democratic representative anthony brown and for the representative michael waltz. kimberly leonard joins us to discuss the future of health care in the u.s. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, october 24, 2019. a three hour "washington journal " is ahead. we begin in the wake of the bipartisan drilling mark zuckerberg received on capitol hill when a hearing originally scheduled to be about the cryptocurrency became a hearing about how facebook is dealing with fake news, the 2020 election, civil rights, data privacy, and more. we are asking you if you trust facebook. give us a call and let you know -- let us know your thoughts on the social media giant.

republicans, it is 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you content -- you can send us a text this morning. .f that number, 202-748-8003 please include your name and where you are from. on c-span it is --twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good thursday morning, -- mark zuckerberg talked about this issue of trust in his opening statement before the house financial services committee as he was talking about the company entering the arena of digital currency. [video clip] thate idea behind libra is sending money should be as easy and secure as sending a message.

is something that needs to get built, but i get that i am not the ideal messenger for this right now. we have faced a lot of issues over the last few years and i am sure there are a lot of people who think it was anyone but facebook proposing this. there is a reason we care about this and that is because facebook is about putting power in people's hands. our services give people a voice to express what matters and build businesses that create opportunity, giving people control of their money is important and a simple, secure, and stable way to transfer money is empowering. this means more people transact on our platforms -- that will be good for our business. even if it doesn't, i still think this can help people everywhere. before we move forward, there are important risks that needs -- need to be addressed.

today to discuss those risks and how we plan to address them. i also hope we get a chance to talk about the risks of not innovating. while we debate these issues, the rest of the world is not waiting. it china is moving quickly to launch a similar idea. china will be backed mostly by dollars and i think it will extend america's financial leadership around the world as well as democratic values and oversight. if america does not innovate, our financial -- does not guarantee it. host: you can watch his testimony in its entirety at c-span.org. we will talk about it in this first hour of the "washington journal" today as we hear from you about weather utrecht -- whether you trust facebook. this is from the washington post today, facebook's zuckerberg hearingat congressional

. it just a bit from that story. zuckerberg's testimony comes amid a grueling month for facebook. the company learned it faces an antitrust investigation by democratic and republican attorneys general in the district of columbia, far more than the lead state, new york. the most significant lyrical headaches are connected with the 2020 presidential election. facebook stirred controversy when it declined to remove an ad that contained falsehoods about former vice president joe biden. a lot of discussion about political advertising yesterday. this is an exchange between mark zuckerberg and andy barr of kentucky. [video clip] >> will you commit that facebook will not censor any political ad placed on your platform or in support of president donald trump? >> congressman, my commitment on

this or the principal at least here is we believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians are saying, that doesn't just go for trump, that goes for any of the candidates for any of our national offices. people need to be able to see for themselves and make judgment on what the candidates are saying and their character. >> i applaud you for that and i don't want you to be bullied by politicians to relinquish our treasured free speech under the first amendment, protect it and don't be bullied by politicians who want to censor politically incorrect speech. i yield back. host: congressman andy barr and mark zuckerberg yesterday and one more exchange that got a lot of attention yesterday afternoon between congresswoman alexandra ocasio-cortez and facebook's

ceo. [video clip] >> you announced the official policy of facebook allows politicians to pay to spread misinformation in 2020 elections and in the future. i want to know how far i can push this in the next year. under your policy using sensitive data, could i pay said target predominantly lack zip codes and advertise them the incorrect correct -- election date? >> no, you could not. even for these policies around the newsworthiness of content that politicians say in the general principle i believe -- >> you said you are not going to fact check my ad. >> if anyone is saying things that is calling for violence or could risk harm or voter or census suppression, when we rollout the census suppression policy, we will take that content down. >> so there is some threshold

where you will fact check political advertisements, is that is what you are telling me? >> yes and for specific things like that where there is imminent risk of harm. >> could i run at targeting republicans in primary saying they voted for the green new deal? >> can you repeat that? >> what i be able to run advertisements on facebook targeting republicans in primaries saying they voted for the green new deal? i am trying to understand the bounds here. >> i don't know the answer to that off the top of my head, -- >> you don't know if i will be able to do that? host: congresswoman alexandra ocasio-cortez yesterday. a simple question for you in this first hour, do you trust facebook whether it is with your data, the news on the site, political advertising, do you trust facebook?

a few comments from twitter, thoughtful processes talking about that exchange between aoc and zuckerberg saying she asked pertinent and probing questions, pulling back any that he seemed inclined to filibuster on. facebook has become a political tool used to spread lies and misinformation, this should not be allowed, especially when white supremacist are given a platform to throw out hate. jim talking about facebook's attempted entrance into the realm of digital currency when there are other avenues like paypal and vend mode, why does zuckerberg thinks he needs to create another way to move money? phone lines as usual split up by party. ernest is a democrat out of massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. they we hear a lot about stealing of money on

the internet by foreign countries and we have to slow this technology down. i don't think facebook has the capability that ensures our economy is not going to be held hostage by foreign countries. this is something that is very, very dangerous. of crimesa lot youitted to banks that don't hear about where people from other countries illegally stealing money from bank accounts in the united states and they don't advertise that, okay. host: you want to put a hold on all digital currency? you think the technology is getting ahead of the safeguards? caller: i don't think it is secure. i don't think it can be secure. secure.

when we had a money system backed up by gold, that was something that was a standard, ok? host: mark zuckerberg said in that hearing if the united states doesn't move to create the framework of regulations and he wants to work with the government to do that, then china will advance this technology and beat the united states in this area of digital currency. what would you say to that argument? are you still with us, ernest? i don't think it is a safe technology and i don't think it is secure. out of mechanicsville, maryland, this is matt, an independent, good morning. caller: just to answer that, what do you think about visa or mastercard or discover card? insurance companies, these are

all different ways of creating currency for people. my biggest concern with facebook is this idea -- it is like when microsoft was put in front of congress, they are going to tear this company apart because they have to and it is because we have a two-party system. they see facebook as the third party, they are talking about creating a third-party fact republicans and democrats, they have always been the two parties of fact checking and now they don't have that control anymore, you have social media, this fifth column, fourth column, the media does not run fact checking anymore. we have machines that run fact checking and it is called democracy. mark this was as zuckerberg was testifying on capitol hill saying zuckerberg and millie -- billionaires have used their power to control too

much of the political and economic life of america, their greed knows no bounds, the only thing that will stop it is a movement to say enough is enough, we will reduce the power of facebook and other monopolies. caller: that is a principled statement. you can apply the term greed to all human advancement, that is a broad statement. i know a lot of people that like bernie, he talks in platitudes. he is just talking about capitalism. i am saying facebook now has the power to fact check? i got off facebook years ago. i am not going to give my data and intelligence to accompany for free. when you understand what they are doing -- they are an advertising agency. int: this is christopher oklahoma, a democrat. good morning. do you trust facebook? caller: good morning.

