-- and later, a talk about the u.s. role in syria. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning and welcome to "washington journal." president obama wrapped up his california meeting with chinese president xi jinping. president obama heads back to washington today. the news continues to bring about the u.s. government's use of phone records, e-mails, and other data. are you willing to trade privacy for security? here are the numbers to call --

you can also find online, send us a tweet or share your thoughts on facebook. you can also e-mail us -- headlineington post says -- here's what the director of national intelligence had to say --

"the wall street journal" says that -- cnn did a poll looking at how americans looka t the relationship between the privacy and security. the you care that they are snooping?

with the ensuing media coverage -- are you willing to trade privacy for security? jim is our first caller this morning from chicago, illinois on the independent line. caller: i am not willing to give up anything as far as my privacy. i feel like you're never really protected from anyone. in chicago we have a high crime

rate. it is basically an saved go to certain neighborhoods. government should not be interfering in people's privacy. they are not perfect and they are not our mothers and fathers. if you are not doing anything wrong they can take care of themselves. if you are doing something their role is to find out what you're doing wrong without invading the privacy. 8 tweet -- michael from new kensington, pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call. i watched the hearings today. -- the hearings yesterday. administration possible use of the constitution -- this

administration's abuse of the constitution really put a chill on us. when you look at the data they are collecting you wonder how they are going to use it. the cannot protect us from terrorists of the boston bombing. they had direct information and did nothing with it. and yet you see what they have done with the regent you wonder what they will do -- what they have done with this. you wonder what they will do with the data collection. host: michael, have your opinions on this matter changed in the past 15 years? caller: a little bit. i was a little bit of concern -- a al was a little concerned when

george bush instituted patriot act. it could easily lead to abuse. think what benjamin franklin said about willing to give up -- those who are willing to give up their security for liberty. you cannot let the constitution be be used to that degree. we have to have some form of limited government. we have to have some form of constitutional protection. that is what the constitution is all about. host: reviewing dd cnn poll in only four in 10 americans are willing to give up their civil liberties to fight terrorism.

charles in mackenzie, tennessee on the independent line. turn down your tv for us and go ahead. isler: my opinion on this i'm 59 years old. i did not believe bush should trade our security for privacy. -- i do not believe we should trade our security for privacy. they are eating at the constitution, nibbling at it every day. [indiscernible] they are using one reason after another to take things away from

us that are ours. before long it will be ok to have police hanging around your house. it is just not right. they should leave us alone. if they have a security issue they need to deal with it. do not do it in our homes. host: what you think about the information you give willingly to companies you buy products from four companies you view on the internet? caller: i don't. if anybody wants to know telling i just did not them anything. i put telemarketer's right on a list. i don't want to hear any more from them, to not call me back.

host: good morning bob. some of myalked to republican friends during the previous administration's term. i talked with them and said aren't you concerned about -- and said, aren't you concerned about the data mining? abouthould be concerned treating the privacy like that. -- about trading their privacy like that. i am surprised to see how now during this administration people are concerned about checking your checking account. checking your phone records. now it is a problem when it was instituted i could call all of my republican friends and it wasn't a problem of the time. host: how you feel about it?

caller: i think it is dangerous host: you feel that way even the democrats host -- you feel that way even though democrats are in the white house? caller: you do not give away the constitution. our forefathers put it there for a purpose. i haven't done anything wrong. host: keenan tweets in and says -- "the baltimore sun" has this story today --

president obama addressed this question of surveillance in friday. let us take a listen to what the president had to say. [video clip] >> you'll remember when i made that speech a couple of weeks ago about the need for us to perpetual warhe mind set. i specifically said one of the things we are going to have to discuss and debate is how we are striking this balance between the need to keep the american people safe and our concerns

about privacy. there are some trade-offs involved. i welcome this debate. of our it is healthy region and health -- healthy for our democracy. i think it is interesting there are folks on the left and right who are now worried about it. abouteren't very worried it when it was a republican president. i think that is good. think it is important for everybody to understand that there are some trade-offs involved. host: president obama speaking on friday. are you willing to trade privacy for security? our next caller is in florida, on the republican line. hello. caller: the question has less to do with providing security than

it has to do with shutting down the political opposition. look it happened over the last three years. -- look at what happened over the last three years. the administration used everything at its disposal to shut down the tea party. if that is not a direct threat to not know what -- direct threat i do not know what is. we need to get further information on the political opposition. gavesdy in the harry reid in the senate information on mitt romney. information was leaked to republica from the irs. -- shedy who attempted t

had four agencies come down on her and her husband and her husband's business. the irs, the fbi, osha, and the atf. the administration took it upon itself to use every agency in the federal government as an arm of this campaign. the purpose is for security you are fooling yourself. jersey, gon new ahead. caller: corporate america knows a lot about us -- a lot more about this than the government. the last call expose the hypocrisy one of a bunch of people are more than happy to profile hispanics. there is a lot of people that

know a lot of things about us now that we do not even know about. just the age we live in now. one caller tries to get on the do not call list. do you change your habits because of concerns about privacy caller: i did not live my life in fear of things i have no control over. as kind of odd that people were applauding the patriot act and now are indignant on the fact they are using it. that is the age we live in. id electronic surveillance -- use my loyalty card at my local stores. i like that. host: that is bought in west virginia.

a democratic:, hello, alice. caller: i am willing to give up my privacy for security. the moment that something , people willcally say why didn't the government do something? anything that president obama wants seems to have a problem with it. if you have anything to hide what is the big deal? graham shockedy krem

me -- i have nothing to hide. hide andve anything to do what security -- and you want security, i do not care. look at my phone. i do not care. thank you very much. host: comments by senator lindsay gramm. -- it gives a separate counter this graphic of who is on the vote. he is senator john mccain had 61 appearances. it goes from there. been a list of senators who have not been on sunday talk shows in the last

couple of years. the peace talks about why they choose to call on -- choose to go on, with the appeal to. it says -- one of the people we will see this weekend is the senator from colorado. we will hear from the c-span radio crew about who will be on all of the sunday talk shows today. let us take a look at what the senator had to say about this very issue we are talking about today. he said --

looking at some other stores in the news the sunday -- it goes on to say -- also coming from that meeting, the united states and china have agreed on a greenhouse gas cut. they agree to one of the production and consumption of

the class of chemicals commonly used in refrigerators, a key ofp toward eliminating some the most potent greenhouse gases. looking at other stores in the news, immigration debate is intensifying as both sides push immigration amendments. we see "the washington post closed " covering the immigration legislation that will be talked about in congress this week. the mayor of newark has declared he plans to run up for the senate. "the new york times" reports -- looking at a couple of other stories.

