legislative business at 2:00. part of the agenda includes a bill that would extend the national flood insurance program until september. on c-span2, delaware senator chris coons talks about u.s.-china relations and policy toward asia after a recent visit to the region at 8:30 a.m. eastern. then the senate returns to consider judicial nominations. on c-span3, a senate finance hearing on the challenges facing retirees gets underway at 10:1 5 eastern. former senators greg and conrad top testify at a budget hearing of us governm running habits and efforts to balance the federal budget -- testify at a budget hearing about government habits. th coming up, two members of congress who serve on armed services committee. we hear first from florida congressman michael waltz,

followed by california garamendi.ive john later, former small business administrator karen mills talks about her new book on how technology is impacting small businesses. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for may 14. a cofounder of facebook says it is time for the federal government to break up the company over concerns of its size and influence. several democratic lawmakers running for president expressing the same sentiment. what about you? is this something the government should be involved in if you support the idea of the government? breaking up these companies involved in facebook, 202-748-8000. if you oppose the approach, 202-748-8001. you can tell us why on the phone and on our twitter feed at

@cspanwj, and on our facebook page. this past sunday, a piece by chris hughes, cofounder of facebook, taking a look at the size and influence of the social media company, writing a piece saying it is time to break up facebook. more on that in a bit. within the story, a graphic which shows the size of the company. when it comes to the companies owned by facebook, those using facebook alone, active users of 2.2 billion people per month. on the text messaging service, whatsapp, 1.7 billion people using it. facebook messenger, 1.3 billion people. and instagram, about one billion people using that. they compared it to other social media companies. the first one that comes to mind is youtube, 1.9 billion monthly users, followed by facebook, wechat, take daca, reddit --

reddit and others. the writer saying -- mark zuckerberg can decide how to configure face algorithm to decide what people see on their newsfeeds, what privacy settings they can use, even what messages get delivered. he sets the rules on how to distinguish violent and incendiary speech from the really offensive,, and he can choose to shut down a competitor by acquiring, copying or blocking it. we are a nation with a traditional raining in monopolies matter how well-intentioned the leaders of these companies may be. it is time to break up facebook. that is just one of the arguments from chris hughes, the cofounder. when it comes to a person from facebook, nicklaus flag, vice president for communication for the company -- clegg was asked on a sunday show by chris hughes

about this. here is what he had to say on sunday. >> i don't think dismantling companies altogether is the way to deal with some of the complex issues which he quite rightly highlighted -- data use, privacy , the attempt by folks from others to interfere in our elections. i don't in any way wants to diminish the importance of those, in the heavy responsibility facebook bears to play a prominent role in solving those problems. but chopping a great american success story into a bit will not make the problem go away. they were not suddenly evaporate. >> then what will be done instead? >> first, facebook needs to do more. we are confident we will be considerably better prepared for the 2020 u.s. elections. just recently, some independent academics from a network of universities -- winston, michigan and elsewhere, have

said that misinformation on our platform has plummeted compared to 2016. and we need to do more. host: those are just some of the arguments for this idea of breaking up facebook. you heard from chris hughes, and you also heard from nick clegg about some of the actions we are taking. what do you think about this when it comes to facebook, is this something that should be done by the federal government, breaking up these companies, or should it be left alone? if you support the idea, 202-748-8000, and if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can also reach us on our twitter feed or post on our facebook page. derek in washington state, supportive of the approach, go thank you. >> i feel like facebook should be broken up because of the

interference may allow. they conspired with the trump campaign and cambridge analytica to actually interfere in the election. no one can tell me that peter teal of paypal, he was always involved -- peter thiel of they felt. what happens is they are acquiring all these companies associated with facebook and they have all this information. that nobodyell me in the united states couldn't hack into the voting system. if anyone could, it is facebook. casee supreme court is a where the israelis and russians and peter thiel actually hacked into voting machines in wisconsin, ohio, michigan -- most of them back to facebook

for a second, when you hear the company make the argument that they can police themselves, you don't buy that argument? caller: it makes no sense. ifone can tell me that -- anyone knows how to hack into the voting system, it is actually tech companies, thank you. host: that was derek in seattle, washington. robert in michigan also supports this approach. robert, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. nice talking to you again. i believe not only shifts is broken up, but it should be redone completely. it seems to me that i cannot get off facebook even if i wanted to. i tried several times to delete my account, they will not let me delete my account. there are no phone numbers you can call to inquire about facebook. when i first got facebook

recently, may be eight months ago, it was nice at first trying to understand how it works. but there is nobody would talk to and ask questions. , i said,ot on facebook i don't like this facebook business. my emailo eliminate account and they will not let me delete my email account. host: for that reason alone, you are suggesting a breakup of the company? caller: yes. if i had my way, i would eliminated altogether. i did not like it once i got on and started seeing what it was all about. there is a lot of opportunity for scammers to scam people on facebook. i had a few people try to scam me through facebook. they said they were friends, but they were not friends. host: that is robert in michigan. people supporting the effort, you can count yourself among

them, and if you want to call, the number is 202-748-8000. if you oppose the idea of breaking up facebook, call 202-748-8001 and you can, post on our various social media sites as well. on our twitter feed this morning, of you are saying -- facebook does not need the government stepping in and making laws based on whatever party is in control of the time. this is betting on twitter as well saying -- what will be next, access is the american way. i thought keep the government out of it. from robert adding this -- breakup face book. from his point of view, we need some conservative social platforms. again, that is just the social media perspective on taking a look at this. you can respond to that on the phone lines as well if you want to. one of the other perspectives on this idea of breaking up

facebook comes from cnbc. a columnist for the publication made his thoughts on the platform saying -- facebook is not a monopoly in its actual market, advertising, and the product it offers is not essential to the u.s. economy or society. even worse, it is not clear that breaking it up would solve the biggest problems with the platform such as misinformation and data collection. those problems would be better solved with targeted and regulation. looking at the company would be expensive, illogical and ineffective and sends a message that would discourage entrepreneurs, don't get too big or your success will be punished. in annapolis maryland, a supporter of the idea of working up facebook, go ahead? caller: there is a law of history of americans breaking up large companies, the concentrated power of these companies like standard oil and inhole bunch of others

history. wasess was a problem and taken as a problem in our history up until some scholars at the university of chicago figured out a way, working with some congressmen and people in out a way toigured stop enforcing the law and came up with a complicated formula about consumers. anyway, the problem is the concentrated power. that is the way in the past we managed it. in the country now, it is just overwhelmed by the concentration of power and money being circulated in these large companies, having so much influence over the politics. host: but when it comes to facebook itself what is the

value of breaking up these types of companies, like the ones you said. we did it with them, and look at all the good consequences that came out of it. we tried to do it with ibm but republicans have always been against it. they abandoned some of the big. cases and it just went away is a problem, bigness. the problem with america right bignes all around. sin the government, corporations, there is too much money that flows in public policy. host: let us hear from someone who opposes the idea. william in owings mills, maryland. caller: first time c-span calling. thank you so much for the program and everything. a lot of times, people ignore all the great things about facebook, i think, and i am

interested to see that some of the conservative people think it should be broken up, when they are for the free market. i don't understand that point of view. followase, i am a little so many people and keep track of , see pictures from family members and keep track of old high school and college buddies i never thought i would see again. i just love facebook just from that social aspect. host: what do you think about the ideas that have been brought up, concerns about privacy, concerns about influence by the russians in the last election cycle? caller: i think regulation should help take care of those items. i also believe it is up to the user to protect their own data.

one gentleman before was talking about, i do know how to eliminate my email -- if you are app, you need to adapt to the learning curve, if you will. you have to learn how to use the app. you can't just go in there with -- and say, i don't know how to use this, you have to find out how to use it. host: william in owings mills -- ahead, finish your thought. caller: you don't use high-end computer products if you don't know how to use them. those, there is a learning curve that is pretty high on those. you have to learn how to use them. host: chris hughes' piece on sunday at, when it comes to the regulatory efforts on facebook, the federal trade commission's and this mistake was to an

office moved to acquire instagram and whatsapp. they had been billed for this phone when facebook is still struggling to gain traction. the f.t.c. approved. neither instagram, nor whatsapp had any meaningful revenue, but both were incredibly popular. instagram guaranteed facebook dominanceerve it is in for networking and whatsapp give it a new entry into the mobile real-time messaging. instagram founders clashed with facebook over management of the platform, but the former properties have driven facebook's recent growth. this is chris hughes, the author of the piece. suzanne from massachusetts, supporting the idea of breaking up facebook, you are next up. caller: good morning. i am glad you have this story in discussion. we looked at this early on with

and peopleesses, said, you have to sign on because you will get more client base. we always understood what information doing, gathering, all the naivete about privacy settings and you can do this but you can't do that, none of it is controlled by in independent authority. so we never thought it was ethical. we never thought it was ethical to lower our client base to endorse this route information-gathering system. i grew up during the cold war. . what folks did to each other on both sides of the iron curtain was enough -- information gathering was bad enough in those days. but today, you voluntarily give away your most private thinking, your friends, your personal connections. we don't do linkedin either, by the way. host: the previous color had mentioned that sometimes that is on the onus of the consumer to

take care of these things. what do you think about that argument? caller: we respond responsibly to that and saying, no, thank you very much. we know what it is. it is an irresponsible information gathering system. that is why it is three. -- why it is free. if i want to maintain friendships, i have a telephone i can write letters, or a can call people. if i need new friends, i can do also some things. of -- ium is so full don't need to -- myself with the virus. host: what does raking up the that, howo does the reverse those things that you are talking about? caller: number one, it takes away this -- once people start thinking about what an ugly it is of social control come up of manipulation, as we

found out in the election, a breakup the monopoly. the silliness of the zuckerberg to say that he wants to bring everything cementing that look together, this is about as dumb bit of language as you can see. if i want to get together with people, i can do it by myself. massachusetts.n will fear from john in pennsylvania on the support line. caller: good morning. c-span.hank you for a couple of things. there was a profile of mark zuckerberg in the new yorker magazine about two years ago, a year and a half ago, an in-depth profile that -- her facebook's mantra, which mark zuckerberg has been proud to say amongst the workers of facebook, at ourt the elite, is that basically, wes

want world dominance in what we do and we want to move fast and make things. his whole goal is to control what he is doing, and he has done that. he has been highly successful. facebook has been highly successful. secondly, i am a computer science teacher and a teach ap computer science as the bulls, a three-year-old course put up by the college -- ap computer science principles, and it is a three-year course. i am in my second year teaching it. we have a unit on big data, privacy, and so forth. it would be in every citizen's interest to get yourself about just what you are giving away when you say, yeah, i want to use this project facebook sells instant gratification. the cost, your privacy and everything about you that you just give to them. host: but is this better managed

legislation versus the actual breakup of the company? caller: here is my problem with that. watching mark zuckerberg at the congressional hearings, it was like the senators and congressmen don't have a clue. , watchinghing it zuckerberg and listening to the questions, he was trying to keep a straight face because the questions were just so much -- they don't know. you have to know what you're going to legislate about and they don't know. there is not enough information on our consumer side about how all this works. you have to get yourself educated. host: ok. that was john in johnstone, pennsylvania,'s supporter of the idea of breaking up facebook. he referenced the hearings with mark zuckerberg that took lace in capitol hill. they are available in our c-span video library if you go to the website.