i think it says a lot when the president,founding sean parker, criticized his own abouty, facebook talking a couple years ago, how it exploits vulnerabilities in human psychology. it creates a social validation 2011, theoop and in vice president for user growth because he, he quit said "the short term dopamine driven feedback loops we have created are destroying how society works, no civil discourse, no cooperation, misinformation, mistruth. i think it says a lot the people that created these systems of communication are scared that it

is totally changing the way we operate or communicate with each other. host: do you think all social media is bad? do you keep your criticism to facebook or do you apply that to orther it is instagram twitter or these thousands of others? think it is bad in the way you think -- i think you mean. i think the people controlling it are using it to control and program people just like a drug dealer. it is legal to have these systems and they are embedded in ar culture, but you have minority of heroin users and all this legislation and rehab and drug court and all this system for a minority of drug users. what about when the whole world " addicted to these

dopamine-driven feedback loops?" isn't that what cope -- cocaine does? host: what is rehab for social media? turning it off? caller: i think it has gone too far. people should research accelerationism. some people believe it has gone so far that -- there is no turning back, like crossing the rubicon. host: a few more comments from social media from members of congress including maxine waters, the chairwoman of the house financial services committee overseeing that hearing yesterday. her tweet yesterday near the start of that hearing, no one is above the law, including mark zuckerberg. facebook allowed election interference among other offenses and now they are trying

to launch a tech takeover by zuck ng this mysterious buck. she is referring to the cryptocurrency effort, libre. -- libra. we cannot let the censored internet we see abroad creep into the united states. kevin mccarthy going onto tweet i have long been a vocal challenger of big tech specifically regarding anti-conservative bias. we should also recognize when they get it right. on defending american rights of expression without fear of being silenced, zuckerberg is spot on. kevin mccarthy yesterday. frank in north carolina, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. hello? host: go ahead, frank. caller: i was calling to give my

opinion on the currency. i think facebook should go ahead and move forward with their currency. i think americans should have a choice like you said, it is going to be primarily with the u.s. dollar. when someone like china steps in and takes lead rather than the u.s. taking the lead on something like this, i think it is a great thing. facebook is here and it is one of those things -- too much of anything is bad, but you have choices weather you use it or don't use it, the currency will be the same way, you can use it or not use it, but if it is already here, it is going to be growing more and more popular as the world becomes more one entity. be ank the currency would

good thing, really. from here is the story roll call about the amount of u.s. dollars being spent by facebook when it comes to lobbying efforts. facebook on pace to start -- spend more on lobbying than ever before, the company spent 12.3 million dollars to lobby the federal government in the first nine months of the year in 2018, facebook shelled out $12.6 lobby. for 12 months of here is a way of looking at it opensecrets.org, the center for responsive politics is the website. you can see the lobbying expenditures, the 2019 totals not yet updated with that latest spending, but you can see the lobbying spending by facebook in 2018.

lacey, tennessee is next, democrat. could morning. caller: good morning. reason republicans are sort is because facebook a lot of misinformation and lies are bought between now and election time. host: did you watch the hearing? caller: i watched some of it. host: did you get a sense republicans were more favoring facebook? caller: absolutely. most certainly. yes, i sure did. yeah. host: the washington times taking a look at the bipartisan questioning and the concerns expressed by either side. mr. zuckerberg criticized from the left by the entrance into the cryptocurrency realm before solving the existing problems and creating new avenues for bad

actors to enrich themselves. -- expressedorced similar concerns, but did not appear to have made up their minds about libra and its function. dave in ohio, independent, good morning. caller: good morning. sir.: go ahead, a caller: i trust facebook a lot more than i trust visa, mastercard, american express. i would rather have a new generation of people come into the ark in place instead -- marketplace. host: what about facebook makes you trust more than accompany like visa? caller: i think i know facebook more than i know the other ones. they are kind of hidden -- big

companies that have been around forever and facebook is out in the open. host: why do you say you know facebook? is it because of mark zuckerberg and him coming to testify and what you know about him or is it the larger company itself and its thousands of employees? caller: i think because of him being so out in the open where you don't see visa or mastercard or the people running those companies and because i use it every day and you sort of have a feeling of how it works. host: do you use your visa card every day? caller: yes, i do, but i don't use it in the same way. i think i would have more control over a facebook type of account. host: do you have a feeling for how your visa card works? do you feel like you understand that? caller: i have been in the restaurant business for 40 years -- how hard it is to work with

the system upstream. host: this is kathy out of michigan, a democrat. good morning. caller: i do not facebook. for a very short period of time, my youngest son encouraged me and i did not engage very long. i have never done any of that. i don't think it is healthy. i think mr. zuckerberg is a very greedy individual in terms of china. it just because you can't beat them doesn't mean you need to join them. a clear view of that aircraft carrier i saw in the major newspapers, they have the power, there is no doubt about that. i write checks whenever i can. most places will take them. buy gas in a moving venture with my son. their system was down and would not take a check.

the grocery store wrote a check and put gas in the vehicle. that says a lot in terms of what can happen. host: when you say you are not on any of these platforms, do you feel like you are missing out? caller: no. i read newspapers. i work in the medical field. the majority of people are addicted to the screen always on their phones. it makes me sick to my stomach. i don't know if they could even name our state represented of sore senators. they think you should throw books away, that will never happen in my household. i think we need to go back to real simple ways of learning to gain information because research is important and being able to pull a book off a bookshelf is important, not a phone in your hand or on a computer screen all day long.

host: answering this question about whether you trust facebook, that is what we are talking about in this first hour. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. we will let you interpret trust as you see fit weather it is trust with your data privacy, with political ads and the news you see on facebook, however you want to define that. this question coming a day after mark zuckerberg testifies on capitol hill, the original point of the hearing about the cryptocurrency facebook is looking to launch, here is one .f the headlines here is one of the exchanges yesterday between mark zuckerberg and barry ladder milk --

on the idea of facebook innovating. [video clip] >> you faced a lot of criticism here today and in a lot of what you are doing. i was in the information technology sector for years. even some of your harshest critics today, i will venture to say if they have not already, will post their comments and maybe even videos of questioning on facebook, which is a testimony to the impact your vision, your innovation has had not only on american culture, but business and technology and it doesn't come easy. much of the criticism i have seen in my tenure because i love innovation. i love finding the place technology can fit and i think share that as well. i remember when bill gates was attacked because he challenged nux.ix -- li

i hope you take this in the complementary way i mean it. bothdent trump and you are successful businessmen and capitalists and you have done very well. you both challenge the status quo. you see it as innovation. out of new york, a republican. good morning. caller: my comment is first of all, i am not on facebook, will never be on facebook. mark zuckerberg at harvard said 4000 people that submitted data to him. his friend said why would they do that? he said, i don't know, they are a bunch of dumb expletive.

i don't know how you could trust someone like that. iseriously doubt whether he trustworthy. do you trust any social media platforms? particularlyut zuckerberg. things just submitting on facebook, you don't know what they are doing, what they are selling to, you are giving it away for free. he stole the idea from his roommates, the twins. that should tell you something about his character. host: this is ricky, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. my read is i don't like facebook. i don't want to put your business out in public.