george zimmerman -- the question of what happened in the trayvon martin killings. we also see the hospitalization of nelson mandela. the stores in the paper today say he has been hospitalized again. youre asking you are willing to trade privacy for security? this question is stemming from news of the past two days over surveillance. here is floyd in jones bill, virginia on the republican line. what are your opinions? caller: thank you for taking my call. it's the think somebody has been listening to your phone calls you could: then talk about that. the one thing is i hope we have time to see what i have to say. i am a christian.

since i have been calling into phone was listened to. who do you think is listening to your phone calls? caller: the government. i do not own a computer. have a cell phone. it is my choice. i cannot check my computer to see what i am doing there because i do not have one. the only way they can check me is to my phone. i was your hunting and i -- i was deer hunting and a military helicopter set down near my house. i wasn't paranoid.

i am a christian conservative. stand up in his estate, a raiser of taxes, in the glory of the king. within a few days he shall be destroyed. neither in anger no in battle." i don't believe in gay marriage. they need to repent. host: we need to focus on privacy versus national security. are you willing to make a trade? here is a tweet - richard, what you think on the caller: independent line i think it is -- what you think of the independent line? caller: i think it is the worst

trade imagine. the government has become so corrupt. president obama does not believe in the constitution. credences andany rights to the people and not enough power to the government, can you imagine? what he is talking about is a communist dictatorship. he does not like the balance of power. we saw that years ago when he delivered the state of the union address and openly represented the supreme court justices of the whole country and the whole world. he resents any opposition and he tos government agencies attack his opponents. we will have neither one if we depend on this government. you can look at what happened in benghazi, how this

administration provided security for them. we can look at fast and furious. there is more to come. after theon be coming guns. we will have no security at all. host: leon, a democratic column. guysr: i listen to these come in from florida and all these places. they get these situations -- obama does not have the power to do that. when someone files for not paying taxes the irs should check them, if they are real or not. .hey like 370 some cases

they are blowing it up like the tea party was the only one door checking. -- the only one they were checking. the constitution was made years and years ago. of these things have to be changed because some people take advantage of these situations. would you need have an assault rifle? you did not need anything like that. but these people keep complaining and think that the democrats, obama, is going to take everything away from us. that is not true. host: thomas tweets in -- let us hear from another caller in maryland. dorothy is a republican. caller: thank you for taking my call.

i like to go back to 9/11. the americans were certainly willing to do whatever it took to save our country. they made sacrifices, too many that i cannot name. information they took from russia to the boston bombing -- the information on the guys there -- that was passed off eventually. i think we are getting information rican anywhere but the giving up quite a bit. there was a gentleman today that put it quite ellet -- quite , we tend to see the

lazy way. they could be here for people to do certain things without having to do the digging that they used to do and put together. those are some of my thoughts. as far as republican and democrat, i am an american. i love my country. where is the america i used to know? host: let us look at a recent story that goes back to the past and looks at how opinions have changed over time. a pier research survey in 2011 --

we mentioned earlier a poll that was taken just a couple of weeks after the boston marathon bombings. that asked people about the question of the eight requests -- of the intersection between privacy and security. let us get this phone call in. phoenix, arizona on caller: our independent line -- arizona on our independent line. caller: good warning. host: what is on your mind? caller: a lot on my mind. what about trading privacy for security? caller: al richie's privacy over security. -- i would choose privacy over security.

it's kind of-- to be able to think is-- i don't know. if you can secure yourself -- host: joseph tweets in -- chris from florida on the republican line, hello. caller: good morning. here's my whole take on this -- i believe this government is just looking to do it all third world countries are doing. what happened to the days that americans can put their flag on the front lawn and privately display it? what have here is you have obama try to get into everybody's

pockets, make the working man paid more, and wind up in the street faster. why do we have to bail out the companies? -- it is going to fall on the american taxpayers. i did not completely understand why people are letting him get away with this. are standing up -- people are not standing up and saying enough is enough. all the clown to keep voting for year after year keep these people in office. me thing that really upsets is 343 firefighters died at 9/11. those 343 families and the other 2600 families that lost people on that date and every of the american has the right and should have seen osama bin

laden's body. why is that a national security secret? bring back the public displays --hanging an execution hanging and execution and you'll see the fear in people's eyes. i cannot want somebody snooping around my internet and listening to my phone calls. if everybody took a stance and , redoe are not paying your tax system, redo your government -- this is what we need to do. host: that is chris calling us from florida. a couple of comments by e-mail --

sue writes in and says -- a follow up on a story we saw earlier. we saw the first lady give a speech at the white house and she was confronted by a heckler. the heckler wrote a piece for "the washington post." she wrote a piece -- for thetill waiting president to pass the employment nondiscrimination act which would end discrimination by all employers. she says --

the question of free speech and how that dynamic plays out in the public and the white house -- a private event where michelle obama was speaking -- we see the dynamic playing out. let's look at one last tweet on the question of privacy -- will look more of the government's surveillance programs in just a moment with a national security write her. we'll go in depth with what the security measures mean. later on the depew research

center looked at women who are breadwinners. -- the pew research center looked at women who are breadwinners. a first look at the sunday shows on c-span radio. >> topics include the irs, government interception of females and phone calls, u.s.- nbc's "meetons -- is pre-empted by live coverage of the french open. senator dianne feinstein, chairman of the senate intelligence committee, mike rogers, chairman of the house intelligence committee, and committeeudall. at two o'clock p.m. it is "fox news sunday." nsa directord michael hayden. state of the union falls at 3:00

p.m.. john mccain, maryland democratic congressmen elijah cummings, and another appearance by mark udall. the:00 p.m. it is "face nation." of longest serving member the u.s. house, congressman john dingell. the sunday network talk shows the air every sunday afternoon on c-span radio and brought to as a public service by the networks and c-span. here are today's read years beginning at 1:00 p.m.. -- re-errors beginning at 1:00 p.m.. -- re-airs you can listen to them at 91. satelliteel 119 on radio, or listen online.

>> when you put on a uniform that is a job -- for a job that , you aretenance job subsumed by the role to the point where you are almost part of the background almost like a machine. you are a human being wearing that uniform. the general rule gets overlooked you. it is light romulan cloaking device for those people who are fellow star trek geeks. it is both very frustrating and an interesting privilege. when i wearing a sanitation worker uniform i can observe people in ways they do not realize i am observing them. >> anthropologist in residence

onin nagle tonight at 8:00 c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: james bamford is our guest. new act in thern past week? what did we already know? what are the big takeaways? after the eavesdropping scandal of the bush administration everyone assumed it was over and we never really assumed that these -- i certainly didn't. no one assumed the u.s. government was monitoring domestic communications. they said they are not monitoring the actual conversations but they are gathering all of this data on everybody's phone calls.

was shocking to me and i have been doing this for 30 years. it was a surprise to me and i think it is a surprise to a lot of people. the other thing is it is thensive to say that captain to the internet system. nine different companies -- the biggest companies in the world. all of this is done in secrecy and that is not the way democracy should work. we had before intelligence surveillance act it number of years ago. they should pass a law like that. host: let us take a look at what president obama had to say when he was in california on friday. he took one question from a reporter about it. here is how he describes the use of surveillance and phone calls. [video clip] >> nobody is listening to your

telephone calls. that is not with this program is about. , what theicated intelligence community is doing is looking at the numbers and durations of calls. they are not looking at people's names and they are not looking at content. sifting through this data they may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism. if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call they have to go back to a federal judge, just like the wood in a criminal investigation. -- just like they would in a christian and all investigation.