by the way, you can find out a bit of a milestone happening at the website when it comes to our video library. we are quickly approaching a quarter million hours of content on the website available to you mode.ee, by searching that should happen this week. all of our c-span programming library.7 is in the to help you explore some of the features of the website we have graded a quick guide -- we have created a quick link, quick guide area to help you how to better search for content. that link's available right there on the website. 202-748-8000 if you want to let us know your thoughts on facebook, particularly if you support the idea of breaking up the company because of its size and influence. if you oppose that, 202-748-8001. our twitter feed is at @cspanwj

is our facebook page facebook.com/c-span. senator elizabeth warren posted a series of digital ads taking a look at what should be done not only from big companies like facebook but other tech companies as well. >> three companies have vast power over our economy and democracy. we all use them. but in their rise to power, they have bulldozed competition, used our private information for profit, and tilted the playing field against everyone else. take amazon. small businesses have been crushed by amazon selling its own goods below market value, making it really hard to compete. and facebook by its competitors while the federal trade commission sits on his hands is seven forcing laws to keep the even.g field and google, which selectively promotes its own products over competitors. may have mastered a very powerful business, monopolize

their platforms, and forced other companies and media platforms out of business. these three companies run the internet. more than 70% of all internet traffic goes through facebook or google, and nearly half of the e-commerce goes through amazon. banctec spent most $50 million in lobbying last year alone -- tech.big they know they have a lot to lose it washington starts putting consumers first. it is time to break up these companies so they are have so much power over everyone else. host: this is family off twitter saying -- of course, facebook now once regulation. when facebook can write its own rules under this corrupted government, never saw this under democrats. and viewer says, zuckerberg should be rested up -- busted up. our facebook page, you can post

their and also on the phone lines. david in north carolina on the oppose line, hello. caller: hi,. i am opposed to breaking his company up. a majork my home for highway with eminent domain. so maybe we ought to take the whole entity and stop allowing people to censor the residents of the united states. we need legislation to reaffirm our freedom of speech, on our social media platforms and our representatives need to stop using twitter and only use social media in official capacity with their real name on it. host: back to facebook itself, why exactly do you oppose the idea of breaking it up? caller: it is his. i did not appreciate them taking my home. he made it. what we need is competition for

it. . but we don't need a twitter that limits how much we can communicate in one sentence. host: ok. from richmond, virginia, on the line supporting the breakup of facebook. hello. as an: my concern is adult a person, when you start facebook, you often think it is a great way to communicate with people that you know. when you look at the backside of it, and think about the data being collected, i really the leave facebook has become so large. and historically, if this started in harvard or wherever it was, at some point, where were the other players who resisted this type of information-gathering? what we don't know is what part of our information is riveting and more, we don't know which part of it is being shared, and also, your risk of the fact that in a large environment, it may

be a factor that this information could easily be misconstrued along with a kind of continual inundation for seniors. therisk of people getting information and using it inappropriately. i do believe facebook has gone to big with little monitoring and the wealth factor has added to it being the way it is. host: if that is the case, what about those who would say that if you break up the company for issues brought up, would it have a chilling effect on other companies who may be want to get into the space and are concerned that if they get too big they will be broken up, too? caller: as was stated earlier, there is a history of companies being broken up, that were broken up in the past because they were so large. the biggest issue with this is, we as a consumer don't know how many people are out there that are connecting and using our

data. we also saw possibly the impact they had on the election. i saw a bizarre ad that said, you can vote online. which i thought was very interesting, last year. i made a decision to pull out. however, like the tournament said earlier, you can't delete your account by yourself. you can only decide that i will no longer going to the site and continue to provide my information to them. people'si saw other lives, there is another risk long-term -- if you see children, young people using this daily, it leads to other mental health challenges relative to their inability to distinguish between what is real and what is not real. therefore, they compare themselves repeatedly. the bigger issue is, how do i as an entity that has this much power influence the larger life of everyone including me as a senior? host: ok.

jim in halifax, pennsylvania, opposes the idea. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. year, i am not on facebook because i don't want anybody knowing my personal information. that the onlytand way the computer knows your personal information is if you put it in there. my question is, all these people who freely put their information in the computer, they are freely giving away our rights and telling the government that they want the government to intrude more into our lives. idea --at about the before you go, as far as working at the company, why do you oppose that specifically? caller: because i think it is an intrusion on our freedom of speech. people have the right to communicate, don't they? when the government takes away our right to communities, we are

in big trouble. host: some of the people this morning making the case as far thehe size and influence on russian election particularly, and other matters. you don't buy those arguments either? caller: i don't. i think it is just another ploy for the united states government to get into our pocket and charge us more, and take away our freedom of speech. host: ok. jim them in halifax, pennsylvania talking about speech issues when it comes to opposing the idea of waking up facebook. luke in ohio says he opposes the effort. caller: i oppose it because as a businessman, mark zuckerberg is doing what he's doing for the good of his company and for himself as an actor for nor. himself -- as an entrepreneur. himself.

personally, i just don't see how facebook posts can influence an election so bad to where they say it did. when i see a post that opposes a person that i don't want to be president, i ignore that stuff. and if i see something that is against the person i am voting for, i don't pay attention to the. it is facebook, people. host: does it concern you at all that the cofounder of facebook is one of the ones leading the charge of breaking it up? caller: it just kind of bother me a bit because i feel that he is going rogue on zuckerberg a little bit. host: go ahead, finish your thought. caller: if he is host: we will continue on for

the next half hour, your thoughts on breaking up facebook in light of what you've heard others say. they've talked about this idea as well. you can post on the social media site. post on her facebook page and our website or twitter feed. taking a look at the democrats running for president of the united states, another entry. it's the governor of montana. he said he will join the crowded race for the white house with an voters most eager to kick the president out of office.

he painted himself as the most electable candidate and the only three-time. the hill is reporting that this morning. newspaper,o the there is a profile of john durham. he's been asked by the attorney one of to take a look at the investigations into information used in the russia investigation. he is reviewing that investigation. he's a career federal prosecutor. he is a go to leader of sensitive information's. to look at working

improper disclosure of information and the connection between russian meddling. his role will include a review of how the inquiry began and accusations by the president that they were politically biased and motivated. he was appointed as u.s. trump in 2017. next up on our support line. i support the break up of facebook. that does not mean that anybody is going to lose their free speech rights. there will be companies rushing various parts of facebook that would open up to and companies.

i don't know when this country became pro-monopoly. huge gigantic influential monopoly. they control the message. how that's free speech i don't get. i've been a conscientious objector to facebook for a long time. i don't get how people can spend all of their time on this social media. are some of your concerns? expand on that. controls the messages. it is the one entity. there used to be a number of other companies like facebook. it became enormously good at what it does. entitiesd to buy other

that look like competition. they started selling information to advertisers. it allowed entities to come in and promote whatever they wanted to, whether it was true or not. host: this isn't a legislative fix? or a regulatory fix? caller: i think it definitely needs to be regulatory. host: if congress passed laws taking look at some of these issues, if there was a law by congress. what do you think of that? caller: i don't think that's going to work. powerful single entity at the top of an

enormously influential. here's the thing. people say government is trying to control our lives. hand, it's a far-reaching industry, and i believe it can control your lives. will always be more interested in the bottom line. host: one other person giving thoughts on the idea of breaking up facebook is cory booker. it was earlier this week that he was asked specifically about elizabeth warns idea of raking up tech companies. this is what he had to say.

the don't care if it's agriculture industry. we have a problem with corporate consolidation. i will have a justice department that uses antitrust legislation to do the proper investigations. >> elizabeth warren is same break up facebook, breakup google. >> i don't think a president should be roaming around point companies without any process. that sounds like a donald trump thing to say. we need to create systems. >> she's the one saying that. her discuss her positions. we don't need a president that is going to use their own personal beliefs and tell you

which companies to break up. host: from our twitter feed this morning, facebook isn't standard oil or at&t. if you don't like it, don't login. there are many companies the site facebook need to be broken up. this -- they could not help themselves. you've heard those examples used throughout the morning. let's hear what drew as to say. he is in arizona. go ahead. topic. it's a difficult i can tell when people call in there is not a lot of information people have. facebook is mulling the idea

with something called the facebook phone. and theyave a phone loaded with their apps and software that they have, that it does become part of a monopoly. communications company, and advertising company? they are reaching out into both. we broke up bell atlantic. we also broke up microsoft. i think facebook is venturing into that area. microsoft has their software loaded on hardware. host: what other reasons are there to break up the company? it depends on what you mean by breakup. that would be separating instagram and whatsapp in two different companies run by

different organizations. host: that's the idea. once you break that up, it creates more competition. when you broke up microsoft and all the sudden you have microsoft word and microsoft windows and multiple companies. it did not infringe on anybody's rights. if they are an advertising agency, they are not a monopoly. company,re a software they are starting to infringe on that. host: that is true in arizona. this is an opposer of the idea in maryland. idea ofthe whole breaking up a company because others can't control their actions doesn't make sense.

avenuesne of the only we have left to communicate with one another as opposed to listening to a news channel with biased ideas. thing,his is a speech keeping the company from being broken up? caller: of course. if instagram is separated, how do those affect the idea of speech? isler: all we need to do refine it. just like everything else. host: fine tune it how? caller: with regulations. but the right regulations in place. host: that is right in maryland.

if you say you are a supporter of breaking up facebook, (202) 748-8000. if you don't think that to happen, (202) 784-8001. one of the other people talking about this idea was on the sunday shows. she is also running for president of the united states,, harris of california. she gave her reasons why. >> i think facebook has experienced massive growth and has prioritized growth over its consumers. there's no question there needs to be serious regulations. there needs to be more oversight. that has not been happening. they have not been adequately informing consumers about where

they are relinquishing their private information. it's not just that. i think we have to take a look at that. yes. issue, theyk at the are essentially a utility. there are very few people that can get by and be involved in their community or society or their profession without somehow using facebook. from antonio in maryland. go ahead. facebook has brought a lot of people together. where there is positive, there always be negative. some people use it for friends and family.

for that.e use it specific white should be broken up. why it shouldn't be broken up. caller: because it unites people. host: why would that be affected if it were broken up? i could do twitter. or instagram. i don't use instagram or twitter. host: pieces of the company would exist if it were broken up. you would still have those avenues. from the piece in the new york times when it comes to the government's responsibility, he writes this:

chris hughes goes on to say that america was built on the idea that power should not be concentrated in any one person. that's why the founders created checks and balances. they did not see the rise of facebook to know the problem would damagees democracy.

that's available online if you want to read that for yourself. it's at the new york times website. that is chris hughes writing the piece. in the wall street journal this morning, another tech company comes into view. this is from a legal standpoint. apple with the ruling about their app store. suit that antitrust alleges that they play -- pay inflated prices. it must be sold and purchased to the app store. of every app0% cut sells and a 15% cut of subscriptions after. decidedeme court monday, focusing on an issue in the case whether consumers have the right to sue apple over these practices. said they did.

that in the wall street journal. facebook is coming into view. you might want to look at other tech companies as well. should they be broken up because of their size and influence. the washington post in a related story looks at the idea of online companies and what they do about speech when it comes to freedom of speech and safety online. the massacre that took place in new zealand, it and that with meetings about the christchurch call. they are confronting violent content online.