and going through currency -- the cryptocurrency, that is kind of dangerous because your money like a regular bank. you have a chance to get your money refunded like that cryptocurrency. believe the major reason mark zuckerberg was at capitol hill cryptocurrency -- the election where like the russians attacked facebook for donald trump's advantage to win the election. missedor our viewers who

it, you can watch it in its entirety at c-span.org, if you just type "zuckerberg" at the top of the page. rachel in california, did i get the name right? caller: i think it is not only about not trusting facebook, they own a lot of is this is. when it first got really popular people loved finding friends from -- social media, their reunions -- there is some benefit to it, but there is a huge downside. my friend bought me some blue kay jewelers.from

all i did was post a picture from the -- of the earrings. i kept getting bombarded with the same earrings on facebook for months. out ofta mine the heck people and my children are addicted to instagram. they think if they don't get a certain number of likes, i am not popular. i think we don't know what the benefits and the downsides will be like on the brains of our children when they think they're worse is determined by the amount of likes they get. i tell my kids you are fabulous, amazing, yeah but my post only got 48 likes. i love katie porter's questioning of zuckerberg and the fact he has 60 lobbyists proves the point it should not be trusted because they are trying absolutely to make sure their interests are put on our

government floor and i find that despicable. host: you mentioned katie porter, here is the congresswoman questioning mark zuckerberg yesterday. [video clip] >> facebook's privacy principles say we give you control of your privacy, you can only delete your information, and we are accountable. can you affirm facebook cares about user privacy and holds itself to the standards you articulate in your public policies? >> we certainly care about privacy, it is incredibly important to people and -- >> if that is true that you care about privacy and you are adhering to these principles, why are you arguing that consumers cannot hold you liable for any of these promises because "as plaintiffs admit, they and every facebook user are bound by facebook cops -- service." terms of

>> i am not familiar with that specific legal argument. you. is right there for you are arguing in federal court that in a consumer data privacy lawsuit in which your lawyers admit user information was stolen, that the plaintiffs failed to to collate any injury. in other words, no harm, no foul, facebook messed up, but it doesn't matter. is that your position? >> i am not familiar with all the context and i am not a lawyer. it is hard for me to weigh in. tremendously the proportional shareholder of facebook, you are responsible for the legal argument your company makes. will you commit to withdrawing this argument and this pleading pleadver again lead -- that there is no liability on

facebook when breaches occur? >> you are certainly right that i am ceo and i am responsible for everything that happens in the company. all i am saying is i imagine there are more pages to this document. >> i am going to take that as a no for right now, but i would like you to consider it. host: it is just after 7:30 on the east coast. here is our schedule for today on the washington journal. we will be joined by two members of the house armed services committee for a discussion about syria. they are here to answer your calls as well. anthony brown will be up at -- first at 8:00 and 8:30, michael waltz from florida. the house is scheduled to go into a brief pro forma sessions. we will go there for gavel-to-gavel coverage, but we will be back after that is expected to end relatively

briefly. at 10:30 on c-span, we will show the ceremony honoring elijah cummings taking place at the capital this morning, showing that on c-span, the casket arrival and ceremony start time scheduled to be 10:30 a.m. and you can watch on c-span.org. that ceremony taking place in statuary hall where elijah .ummings will lie in repose wednesday, elijah cummings' body was at morgan state university and he is expected -- it was taken from morgan state university and will be on capitol hill today. the funeral is tomorrow and burial. baltimore. place in

information late last night about who is speaking at that funeral. both formerlude president obama and clinton, nancy pelosi speaking as well. hillary rodham clinton speaking as well as former maryland democratic senator as well. that taking place tomorrow. phone calls asking this question whether you trust facebook. calls onking your phone lines. gary is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have mixed feelings about it. i think older americans can enjoy facebook because it allows them to get in touch with people they have not seen in a while. what i worry about is young people born into this situation.

hatee been seeing a lot of against the police. against white people, there has been a rise in racism and one of the tactics is they take video clips and show like the end of it or the middle of it. a police officer -- host: you think facebook is being used for target white people? caller: a lot of situations. i have actually been doing research. caller. i am the fella who called in when heather mcgee was speaking and i have been on a walk to learn about other people of other races since that call. i have been using facebook to get a feel of how people interact or what they are racism.and what causes

i inadvertently in my studies ran across these sites and they are targeting people in the guise of justice and that is the basis of it. yet they selectively take -- host:yet they selectively take - host: one of the topics that was brought up yesterday at the hearing was the use of white supremacist groups of facebook r messages of hate and concerns about that. you are saying you have concerns on both sides? caller: yeah. white supremacists, you have to go look for that. this other stuff is coming up like -- white supremacists are a small category. i don't know how people feel they are supreme over other people, that is just a thought in their head. i think discrimination is the

action. if a person is racist, they may have this or that belief, but until discrimination happens, it is just a thought in someone's head. when it is coming to white people, everybody is involved because everybody feels they have a stake in making the world better and there is no tag on the people using these videos and the reason why i say it is negative is because they are taking bits and pieces from view and projecting their they want other people to believe. host: you mentioned your other call to c-span, you mentioned you are on a walk to learn about racism in this country, what have you learned? is part of what i am learning. use that are

available are things like facebook history. i go into the library and take things off the shelves and read. to get a feel of people in the community, facebook was like -- myas drawn to it with limited access, i can't really drive or go places, so facebook is there. i find myself defending people and trying to speak against racism, but the racism that is opposite is disguised as being good and bringing bad things into light, but it crosses some invisible line where it starts making you hate people and hate who you perceive host: host: as an attacker. where is that invisible line -- host: where is that invisible

line? caller: that is why i was hoping this guy from facebook can accomplish. people that edit videos to emphasize a negative point, not and thethe whole thing sad thing is with facebook, it tentacles out to hundreds of thousands of people and they are all giving likes to this stuff and they don't see how dangerous it is. it is almost like white racism the guise ofth outing bad things. there is a good connotation people are getting for projecting these things and they all thegetting information. facebook has to have accountability because innocent people are getting hurt.

there is libel, there is slander laws before this modern technology and this seems to be overlooked. host: appreciate your call from north carolina. it did want to let viewers know your call from august 18 of 2016 available to watch your conversation with heather mcgee. you can find it on our website, wanted to pointed out since you brought it up in your phone call this morning. republican. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, james. caller: the question is do we trust facebook and i don't trust any social media platform. i have three teenagers and watching them, it has completely to conversebility

and have any kind of relationship with people at all. all they do is sit on their phones and the issue we have in this country now -- we saw it in in interview on cnn, they had a panel of 6 people and all those people said they trusted social media platforms more than they trusted the news, television news, cnn, fox news. that is an issue. being what he is, he was a kid that created a platform for people to converse back and forth. i don't believe it was ever supposed to be designed as a news source. while facebook should have some accountability for what they are

putting on their website, i do should pullople their faces out of their phones and fact check themselves. host: this is a stat from the pew research service. they put out a new poll about journalism and social media sites. this came out october 2 of this year. you can find it online. 10ey found that 6 in americans say social media companies have too much control over the mix of news people see on their sites. that is roughly four times as many as those americans who say social media companies don't have enough control. 21% say social media companies have the right amount of control over the news people see. i know you were talking about

that cnn panel of 6 people, i wonder if that research study -- that poll of over 1000 people makes you feel better or worse? on the it depends demographic that was polled. do still older people watch different news sources on television and still have the mindset to take bits and pieces of those news sources, such as i do, and fact check for themselves who is right and who is wrong. fox news is one side and cnn is the other. neither one of them are completely right. it is our job to take what we have learned from these media sources and fact checked ourselves and decide for ourselves what is correct, not be told what is correct. host: some more from that pew research survey showing how