-- in a criminal investigation. nobody is listening to the contents of people's phone calls. explain this term may tete-a data. meta-lain that this term data. arest: it is who you calling, length of time, where you are calling from, everything the company needs for billing records. it is all the data they need for how much you use the telephone. the telephoneng company would get in terms of data to create your bill. twitterm wright's in on and explains -- jim writes in -- just an overs

reaction. the government takes all this data and they put it in a big blunder and twisted around and find terrorists -- that is a waste of time and money. that seems to be with the government is doing. it is the latest move in hysteria over terrorism. host: missing front page stories this morning looking at how corporations collect information, how the u.s. uses technology to mind the to more to mine data more quickly. how has the internet come into play? guest: the internet is an enormously valuable resource if you're looking for intelligence. 30 years ago the only way people communicate it was on a telephone in your kitchen attached to the wall. other than that you sent letters

out or talked in person. now everything is done electronically. mails, you'reg e- on your computer when you used to do on a library. you're looking for books and magazines and doing all kinds of personal research. getting into a person's internet account -- watching what one person does on an internet can pretty much get a sense of who that person is. that is the danger of letting government get access to everything. they are basically getting into your head. they can know what your thinking.

here's president obama talked about montana of our surveillance on the internet. [video clip] >> with respect to the internet and e-mail, this does not apply to u.s. citizens and it does not apply to people living in the united states. in this instance not only is congress fully comprised of it but what is true is that the courts have to authorize it. in summary, what you have is two programs that were originally authorized by congress, have been repeatedly authorized by majoritiesipartisan have approved of them. congress is continuously brief ed on how it is conducted.

there are a number of safeguards involved. host: why is it significant? people living in the united states versus those living abroad -- why is the president making that distinction? guest: the law has a lot of restrictions on what you can do in terms of eavesdropping on u.s. citizens. it does not have anything on eavesdropping on people abroad. the problem is we live in a very interconnected world these days. not only people are london in riddick -- everything they are doing on the internet is open for grabs by the u.s. government. there just is not any proof that this does anything. this has been going on for seven years now. we had the boston bombing, the times square,, they all communicated on the internet.

i have been watching these things for decades and they're so much of a waste of time and money on the surveillance programs. host: one of his books is called "the shadow factory." conversation,he republicans can call us at 202- 585-3881. 3880crats, 202-585- don is in tennessee on the independent line. caller: good morning. not worried about our government eavesdropping. the prop -- the chinese will hack our e-mail's. if they do get it they are probably not going to put too

much into it. they do not read e-mail's from baton see -- from benghazi. host: are you worried about agencies axing the agency's accessing your e-mail? -- are you worried about agencies accessing your e-mail? caller: i always want to go back to ben franklin saying if the trade-off liberty for security we are not going to have either. guest: 80 trade of liberty for security you are not going to i agree with ben franklin. i think it is a trade-off for fools to think we can both have liberty and excess of secrecy --

and excessive secret surveillance by the u.s. government. we ought to have the government tell the public what they are doing. i wouldn't mind it if they went to congress and said, this is what we want to do. this is what we are going to do. we are going to look at people's telephone bills and if it is voted for on congress that is not the way to do it. they do it in secrecy without telling anybody. int is the way they worked east germany in the cold war. host: we see in the paper today the wrapup of the meeting between president obama and the president of china. how does the story breaking at this moment affect our relationship with companies -- affect our relationship with countries like china? what are our concerns about foreign actors and what they are

doing? guest: it is an ironic time for this to happen because it is one of the main topics the president was going to speak to with the chinese leaders -- the fact that the u.s. is complaining about their eavesdropping on u.s. communications. it turns out there's a scandal involving the u.s. government listening in on u.s. communications. it is a very inopportune time for this to happen. the president is arguing that the chinese are attacking us and so forth with espionage. the espionage goes back and forth. we created our own u.s. cyber- command, which is under the director of the national security agency. we are the most aggressive country in the world in terms of cyber-warfare.

.e use cyber to destroy things doing in china, i have no idea. it is probably no more than the -- no more than what the chinese are doing here. is a fairly rudimentary process now. i would think most of the countries would think of it -- think of us at the terror -- think of us as adversaries. taking get access to internet communications not as well as the west. i would say it probably goes on by a lot of countries. host: joe is on our independent line. welcome. thank you for taking my call. we speak in slang as americans,

in colloquialisms. i can say something in front of five different people and they will hear something totally different. i may send an e-mail to somebody and say i am bringing the pot over. that deal worked out good. the reality is i am bringing a spaghetti pot over, some coca- cola -- to use what i am saying? this thing could get out of hand. i come under surveillance. somebody monitors my phone and asks what i have been doing for the last two hours i have been working on b.o.m. my friend sees a friend from 20 years ago and that that happens to be under surveillance for real problems and all of a sudden we are having lunch

together. this is dangerous and every american needs to know they will be dancing on eggshells forever. guest: i agree 100% and i think you hit the nail on the head. if you look at the end do not fly list, ted kennedy was on it for three months and he was a u.s. senator. have 750,000 people on a watch list. the problem you are bringing up is very real. if somebody is talking about a wedding and when the wedding is going to take place but some analysts is thinking it is a code word for an attack or something -- it is very the dress will be given to this whole world of intercepting communications and analyzing people's speech. the other thing is we have people out there speaking some money -- speaking in so many

different dialects with so many different slang words. people can take things totally out of context. one of the other problems is we have all kinds of what lists. some are do not fly, some others reach that level. people get put on those watch lists for very innocent reasons. for example you could move into a house where a person for that -- before you move been -- before you moved in had a subscription to the magazine at the government does not like. then you are on the list because they did not figure out you are different from the other person. toyour doctor wants to go the air force academy or apply for a small-business loan she will be turned down and you will not know why. nobody tells you you're on the

list. people --the ways this is how it can affect everybody. host: president obama talking about congress's role in all of this. "the new york times closed could have to have done -- " has this --imes tells about congress's role. the hearingsin frank church had in 1935. had an intense investigation to the intelligence community and found that a lot of

wrongdoing they were doing. what is shocking to a lot of people -- center church decided they needed a committee on intelligence and the key to the senate intelligence committee. the senate created intelligence committee. it was a buffer between the spy agencies and public. .t acted as public's advocate in intervening times it is basically a cheering gallery for the intelligence community. the intelligence community gets more and more money and more and more authority. that is how it works. i would never expected the congress to really come out strong in support of some legislation that protects the american public. i expect them to support the