more of those thoughts at the washington post website this morning. in new york, go ahead. caller: i oppose breaking up facebook, even though i don't agree with the government taking the our health care or government dictating our lives. facebook built that company themselves. they should be left alone.

host: once a better way to approach the issues that have been brought up into ribas c and the election? -- privacy and the election. i don't need it. i didn't have it forever. it's not something that affects my life. host: you are calling to oppose the effort. about the i'm asking better way to manage the concerns. caller: i just don't feel like it's affecting people's lives is badly as they say they are. host: parker is next up in virginia on our support line. caller: it's good to see you.

there are natural monopolies and on natural monopolies. facebook is not one of those. there are other social media groups that exist. facebook is very predatory. it buys up companies like instagram and provides a platform to other businesses with hardware and advertising. it's taking away privacy. i think the government should exercise its constitutional regulate facebook and make sure it plays by the same rules. host: why not rely on regulation and legislation? caller: it is so powerful right now. even if you find them, it's nothing. it's chicken scratch to them. you take away their power and

ensure that those companies offer more competition inside the field. there is no direct competition to facebook. william is in pennsylvania. i think this whole thing and trumput trump having a connection with his people. i don't really look at facebook or know much about it. it's all about president trump. why do you a prose the breakup of the company? caller: that's why they want to take it up. he doesn't want to communicate with his people. host: he communicates mainly on twitter.

station used to be fair and balanced. it's not no more. host: bill is in georgia. go ahead. caller: i didn't know you guys were fair and balanced. i am opposed to the breakup of facebook for the same reasons i was opposed to raking up the bell system area -- system. what do you think about the parallels the tween the two? caller: facebook was invented by somebody. why do they need to be broken up cousin guy was successful? i don't think success should be rewarded with the government telling you have to be broken up. there are enough regulations that can be enforced.

if there is invasion of privacy, get off facebook. if you feel insecure because you are on facebook, get off facebook. host: you said there was necessary regulation that deals with these tech companies. is that your contention? caller: it is my belief. overregulated the way it is. free speech shouldn't be one of them. host: peter is in maryland. go ahead. i have a heads-up for everybody. i took a picture of some scenery and i was shocked to find google asking me to subtitle that picture.

what business do they have been in my pictures? there is somebody over there looking at it and having a good time. i think it started with citizens united when they said you can spend as much money as you want. we are not going to be able to overcome that. tot: how does that apply your opposition of the breakup of facebook? caller: i don't care either way on facebook. i stopped using that. i can't get rid of it. host: tell us why. caller: i didn't really call necessarily for that. i wanted to give everybody a heads-up on google. i think people should be aware of that. int: that was peter maryland.

let me give you a number. contenthe hours of available at our c-span video library. approachingly 250,000 hours of content. you 1987, we have given access to that. if you want to check out the things you are interested in, type your interest into that box. we have put you in contact with a quick guide. it will give you better ways to searching oura of video library for content. all that is available to you at www.c-span.org. baltimore, maryland is next. they break it up

until it's out of business. banned farrakhan. i think they should start their own social media group. you either have freedom of speech or you don't. facebook has become what myspace used to be. host: what do you mean by that? caller: you remember myspace. that was a horrible social media group. facebook came along. thing, that man was talking to his girlfriend. then he picked up a shotgun and shot her head off.

the video i saw were that lady was throwing puppies in a river. host: you are saying it's because of those instances that the company should be broken up? caller: they should have a -- i've seensite some of the craziest stuff. steve commenting this morning. we are giving comments this morning on the idea of breaking

up facebook. in oklahoma, high there. support breaking up facebook. everybody thinks the government is the solution. government is always the problem. the solution to the breakup of facebook is competition. you've got new forms out there. -- platforms out there. those are coming on. facebook is going to be broken up by competition. you cannot trust the government to do anything. withlike what's going on the stuff with a deep state.

competition is right at the door to break up facebook. host: you are saying there is a competitor to facebook? caller: no. absolutely. it's a secure platform. it's unlimited to the cloud. it's a social e-commerce network that will compete with facebook and amazon. get theseve to do is alternatives. the little guys are coming on. this is the solution. everyone wants government to come in and take care of the problem. all that does is exacerbate the problem. is a supporter of the

idea of breaking up facebook. we appreciate all of your calls. two members of congress are joining us in the next hour. florida freshman congressman. on, a democrat from california will talk about foreign policy. those and more are coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> this week, our online video library marks they milestone.

a quarter million hours of content garrett all c-span programs since 1987 are available on our online library, and you can view them all for free at c-span.org. >> the c-span bus recently traveled to idaho and wyoming, asking folks -- what does it mean to be an american? be an american, it creates so many opportunities for everybody. my folks immigrated here with basically nothing, i come from a family of 10. hard work, working in the industry,d the dairy my folks showed what you can accomplish in america. i believe america provides opportunities for anybody and everybody. >> we live in the greatest country in the world. we have all of the freedoms and can enjoy all of the benefits

the consequences of our choices. i love that we can have a mix of people from all walks of life that can come together and talk what governs us all. you have every chance to try to succeed or to fail. be an american, first of all, to be a citizen of the united states is an awesome honor. it is a great responsibility because of the freedoms that you have to protect you. when 9/11 happened, that was my it wasime as mayor, and a shared responsibility to make sure we could do everything we could to protect the citizens of america, the citizens of laramie. it is a privilege. >> voices from the road on c-span. >> "washington journal"

continues. this is representative michael waltz, republican of florida, a member of the armed services committee, and joining us for the first time on "washington journal." thanks for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: tell us about your background. guest: i am a green beret background, 23 years of service now. i serve in the armed national guard. unique in thatt i deployed multiple times to afghanistan, the middle east, west africa, including niger, nigeria, senegal. years day job for many was with secretaries rumsfeld, dates, and then eventually i ended the bush administration as vice president cheney's counterterrorism advisor. understand the company was built from three of us in an attic up to about 400

employees, and we basically went after bad guys' assets all over the world, supporting the sanctions enforcement, or if you want to find the bad guys, follow the money. i am very proud of being an entrepreneur, and i recently stepped down as ceo in order to run for office. i think it was the private sector expertise, having served in washington at the highest level, and then being a combat veteran. bringing all of that to the table to serve the people of florida. what is your specific -- with counterterrorism? guest: you have to lead. and that is not always mean having troops on the ground. whether that mean to pull everybody out of the home or the invasion of iraq. we have a very small footprint. we all crave come up with, and

through local. we bring all terms of power in terms of informational, diplomatic. at the end of the day come of this global world order that we have enjoyed since world war ii has been led and insured by american leadership abroad, and i think areas where we do not do everything perfectly, but areas staysthe united states engaged, good things tend to happen. when the united states leaves and backs out and creates a vacuum, bad things tend to happen. host: there is a story on the cover of the "new york times" taking a look at involving troops, necessarily on the ground, but if the situation with iran increases come what is the best approach to iran, considering abou the last few days? guest: i ran's achilles sales is heel isran's achilles' its economy.

it is bound by hypocrisy. with the sanctions in place come with the waivers having not been ran'sed in a more, i economy has trouble. protests, daily labor sending billions abroad, including to terrorist organizations, that is really coming unraveled. i think needs to keep up the pressure. iran is focused inward, the less it is engaged in malfeasance. a very we need to send clear signal, and john bolton has done so, that we have received indication that iran is thinking about lashing out at u.s. soldiers, u.s. assets in the region, and they will be held responsible. this is not like we saw in iraq where iran sarah gets killed over -- surrogates killed over 100 soldiers. that we will not go after hezbollah or the malicious and

-- or the shia militias in iran. we will go after them themselves. i think they need to hear that. host: -- the iran nuclear negotiation -- guest: that was the worst diplomatic agreement. got itt everything and up front. go back to 2011 and 2012. thereason iran came to table ready to negotiate is because we got all of the sanctions in place, and the international community to buy in as well, and then we gave it away. it is about creating that leverage again and driving iran back to the table where we actually have a good deal. host: michael was joining us. if you want to ask questions matters,icy specifically counterterrorism matters, you can call us at (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002 . thoughts at our twitter feed @cspanwj.

representative waltz, give us your time in afghanistan. various factors about the influence of the taliban. what are your concerns about it? host: interestingly come al qaeda just released a video i believe yesterday reinforcing its ties to the taliban. second that for a the taliban, which is not a monolithic organization. it is a very fractured and franchise organization, intends it can completely divorce itself from al qaeda, and even if it does, it does not have the capability military leading people i ran out of afghanistan. we have to remember half the terror organizations still exist. believe me, as someone who was deployed a couple times, there are a lot of frustrations, and there are too long, too hard, too expensive. i do not think we have a choice but to stay engaged and to lead. what we need to do is th

continue building the afghan's military. that is going to take a long time. meanwhile, we have to keep a shorter time direct action posture against al qaeda and isis and other actors in the region. look, eventually would have to drive to some type of political peace agreement, but we have to do it from a position of strength, and we cannot just pull back and cut a bad deal. if we have to fight our way back in, that would be far more expensive. host: you mentioned fighting years of investment we have already made -- back to themd cite that we still have 50,000 military members in japan -- post-world war ii -- for the last 70 years. we still have 30,000 military members in south korea, and look at the investment we have made their. germany,o on and on, the philippines. the united states has invested

in countries around the world and taken a long-term approach, and i would argue that have the countries around the world where half of the terrorist organizations exist is worth the investment. host: is there a better way to train to get more effective results in the national security forces? guest: yes. we have to resist the temptation whenever there are the blue or green attacks, which the television does a really good job of trying to infiltrate. the north koreans tried to do the same thing with the south korean army years ago. holding back but not really engaging with their partner. i have been on the ground. you have to build a level of trust. you cannot do that with an armed guard standing over your shoulder as you are trying to have tea. it is a new ones kind of response, but you have to be out there with them on the ground, but that comes with some risks. we have to be able to accept that risk. host: this call, by the way, comes from tallahassee, florida appeared you are on with

representative michael waltz. this is christian from tallahassee. caller: hey, michael. for everything you do. my only quick thought would just be with john kerry come up to dana he was talking a whileaily briefing back, you mentioned a thing he might have said a little while ago to the iranians about waiting trump outcome of my only question is people say against the loading act, i don't know, sounds a little fishy considering iran does not want to do anything with the trump administration. hopefully our troops overseas stay protected, and i'm glad president trump is sending over an aircraft carrier to keep them protected. but you have my support. thanks for everything you're doing, and i will talk you later. guest: thank you for that. and i do agree and do believe and i have talked to a number of officials that agree that the

iranians are trying to wait a precedent out, but it is not just iran. i think china is looking at the same thing. north korea is looking at the same thing. so there are a lot of folks with an eye toward 2020. theback to your comment on military, one of the reasons that iran is that we are at a record low in terms of combat veterans in the congress. so in the late 1970's, we peaked. about 80% of the senate and the congress were veterans. now we are hovering between 15% and 18% over about the last 10 years. that is a record low in the nation's history. i think that explains a lot of the record dysfunction in this town, because, as combat in thes, nobody cares ship and the plane, it in the party, race,t religion. it is about missions and getting things dr. so i think the most veterans on both sides of the

the better. when you were sitting on the armed services committee and your hearing the questions being asked by the defense secretary and others, you cannot tell which party they are coming from. very different from the oversight committee and others. that should give you some optimism. host: buffalo, new york, democrats like, joe. hello. caller: [no audio] really? good morning. guest: good morning. caller: $700 billion. you are going to ok that, huh? father ofy veteran, three, and i am not doing that well, and i know about 20 or 30 people that are really struggling. we have had just two studies coming out on global warming. republicans are the only ones in the world who do not believe in it. the military is trying their best on their side, but $700 billion for one year? i would like you to make a comment on that. thank you. guest: well, thank you.