americans are using social media site as pathways to news. some 52% of americans get their news on facebook -- get some of their news on facebook. 71% of americans overall use facebook. americans get their news through twitter, at least some of their news. you can see the various charts here. one more from youtube. 74% of americans have used youtube, 28% have used it to get some of their news through youtube. laurie in georgia, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. some of the phone calls you have had today i do agree with, especially the lady that called from michigan. it was nice to hear somebody from michigan calling in and speaking with some information i

could agree with. i do not have internet in my home. facebook.of i would get on the computer sometimes and look up information about certain things that i wanted like some of the things people would go to encyclopedias for. i am talking to you on a landline. . don't own a phone i think we live in a society to where so many people today have so many different addictions. they focus so much on the opioids and alcohol and sex, which every one of those are detrimental to people's health. i sit back and watch family and friends and see how much of this is destroying them because of

information someone is getting -- when i first got on facebook all of a sudden, all this other stuff would be popping up that might be tied in, linked in to what i was looking up, but it was nothing i asked for, it was stuff it was putting out for me. had a minde now it of its own requesting what i wanted. when all the elections started in 2016 and i would get on there and be looking and it would be people i had known all their good peopleto be and the way they acted out in society and so forth. all of a sudden, there was all judgment.ate and

all this way of thinking that was different from the person i knew. -- we haveh the fact people out of town, to where you people and communicate. there is so much manipulation in in a's society, it plays very harmful space in people's lives to where it is destroying people's health, the relationships they have with one unit, thehe family husband and wives relationships because of everything that is right at your fingertips. all you have to do is hit one button. it triggers something on you enough to wear -- there you go and it is in your face and before you know it, you are tuned into it and you might think you are sitting there

looking at something that is 15, 20 minutes and it turned out to be two hours. host: this is a david, and independent. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: doing well. caller: i have a tendency to that with that lady -- on heryou just had points. i do not trust mark zuckerberg and i am totally against this cryptocurrency thing. host: why are you against cryptocurrency? caller: i think things are fine the way they are and i don't think we need to go there. host: what about the argument if we don't go there, china will? caller: that is on them. i am not a big fan of china. i am pushing 70 years old and i

just think we need to get back to the basics of where things -- how things were the way in the 1950's and 1960's. technology is moving way too fast. host: what are the basics you want to get back to, david? to start think we need reading a lot more, start teaching a lot of these college kids on these campuses more about history and geography. host: as opposed to what? caller: as opposed to teaching them socialism and all that other kind of stuff, that is crazy. host: this is cheryl out of maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a few things i want to comment on. one thing was a recording you with theed earlier

congressman talking to mark zuckerberg about how he felt about facebook and he was saying mades very innovative and this comment about how you are a compliment him like trump and how he talks about draining the swamp. i wanted to make this comment about draining the swamp that people keep on saying trump has done. i feel like he did not drain the swamp. i feel like barack obama did because when he came into office, this country was a mess.

also, i would like to make a speakingbout someone have a lot of on facebook, people make racist comments and show racist it is black racist videos. i wanted to make a comment. racism is among white people, black people, purple people, green people, all kinds of people. i have seen it all over. also -- host: we have a lot more callers and only about 8 minutes left, so wanted to get to a few of them.

kevin out of california is a republican, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. 1 out of 7 people on the planet earth have facebook. earlier you said about three out use facebookcans and to be able to censor them all -- to ask mark parker berg -- mark zuckerberg to censor everyone on the platform -- i don't believe in censorship. if i don't agree with them, i can delete them or whatever. i don't know how facebook is expected to monitor all the people. .y issue is personal privacy how i feel like they violate my privacy as far as data collection is concerned. the amount of data is absolutely incredible. they know where we go, they know where we shop.

sometimes i will have a conversation with a friend and see an ad on facebook. i don't know how that happens, it makes me feel uncomfortable. it gives me a creepy feeling. they collect so much data and if that were to get into the wrong hands, it could cause a problem for people. host: your stat at the beginning about the number of facebook users in the world, there is about 7.5 billion people on as of june 2019, that stat from facebook. paula, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. it is so interesting because my daughter and i as we got in the car, we were talking about facebook and all of this. this is timely for us. i believe -- i agree with the

previous caller that while there are things on facebook that are posted that may make us personally feel uncomfortable, i think people have the right to do that. collectione the data is the issue because it is without our personal consent. anelieve mark zuckerberg is innovator, but i think he is over his head and i think he knows this and is trying to ofage it, but he is a person a certain age -- i am a middle-aged woman and i think that comes from experience. i have called into c-span before and what i believe is there

should be a department of internet of things, which we talk about and i know when people say it is federal regulation, people get upset. i think those at this department should be developed with individuals who know that technically what the internet and that space and they can determine what the regulations would be. host: when you say regulation, you mean what would be allowed to be on the internet and what would have to come down? caller: i think that is going rights, freedom of speech, i think it would be more how to manage the data issue. host: like the privacy? caller: yep. agencies that work in that area,

i was previously at the federal trade commission and they are the privacy people and then you thinkther agencies, but i there needs to be an agency thistted to managing situation. it is getting out of control. host: how old is your daughter and does she agree with you on this? she just gots 17, out of the car. what i said to her jokingly and i may get\on this from my on thisged -- backlash from my middle-aged colleagues -- i think facebook became a thing when old people got on it. when we started using it and using it for -- i mean in the sense of middle-aged people who are working, who are political,

when wepoliticians -- got on facebook, i think that is when things started to get interesting. host: interesting in a good way or in a bad way? caller: in a bad way. i know it is not all of us in general, but when it be guy -- when it started becoming too old -- politicians to use or when people started using it as itource of news, i think expanded facebook absolutely in mark zuckerberg's favor. the thing that always put me in a quandary is how -- initially is how are you making money when people don't pay to join? host: glad our discussion could

mirror your family discussion. in florida, a republican, good morning. caller: i really appreciate what the lady before me just said. i tried to call on monday and i wanted to thank you for that was on c-span 2 -- it was --ann anne nelson and the shadow network. i lost a lot of my friends when they went on facebook because we no longer emailed or talked on the phone. you had to be a member of facebook to communicate. i think you have had a number of wisers who have been so and what they are saying -- they know what life used to

be like before we had the internet and facebook and all of these smart things like there are today. one reason i did not get through on monday -- host: i am sorry about that. thanks for pointing out the ann nelson event this weekend at the wisconsin book festival. viewers can check that out on our website. that is going to do it for this first segment of "washington journal." up next, two members of the house armed services committee will join us. democratic congressman anthony brown of maryland and later on, republican michael waltz of florida. we will be right back. ♪

politicon isn, -- live from nashville, 2:00 p.m. -- onn on this weekend saturday. speakers include james comey and chief analyst for abc and nbc news nicole wallace, sean hannity, and al franken. any timee on c-span, on c-span.org, and listen using the c-span radio app. i am, i am not caring too

much about popular opinion or pleasing a consumer. when we socialize things like health care, we will no longer be bankrupt and will not worry about your bills, but you will have to have rationing. >> sunday at 9:00 p.m. on afterwards, canada -- kentucky senator rand paul talks about the history of socialism and argues there is a new threat of socialist thinking on the rise in america. he is interviewed by congressman matt gaetz. >> it seems like you are making the argument that a country that becomes more socialist becomes more selfish. >> it is an irony and away because they would profess it is for the other man and in a way, it is driven by selfishness. >> watch afterwords on sunday night at 9:00 p.m. on c-span