legislation that attacks the intelligence community. host: what resources are you going to now? "the guardian) had some leaks. what have they discovered? guest: it is very rare you see a leak of this quality, where you're actually seeing documents that are only a month old. it is the first time i have ever seen an actual four intelligence surveillance court order. -- foreign intelligence surveillance court order. court was keyed in 1978 and this is the first time it was leaked out. these are very rare leaks. there appears to be one person, a male person, within the

intelligence community who is doing all of the leaking. the president assumes he is going to be cut tariffs in. i think that is probably true. i think they know who it is already. they are just biding their time. all of these things seem to be triangulated. the courtcess to orders, to the telephone monitoring, and all that? who is in the intelligence community and who isn't there now? to drop.he next what have we learned about this? guest: we learned a great deal. the government has been arguing for years that we do not have

any relationship with these , yah hoo,ompanies microsoft, apple, all of these companies. the our hands off. now to this program they are breaking about how close their relationship is and they are bragging they are going to get in to drop box. it is almost something from saturday night live. it is almost a parody of what the intelligence community has been saying that they are. "we do not do this, we do not do any domestic at -- domestic activity pico de have those kind of relationships. -- domestic activity." they have two kinds of relationships. james is our guest.

he is the author of several books, including "bichette a factory." democrats line, hello barbara. caller: i would like to say i think people are living in a full's paradise. all this information is already out there. the the marketing companies, corporations, they all have this data. what should not the government have the state that if they could use it to prevent terrorism? i do not see a problem with that. guest: number one it hasn't prevented any terrorism as far as i know. when companies get the it cannot put you on a do not fly list, they cannot prevent you from getting a small business administration loan or having your daughter go to the service academy. there's a lot of differences between what companies do and what the u.s. government does. if it does not bother you it bothers me.

host: douglas from massachusetts, republican. hello. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. good morning. the tracking of the phone calls and the locations of the phone calls is going to explode. who isoing be a search going into mosques. is going to be unexploded of information. it will be providing information, suspicious activity, whether true or not, the reality will be there for the government. his book "so on in 1984." i just returned from washington, d.c. the tsa sent me through a naked body scanner your guy was wearing baggy shorts and i got pulled aside, and the gentleman went across my rear straight

into the crevice. i cannot imagine what security that provides and why i needed a human being to touch me like that one obviously i had just been examined by a nude x-ray machine in my pockets were completely anti-. i just can't explain it. i am watching and people ahead of me go through this machine. cnn has provided me with the information, the people who have criticized that program and those images, and i cannot believe that is still in place. thank you for taking my call. good morning, america. guest: that is a good point. i agree 100%. you cannot take a bottle of shampoo onto a plane, but you can go by as many assault weapons a day or a month as you like. how many people die from shampoo bottles on planes, and how many people die from assault weapons? the logic does not make any sense. part of the terror hysteria after 9/11. their heads atke

the things we do in the united states because they just can't believe the absurdity of some of these actions. . fly all the time i have to put up with it. i know exactly what you're going through. it is absurd some of the things we have to do. " has its fronty page -- spying eyes, phone, millions of calls being tracked. internet, data main from biggest companies. senator feinstein says "it is called protecting america." that easy senator rand paul the called it "an astounding assault on the constitution." , larnaca call, westport, connecticut, republican. good morning. i would like to comment that i think the administration presents the fisa court and judges with adequate protection. those fisa judges and opinions are all secret.

i have heard, i'm not sure it is true, that the administration has shopped so they do not get the right opinion from one judge they go to another. we've also seen in the context when the administration get the decision, it is not like, david -- and basically ignore that. to me, fisa does not read it -- predicted -- present much protection for american liberty. i have to say that the media is very complicit in this because if the media does not get a talking head, a powerful washington figure, on their show, the journalists' career can be ruined. so they have to curry favor with the powers that be to protect their own careers. the only press that is doing its constitutional job really is the print media, which is becoming less and less relevant

as people shift to a more broadcaster nodes appeared i think we have really over the sown the seeds of an erosion of freedom. thank you. guest: i agree. with regard to the fisa court, people do not realize what a joke that is. host: take us back into the history of the fisa court and tell us what if anything is known publicly. guest: it was created in 1978. it was a good idea when they created it because basically the reason they created it was the nsa had been spying for 30 years, and nobody know about it. spying illegally. eavesdropping on all the telegrams coming in and going out and threw the country, which was pretty much the internet of the day, i guess. they discovered it finally in 1935, and they wanted to put -- in 1975, and they wanted to put an end to it, but they do not

want to make it a regular court because regular judges do not have the clearance, so they created this secret court. even the address of it is secret. nothing is allowed to ever come out of it. it is sort of like a black hole. what is absurd about it is that in the entire history of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, going back to 1978, it has only turned the government down once and all that time. if the government gets turned down, there is another court, which i would have ever heard of, it is called the foreign surveillance court of appeals, which is in its 30 year history have only heard one case. it is sort of the maytag repairman of the judiciary. in that case, they overruled the lower court and granted the government the war and that it was looking for or the order. if they had turned on the government, the government still

has a third applet. he can go to an immediate secrets session before the u.s. supreme court, which is very unlikely to turn the government down. so the odds of this process ever denying a warrant or what they call in order is almost unheard of. then they even weaken the court after the bush administration eavesdropping scandal. they weakened it so that before, if they wanted to eavesdrop on james bamford, they would have to go to the court and get a warrant. now, they can get blanket warrants like this one here. we just want to get all the telephone numbers for everybody and all the metadata for all the communications all over the country. one singledge signs warrant, and that authorizes it. so that is what i've said, the

court exists in secret,, and i think that is one of the reasons why nobody knows how absurd it is at this point. host: james bamford, nsa history, such it was established in the 1950 ", how has it changed and evolved? or the founding ideas behind it? guest: it was founded in 1952. it was a top-secret agency, not even its name was allowed to go out. i think there were only to be willing congress that were ever slight briefing. which was different. the cia was born through congress, debated in congress, created through a law in congress. the nsa was created by a top- secret memorandum that was secret until a few years ago. absoluteeated in secrecy unlike any other u.s. agency.

