hussein was a dictator who killed his own people. ortega killediel

over 300 opposition journalists. we have a strong russian and chinese presence in the .aribbean, in central america i am the last person who wants to go to war and everybody is the same way. but when do we do something about people like daniel ortega in nicaragua? i believe we do need before military presence, unfortunately, it is the way of the world. people ask why we should be the police of the world? who would you want to be the police of the world, russians, chinese? host: we will let you start. guest: the broader network we are a part of, we are not not interventionists and not pacifist as we recognize there are threats to american interest in the world and in some cases it should be a last resort and will need to begin with

militarily. we think the pentagon budget has grown too much and still believe that we need the best military in the world and it needs to be financed and built to be the best in the world period. we are opposed to large drawnout conflicts like in iraq and afghanistan where the end date keeps changing or there is no date. those are not making us safer but distracting us. the great our competition with emerging threats, potentially from china and with the russians reconstituting their capabilities. that has been a distraction from them. in regards to these dictators the caller laid out, these are not good people. daniel ortega is a commons dictator. -- communist dictator. so is kim jong-un. the president is doing the right thing with going to the table with the north koreans and

understanding the alternative, a massive work that could kill allies is not in the americans interest and if it is not in our interest, we should not go after dictators militarily because we see what happens in libya and iraq. we ultimately make the situation worse when we arbitrarily overthrow these people. guest: i agree with dan. threats to had been some of the greatest civilizations in the world, romans, greeks, napoleon. when we look at the overextension and the price to be involved in every place in the world, it is a concern. i disagree with the viewer because i do not find many of those situations in the u.s. national security interests. much like the debate around and is where the -- venezuela.

we want congress to do the job, if you want to fight nicaragua, let's have a conversation. we have a posture now where politicians from no parties -- both parties are not doing their jobs and troops are all over the world. why are we in niger? why did green berets die there? who authorized it? what is going on in libya? what is going on in somalia and why someone died? we are asking to have the debate. i am happy to have the debate with interventionist all over the country but now we are not having the conversation. host: you both come at this issue the same. responses theg same from republicans and democrats? guest: the great part of the alliance, you have the progressive caucus on board and

like in yemen, the freedom caucus is on board and folks in the middle hiding. we're meeting with centrists this trip and saying you have to do your job and you cannot hide behind the next election. a lot ofe dynamic people outside of washington have a misconception that you need moderate and centrist in both parties to get stuff done. the human vote was driven by -- yemen vote was driven by mike lee and bernie sanders, they are in the senate, they had most of the freedom caucus, which people assume are a bunch of right-wing bomb throwers but they had runcible individuals -- principled individuals that worked with people who was more left on the progressive caucus. you had matt gaetz and ro khanna

coming together around foreign policy and those groups help drive the vote forward and , centrist moderate members to support it and we got something done. we were disappointed the president vetoed it but not driven by moderates or people -- but very principled people, bernie sanders, mike lee. host: this is from tammy in new york. we are running short on time to go in with your question or comment. caller: it is a military industrial complex, the president supports the veterans and the military and so do i. look up v.a. accountability act and marvin bush. it was clinton, obama, bush, and bush who started these wars. host: thank you. what goes through your mind and you hear military industrial

complex? guest: we talked about this prior, the military-industrial complex, corporations involved in the injury when i was in iraq , i saw firsthand some of the members of the defense initiative selling programs that perhaps justifying contracts that were questionable. i think about people who do this at the pentagon. that does not mean they are all bad. people who work there served. it is inflammatory. guest: not necessarily opposed to having a private industry. we do you want to keep the country safe but the issue is, as president eisenhower said in the farewell address, we have had weapons systems that have been wasted upon the military -- that has not made the military

better. host: we have about one minute left. we hope we can find something else we can work together on. today, you meetings will have other meetings with congress? programt is a multitier -- multitier program -- multi-year program. you will see us to virtue asian and polling -- you will see us do persuasion and polling. guest: we have a lot of good stuff in the works and hopefully we can come back and tell you about it. we are not a flash in the pan. this will be a long-term alliance. host: dan caldwell is the senior advisor for concerned veterans for america.