two. washington journal continues. . host: the first of two house armed nervous his committee -- army anthony brown services committee members, anthony brown. i want to hear your marks about the president's "great outcome" in syria. creatings remarks were a sense of victory and accomplishment, whereas it is anything but. i rarely agree with mitch --onnell, but he certainly would certainly adopt his characterization that this has been a grave mistake on the part of president trump, withdrawing u.s. troops, a small footprint, from northern syria. it leaves unanswered questions

and increased risk for america, the possible reemergence of isis. yesterday, we did not hear much about how to counter that. we did not hear anything about what steps would be taken to prevent ethnic cleansing, as turkey has promised to return perhaps up to 3 million arab syrians to that region, and what that will mean in terms of potential clashes with the syrian kurds. it left us wanting for answers. host: what was the alternative, to keep troops in syria indefinitely? to keep troops between turkey and the kurds in a shooting war, surge more troops in the region? late: the decision made in september to remove the 50 or so u.s. soldiers, that was necessary because what we don't oft is a small contingent

u.s. soldiers between two converging forces. when people say the president greenlighted turkey, the green light was back last year in december when the president announced we will withdraw 2000 troops from syria. at that time, turkey began to mobilize its apparatus to prepare for an invasion that would take place and did this year, an attack on the kurds in northern syria. the right approach, we learned this lesson in iraq. we were applying it in syria. you have a small footprint of u.s. personnel and assets, intelligence and special forces who advise the syrian kurds to do the fighting, and that is what they did. unfortunately, they did a lot of dying, over 10,000 syrian kurds died. they were countering isis. that was our goal as well.

we had a partner on the ground. identify reliable partners and let them fight the fight. host: the plan was perhaps a even smaller footprint guarding oil fields in syria and troops in western iraq would be able to go in if isis reemerges, but some pushback from the iraqi government whether troops would be allowed. what is your understanding of the deployment picture? guest: this is another example of the president's lack of knowledge, ignorance and indifference to conditions on the ground and the consequence of his decisions. iraq and formed the united states, or signaled to the united states last year when president trump indicated we would row -- relocate the forces from syria to iraq, iraqi officials said that is a nonstarter, not going to happen.

briefings a number of from senior pentagon officials. much of it is classified, but the idea of withdrawing all of our troops from syria provides a wide opening for the reemergence of isis. as has been publicly stated, u.s. forces moved to use it -- eastern syria. there to needs to be counter any reemergence of isis. the question will be, who will be our local partner? up inhe kurds step partnership with the united states? it is less likely today than in the past. i don't anticipate that we will have u.s. forces in iraq, other than those training iraqis on their internal problems, i don't think we will have many u.s. forces in iraq that will have as

its primary mission countering isis in syria. host: congressman anthony brown joining us for this discussion we arehington journal." taking your calls, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 talk about what the armed services committee is doing on the syrian front. guest: what we are anticipating in congress, and it is not necessarily an armed services committee initiative, is looking at whether we need a sanctions bill. the resolution last week or the week before, the actions to withdraw syria troops, and sent a strong signal to turkey. the next step would be strong

sanctions, certainly in place and ready to execute if turkey does in fact engage in ethnic cleansing. it has been reported that there are warm crime -- war crimes that have been committed over the past two weeks as part of this turkish invasion into northern syria. younext step for congress, cannot force the president to keep troops anywhere, but you can defund an operation. congress cannot push troops into a region. that is an article to presidential function, but sanctions is something we should consider. host: you could enforce sanctions if you had a vetoproof number. imposedhe sanctions he have no effect, so short-lived, and we are not sure to what the

full extent of the sanctions were. i think we need to be ready to do that. we need to tee up a bill that we can pass, and if it is vetoed by the president, that should not prevent us from doing what is in the best interest of the united states and express the will of the american people. host: ronald out of philadelphia, independent, good morning. caller: i would like to know what is going to be the deal if the syrians decide to join isis? thank you. have a good day. guest: the interesting thing is that nobody really supports, likes, or would likely join isis. regimee barbaric assad wants to see the defeat of isis. russia wants to see the defeat of isis. iran as well.

the only problem is none of them are willing to take the leadership to pull together a coalition to defeat isis. the only nation that has done that is the united states. we pulled together different coalitions, in syria with the syrian kurds. we called it the syrian democratic front. it will take u.s. leadership. that does not mean it is only the united states engaged in this, but it will take united states leadership. i don't think the syrian government will join with isis, but my concern is syria joined with russia and iran pushes u.s. interests out of the region and strengthens russia's influence. host: from new jersey, david, a republican. caller: the congressman is very articulate, and i do not agree with what president trump did. at the same time, let's go back

a little bit with the democratic party history when it comes to defense. this is a party that [indiscernible] host: we are losing you, but to your point going back to what the democratic party has done on defense, why don't we let president trump talk about it? he did yesterday, comparing his trump in syria to the obama administration. >> the last administration said assad must go. they could have easily produced that outcome but they didn't. they drew a powerful redline in the sand, you all remember the red line in the sand, when children were gassed and killed, but did not honor their commitment as other children died in the same horrible manner. commit --honor my

commitments with 58 tomahawk's. u.s. troops are still on the ground in syria. host: congressman brown? guest: let's not forget, if we want to look at the obama administration's approach to syria, president obama came to congress and he understood that it was going to take a u.s. military presence to address the challenges there, the emergence thesis, perhaps stabilization of an unstable syria. president obama came to congress and ask for an authorization to use military force, and that is what a president ought to do, come to congress and lay out the problem set and what a solution is and say, i need authorization because i'm going to introduce military force.

congress could not bring itself to authorize the use of military force. host: the authorization of use in military force in syria would pass now? guest: no. let me back up. on a bipartisan basis, members of congress, both chambers support a small footprint in syria. so i think there is support for that. is, is that congress up an considered taking authorization for the use of military force for 17 years. the last one was in 2002 to go into iraq and the first one recently as 2000 want to go into afghanistan. then we have seen a proliferation of military deployments and engagements, syria, iraq, afghanistan, throughout africa on the aumf.

there has not been a robust debate about that in 18 years. now that the democrats did mend onto the defense authorization act some language that would limit the use of that 2001 aumf as it relates to iran, but we -- aboutll and robust military forces around the world. caller: thanks for c-span, best show on television. i don't know how to put this -- russia isrt out with, definitely an enemy of israel and it will all be coming down to israel. when you think about the world , it is theall area biggest problem of the world. i want to approach something is where we are at.

beginning,ar of wars this does not signal my return, these must come, but the end is not yet. the nations and kingdoms of the earth will rise against each other and there will be famines and earthquakes in many places. all this will be only the beginning of the horrors to come. group, only when god comes upon us -- host: i think we got your point. guest: i am having a little difficulty understanding the call or the question or the gist of the conversation. , theng about forever wars united states post-world war ii put in place, led the effort to establish an international order that has benefited our country, and many countries around the world.