its target from the very beginning was outside. it was created with a mandate to eavesdrop only externally outside the united aids. -- the united states. they did not want the agency to be turned on the american public. and then gradually they began that's at the time, they actually were eavesdropping on telegrams going through the u.s., and eventually, the nixon administration turned it domestically onto domestic targets like antiwar protesters, and then it had this period between 1978 and 2001 where it was opening the law, and any bush administration secretly turned it inward on the american republicans -- on the american public. books, one bamford's

is th "the shadow factory -- the nsa from 9/11 to the eavesdropping on america." dominic of our next caller in baltimore. caller: good morning. when president barack obama signed the patriot sunset extension act in 2011 and the whole country did not go into an act, itn having that was just the most amazing thing to me in my shorts, young, 34- year-old lifetime. truly amazingg that as a democrat or republican, we don't agree on some issues but on the major issues that affect all of us, we can come together and hold to one thing, hold to the law, the constitution. and protect each other. of privacy versus

security should be a no-brainer for all of us. as an independent, if the issue asnot raise enough, americans, how do we feel? the government does not represent how the americans feel. and how we feel we should be governed. for those obama supporters, yes, at some point i was a democrat, and i first voted for obama. but he has not done anything that he said he would do concerning the war. he is still in the war. we are still at war. patriotwith this whole act thing. he is bringing the war home because eventually the people are going to be tired. it is a mess. what i want to say is to obama supporters -- know what it is you are supporting. don't just support the man, don't just support the look, support what he is doing in office.

when you investigate that, you will see who it is that you are supporting. guest: i agree. i think obama is bush on steroids when it comes to foreign-policy and domestic surveillance and everything else. the afghanistan war is so going on. he tripled the number of troops in afghanistan with no progress whatsoever. his whole attitude on foreign- thecy has been increased drone strikes, go after americans, kill americans with drones. these are things that would not even -- were not even considered any bush administration. in terms of of politics, when he had an agenda, and that agenda was to get reelected. and the way he would get reelected is to give the left what it once domestically,

healthcare and so forth, and at the same time, undercut these future republican nominees off by his knees on foreign-policy. that is what they would go after obama on. weak on national security, week ak on afghanistan, we got going after terrorists. so what obama was trying to do domesticthe left by policy, undercut republicans on theright by going tougher and if it -- the nsa and so stoforth. -- what about the

huge new data collection facility in utah? should we close that? -- tell us what we know about this new center there. guest: i did a cover story for "wired" magazine for that last year. about the facility outside of government about the nsa data center in utah. it is basically the largest datacenter in the history of the united states. if one million square feet at a time when you could put a terabyte on -- of data on a swiss army knife. one of the blade is actually a terabyte of data. so it is an enormous facility. ,t is one million square feet $2 billion, it is due to be completed in september. it is a central storage place for everything nsa collects. and collects information all over the world in addition to

all these -- everybody's telephone records, everything will they. that is a lot of data. in addition to this heavy data that comes out of the internet, video, pictures, all kinds of really heavy data, you need a place to store all of that stuff that they are pulling out. they created this one big building. it is actually a series of buildings, but his big facility in utah to store it all. it will be the cloud for nsa, and other words, is where everything gets stored, and then when and if they want analyze things from their headquarters, there is a fiber- optic cable that goes from nsa headquarters in maryland to the datacenter. so they just analyze everything that is in there. the way to think of it is the datacenter in bluff dale, utah is nsa's external hard drive. , robinet's go to florida

is a democrat. you are on with james bamford. caller: hi, how are you? i just wanted to make a point -- obama did not do the patriot act, that was bush in 2001. i'm letting all the callers know that. an importantthat point for you? tell us more about that. aller: because i feel that lot of people are attacking obama for this. -- is going forward with this, i do think it is wrong, i do think it is definitely an invasion of our privacy, but i do want to make the point that this is something thatstarted in 2001, and it should have been retold long ago. retooled long ago. people need to stop blaming

obama. there are provisions in the patriot act that allow for the government to come in and take are pretty from americans. -- whether the american is suspected of terrorism are not here it with that in mind, the government can to determine what people are looking at. based on that, they decide whether you are engaged in unsavory activities. --y have a lot of specific host: it's not like you are still concerned, even though you point out that this is not something that president obama initiated. it still bothers you. caller: yes. host: here is a tweet that oscar can the public-- and the democrats up fighting now? clearly we are on the same ship, and if we divided, both sides will sink. robin, where do we go from here? caller: first of october we need to make provisions in this patriot act.

we need to do something about the patriot act. we either need to repeal it or do an overhaul. toouse the government has much power in this area at this point. i don't think they need to be involved in our personal data. we have google, companies like this. right now, you can go online and do some -- do a search. you will really get a pop-up -- host: let cyclic the first point about what you think will happen next. let's get to james bamford. what change in the patriot act, what kind of effect would that have? guest: getting back to the caller's original comment, which is that this was a bush decision in the first place, the whole idea -- i've always thought that the the u.s. trade commission should look into the whole idea of bait and switch because that was what happened here. obama came and campaigned that he was not going to expand the with the patriot act and the

foreign intelligence surveillance act. he was not going to grant immunity to the teleconference at ease. that was his -- telecom companies. i was physical pain -- campaign slogan and so forth. then he does the exact opposite when he comes in. what he could easily do is do the exact opposite, do what he claimed was his policy when he was campaigning, which was to do away with things that the bush administration did. not increase them. that is not what people voted for. they did not vote for somebody to increase what bush was doing. they voted for obama to decrease what bush was doing. breadth of the patriot act and the fisa act and so there that is what he did do now. if he wanted to be true to his original campaign promises. host: how much leverage with

that have? how much can you put the horses back in the barn? guest: the president have a lot of power. the president could use a lot of political power, and if he does not succeed, at least he has tried, but i would like -- i would like to really see that. one other point that really should be made is that i was in london the last 10 days or so, and they were having a similar date -- a similar debate over this whole issue as to what access the government should have two internet communications and forth. the big difference was in england, they were talking about having this go through parliament as a bill, and it was publicly debated. here it is not go through congress, it is not debated, it is a creation of a secret order by a government upsets with secrecy. where youmocracy

debate things, and if you approve that you approve it. you don't do it unilaterally and eagerly. -- and secretly. host: a tweet -- mr. bamford, you say the data intelligence efforts have monetary spirit you say this with what knowledge. how do you know? what is your response? that is what he said, one case -- that is the only thing they could point to is this one case, neck casey was talking about -- and that one case he was talking about was a zogby. ted. is where it originally it came from scotland yard. that is where they came up with the original internet and telephone numbers. the scotland yard that was tracking this. they passed it on to the u.s. this was not part of the

surveillance program. there are a number of articles that explain all of this. and if they only have one case in all this time, i mean, that is not really seem very cost- effective. maybe they could put the money into some other resource that would be more useful than this. this is been going on seven years. if they only point to one case and they missed the possible, the underwear bomber, the time i think the money could be spent in a more effective way. >host: had we not know that thee have not been more cases because of security issues? come: because they would