yes, it is a tremendous budget. it is huge. and one of the things that my house armedg on the services committee, is to get our arms around that, get my mind around it, because it is a tremendous budget. i talked to pentagon officials all the time that they have to spend it wisely. at the end of the day, how do we the billionind of dollar question -- how do we continue to combat islamic extremism, which is spreading, in my view, coupled with china, coupled with russia, overlaid with $22 trillion in debt and growing? they need to make those investments incredibly wisely. one of our jobs is to ask those tough questions of where they are putting those dollars. that said, i do think the united around theto lead world, and putting those moneys into the united states military to make sure that we are trained, equipped, and ready to

defend not only the united states but our allies and friends around the world is a wise investment. look,bal warming, though, i grew up in florida. i can tell you the beach is smaller now than when i was a child. i enjoyed the american flag coalition -- flood coalition. i think this is a national security issue as well. flooding consistently now. sailors cannot get access to the base is because the access roads are consistently flooding. i want to get past this -- is the earth warming or is it not? -- and get to the way of how to deal with it appeared i do not agree with the government mandate like the green new deal. i think there are market-based solutions in terms of energy, diversity, and renewables that we can get to in terms of making sense in terms of the problem,

but i'm willing to do with it -- deal with it. host: according to the "washington post," the pentagon intends to shuffle money from the drone program for the wall. is that a good investment? well, if you read a sentence or two kind of down the pentagon's justification, and a lot of those were excess moneys, moneys, moneys that could not be that in time or contracts employees left, so they are not necessarily pulling from those programs, they are looking for places where there are gaps, inefficiencies. i do think at the end of the day border security is national security. a pipeline, a tunnel, a cap pathway that can move immigrants, weapons, terrorist organizations and can move, you know, the bottom line is .mugglers really do not care they will work with whomever will pay.

hezbollah has infiltrated people through our southern border. t they have been arrested. two are sitting in the southern border of new york. but this is a unitarian crisis. it really is pure it when you have over 100,000 people a month, those are just the ones be entertained, and the nature has changed from young men seeking jobs to call families, the border crisis is overwhelming. i do think it is a crisis. i do support the deal that was on the table last year, which was $25 billion from order security to finally locked that issue down in exchange for a pathway for daca, dealing with chain migration, and dealing with the lottery system. i wish we could get back to that deal. i encourage my colleagues to come back to the table and solve this. clarify, if there is on money not being used, is that fair for things like border walls? guest: i wish we did not have to

deal with that, but congress after congress has kicked the can, and administration after administration has not been able to solve it. we cannot get to meaningful legal immigration reform, which we definitely need. unless we solve the border, issue. millionmnesty to all 11 in misty seekers in the united states and did not solve the border issue, then you will this have the problem 35, 40 years from now. it is no question one has to be solved before the other. host: stephen, from connecticut, you're on with our guest, michael waltz. caller: hi, representative michael waltz. how is it going? guest guest: great. caller: i am calling about iran, and to be honest with you, i do another warget into with the middle east. it is becoming another classic military mistake. and then my good friend john composing 120,000 troops

built up that i read in the "new york times" is crazy. crazy. i think it is to drop out of the nuclear agreement to start a war with iran. i mean, the pentagon is like a publication house. paperwork, ituch is amazing. in every single scenario with iran turns into an abject mess. it is a disaster. this is not the path i want to see. my military go down. guest: so if you things on the iran deal, and this is why this is so problematic. number one, the sanctions regime has to be enforced. so i ran promised that it would suspend its nuclear enrichment and suspend its nuclear program. problem is the verification mechanism had holes all over it.

number one, we could not go to the military sites, and number two, in order to go in and verify that iran was doing what it promised it was going to do, we had to give months and months notice ahead of time. that is like police going into a house to search for criminal activity, but they cannot search certain rooms. those are off-limits. and they have to let the suspect know that they are coming one month in advance. that was .1. .2 with that -- point one. two was that iran was confident that it could stop, there were two pieces to the nuclear program, the missile and then the actual warhead. they knew that they could pause on the warhead, and keep in mind, the deal sunsets in two years, outside of the deal, so pause here, maybe, we were not sure, and develop missiles, which it has launched

repeatedly, and violations of other u.n. sanctions. extend ahird piece, hand from the obama administration and bring iran into the fold as a responsible international actor, get we see them time after time after time supporting terrorist organizations all over the middle east, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that iran is topently holding america -- literally chained to the floor, as we speak, an 82-year-old iranian-american, is detainedworker and in prison, in addition to several others, like the professor from princeton are so this is not responsible action. what it was it essentially tied the united states' hands while iran continued other aspects of the program and continue to be the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. but i 100% agree with you.

i do not want to see us get into another middle east war. there is nothing like the soldiers that have to go fight it. so i think that is why you're seeing a row focus on iran's economy, to hopefully get it back to the table so we can change it. host: because you were secretary rumsfeld's advisor, you help when it into the invasion of iraq? guest: no, i was very focused on afghanistan the entire time. i was rector for counterterrorism worldwide, but i had a laser focus on afghanistan. at the time and still we had a lot of focus on al qaeda's core in the search for bin laden, when al qaeda was doing, free isis. -- pre-isis. host: let's go to massachusetts, the democrats line, carl, you are on. go ahead. fromr: the caller connecticut stole my thunder. so i will just be blunt and

asked mr. waltz, whether you are a democrat or republican, you are always -- you are lying us into another war, just like the first iraqi war, the second iraqi war, and then you are putting up all of these false flax. broke down. they probably had mechanical problems. now they are saying that the iranians caused this, sabotage or something. how can you people do this? how can you live with yourself? sakes.s -- for god's guest: thank you for that. i can tell you that i served my country with honor and integrity my entire life, and that is what i am here to do in congress and to bring that experience to the table. i can also tell you without a shred of doubt in my mind that iranian-backed militias who were instructed from tehran were armed, trained, and equipped through tehran into iraq,

utilized, particularly these explosive foreign projectiles, a very deadly form of ied's to betweentimates range 500 to 700 americans in the iraq war. so iran has blood on its hands. again, i want to end the nobody wants to go to war with iran. i think the best way to prevent war is deterrence, showing strength, and making it very clear, not be in squishy in our signaling, very clear that there will be consequences if iran malign behavior. as long as we make those red lines very clear, that is actually the best way to aboard war. policies using diplomacy, economic sanctions, i think to change their behavior in a responsible way. look, it is not the military, it is the economy and the strength of our economy.

and if we can come at the end of the day, these regimes, they care about themselves and their own survival, and they often care about making money, frankly, for themselves more so than their own countries. as long as we can start to affect that, i think we can shift them into a responsible path. host: another type of war is the trade war with china. is it worth the fight? guest: i think the president is taking a credible short-term political risk. this will ultimately affect our booming economy for what is right in the long run. its, china is stealing way to the top. it has explicitly stated its plan to usurp united states as a world leader in the 21st century. president xi all but said so in his "reelection." what is troubling to me as they have become the payday lender of the world.

what i mean by that, as you know a payday lender, someone offers of the deed to their car, the aed to their house, they take loan that the lender knows that they probably will never be able and then they take those. but instead of taking someone's cardi or home the, they are deed, -- car deed or home they are taking the country's infrastructure. they have done it on both sides of animal ca panama canal, theyn the path ofontrols our launches into polar orbit. they have actually signed up half of the country in south-central america in this one belt, one road initiative. so they are very aggressively and very forcefully using all of the elements of economic and diplomatic power to essentially, uh, spread itself from an infrastructure standpoint around the world. and meanwhile, they have outright stolen our technological edge.

this is what is at the heart of the disagreement right now. so either they are buying it out of silicon valley outright, or if you want to do business in china, the way their intelligence law and the way their cyber law works, you have to partner with a local firm, and you have to basically hand over the rights to that i.p. to do business at all in china. so either verifying it, forcing to give it over, or when they cannot get it that way, they are stealing it. but when you look at what they are rolling out from a military standpoint, drones that look exactly like ours, stealth fighters that look exactly like ours, and they have explicitly stated that if we do ever have to come to some type of conflict, which i pray we don't, they are going to not take us out carrier to carrier, take to all ofut in space, what those entities depend on. so i think the president takes it are a long view here. there may be some short-term pain, but if we get to a place where we truly have fair trade and a fair playing field, i truly applaud them for taking

, because previous of ministrations, including the bush administration, did not take this on a forceful way. host: from philadelphia, this is richard, independent line, for our guest. caller: how are you doing? i have a couple of questions. one, what do you think of the congress allowing the executive branch to continue to, you know, i guess, i do not know if it is called being engaged with a conflict without the clearing war. what is your view on that? ,wo, what is your policy source since you were in west africa, and relationship to the expansion of asfcomm? what is the "american interest" being protected by the expansion m on the continent of africa? number three, when we talk about sanctions, the population being

harmed, noncombatant, people who are not engaged in warfare being harmed from the sanctions, do the american military -- should americans have more consideration about that? host: thank you,l. caller. guest: yes, thank you. i will try to knock those out. use ofhorization of the military force in 2001, there has been a lot of debate about whether that should be updated. theseially, all oare groups and offshoot of al qaeda? which isis was an offshoot of al qaeda in iraq. we did see some sort of intervention in venezuela, some intervention where we had to go to a military option in north korea -- which again,, i pray we never have to do, because i think that would be truly horrific. then it has to come back to congress for some type of authorization, and we could probably have another longer

conversation on the war powers act, and whether that is being followed today. to al qaeda,ation no relation to terrorism, the administration needs to come back to congress. i think our interests in africa argument is. again, back to china, -- are tremendous. china, taking critical if the structure across africa now for a couple of decades. half the world's population by 2050 will reside in africa. much of the world's natural resources that all of our economies depend on are in africa. our economies depend on are in africa. north africa has a lot of these ,awless areas like the maghrib have a real lawlessness and terrorism problem. the previous caller mentioned climate change. if you look at the lake chad region where the certification tificationing -- deser

is increasing, i think there is a direct correlation between that and problems with boko haram and al qaeda and other groups praying on those people. incannot treat our interest africa like one country, i love the map where you see china and the united states stacked end-to-end across the northern part of africa, and you can fit in israel, western europe, japan and a few others. our maps are not proportional. , they just show the size and scope of it. know that africa and the more arab areas are very different than sub-saharan africa. but i think the united states and africa, a military command that takes a holistic approach with our colleagues, is a necessary and important command. and then, sanctions, the goal is to target them. for example around the tooth in

a circle right now or around maduro -- for example, around putin's in a circle or maduro's in a circle, who tends to keep the riches to themselves rather than pass them on to the people and minimize the broader effect on the country. host: the secretary of state meets with russian leaders today. should there be a stronger hand when it comes to russian interference in the 2016 election? guest: i think we need to send it message loud and clear to russia. enough. we know what you did in 2016, what you tried to do in 2018, and i think we need to take it interest approach. that is what the russians understood throughout the entire cold war, that if you continue to interfere with the heart of our democracy, the heart of our electoral system, which they absolutely did, we can do the ,ame in races they care about