in order for us to minimize the wars, the conflicts that the united states is involved in, we have to do a number of things. we have to work with allies around the world. we have to have a robust diplomatic effort. this administration has essentially gutted the state department. there is no diplomacy going on. in syriac, there is only one state department diplomat. we need to invest more in humanitarian aid and assistance to help those nations where they have fragile governments, unstable societies, weak economy, very little opportunity where you often find war, conflict, and strife. we have to partner with allies around the globe and that is how we minimize the likelihood and potential of conflict. host: less than 15 minutes left

with congressman anthony brown, the first of two armed services committee members that will join us. the other one is michael waltz, republican from florida. he was part of that group of stormed thewho impeachment probe yesterday. you likely saw the news reports of those house republicans going into that deposition hearing room yesterday. what are your thoughts? what are your concerns about republicans? there has not been a formal vote on impeachment. republicans say democrats are scared of holding that vote for the moderate members in trump districts, or they do not want to give the republicans the power to subpoena witnesses. why not hold a formal impeachment vote in the house to start the probe? impeachment is laid out -- it is in the

constitution, there is not a lot of detail to process and how an impeachment can be conducted. the house has a set of rules and the senate has a set of rules for an impeachment trial, and there is nothing in the constitution that requires a formal vote. what is important is that we get to the truth and that we have a fair, open, and transparent process. if you look at the process we are in right now, 24%, almost a full quarter have access to that hearing that is taking place behind closed doors in the house intelligence committee. it is behind closed doors because a lot of the information is classified and we do not have the benefit of a special prosecutor like in the clinton and nixon impeachments where it was done behind closed doors and presented by congress. we are doing the work of the special prosecutor.

one out of every four republicans -- that is -- i am on a committee that may have 10% of the full membership on that committee -- these hearings have 25% of the membership. host: we are talking the house intelligence committee, foreign affairs, and oversight. guest: there are absolutely no restrictions placed on republican members or their staff that do not apply to democrats. there is equal access to the witnesses, the documents, and the process. adam schiff has stated that once notas organized, and i'm saying in a manipulative way, but organized the information, reviewed documents, and can presented to the public, there will be open hearings to demonstrate the evidence to go to the truth of the matter. the idea that you have to take a inmal vote is found nowhere

law, statute, or rule. i personally believe even if we took that vote we would still see the grandstanding, stalling, delays, and ploys we saw yesterday from republicans. host: alex in new york city, democrat. caller: hello and thank you for taking my call. [indiscernible] having a couple of callers whose connections are not working well this morning. i apologize for that. richard, athens, tennessee, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call. the question i have is where is the u.n. in all of this right here? we hear a lot of talk about funding of the u.n. and who is all involved in the u.n., but there is nobody else that ever

steps up except the u.s. servicemen and women. we have been put in the position of being the world policeman. i just wonder how the representative would be able to familieso the goldstar of what their sons and daughters are dying for. guest: look, i think it is a great question. think this before, i morning, that the united states should provide global leadership but i want to ensure you, i don't think that includes necessarily u.s. men and women always on the front line of every fight. i believe that syria is a good example of what we learned in iraq. let's empower local partners and allies, people who have a stake in the outcome of these armed conflicts, and let's empower them to fight that fight so that

we don't see needlessly young men and women, or any man or woman from the united states having to needlessly die. the united nations should be involved in efforts like this and we should as a nation, the united states, we should be looking to bring together a coalition of partners who are willing to pursue the same ends. that is the investment of a military effort, diplomatic effort, and whatever humanitarian aid needs to be applied. we should not do it alone. in this administration, it is america first, is really the america alone strategy. i would suggest that america first should be global leadership and always looking to develop partners and allies to engage in the areas around the world where we are engaged. host: madison, mississippi,

carl, independent. caller: i would like to make a comment to the congressman mr. brown. the situation in syria has been around for years. i was a sophomore in high school when i saw it in 1974. the situation has always been to protect israel. we have to put it to the question. that is why we are there, to protect israel. the turks go back to the ottoman empire. they use to control the whole area of saudi arabia today and 1935, iran,in persia changed their name. most of america don't know the history. all we doing is going through bushirst gulf war, george

and king for hod. i used to work downtown in riyadh. we are going through a lot of issues. it is overextending america, but the thing is, it is all about israel. guest: thank you for your service. you mentioned you were a gulf war veteran. israel is an important ally in the region, there is no doubt about it. it is a stable democracy. it is not perfect, nor is the united states. it is a democracy that is evolving and has its own internal challenges. we have a strong relationship with israel, both a military relationship, economic relationship, cultural relationship, and i think it is one that ought to be protected and defended. we also have a strong relationship with turkey. thaty is a nato ally and

is what makes this situation in syria so difficult, is that we are seeing a nato ally applying ,orce in such a way in syria which pushes the united states out, exposes us to the risk of isis. we have no guarantee turkey will pick up the fight against isis and no guarantee turkey will do everything that needs to be done to make sure the 10,000 isis fighters that the kurds are holding in detention will remain in detention, or that turkey will assume the custody of those isis fighters. this is a troubling scenario with a nato ally. i should also add that you have a nato ally in turkey. i do not to bring in too many unrelated issues, but the f-35 program, they were a partner. they were part of the supply chain and yet they want to buy air defense s-400

missile systems which are designed to shoot down the f-35. it is incompatible. turkey is a nato ally has been difficult to work with -- turkey as a nato ally has been difficult to work with. we do not need to shun them out of the nato orbit. we need to bring them back to the goals of this alliance. cincinnati, ohio, democrat. caller: good morning. i am really glad that you finally, in my opinion, explained what happened with president obama, that he did not get the authorization to do what he wanted to do. congress would not do it. what i wanted to talk about with this withdrawal, what bothers me and all my uncles who are combat

veterans, i have always heard that the withdrawal is one of the most dangerous times and army faces. is how dids me president trump get it? actions trying to get out of something. what worries me about this man, does he think about the consequences of his orders and what the military has to do? guest: you are absolutely right. awithdrawal of forces from theater of operation is as dangerous, if not more dangerous, then going into the theater. one of the problems that you have with president trump is he speaks too often, too much, and too loudly about the decisions he is about to make, even when

they involve sensitive but dangerous military operations. and if you are going to withdraw troops, just like when you are going to introduce troops, you notify the troops. often troops are told, you cannot share this with your family. then we will notify the press and the world later. i agree with you that these broad pronouncements of withdrawals do not necessarily -- i think they endanger u.s. forces. host: i wanted to save a minute or two to speak about your late maryland colleague, elijah cummings. guest: i cherish elijah and will miss him dearly. he was such a close friend, reaching out to me on so many occasions, offering advice and cancel -- counsel. one thing i admire about elijah is that if you look at the 20 plus years he was in congress,

he stood for empowering people. that was what the theme was of his very first floor speech, and how he conducted himself every day and challenged us. he said, we are better than that, always calendaring us to be better, focus on the people. lying injah cummings repose today at statuary hall starting at 10:30. assuming you will be there. guest: i will be. host: congressman anthony brown, come back again. guest: i well. -- i will. florida,hael waltz of and later on, kimberly leonard to talk about the future of the affordable care act. we will be right back. ♪