on say, the government never stops bragging about all they do. you would hear them shouting from the rooftops if they have had a major success. i've been following the nsa for 30 years. this is it. phil and north dakota is an independent caller. caller: i have a couple of quick comments. technology and all of this stuff is going to ruin our country. the american people have just become basically lazy and weak. and scared. if you are so worried about these people tapping into your phone lines and tapping into your internet, stopping so lazy. go visit your friends. talk to them face to face. sit down and write them a letter. send it to the united states postal service. i think it still illegal for them to open your letters and

things. so basically this just all boils back to us. if we were so lazy ants cared, we would stand up for our government like we used to do in the past. right, well, most people would have to put on the sports page and read the international section. the problem is people do not pay attention to what the government is doing, and the government know that, so the government tries to get away with as as they can. you did bring up an interesting point though, the point about writing a letter. --nk of how much it will how much of an outrage it would've been in the 1950's, through the 1980's if somebody had proposed a bill in congress or summit he had discovered that the u.s. government had these policy at the post office where everybody's antelope was copied with the address where was going to and the address where it was coming from, the size of

the them below, the time it was mailed, where was mailed from, all these records for every single letter in the entire country every single day. do you think there would've been an outrage? of course there would have been. that is exactly what we have here, except multiply it by one million degrees because of all the e-mails and all the telephone calls. compare all of the information i was out there in those days. we did not think live in those days before, and we should not be living in the now. the government should not have the right to get access to things like this. do itdoes, like i said, publicly, go through congress, asked for a bill, say we want to do this, and if the public wants it or not. host: don joins us on the democrats line.

caller: hi, libby. i just want to say, i only agree with a couple of things that i've heard. a lot of spend going on out there. one, the patriot act needs to be done away with and read on, but not for the reasons being given, and two, we need to accept some of this. that is the last line of security communications. the thinking going on here is incorrect. -- my example would be i am with five people on someone's deck, three have their phone without an operating, they all have cameras, they all have microphones, the change of the patriot act is about giving you protection in a court. prevent any information from being hindered in any way. facebook, come on. there are generations out there that believe that they tell everything about their lives.

guest: i agree. that is one of the things that is new to this generation. exhibitionism largely with facebook and other things. a generation get that used to providing as much information about themselves to is unable as possible to care about privacy -- host: yeah, we saw in the cnn poll that while there was little partisan divide -- host: d.c. disconnect there between the ideas people have about privacy and what young people are wheeling -- willing to share freely online? yes.: i like that pacific, actually. youpe that is true, and

know the problem today is if the government gets more and more access, it just means that control less and less that each has over there lies. i would think there would be a major concern over any generation. that one more personal control and less government control. argument republican for years. get the government out -- it is so ironic that the republicans are so in favor of this. they're the ones that want to get the government off the back, but they do not mind having the government under their heads. james bamford, national security writer and author, his books include "the shadow factory -- the nsa from 9/11 to the eavesdropping on america." thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure, libby. host: coming up next, we will look at a pew research report

on bloomberg government -- on "breadwinner moms," moms who are the primary moneymaker or the sole moneymaker. we will have a roundtable with maria teresa kumar and mona charen. later on, we will look more at syria. we will be right back. ♪ >> in poor health, first lady ida mckinley also suffered from apple at sea, and because of that, her president william mckinley, with synnex it were

-- would sit next to her at dinners so she had a seizure, he would shield her face from guests with a barred -- a large handkerchief. attended a pan-american and physician where her husband was assassinated. our series on first ladies, life monday night at 9:00 on c-span, c-span3, also on c-span radio and c-span.org. one offamous passage in william faulkner's novels, he said for every southern boy 14 years old or older, it is still 1:00 in the afternoon on july 3 1863. it is all on the line. and they can come and their imagination, say this time, maybe this time victory, independents.

so in the mind of both northerners and southerners -- northerners at the time, the southerners more in retrospect, this became the mythic moment of victory and defeat. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg live all- day sunday, june 30 on american history tv on c-span3. " continues.journal host: a recent pew research report looked at "breadwinner moms." here to dig into it our maria teresa kumar, the negative erector of boat a little note, and syndicated columnist mona charen, you can read her work in places like the "chicago sun- times," also the "washington examiner." thank you for being here. the pew research poll garnered a lot of attention. but first, what are "breadwinner

moms"? guest: they're the ones that are , they arey earners earning more than their husbands, and their sustaining their families. differencew this between those who out-earn their husbands and those who are single mothers. mona charen, you wrote about that in a recent column. why is that an important dissension? guest: it is interesting, changing sex roles, women are and it right winners, tended to focus on husband-wife couples. as you look into the data, we find is that actually the percentage of women who out-earn their husbands in a two parent couples is actually -- it is bigger than it used to be, but not much.

whereas most of the "breadwinner moms" are single moms, either because they were never married or because they are divorced or widowed, so on. among those who never married, and the statistics are very sad. grim. they live in poverty, they have a real struggle. it is really important to know that a big chunk, 60% of these "breadwinner moms," are actually single mothers, who are not only right winners but the only sole support for their kids. you see the do gestation between women out warning their husbands and single moms relying on themselves to support their children'? guest: mona have a great point. out-earning your husband is wanting to celebrate, but the other thing, the women who are heads of household and they do not have other options. their property level is huge with the average income of $17,000. i cannot imagine a family being

on that. at the country, you have to set back and say kind of policies can we revive these individuals make sure that these cycles are not continue, what kind of support? one of the things most folks do not realize is the united is the only industrialized country without paid leave to take care of the babies. what that says is that we are behind poppa new guinea. that is atrocious in this day and age. guest: another way to look at it a that we might need research and our expectations of what is good for kids. and one of the things that the pew study found was that among people age 50 and above, a huge majority say it is really a problem or single women to raise kids alone. it is a huge societal problem. where is people under the age of 30, majorities do not think it is a problem.

and we see the percentage who said that if they problem comes down the younger you get. it suggest that people are not aware of the link between a single parenting and poverty, the link between single parenting and all kinds of social pathologies. if we know anything in social science these days it is that two parents are best for kids. let's take a look at some of the polling that pew did. republican somewhat less control -- concerned about the rising share of single mothers. even the here in 2007, 70 one percent said they thought it was a big problem, now 64% see it as a big problem. when you look at the views of unmarried mothers rub it down by age, you see that in that unmarried mothers of a big in that young17%

age bracket feet of a big problem. what is good about not seeing single moms is a bad thing you g? guest: for some, it might actually be a choice to be a single mom. and we make sure we are not victimizing these individuals. we need to provide the policy and support we need to make sure they are successful. the same time, and i know that mayor bloomberg tried to address the issue specifically of teen mothers because that is a growing problem. if we don't have those conversations that we don't eviscerate them and shed light on the issue of teen motherhood and, again, if they choose to, but say how do we help you with those resources that you need in order so that the family can be successful, and worn portly, the impact on immunity is less severe? host: mother in sole provider,