in chechnya, georgia, and others. i think that is the only way to truly get their attention. supposed to get a briefing -- russia guest: one of the subtext of the mueller report was that the florida electoral network was in traded. myself and representative murphy from central florida have asked in a delegation-wide letter for a briefing on what exactly occurred and what needed to be done about it. host: when will that take place? guest: by the end of this week. host: what do you hope to learn from it? guest: i hope to learn exec at what happened. i hope the bureau will go to the d.h.s. or the national security agency to do something about it. i have been briefed on the program which had some good

successes in 2018 and is rolling forward into 2020. we make some good progress but go.ave a long way to we need to draw a bright line between the mueller or which had no collusion, and the russians, who are absolutely behind, as well as china, north korea and others, who are behind trying to penetrate our election system. can you imagine if voters. set it to show up and the voter rolls did not match their ids, and hackers were able to do that by gender, race, or geography? what the kremlin wants to do at the end of the day is the road americans confidence in the dust is the road -- is erode americans' confidence in their democracy. we need to learn the lessons, up by them and move forward. when i am down in florida, they are not talking mueller report or russia, russia, russia, they

are talking water, infrastructure, health care and other issues. host: from pennsylvania on the republican line, tom. tom, go ahead. so far you took it out on 90% of the climate. i always wondered, what embassy was on the 22nd floor of the twin towers, and why do you think america is so blessed and the rest of the world is so first? onre are some good places limit, some very natural beauty. guest: i do think the global world order we have enjoyed, with free markets, freedom of the press, freedoms that all americans enjoy in terms of -- freedoms of religion, is

something we cannot take for granted and is worth protecting and america needs to lead in the protection of the world order. we have enjoyed the longest period of prosperity since world war ii in world history. . we have also enjoyed a period where we have had a number of conflicts but a lack of great , peer-to-peer, state to state conflicts. but when we talking about russia and china, terrorist organizations like al qaeda and isis, they certainly don't share those views. i think the united states defending its allies and friends around the world like western europe and n.a.t.o., the world's most successful alliance, like the monroe doctrine in south-central america, our east asian allies in south korea, japan, australia, new zealand,

those are all fantastic things. but we cannot lose sight of that history. looking forward, we have realize that world order that i think frankly we take for granted, always needs to be defended. i am not sure if that 100% answered your question. i am an optimist but also a thisst in the sense that world order that we can't take for granted can be a challenge. host: you also serve on the space, science and technology committee. guest: we have enjoyed a period were the united states has not been challenged in space, and i think that the bum is ending. the chinese have said -- i think that period is ending. space,nese have set a realizing that our fleet is dependent on it, for navigation

and infrastructure. space is important. the 21st century space race is on. just as we dominated air power in the last 60-70 years, we now need to dominate going forward. half $1 trillion of our economy is dependent on the space. from communications, banking, stock markets, how things arrive in walmart from around the road for under one dollar, but that infrastructure is fragile and it is not built to be defended. the chinese specifically, the indians have demonstrated a capability as well, can now attack that infrastructure. i remind folks, only we have a n.a.s.a. -- the chinese do not have a n.a.s.a. equivalent. everything they do in space is backed by the military. we are out there and exploring for the sake of exploration and moving mankind forward, everything they are doing is

backed by the chinese military and we need to be cognizant of that. host: representative michael waltz, republican of florida, thank you for joining us. guest: thank you. host:, we discussed similar themes with john garamendi, democrat from california. later in the program, a discussion on small business and the arelenges facing with former small business administrator karen mills. that is coming up on "washington journal." ♪ announcer: this week, our online video library marks a milestone -- one quarter million hours of content. all c-span programs since 1987 are available on our online library, and you can view them all for free at c-span.org. once, tv was simply

three giant networks and a government supported service pbs.d in 1979, a small network was an unusual name rolled out a big idea, let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the doors to washington policymaking for all to see. bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. in the age of power to the people, this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed -- there is no monolithic media, broadcasting has given way to narrowcasting, youtube stars are a thing. but c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is funded as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government, so you can make up your own mind.

>> the c-span bass is stopping in middle and high schools across the country to meet the winners of our studentcam video competition. we were recently in colorado's rings with our cable partner, comcast, where we met the first prize high school west winners from william j palmer high school. >> and didn't really take long in our research to find all the disparities in voting rights, especially with native americans living on reservations. it was a shock to me considering that we have been coexisting for a very, very long time, and they still struggle with voting rights. gerrymandering,, too, also exists, it is still a problem. those are things you wanted to focus on. announcer: to watch all the winning entries, go to studentcam.org. >> washington journal continues. this is representative

john garamendi, democrat from california, member of the armed services committee. here to talk about among other things, the issues concerning a wrong. what is the best way for the united states to approach the situation at hand with th iran? guest: not the john bolton way. , iranc.p.o.a. was working was moving away from and had stopped their nuclear ambitions they clearly were remaining a serious problem in the area, a malign actor, if you will. now we have a situation where bolton is talking about sending 120,000 troops into the area. been there, done that to my didn't work well. by the way, there is -- been there, done that, didn't work well. and there is a requirement that congress declare war before we march into war but apparently, that is beyond the consideration of the president and mr. bolton.

host: do you think that is more theoretical, bolton's lands lands, or in actuality? guest: this is the way the administration is ignoring congress. we have the subpoena issues no.e the president says we have a situation where in the last three or four days, the president and the department of defense have moved $1.5 billion out of various accounts to build a border wall without any congressional authorization or notification. and here again, we have a situation where apparently, they are looking at preparing for war, moving aircraft carriers, other assets, b-52s and others, and now, talk of 125,000 troops without even consulting congress. it is a horrible approach. it is the constitution. -- the congress of the united states should declare war. going after a wrong -- going after iran for whatever reason

.hat may be, is declaring war using force in afghanistan is not applicable in this case. if this president thinks we need to go to war with iran, hiney needs to go to congress and say why. tell us what the plan is. here.s the goal then, if congress decides to vote for war, so be it. but until that happens, he has no authority. period. like to ask would our guest questions, 202-748-8000 for democrats republicans, 202-748-8001 s, 202-748-8002. the next front is china, the trade war. or are you seeing so far from tariffs and will do you expect from these additional once in place?

guest: my constituents in california are almond growers. as of december, they had lost $1,200,000,000 of trade as a result of the policies of this president. now, with the additional tariffs, it will go beyond that. china will go after agricultural products. we know that they were going after soybeans. there was some relief. right now, the president says we will use taxpayer money to reimburse the farmers for the policies he has put in place. so taxpayers are actually having not only to pay for the tariffs, which the president has dead wrong, it is the people of america who will pay the price of the tariffs. not the chinese, the american public. now, china has already announced retaliating tariffs. the result of that is agricultural products and farmers around the nation will again.ked yet it is easy to start a trade war. he says it is easy to end it.

we will see. we are two years into a trade war and it hasn't ended yet, is getting more severe. the impact are going to be anonymous. host: the previous guests talked about it short-term gain for long-term gain when it comes to china. you don't buy the argument. guest: what is the plan. what is he trying to get, is he trying to sell more products to china? that is not the issue. the issue is china's economic policies. there are various ways in which they support and subsidize the various economy. apparently, the president isn't considering that. it is not clear what the goal is here. host: billy from brooklyn new york, the democrats line, go ahead. caller: i was calling in regard to congressman walz' use of the term so-called radical islam, which is unnecessarily inflammatory. would you call people who bomb abortion clinics radical questions?

guest: yes i would. -- youould you like to are on with our current guest, what would you like to ask him? guest: there is no doubt that there is radical islam there. isis is a good example. if a christian group thinks it abortionriate to bomb clinics for religious purposes, that is clearly radical and clearly wrong in both cases. isis as well as what you posited. host: on the republican next, michigan, don. caller: good morning. guest: it is a good morning. caller: i would like to talk a bit, i am reading this off an address clinton gave part of a transcript, of the address president clinton gave to the nation on december 16, 1998. the transcript is it ages -- is eight pages. host: colin, you will have to

summarize because of time. caller: i would like to ask our , did clinton go to congress for a declaration of ar before he went to iraq in 1998, and a would also like to ask him, if clinton would have kept the inspections in forst, would there have been any reason to have war in iraq? guest: first of all, i believe the inspections were ongoing in iraq. regarding the question of declaration of war, i have repeatedly said since i arrived here in 2009, and even before that, that the current situation where the president is able to engage in military activities without congressional declarations, either authorization of use of force, or the rest, is not correct. trying ton

reestablish the authority of congress with many of my colleagues to declare war. madison was quite clear about this when he established this in the united states constitution, because he did not want, and i would certainly agree, did not want to have the commander-in-chief have the ,ltimate power to wage war wherever the commander-in-chief, in this case, the president would want to go. i am not clear about the clinton situation you talked about. it may be the. serbia situation in discussion, but in any case, all these years later, i have been very clear, it is congress that should authorize the use of force. theently, we are seeing 2001 authorization to use force in afghanistan being used in africa, from the west to the

east coast of africa, somalia, as theand in syria rationale and the authority to wage war. i think that is a stretch and i think it is wrong. i think congress needs to buckle issues.ddress these host: from tyler, texas on the independent line. bob, hello. caller: i am totally on board with representative garamendi's following the constitution and having a declaration of war but there is something even more important that superseded it it was the reason our states united and wrote the constitution. 12 words -- five of them in the preamble -- provide for the common defense. seven of them in article four, section four -- shall guarantee each of them against invasion. back to then get

constitution, we have a guarantee from the day of our founding that we would protect our borders, and we're not doing it. just like -- congress needs to be in control. thank you. sure whatm not quite the question is, but with regard to borders, it is clear that the current situation is an influx of families, mostly women and children who are seeking safety economy ravages of the and gangs, and other violence in the triangle states of central america. that is why they are here. the president wants to call that an invasion, and i suppose in feet.sense it my but it is an invasion of children and their parents. it is not a military invasion. it certainly is a challenge to our country. how do we deal with it.