>> this saturday on american history tv, on lectures in history at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the 1981 trial of jean harris, accused of murdering hermann turn our. >> jean harris was smart. she did well in high school, went to smith college, graduated phi beta kappa. did everything a wealthy woman of that era was supposed to do. she said there was a struggle over the gun and there is evidence that she is boost. there is evidence he had her in

ways he had never hit her before. reel america, president nixon's 1969 silent majority speech. majority,at, silent and my fellow americans, i ask for your support. theedged to my campaign for presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace. plan ofn issue and a action that would allow me to keep that pledge. >> sunday at 6:00 p.m. easter, john amberg on his time as a hostage. >> what says in your culture that permits you to detain a guest against his will? presidency,n the ronald reagan's white house --

director, on the campaigns for the white house. >> reagan just cleans up in new hampshire, wins like 2-1. there is so much momentum, it is a good thing we won by such a big margin because we already spent most of our money. >> explore our nation's passed on american history tv, every weekend on c-span3. washington journal" continues. host: welcoming michael waltz. before we get to syria, a line from "the washington times," republicans storm the impeachment probe. we saw a lot of headlines about that and coverage this morning. what did you hope to accomplish? guest: it was really out of frustration. i was reviewing last night the

rules that were adopted for the nixon impeachment hearing, which prior to that we had not had this in over 100 years. i would encourage your viewers to look up house resolution 803 in 1974, which the house voted on and adopted the rules. the thing that is so frustrating to me that i talked about before we walked into the secure facility is that in any country in the world -- i am a green beret and i have fought from afghanistan over to west africa and in between -- and most of those countries, unlike these hearings, the defense is allowed to call their own witnesses. in this case, they are not. the minority is not allowed to call our own witnesses. we can cross-examine schiff's witnesses but not call others. 1998, the president

was allowed counsel in the room to have some type of representation. i wonder why you and the media and others are not asking a lot more strongly and vociferously why those same roles have not been adopted, and furthermore by the house has not been afforded the opportunity to vote on those rules. what is so interesting about 1974 is the chairman of the judiciary acknowledged that subpoenaing witnesses, sending subpoenas out for witnesses exceeded his authority as chairman of that committee, and required a special resolution, a vote, and special rules. one of the lawyers establishing those rules, in an effort towards fairness and transparency, was hillary rodham. those same roles were adopted in 1998 for clinton but not adopted today. i find it infuriating that as a sitting member of congress

representing a million floridians, i am not allowed -- if you are not going to allow me in the room, even see the transcripts. everybody has been reporting on ambassador taylor's transcript from days ago, but no one has volcker's transcript which tells a different story. host: the pushback from democrats is that what is happening in the house is not a trial, it is more akin to a grand jury investigation, that this will all come out eventually. guest: the constitution doesn't lay out the rules for impeachment. those rules were developed and have been developed and adopted, and the last two times by historic precedent. this is not a grand jury investigation. we are plowing new ground. the rule ofent of law and fairness is that the other side can call their witnesses, both sides can call

witnesses, co-subpoena power, and that the accused can at least have counsel in the room to understand what is being said, who is being called, and what is being alleged. instead, what you know about all of this, what i know, the allaire kit -- american people have been selectively leaked by one person, adam schiff, and i find that insulting that i cannot determine by myself what is being said. this is a serious allegation. us us and determine what constitutes treason, bribery, or high crime and misdemeanor, only us. yet in hundreds of other members are not allowed to see the testimony. you have the narrative being set day after day with selective leaks that are politically driven to drive polling, to get the democrats to a better place to vote for this.

host: congressman michael waltz with us until the top of the hour. at 9:00 a.m. eastern we are expecting a brief pro forma session. until then, you can call in to talk to the congressman. (202) 748-8000, democrats. (202) 748-8001, republicans. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 your reaction yesterday to the president's remarks about the great outcome achieved in syria. guest: i have also worked in the white house and pentagon, handled classified information my entire adult life. every single hearing, my understanding being told by those in the room, has started with, everything here is unclassified. nothing is to be deemed as classified. that begs the question -- why is this being held in a

compartmented information facility, a skiff? host: what is that? guest: a room that has acoustics , never has windows. this case and the capital, it is down in the basement. it is very small, a room within a room within a room to prevent eavesdropping for highly classified information. it is where the intelligence committee meets. there are skiffs in the white house situation room and others, but when you are starting every hearing saying this information is unclassified, yes, we cannot have access to it, yes, it is being selectively leaked in real time, it begs some questions about how this is being run. i have worked in third world countries where these processes are run more fairly. 1974 not in keeping with

and 19 98, historic precedent of the house rules. syriac, i am very concerned. i am -- syria, i am very concerned. i am concerned where we stand with isis. i am concerned about the detention facilities where leaders have escaped because the kurds are more interested in defending themselves against turkey then defending isis. conversations with others that some camps are still in place, the syrian kurds are still protecting a good number of them, but we cannot allow the conditions to be set for isis to return. the leader of isis is still alive. he has called on isis fighters to attack these camps while the kurds are distracted.

he has called for guerrilla warfare and a resurgence of isis. we cannot let that happy. i am encouraged the president is talking about leaving some boots on the ground in syria. that is important, because maintaining our air superiority is linked to having forces on the ground so we can continue to stay on offense. and this is a bigger issue discussion of his american leadership in the world, and whether we can stay on offense, whether we should. there is a lot of talk of endless wars. andrgument is terrorists terrorist groups whether they are in syria or iraq or elsewhere, are at war with us. we cannot wish it away. if our goal is to pull a few hundred troops back, there are less dangerous places to pull them back. we have 50,000 in japan, 30,000

in korea. we still have a battalion in the sinai as part of a peacekeeping operation. to work with the pentagon defined places where we can reduce our footprint, but the existential question i am looking at is how do we deal with extremism, china, russia, rogue states, along with $3 trillion in debt? akron, ohio, line for democrats. caller: thank you for taking michael. something that is damaging our reputation. the lies are international. our reputation across the word world, we, this cannot be trusted. guest: as a green beret, we

specialize in working with local allies and i think that model like we were doing with the syrian kurds is the right model going forward. there was a misperception that there were tens of thousands of troops there. there were less than 1000 working, and they were all special operators. there were some logisticians and others, but the primary forces were special operations. the caller raises a valid point with how this unfolded. restsn mind, the blame with erdogan and the blame rests with turkey, which in talking to the white house and pentagon, we have told him time and time again, do not come across the border, do not invade syria, do not come after the kurds. we were working with joint patrolling of the safe zone to keep both sides apart, and it

was a difficult position for secretary esper to be in when the turks said, we are coming regardless and while we may not shoot at you, we will be shooting at the people right next to you, the kurds. he did not want to risk those soldiers. i would prefer a stronger stance , absolutely you are not coming. you will not endanger those green berets. the president and his team had a different choice. i think we need to reassure our allies around the world, we have green berets and special operators in 6270 countries on any given day -- 60 to 70 countries any given day. host: new york city, matthew, a republican. caller: i think it was a pure betrayal of the u.s. president

of one of its allies in the region. you can see that after years, they said goodbye. ever,more important than and now all allies are afraid of trump. they are afraid of the u.s. host: michael waltz, is that the case? about if we are talking how turkey is behaving as an , and their behavior erdogan's behavior has not been in keeping with a nato ally, from the purchase of the s-400 missile system. essentially, that is a computer with a missile attached. the f 35 joint strike fighter is a computer with wings. we cannot plug those computer systems into each other with the russians at the other end of the s-400. that was unacceptable.