the pew research provider looks at how it has gone up. 1960 as the start all the way up to 40% today. we are talking about right when her moms with maria teaser -- maria teresa kumar and mona charen. here are the numbers of youth like to join. republicans --(202) 585-3881. democrats --(202) 585-3880. independent callers --(202) 585- 3882. 40% of mothers are the sole writer in her home spirit about a third of them earn more than their husbands, but 63% are single mothers. guest: could i throw in something? among that 63% who are single moms, almost one third are receiving public assistance. whenis is not necessarily you talk about breadwinning, it may not actually be breadwinning, it may be being

on public significant -- assistance. host: why that significant to you? guest: the more the family breakdown, the more people rely on government to support them, the less still sustaining, productive citizens we are supporting. we are creating many handicaps. we want people to come into the world with the best shot that they possibly can for success. nothing with the government. it means having a really strong family that supports you and sees you through to the age of 18 or even beyond. that is what we need to get back to hear it unfortunate, -- back to. unfortunately, there is a lot of makes things going on. there is a celebration of women charging roles, but we have to keep our eye on the ball. if the family falls apart, it is not serve the interest of women, men, and certainly not children. guest: i think we are in a different age, a different

dynamic of what constitutes a family. we need to be respectful of those choices. opene do that is to have and frank conversations. but there are different kinds of families. the fact that they may be in public assistance, had we graduate them so that they are in power? had we empower them with entering the workforce? how do you get somebody off public assistance if they have a child, say at the age of 20, no husband, not even a high .chool degree, it is tough they have a little baby at home, the baby needs mom. you're going to say, you're going to provide her a job, it is tough. guest: it is incredibly telling -- challenging, but we have to understand what we are prioritizing. the fact that even as we are talking about a to couple home, in the event that the mother has a baby, we'll even provide her

with paid family leave. physically we are signaling as a country what our priorities are in the family. the fact that we don't even provide that as a basic, whether policies are we writing for a single mom? what are we providing for single mothers? the ability of women to present any workforce, and the "washington post" outlook session has this -- host: she went on to become a restaurant critic and food editor. the letter says basically -- , have you seenen

the change over time and what women are capable of doing ech? guest: there has been a change. in some ways it has been for the better. many women do decide to drop out of the labor force when they have kids. and that is their choice, and that is great, but no employer should assume that that should be the case because women who don't have children, they work , women who have children, don't have children. so that has been a change, but we don't make my get assumptions about everybody based on their sex. but there is too much of a tendency in our society to neglect the fact that kids need parents. and the choices have to be made and trade-offs have to be made. you cannot do everything. as a woman, you can't have a fantastic full-time career,

joyce bernick was the editor for the "new york times," she gamave a controversial address where she said -- if i'd had kids, i would not have become metro editor of the "new york times." i would have left early, i would've taken longer occasions, i would not have been willing to spend the 12, 14 hour job at the office, which is what this job requires. it was very versatile virtual. people got very angry at her. isre not saying anybody less than anybody else. we're saying life presents choices and trade-offs. she made hers. other people may differ once. a choice, youake should understand and live with it and not say that it represents a cosmic injustice. guest: i would disagree. i do not think all that have choices. the luxury of being highly educated, you have the choice of is a home.

for those are in households, even women who are out earning their men, oftentimes they may not have a choice because of the the economic downturn where a lot of men have lost their -- is really taking , if weback and saying are saying that the family is our number one social safety net, if that is what we believe, then our policy needs to demonstrate that as well so that we can make sure that we have a fighting economy. goldman sachs just recently did a study on the japanese economy. the number one driver in the japanese get out of their economic slump was for their women to go back to work. for them to actually get into the workforce, for them to be productive members of their society outside of the home. the japanese, who are such an economic powerhouse, they have is gaping hole in making --mselves more economic economically productive. guest: the big problem is women

who have kids who are single, who are never married. that is a huge problem. whether or not we have married women, married couples making trade-offs, every married couple i know juggles how to handle childcare and all that. and that is fine. but for single mothers, it is a terrible grind, and it is a cycle of poverty. it really is. guest: it's challenging, but again, i don't want to judge, often times very few single moms, they could've divorced, they could've lost a spouse, when you going into something, you don't know. guest: in 1970, i think it was something like 4% of single mothers were never married mothers. it is now 44%. host: we can look take a look at those stacks in a -- stats in a few minutes. if you are a breadwinner mom,

you can give us a call at (202) 585-3883. that is (202) 585-3883. statcharen mentions the on single mothers, so let's take a look at where they are according to the pew research center. among the things mom -- the single moms, 50% of children from prior marriages, 44% of never married, and 6% have an absence outs. -- an absent spouse. that is a really worrisome number, and it keeps going up every year. ,ot only does it keep going up and the numbers that they get is fine and acceptable and not something we need to worry about also keeps going up. it's not like you are empathizing and looking at what society can do for those families and what the government's responsibility is.

some folks that tweet in about this. wild and wonderful says -- society should pay for the extended leave and moms be able .o get at least some work how is it that the employer's response ability to pay for their female employees to take leave when a baby -- when they have babies? guest: when google changed their maternity leave, they had an increase in retaining employees. if you provided a space for people to take time off with her family, they're going to retain, but you do not have to worry about up from cost and trip -- upfront cost and training a new employee. that is huge. guest: i think businesses will figure it out if it helps them keep great employees, they will do it. but it is not address this other question which is really what i think is the heart of our problem, which is these never married moms.

they are not the ones working at google. guest: they're working as people cleaning google's offices. see you have to look at that. i think it is a moment of taking a step back and addressing there are two different questions. one is -- what are we looking at with single moms, maybe teenage moms or he young moms without an education? i think it is a matter of providing them with opportunities and saying how do we actually get out of this cycle of property. that is one. guest: you know that is a choice? guest: no. guest: i do. i think it is really important. i think that stigma serves a useful function for people doing something that is bad for themselves and die for their kids and that for society. choosing to have a baby before you are married, before you are settled, before you can afford it, it is now the case that 53% of children who are born to women under the age of 30 have no father. guest: they have a father, they

just may not know who the father is. or may not have an active father. it wasn't the moms fault. there a danger in stigmatizing the women and not the men in this situation? guest: absolutely the men should be stigmatized as well. this would require a lot of rethinking about the sexual revolution am a but we cannot go there this morning. but absolutely. it should be seen as a sacred obligation when you bring a child into the world that you will only do so when you are ready to support that child with two parents and a home that makes enough money to provide the basics of life. and to say -- let's have the states do it -- only encourages length of the state support them, let's have the state provide all kinds of financial -- it only encourages the behavior that we want to discourage. host: let's get your response