? almost all these people are seeking asylum, which is legal in the united states and frankly around the world as a result of international treaty. they want to come here for a better life. now, is there a rationale, is their argument sound? that is what the jurisprudence is supposed to take care of. we need to be fed up. we need to improve our ports of entry, to be in with the process people.a process two months ago together with a couple of colleagues, we visited jordan and the united nation's high commission on refugees that is able to process 2500 and day -- 2500 refugees and day from syria. anything from fingerprints, information, keeping families together and being able to process those

people, incidentally, using systems.both our current customs and border patrol people say they cannot process 250 people a day. come on. this is not proper. we can process these people, if we are willing to spend the money on processing rather than on the border wall. we would be able to either judge the individual families as whether it was a valid asylum or not. if not, they go back home. plain and simple. instead, the president has ripped over $2 billion out of the military budget, which was said to be for necessary national security purposes, and used that money on holding a wall. make your choices, mr. president. your choice seems to the building wall rather than support military operations.

host: in d.c. on the democrats line. caller: i just thought it was interesting that this residence first trip out of the country , and thendi arabia fast forward a couple of minutes later, saudi arabia kills -- a couple of months later, saudi arabia kills a journalist who is a u.s. resident and that is to have been washed to the wayside. if you look at the pattern, whether it is saudi arabia, north korea, hungary, russia, the president cozies up to our enemies. meanwhile, canada, europe, china, wend now even may not be best friends, but we have had a long-standing relationship with china. look at what he is doing t here, ripping up agreements like the paris accord, trade

agreements. we need better trade agreements, but look at the pattern here. you. thank guest: i don't believe there was a question there, but there were a lot of important issues in that process. raisedsident really has a lot of questions about his relationships, certainly with saudi arabia and with russia. those are questions that congress is attempting to explore and to find out what the underlying facts are, and that is the reason for some of the subpoenas that have been issued. but the president is pushing back on all of those. we will see what happens with it. robert, onmichigan, the republican line. caller: hello. host: robert in indiana, i'm sorry. go ahead. all i see isnow,

everything on the democrat side is no, no, no. we had eight years of obama, which was no, no, no. -- california should be taken off the map, because everybody from california, look how they sleep on the streets out there. and they want more democrats in here. host: what would you like to address directly -- our guest directly to talk about? caller: you are nothing but trouble. guest: robert, as a californian, i disagree with you for a variety of reasons but the bottom line is california is a thriving economy now that fifth -- now the fifth biggest economy in the world which welcomes immigrants from around the world who are mostly entrepreneurs working hard to create a great future and in the process. a great future for california it is also a state. in the forefront of rejecting this world judging environment

-- of rejecting this world's environment. we are ahead of the issue of climate change and how to address it and that should be replicated in the white house. host: bob in texas on the independent line. caller: yes, pedro. two things i would like to talk to him about. he was insurance commissioner back when i lived in california. first of all, california is a sanctuary state. does he approve of that? secondly, does he approve of thaton and his information guam is going to tip over? [laughter] california regard to and the century state, california is simply saying that the people that are there legally in california and those that are there without documentation have certain

rights, as does every person in this nation, and that we will cooperate, all the police agencies will cooperate when there is a violent or criminal act by any of these people. it. is basically if a person's there, not involved in criminal activity, then that is where the century comes in. with regard to johnson and guam, it is often said, particularly theight wing blogs, but reality, hank johnson was joking about the amount of military activity and construction that is currently going on in guam. frankly, it is an extraordinary multibillion-dollar buildup of the american military on the island of guam. is it necessary, the answer is yes. while the island tip over, no. host: from malibu, california on

the republican line, go ahead. caller: thank you very much. mr. garamendi, i have followed you for years. i have some problems with the century city situation -- sanctuary city situation. the democrats have run the -- legislature at 39 out of the last 40 years. the system of sanctuary -- what is the word i am searching for -- it discriminates against americans. we have in los angeles county, orange county, and mentor recounting, 1.4 million illegal aliens at the current time. they use $1.5 billion of los angeles income. the democratic party has caused a great deal of this, and is currently right now working against the best interests of the people of california and of

the united states. you guys took a nose to defend oath to defend this country. i did so in the army, and i did my duty. guest: we thank you for your service in the army. with regard to a legal immigrants, there is no doubt that there are well over one million, perhaps it is 1.4 ,illion in los angeles alone but those immigrants are also a vital part of california's economy. . in my agricultural area of california, we have a severe labor shortage. previously, much of that labor was from illegal, undocumented mexico.ts, workers from what we need here in the case of sanctuary cities and of illegal immigrants and the like, we need a comprehensive immigration

reform. in that reform, we need to provide opportunities for california businesses and other employers around the nation to have an adequate workforce. right now it is a fact that some of trump's properties are hiring a legal workers -- illegal workers, men and women who are here without documentation. perhaps notunusual, unusual for trump, but not unusual across the nation, all of which speaks to the reality the 535 of us in congress have not successfully passed a comprehensive immigration reform that would address all these issues. from the asylum-seekers, to those who are here illegally, meet the legitimate employment needs of agriculture and other industries. so we got to get with it.

host: before i let you go, the house leadership and the president talked about infrastructure a couple of weeks ago. when do you think we might see the specifics of an infrastructure plan? processingave been that on the transportation and infrastructure committee of which i am a member. we are working our way through the program. we discussed high-speed internet access, broadband, highways, mass transportation. all of these are elements in this. we will also be taking up the water infrastructure, in one of the companies of which i am also a member. as we go through what we need, the scope of the work, what kind of changes in the current alsoal role, we must take up how we will pay for this. i would suggest. ways to pay for that and we will be discussing that. host: aside from a gas tax, it would consider? guest: the thing about the gas

tax is it is a diminishing source of revenue. our cars are far more efficient than we are going to electric vehicles and all the rest. we need to look at, in my view, miles driven. there are multiple ways that can be addressed, that revenue can be created or generated based upon the amount of time a car is in an area. problems.t i represent a large rural area of california. if you go to the grocery store, you will drive 10 miles, 20 miles each way. these are issues that can be addressed and we must find adequate funding for infrastructure. otherwise, it is just a lot of happy talk. host: representative garamendi serves california, he is on the armed services committee and the transportation and infrastructure committee, thank you for being here. guest: thank you. host: coming up, a discussion on small business. our guest will talk about what

she thinks are some good ways for small businesses to thrive. when we come back. ♪ announcer: this week, our online video library marks a milestone, a quarter million hours of content. all c-span programs since 1987 are available in our online library and you can view them all for free at his piano.org. -- at c-span.org. announcer: the c-span bus recently traveled to idaho and wyoming asking folks, what does it mean to be american? >> i think to be american create so many opportunities for everybody. my folks immigrated here with basically nothing. i come from a family of 10. hard work, working in the debris

industry, my folks showed me what you can -- working in the dairy industry, showed me what you can accomplish in america. >> we live in the greatest country in the world. we have all the freedoms and can enjoy all the benefits and consequences of our choices. we can have a mix of people and ideas from all walks of life by can come together and make decisions about how to govern ourselves. you have every chance to try and succeed or to fail. >> to be american? first of all, to be a citizen of the united states is a great responsibility and an honor because of the freedoms we have, to protect them. , when 9/11ing happened, i was in my first term as mayor.

we felt responsible to make sure we did everything we could to protect the citizens of laramie and also of the state of wyoming. it is a privilege. >> voices from the road, on the c-span. ♪ announcer: washington journal continues. host: our guest is karen mills. she served as a former administrator for the small business administration from 2009-2013, and has a book on the topic of small business. fintech, small business and the american dream -- karen, thank you for being with us. what is the goal and purpose of the small business administration. uniquelye s.b.a., we in the united states have an agency like this. the flagship program is about getting loans out to small businesses, and this was particularly important.

i actually got this position 10 years ago right at this time, and i was unanimously confirmed by the senate, i try to mention that these days, and th one of the reasons sva had an important role was that we were in a credit crisis. banks have stopped lending. we were able to raise the sb a guaranteed rate and get about 1000 banks lending at that time. does things around advice, disaster recovery and small business contracting. host: now that you are in the private sector, how do you describe the current state of small businesses, and what is the largest factor facing them. a interesting time for small businesses. in the last month or so, we saw some russian in optimum -- some caution in small business optimism.

the numbers say that they are still hiring, in fact, they are having a lot of trouble finding people. so business is still good on the small business front. host: i suppose getting access to capital is one of those things that is concerned. what would you say it is like, as far as getting loans on banks these days? guest: right now credit markets are very robust, and that is good. one of the things i imputed took about is this new transformation happening in small business lending. that used to be that you would go to the bank, wait three weeks and then they would say, can you give me a personal guarantee? some of that is still true, but five or six years ago, a new set of technology players him on the .cene, the fintechs what i read about in the book is how this will transform small business lending. don't think the banks are going

to lose right away, this is a fun and exciting playing field, so we will talk about who might be the winners and losers. host: what is fintech? guest: is a general word for financial technology, and it covers everything from bitcoin to launching, but i don't talk about that -- it's going to block chain -- it covers everything from bitcoin to block chain. i focus on how it will change small business technology, how it will make small businesses able to fill out navigation online, get the money in their bank account the next day but still have a good experience. and how banks can adopt that technology to service their small business customers better. host: give me an example of one of these systems, how does it work and what of the best practices? guest: in the beginning there was a whole set of new technology companies -- lending

club, prosper, who made both consumer and small business loans. it was a digital experience. now, small businesses had some good things to say about that, high,e costs were very partly because the run up banks, these were new companies getting their money from hedge funds. small businesses were paying very high prices for these loans are we at the banks, however, have come back on the scene and now fintech represents banks taking technology into their own environment in various ways. they might be partnering with a buildingthey might be their own customer experience, their own lending formulas, but this is where fintech and small business lending is evolving right now. host: the book is called fintech, small business and the american dream. karen mills is the author, former administrator of the small business administration.

if you would like to talk about these concepts, you can call us on the lines. small business owners out there, 202-748-8000. everybody else, 202-748-8001. you can feel free to post your thoughts on our twitter feed @cspanwj. you look at three minutes in your book when it comes to small business lending. the first one is that most small businesses fail and most should not be financed. guest: yes. in fact, the small business myth that most annoys me is the one where people say small businesses are not very important to the economy. there are economists who believe this. but it is a few silicon valley firms who are important, and also big business. but half the people who work in this country own or work for a small business. half the jobs. it is two out of every three new jobs. it is also the path to social and economic mobility.

that is why we say it is the path to the american dream, a uniquely american virtue. so when small business doesn't get a seat at the table and doesn't get attention particularly in washington, we are missing out. one of the things i find it troubling, i call it the political paradox. everybody is for small business, bipartisan issue. but nobody does anything. i say, what do you think of the small business act of 2019? people don't know about that. that is because it doesn't exist. nobody is putting forth real proposals, even though you can get a partisan support. host: statistics tell us 80% of businesses who start in their first year will survive 60% in their fourth year. . are those consistent numbers, and if i am a lender, are those good risks to take a gamble on? guest: the small business credit market is really a place where

we are trying to get a loan to a credit worthy small business. that doesn't mean everybody should get a loan, because as you point out, a lot of small businesses don't make it. the idea is bad, the time, the location is bad. but if the small business is credit worth the, the desire of the marketplace is to make sure to have capital and funding. the trick is, how do you know? this is the problem we call opacity.ion capacit it is hard to see a small business in figure out if it is a good one or a bad one. fintech can remove that opacity by creating small streams of data that informed the credit decision. -- if i amecond myth a small business owner, who do i go to for a loan? is the community banks and a good option, can i go to the larger bank, where do i have the most success?

guest: when the fintechs came on the scene, the first thing everyone thought was, a are going to put the banks out of business. the dinosaurs are going to die. that has not happened. the common events are still there, although they are declining. when i was in office, they were about 8000, now they are about 5000. there are all sorts of structural reasons why they are getting gobbled up, big banks still make a lot of small business loans. but these new technology providers changed again. it was a bit david and goliath at first. and watchath got up them back, in the dinosaurs woke up. now, big tech has entered -- amazon, paypal, square. so we don't actually know yet who will be the winners and losers. i have a theory about it. on the playing field, you have the small syntax, the small

banks -- the small fintechs. the others.nks and host: you write that when it comes to the decline of small businesses that the post-financial crisis maybe had something to blame for that particularly with the regulation of dodd frank and the like. guest: i am very sympathetic to small banks who feel that they really have suffered in the last few years from the burden of regulation. it was much more costly for them than for the big banks. but right now, when i say to the small banks -- what i say to the small banks is, don't look backwards. saying no more regulation, less regulation, the answer is actually, it has to be smart regulation. the questions that are coming at the regulators are really complicated, like, how are you going to figure out what is an algorithm? who owns everybody's data? will we have open banking where you can submit your data to

anybody want the way they have in europe and the u.k.? those questions require a different mindset. and by the way, they require our seven regulators will the small business ranking to work together -- small business banking to work together, to streamline and simplify. host: is that a problem in itself, that there are seven regulators just for that aspect of small business? guest: yes, it is. it is too difficult for a bank right now to navigate the world of its regulation, because one a, the otherht say might say b, they might have conflicting guidance. that does not mean there is not improvement to be had. for instant, a lot of things slipped through the cracks -- small businesses are not protected by certain kinds of disclosures that consumers are protected by.