we asked repeatedly for erdogan not to purchase that system. he did it anyway and with with -- is withdrawing the f-35. we have to take a look at the future of that relationship. i am not at the point where we start talking about turkey leaving nato. that would be a huge victory for putin and russia to drive that wedge between turkey and the alliance. the issue is with erdogan and his inner circle. --ione am going to continue for one arm going to continue to push for sanctions on erdogan. the president has lifted those, but we are working with the white house and the chairman and ranking member of the foreign house committee to achieve that. virginia.th from did you hang up?

adam from nevada, republican. caller: good morning. for walkingd of you down and standing up for republicans. thank god, for once. i have been in this fight since 2008 to get a republican president in that had the guts to do something. trump is performing. when obama came in office, we are in 130 countries. we are now in 150. get out. that is what nato and the u.n. need to get off their butts and do their jobs. guest: we have been getting a lot of that sentiment over the last 24 hours. , a lot ofepublicans our constituents are very frustrated with these hearings being held in secret, yet the media seems to be able to report

on them every day with things that are being released selectively from chef. -- schiff. what i heard loud and clear when i was in my district is i think a lot of crying wolf on the part of many democrats. they feel like if it wasn't russia, then it was -- we are not talking about the mueller report anymore. why? and it was kavanaugh demands to impeach him but then "the new york times" includes and retracts key elements of the story. me, all yousaid to politicians do is fight amongst ourselves. what are you doing to improve my care and my families' lives, whether it is transportation, health claire -- health care, immigration reform, these big issues we are not tackling.

to the caller's point on countries around the world, i agree with the president that our allies need to do more in terms of burden sharing. , we havek to syria repeatedly asked france, germany, and the u.k. to help us and help the kurds with these detention camps detaining ices fighters that are european citizens from those various countries, and they have done very little to frankly nothing to help us. they need to share the burden and step up, but at the end of the day, the united states has to lead. when we do not lead, we leave a vacuum. that is what president obama did when he pulled out of iraq too soon. i do not to share a world in terms of values with china and russia. the united states has to lead. our allies have to share the burden. host: out of richmond,

california, mark, a democrat. caller: you mentioned you have experience with confidential information. do you have a security clearance? guest: i have had a security clearance my entire career. members of congress do not subject themselves to the executive branch to be given a clearance. side, i am still serving in the national guard and reserves and i still hold a clearance. caller: what do you think should happen with you and your comrades who violated the security process yesterday? guest: number one, there was no classified information in the room. they have started every hearing with actually explicitly stating , nothing to be discussed today will be classified. just because conversations or information is held in a skiff does not make it classified.

it has to be marked so, number one. just by being in a skiff, and frankly as a coequal member of congress representing nearly a million floridians, there is no one else whose constituents are more important than mine. i think the question is, why isn't that information being shared with me? least allowedt access? why is ambassador taylor's information leaked almost real-time, but i still three weeks later cannot read kurt volker's information, which according to rumor tells a somewhat different story. this is serious. this should be handled with rabbit toss. yes, we walked into the -- gravitas. yes, we walked into that room. it was very cordial. we asked to have information and chairman schiff walked out.

minutes beforeht the house is scheduled for a pro forma session. alfredo in st. petersburg, florida, independent. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i want to first of all thank you for your service. to repeathat i wanted what john had said in the beginning, this is not a trial that is being held. number two, the doj should actually be conducting the investigation. i believe mr. barr decided not to, he rejected it. also, republicans did the same thing, conducted the same type of investigation when they were doing benghazi so i'm not sure what the differences. host: you bring up a couple

points. guest: there is a difference, and i'm am happy to talk to you about it, because a lot of people are making those comparisons and it is apples and oranges. there is oversight we conduct every day as part of who we are, what we are as the legislative branch. what was interesting, and again in 1974, we set these rules because impeachment had not happened in the previous 100 years. we are in completely new ground. those rules that were set in 1974 -- and i would encourage you to look at house resolution sayingsome people are this is a grand jury and some are saying this is a trial. that set the rules for what this is, how things should be handled. the rules that were established and then again adopted in 1998, you had a republican president with a democratic speaker in

1974. that set the precedent for coequal subpoena, both sides can subpoena witnesses which is a basic standard of fairness in any courtroom. can you imagine any courtroom where a defendant can cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses but are not allowed to call their own? of course not. can you imagine the accused would not have council press -- present? int was the precedent set 1974 and 1998. is anzi -- impeachment entirely different thing, deserves its own rules, deserves a vote on those rules, which we have not had, and is something that is extraordinary in our constitution that we should all go on record for. why willion i ask is nancy pelosi not take this to a vote? why will she not fairly and

openly establish the rules of the road? i still don't know what they are. they seem to be established by one or two people, nancy pelosi and adam schiff. our founders intended this to be bipartisan. that is why it requires two thirds in the senate so you cannot have a bare majority unseating a member of a coequal government. i am taking this seriously and i hope everyone else does as well. at a minimum, i would like to see the transcripts of who has come to this point and what is being leaked selectively to the media. that is incredibly frustrating and beneath the dignity of these proceedings. host: pittsburgh, pennsylvania, harry is a republican. caller: imagine you are in a neighborhood and everyone hates you, including the judge. you can be sued for killing the neighbor's dog, two witnesses

seeing you. i want to bring a lawyer? you can't. i want to come in? you can't. i will arrest you for killing this dog. i did not kill the dog, had nothing to do with that. the judge said you did and the 12 jurors from your neighborhood and two witnesses said you did, so we will throw you in jail for a year and find new $200,000. that is basically what is going on. you said just what i was calling in for, which is amazing. you guys are all using that argument. if it could happen to the president, you ought to be able to make that happen to shift, pelosi, get them in the senate. why can't you do that? you can do that. host: congressman? guest: it is another way of making the same point in the

sense that both sides should be able to call witnesses and cross-examine those witnesses, which is what we do in every courtroom in the united states, and the accused should have council. that precedent was set under nixon and under clinton. this is important. that is different from an oversight hearing like what happened with ghazi. -- benghazi. host: tony out of florida, independent. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. where from in florida? caller: just between lakeland and tampa. host: what is your question? caller: i am an independent. is, in termsgument of putting things for us to follow what is going on, i appreciate c-span because this is the first time i have been allowed to ask questions.

i could be mistaken because there is so much information coming from both sides that you don't know the problem. my point is this -- i am a former police officer. if i arrest a client, i already have what i believe to be damming evidence, i arrest him and bring him up on evidence -- charges and we go to trial. the president, as i understand it, is under investigation. this is not a trial. under investigation, we go all over the world trying to find evidence. they are going to say the evidence has been tampered and these two talked together. let's let the house see its way, and when it gets to the senate, they have the majority anyway. the evidence is going to have to be overwhelming to impeach the president.

that is the way it should be. i am not a fan of trump. host: i am going to give the congressman a chance to respond. guest: you raised some great points, and thank you for your service and law enforcement. we have had an investigation which ostensibly was nonpartisan, mueller. several years, 20 800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, 13 countries. the difference is this is partisan and in an effort to be bipartisan, both sides should have coequal powers. that was the precedent set the last two times we have gone through this. host: congressman michael waltz is a republican from florida, the sixth congressional district. come back and talk to us. guest: absolutely. host: we will take you live to the floor for a brief pro forma session.