for instance, if i want to buy a truck, i get a whole hawks, and it was a big -- the whole box, and there is a disclosure. if i want to buy a truck for my business, i get nothing, because i am supposed to be sophisticated enough as a business owner. why don't they have the same disk versions for businesses as for consumers. host: 202-748-8000 for small business owners and for everyone else, 202-748-8001. go ahead. morning.ood i am a small business owner and a wanted to express my concern for mobile companies, as my company is. we are struggling to secure loans because we don't have assets. we don't have these buzzwords like collateral. what is the future for mobile companies who don't have brick-and-mortar buildings and heavy machinery, and large equipment? guest: first of all, the future

for mobile companies and non-asset companies is very much helped by the fact that these new fintechs have come on the line, because the bank wanted collateral they could see and touch in order to make your loan. the new syntax put something new on the table -- the new fintechs put something new on the table. they said, we will take all the data about your business. we don't have to just touch your machine, we can look into your bank account, your quickbooks account, your receipt that you are taking in through your payment systems, and we can figure out using our over them whether or not to give you a loan based on your cash flow. so i think the world is opening up to more cash flow-based lending and that should help you. host: when it comes to the cash flow based lending, wendy you know that will be a success -- when do you know that it will be a success and help businesses overall. hostguest: so we are now seeing

banks saying that i don't want to lose my business to the fintechs. and they are working harder to. get the data. apis.ta comes through data pipes that did not exist a few years ago, application programming interface -- everything is an acronym, as you know. so if we get all this data that we do not have before to assess you, maybe we don't have to rely so much on physical collateral. likeince more businesses teresa's our service businesses, we need to give them funds too. so this bodes well. i would say that we are at an early stage of the innovation cycle. banks are just figuring out how to take the data and write algorithms. i think things will get better for these loans. they will be available in more of the traditional banks over the next two years or three years. it is coming.

host: she talked about being a mobile business what do you think the future holds when it comes to online businesses versus brick-and-mortar businesses? what do you think might happen in the next 5-10 years? guest: the good news for small business amazon is here and we can sell online. and the bad news for small business is amazon is here and they control a lot of the online selling. on the net of it, it is a good thing. a business now can reach markets that it can before. before.it could not i feel positive about small businesses, they even export all over the world, local businesses can use the internet to go to new markets. host: let us hear from joe in pensacola, florida, a small business owner. caller: hi. i have been a small business owner all my life. i did good to my was really lucky, but it was mostly government getting in my way.

up in connecticut, you have to pay what they call a "just being there" tax. i can tell you about my businesses in the second, but they charge me 250 a year just for -- they collect business identity or something. the same tax that they charged general electric before they left connecticut. 250. if i don't do any business, i have to send a check to the state of connecticut for $250 even though i don't have any sales that year. i don't want to lose my llc, so i just pay it. another thing, i love small businesses. i heard the lady talk about how we need to be able to get bank money. let me tell you, unless you are buying buildings or something, that kind of small business, in a person -- in a person

who needs to go a bank or your small business, you are doing the wrong thing. i started my small businesses idea, telephone, a good knowing what i am doing, overspend. and don't host: where did you get the initial capital from? -- or instance, i started the music business. i found an old -- who was very good. he never recorded. i saw him playing in a bar and i said, i will start a record company around the sky. we recorded him, i use my own money, and it worked. when i sold that one cd, i just oneve a lot to my cd of this guy and i sold it for two years. going into little record stores one at a time. the record businesses, it is like a consignment business.

you go in there and you plead, please put this record on your -- host: joe, thank you for the story. guest: i love the story. joe, you are a great american entrepreneur. you come up with an idea, you have a lot of hustle, you have a good eye for talent. you made it into the cd, you sell.he cd and you make an important point, which is that you can't get ahead of your cash flow. it is ok to take a loan for something that you know you can pay back. maybe you've got a seasonal problem, maybe you are going to need a piece of equipment in order to grow, but you have to be very careful when you take out debt that you know how you're going to pay it back. that is one of the things some of the new fintech dashboards and cash floor forecasters -- cash flow forecasters will help people do. which is see into the future and see what is the loan that is right for me?

i sympathize on your point. every state has a business task. that would be very happy if a text the big businesses more than the small businesses. point taken, good one. host: denise in texas, small business owner. caller: hi. my business is clothing. is, my nameber one is brandi -- donald trump is branding. it that nowadays, -- classic branding? the second question is, which and more leaning toward small business? guest: branding is really important for small businesses. and actually, there are some really interesting questions about whether you should put your name on a small business.

trump put his name on it, martha stewart put her name on it. but in general, people say that sometimes you want to make another business. if you decide to sell it, and might not have your name on it. that not putting the business use and growth that you have growth ideas. there are economist at i. m.i.t. that say that that have people's name on it don't grow. it tends not to be a growth business while some other products tend to be worth businesses. i think it comes down to you. is this brand is something that communicates you and your product, and your customer value proposition in a way you feel proud of? that is a personal decision you might make. host: by the way, on twitter, matt smith that application program interface, the term was

correct, that it is basically a communication platform between two programs. another viewer had this to offer, saying -- sb in loans for just need businesses, how do you show cash flow if you need a loan to start your business? guest: that is the hardest thing in the world to do, how do you start a business and prove that you have got a track record? location of the nsba loan will be made -- occasionally, a s.b.a. loan will be made just to start a business, but most start their businesses with friends and family money. some people max out their credit cards and take a lot of risk that way. but it is very hard to get a bank loan, that is the truth right now, to just start, because you don't have a history. host: from our all others line, this is linda in ohio. caller: good morning. i have a question from the general public. my son's girlfriend wants to start a small flower shop, which

i think is not a good idea because she's not quite with it yet. so i recommended that they set up an appointment with a local score community. the serviceknow, corps of retired executives, i wanted to know if you thought that was a good suggestion, if they are helpful, if they are even still much in business. we have them near akron. . there is an akron chapter. but is that a good suggestion? are those people helpful? guest:. that is a brilliant suggestion s.b.a.s part of the couns small businesses across the country. els these are experienced small business owners, 12,000 of them.

the best thing is that they are free. they will walk you through starting a business. it is a terrific idea. i love seeing young people think about entrepreneurship. but business is hard and you don't want to go into it without your eyes wide of an and without a plan. so the score person has to walk through and make sure that your son's girlfriend and this flower shop have really a plan in front of them before you make that kind of investment. host: are there certain types of small businesses generally that do better at startup and continuing on? guest: federal think it is the small business but -- i think it is not as much of the small business that the entrepreneur. there are serial entrepreneurs, like a gentleman in the music is nice, that is just who they are. my grandfather came to this country, he was an entrepreneur to his core. they used to say, in our family, we don't work for other people,

we work for ourselves. there is something special about america that we nurture these kinds of entrepreneurs, that other countries don't like failure. and it makes it too hard to start a business. they are almost envious of our american culture, that makes an entrepreneur the hero, almost. host: our guest is karen mills, she served as the former administrator for the small business administration under the obama administration, and is fintech.r of a book on tell us about the idea of where you got -- the story of where you got the idea for this book. guest: i was an administrator of the s.b.a. during the financial crisis. 10 years ago the country was in dire shape. we can't forget how tough it was for small business owners. i tell the story about being able to in the s.b.a. increase he loan guarantee rates to

90% and get a lot of banks back to lending. i went. south of little rock and i was standing in the middle of a muddy sawmill, and it was really cold. the wife of the business owner, who was the accountant, she looked at me and said, you saved or business. i heard that hundreds of times. what it brought home to me was how important capital is a small business in this country. when capital markets froze, we lost 1.8 million small business jobs in that first quarter. so i feel that having a chance to make sure that small business credit markets work well for small business was a real honor of the s.b.a. now, it is a game changer. because technology has the ability to transform small business lending to an even better place.

i think it is a bit of a magical moment so that is why i wrote the book. host: what do you do besides right books now? guest: i teach at harvard business school. i teach entrepreneurship. the students in the mba program. i teach them about different entrepreneurial situations and how they might start and grow their businesses. i am also still a venture i buy small businesses and try to make them better. from beverly in washington, d.c., a small business owner. caller: hello. time becauseite a folks are supposed to pay rent, and i 15 judges to deny me the rent. host: keep going. you're hearing the television. we got your first part. keep going. caller: i had this house rental

business in the person owes rent for four years and i have had in judges to look at it and not pay me any attention. they pay attention to divorce lawyers. host: thanks. real estate? guest: you have seen this with airbnb. people are making off -- money off of properties they rent. they tend to be good is insist. these have risk. beverly is in a tough position. she is not getting her rent and the judge is not giving her any time of day. situations, you sometimes have to look to cut your losses and what other remedies you have got. business is ups and downs. you always need a plan b. host: airbnb. those disruptive businesses might have the most risk but the most to gain in the long run. guest: one thing i think is exciting about this whole

economy is it gives people a chance to be entrepreneurial on the side. .his is good for the americans sometimes, their side business and side hustle, around being the main job and main business, i think it is a good trend. has it -- host: has it morphed in the last years? guest: there are 30 million small businesses out there. of them have no employees. that is 24 million people either self-employed or part of the gig economy. host: seven you are outside of the world of the federal government, to what level should the federal government be involved in creating new pools of capital? should that still come from the small business administration? guest: i think the government

has his role is to fill market gaps. one of the things we know is the market for credit and small business land does not work perfectly. it had -- it has always frictions and barriers. we hope technology will get rid of some of them. they tend tost, discriminate more against women owned businesses and underserved minorities. the fda portfolio is meant to fill some of that gap. in women owned businesses and other minorities and 95% of the loans that they worth of billion loans, were good. we only had less than a 5% loss rate. low-cost way to taxpayers, because it costs taxpayers almost nothing, we are for filling an important market gap here that is the role of government. barbara is in north

carolina. caller: yes, good morning. this is barbara young. i have a quick question. business owner who started my business back in 1990. real estate. had a plan b like you mentioned. it is important that people going to business, it was very difficult for me to start my business because i was a two kids, and and no one wanted to deal with me. but i did it. people need to understand what it is like to do your own business. it is very difficult to spend spent many 2:00, 1:00 hours at night. important we get education to these people that want to start the business and that is all. wonderfulnk c-span is

and i think we need to focus on education in this country especially in north carolina. host: before you go, you said you had a backup plan. tell us a little about that. plan b was i started a property management company. said, youcant other will be gone all the time. that is my choice. this is my life. i want to open my property management company. i am down to real estate now. you have to have a plan b always in any type of business i saw. i did work. i worked in planning and i saw all of this development. i knew i could do it. >> it is a push.

you have to push yourself and expand the basis. pains.through growing i look back now and probably could have done better. i know what i should have focused on, out in the field, hiring a manager. this is a great story. it makes my heart warm. success of the business here you sold it probably at the right time at the peak. point, abouther mentoring and education and helping to know what they're doing. i think technology will make it easier for small business to get the same technologies. they will create a small

business small business correction. i call it small business utopia. what if you had the ability moving forward to see is my cash flow going to be ok? where are my downspouts? i think that is where the small business utopia could be a game changer for small business owners so they could know, do i need alone, what loan is right for me, will i be able to pay it back? i am optimistic technology can help both the lender and the small business owner. host: from florida, your last call, go right ahead. caller: i appreciate everything you said. i look at small business owners as pioneers. an american thing. are willing to leave full paying jobs with medical benefits and branch out on our own with no help from the government. us and we arehelp

starting a business. 24-30,000nd add dollars to one business and how do you start off that? the best thing we can do is to take care of the medical situation. who do theiry jobs. go ahead and jump off the system dealing wither diabetes and a daughter. business.ing a just know that we suffer out here and we lose people. we had plans, 20 pages long that would fix this and made it the most productive generation ever. if you release the

entrepreneur's in full-time jobs they hate, we would be amazing. thank you for the time. when we did obama care, there was a whole provision in businessmall health-care exchanges. exactly for this purpose. small business owners want to provide health care for employees. exchangesaccess for for their small businesses. i think this needs to be on our agenda so i'm glad that you brought it up. host: what would be the go away advice. what would you tell them going forward? i would say the new syntax and technology environment will give you more loan options. is a bit of a wild west time.

some of those are expensive. you need to make sure you understand your business. you need to make sure you know you can pay back the loan, and you make sure you know your cash flows going forward and make sure they reveal to you all of the costs. so you don't get stuck with a loan. was a formerills administrator for bob -- small business administration. thank you for your time. for 20 minutes or so, chime in on two thoughts. withpompeo expect to meet putin and other leaders today. you can talk about particularly what you might want to hear from them. william barr, a special prosecutor to look at origins of the russia investigation. one of those two topics, you can talk about.

call for democrats, republicans, and independents. we take those calls and come back. ♪ >> this week, our online video library marks a milestone. all c-span programs since 1937 -- available in the online available online. >> the c-span bus asking folks what does it mean to be an american? >> it creates so many opportunities. nothing, hard work and working in the farming and dairy industry.

it shows me what you can, should america. america provides those opportunities for anybody and everybody. >> we live in the greatest country in the world. we have the freedoms and can enjoy the benefit and consequences. i love it. a mix of people and ideas from all walks of life that can come together and make decisions about how to govern ourselves. andhave every chance to try to succeed or fail. first of all, to be a citizen of the night states is also an honor. a great responsibility because of the feelings we have to protect them. it is interesting because when 9/11 happened, that was my first term as mayor. we got together a task team for a key responsibility to make

sure we did everything we could to protect the citizens in the state around me. >> on c-span. >> washington journal continues. statethe secretary of will meet with russian leaders including president putin. the roles of the u.s. attorney when it comes to looking at the russia investigation, you can, it -- comment on that. if you go to the website this morning, there is a profile of u.s. attorney john, for the russia investigation review, joining us on the phone. one of the authors of that story, good morning.

could you tell us in short with the u.s. attorney has been tasked to do? >> from what i understand, he has been tasked with looking into the origins of the so-called russian probe and decide whether it was properly executed. host: why was he chosen by the attorney general? >> he has been involved peripherally in russian matters for some months. goodnk he has a pretty reputation. been doing these things, prosecutorial going all the way back to the clinton -- clinton administration. his diligent and works hard and keeps his mouth shut.

i respect the way he works. >> as far as some locations he has what is the highlight -- >> janet asked him to go to boston probably in the late 1990's. information first starting to become public, certain members of the fbi office in boston, had an unholy relationship with organized crime leaders, -- and his partners. him and try toth find out to find out how serious they were. he was very effective.

the whole web was unraveled and exposed. and i think it was not long after with the bush administration, george w. bush attorney general mckay z, to look into the ,estruction of the videotape the enhanced interrogations that -- the 9/11 attacks. step wasnext revisiting the investigation under the obama administration. host: your story mentions that he was appointed to his position

by the trump administration. how much do you think that will thist his ability to do and the results he will see from ?t >> i have been covering this guy for 30 years. a well-known figure and highly respected. impartial.utely and a maniac when it comes to being impartial and thorough and diligent. it does not matter who appointed him p or will do it he has to do. once he gets going, he is almost impossible to stop. host: will he conduct the investigation on his own? >> you know, no one really

knows. know, out of control when it comes to privacy whether he can tell his wife what he was doing. that are some indications he might take one or two people from new haven. collected --e has went up to boston. from areaseople so theyhe country just were beyond any type of accusation, having any type of or any outcome from boston. i expect he will put together a team as you sees -- you see. john duren has been passed

by the justin -- justice department to take a look at the investigation. host: for democrats -- republicans -- independents -- clarksville, new york. ed, go ahead. you are on. caller: yes. does just wondering, i tried to get a hold of you get a gentleman from california said to turn thee military it to a war zone or go to gore -- to war. that is what saved the marine corps in 1953. all it takes is the president's word. i will hang up and hear your

comments. host: from indiana, we will hear next from roger. caller: my comments are i think the president -- they are lying to us like the at 9 -- vietnam and iraq. all the things we find afterwards, we don't hold them accountable. we will do the same thing again. get into war. to siege one of them. that is worse than any kind of dictator does. we are doing it with yemen. 14 million people over there. host: ok.

that is roger from indiana calling in. this is from the guardian newspaper andrew roth reporting out of moscow. the clash between the u.s. and iran. a kremlin spokesperson accused the u.s. of applying a maximum pressure apology against iran, a reference to a harsh u.s. sanctions regime. president putin repeatedly said he can -- did not understand the policy according to the russia alsoom adding tensions from iran are the latest in the russia relation to -- mr. pompeo and mr. putin are expected to discuss issues where russia backs the government and -- nicolas maduro. from the guardian newspaper. for the remaining minutes of our

time, you can comment on that or the other story we did a short took -- the u.s. attorney -- this is from michigan, independent line. brian, you are next. we have to take a new look at what we have been asking for for the last year and half. william barr said that at the hearing. they haven't asked those questions. they haven't dug into that. i dug into the credibility of the journalists and found out they do not have degrees in journalism and it bothers me a lot. i don't understand the standards in the media and the journalism.

aw do you not have to have degree in print journalism? comes to the topic of the u.s. attorney, what do you hope he finds out? caller: i just stated and i believe you heard me. beginning of the formal investigation of a private citizen, donald trump? i believe it is hidden under the patriot act or our government is allowed to gather all of this someone getsnd if in this case mad enough under the obama administration, they can start ticking into what they have on you write down to your keystroke. this is not rumor. this is fact. the patriotout from act and the hundreds of billions of dollars we put into that operation. our government has the technology and are utilizing it to spy on everyone. host: ok.

that is brian in michigan. let's go to richard, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i have a quick comment. , i guy in the investigation think it will be quite interesting to watch how this unfolds as the democrats side has continually pushed and itiously false narrative seems things will come on the other side and i am looking on the other side. and how honest of an investigation it will be. beach, democrats line. julia. caller: a former democrat. this is all about perception. if you can make people think they are doing certain things, it is all about perception.

if you can make one group of people think it is wrong and another group to think it is right, it is all about perception. host: specifically, what is all about perception. specifically what are you talking about? caller: [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, -- did an mueller investigation. all these people jumped on the bandwagon against donald trump at the beginning because they perceived him to be a bad person. either he is really smart or he is a very honest man. it is all about perception. you and a group of people who think he is deceiving everybody, who are we supposed to trust? go to kathleen, mississippi, democrats line. caller: good morning. [inaudible] know, but [indiscernible] to cut off our social security

and medicaid. $7.25 an hour. ify have like two weeks pay they are working at a fast food restaurant, it is not the same. in, money coming [indiscernible] tissuet food but [indiscernible] that is kathleen in mississippi. you go to the hill website this morning and u.s. news has a ranking of top states and worst states to live in a name for washington as the best estate to live in. louisiana as the worst. washington, new hampshire, and minnesota are the best states.

mississippi, louisiana, and alabama are the worst spirit health care, education, infrastructure, opportunity, and fiscal stability. ach factor was given different weight depending on how much respondents said it mattered. health care and education were given the greatest weight. hi, you are on. caller: hello. that, uh, we already have the inspector general looking into the possibility that the origins of the fbi's investigation were "corrupt." the fact that the trump administration under william a specialppointed prosecutor tells me they do not trust the inspector general in the department of justice to come up with a politically correct answer or the answer they want.

that is my comment. diego,rom san california, democrats line. caller: hi. it is pretty obvious what is happening by the trump administration. he is just trying to deflect .rom a legitimate investigation i believe it was clear at the beginning that it was the informed, they, are spying on the russians all the time. that theevidence russians were trying to influence things and they probably saw the connection with the trump administration, you um, partyum, influence. this is just trump trying to deflect.

callers calling in from republicans watching fox news saying there is no collusion. there were 10 instances of collusion documented in the mueller report. these people need to open their eyes and admit that trump was under undue influence by the russians. host: ok. i will leave it there because we're trying to get some calls in before moving on. democrats line. remind i want to everyone the patriot act was set up after 9/11 to protect our country under the bush and it was to protect our country from foreign and domestic. host: last call for the segment and this program. another program comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow. by the way, happening on the

senate side in front of the senate judiciary committee, taking a look at 5g, a hearing. looking at the issues of national security concerns, intellectual property, and the impact on competition and innovation. that takes place before the senate judiciary committee, set to start shortly. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations] >> just waiting for this senate hearing to begin on 5g technology. the senate judiciary committee looking at national security, intellectual property rights and 5g,r issues surrounding

which stands for fifth-generation technology. higher frequency band of the cellular wireless spectrum. u.s.uld overhaul the communications infrastructure. you are watching live here on c-span. [indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

havenumber of senators assembled here for this hearing on five g technology. just waiting for the chair, lindsey graham of south carolina, to arrive as well as others in the senate. the committee today looking at national security today along with other technology issues surrounding 5g. that stands for fifth-generation technology and uses a higher for the band of the cellular wireless spectrum. it does mean a lot of u.s. communications infrastructure would have to be changed. we will hear about that in front of the senate judiciary committee this morning live here on c-span.

[indistinct conversations] [indistinct conversations]

>> still living here in the meeting room. they will speak about 5g technology today, um of the security issues and property rights issues as well. time, we willn hear from the senate budget committee, they would you testimony on the spending. you can hear the at c-span.org or listen live at the radio app. saturday, we will from former vice president joe biden,

officially unveiling his campaign for president in philadelphia.

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

[indistinct conversations]

>> just waiting for this hearing to begin. running a bit behind schedule p or was it supposed to start about 10 minutes ago. on five g hearing technology. intellectual property rights issues surrounding 5g as the as. makes plans to upgrade cellular wireless spectrum to it also today on c-span2, the senate will work on judicial nominations. starting in a few minutes, the senate finance committee holding a hearing to discuss challenges with the retirement live on c-span3. >> my colleagues be late. no reason for me to be late. today, we will talk about i am by no means an expert