and we will go to the phones. guest: something you have to keep in mind is unfortunately, i have a really hard time to disparage someone for making their choices. if you have a child come as a community, you have to celebrate a child. it is not that child's fault to be born without two parents. i do think that as a community, we have to be able to provide, make sure that that child does not end up in poverty. i think that is an obligation that we have. again, if an unwed mother chooses to have a child, she has to make sure that she has the support system that unique needs -- that she needs to thrive. it is unfair because every single circumstance is completely different. host: we will get some of our callers involved. jody writes -- the only choice we make is crucial how many of us make the right choice when under percent of the time. it only works in a perfect world. ryan is on the phone from south

dakota. hi, but ryan. caller: hi. i was just pointing out -- ms. kumar mentioned that as a teen mothers that make the choice to anome mothers, it is interesting point, however we do not even let teenagers choose to drink alcohol. short-term churros -- choice that children make. raising a child is a long-term choice that they make. how do you justify that disconnect? i will take my answer off the phone. thank you. host: i think that is a great question. i think that is a great question. not only that illegal for a person under the age of 18 to have alcohol, but i would actually argue that there aren't -- there is very little

attention paid to teen mothers. if we have programs that would address that and advocacy and educational programs to the consequences of that, that would be one thing, but we are asking people to make these choices absent of real structure. i think that mona made a good point -- they may not be getting that structure at home, but where are they getting that then? we are very stringent as a country when it comes to alcohol prevention for 18-year-olds, under the age of 21, but we do not have that same advocacy program when it comes to teen motherhood. guest: i think we should be trying to get the message to young people that having a baby before you are married is a bad idea, and we should be discouraging it with everything we got. but to respond to what you said moralr, there is a hazard problem when you say you are not going disparage their choices, and by the way, of course, there are great mothers who managed to raise great kids

who are single. idea,talking about the the idea is a very bad thing for them, for society. but if you say we are going to -- if you have made this batch was, we're going to support support you and provide all of these structures with money, housing, food stamps, which we do already, by the way. don't you see a problem by encouraging them? buckets to young ladies -- one of the right thing and does does not get pregnant before she gets married, she did she gets nothing. the woman who gets pregnant before she is married gets a huge number of federal programs. [indiscernible] guest: a lot of it stems from clinton passing the health care .ct in 2000 you had to make sure the one outside of those cycles of poverty.

yes, there is government assistance, but we have to provide the training that will they need to get out of that cycle of poverty that they have. host: women in the workplace make up 47% of the u.s. labor force, and 55% of married mothers with children are employed outside of the home. let's hear from mary in chicago, illinois. she calls herself a breadwinner. am a single mom, my son is now 14. i had him at 35. listening to all the different condiments that i'm hearing, -- different, that i'm hearing, stereotypes, which might be based on some of the numbers, the statistics. i find that a lot of times it is not a choice. a lot of times for religious regions -- reasons, sme find

themselves pregnant, they're not going to abort themselves. and was widowed for a few years and found myself accidentally pregnant decided to raise my son of my own. i do have an education. i went back to school one of my son was two and i got a masters degree. it can with all of, i'm still finding it very difficult. single mothers always living of the government, the government actually encourages women or individuals to stay in a cycle of poverty because once you try to better yourself, the amount somoney that you can make is publicly low to get

assistance that it keeps some people -- well, i might as well keep taking it from the government because even if i try to better myself, -- host: mary, do you know that from personal experience? have you wrestled with that question yourself, or thighs or something that -- guest: i have. -- caller: i have. i am doing ok i guess, in this economy. i live in a region where we have the highest gas prices in all of the country. $4.35 a gallon, and that is on the cheap side. and it is not just about a mile, well, they have to make better choices and stay married. in this climate, you need to be working just to make ends meet. host: let's get a response from our panelists, maria teresa kumar and mona charen. guest: i salute you.

being a child of a single mom, i understand the difficulties that you must be facing. but i applaud the you that you had the opportunity to go back to school and do so, successfully found by, raising a 14-year-old. that said, i think you said a couple of things. there is a penalty for women who go out and decide to better themselves and then the government shuts down. and it is like, do i continue going to school and better myself and actually have that higher paying job, the meantime, that is so thin and marginal. what is important is the idea that right now in tough economic times, what other kinds of support are we providing individuals to make sure that they are as successful as possible and not being penalized as they try to improve themselves? iest: as i said earlier, think the goal should be to have the fewest people as

possible in this situation. said, it is very tough. some people find themselves single parents because a spouse died, because of divorce, sometimes affordable, sometimes not. -- sometimes avoidable, sometimes not. host: religion, that was interesting. guest: i have my problems with that because first of all there is adoption. ive parent myself. second, putting a sub in a position to become pregnant, that is not happened by immaculate conception. but in any event, as i said, the in a is to try to minimize situation never married because -- they're in a situation the most at risk and

continuing the cycle of poverty. in 1996, we had a welfare reform in this country that was widely predict it was going to throw women and children into the snow and was going to be a terrible catastrophe. instead, it was excellent. --reduced childhood property poverty tremendously. have many unofficial effects. unfortunately, this administration has gotten rid of many of those areas and rather than rewarding work, reward divinity. we find ourselves back to where we were before welfare reform was passed in some respects. let's look at some more about the pew research report about women who are the breadwinners. married mothers are increasingly better educated than their husbands. the last caller talked about getting more of an education

herself when she had a child. it says -- host: then we see the perception peoplemerica'ns -- most think it is bad if a wife out on to her husband. mona, what you think about this notion? guest: again, i would say it is not really a problem for society. by the way, it can be a problem in the marriages. the science that is interesting. it shows that when women out on her husbands, they are much more likely to divorce, and couples to reportess likely

themselves as happy then in the reverse situation. i don't know if that is something that will change over time, but it is the case right now. i think habits might be changing. i would be curious to see how the generational break up of that is, whether not individuals get divorce. i think that what is interesting is i recently saw a commercial for laundry detergent, and it was the very first time that i saw that the heaven with staying home and taking care of the kid. i think it points to that families are changing, priorities are changing. guest: one change that is great is that husbands can do that. some husbands are cut out for that. i would have to say anything most are not. guest: some women are not cut out to do laundry, either. [laughter] guest: nobody is cut out to do laundry, let's face it. host: let's look at some stats

from the pew research study. "breadwinner moms" -- 40% of mothers are sold or primary providers and their homes with children. to 7% earn more than their husbands. 63% of single mothers. 46% are 30 years or younger, 40% are black, could be four% are hispanic, almost half of them have a high school education or less and we see below, median family income of $70,000. $17,000. what stands out to you?

guest: we need conversations on how to prevent this from happening without disparaging to choices. we had huge campaigns on underage drinking, making sure that people are not doing drugs -- when it comes to teen pregnancy and prevention there's very little conversation around that and public awareness. we do need to provide it -- to ensure we are providing individuals with the support they need to get out of that cycle. >> some of our followers on twitter -- we see a different opinion. we are creating a case

system. we did a caste system. -- but we are creating a caste system. they are getting married at the rate they did almost 30 or 40 years ago. kids are going to harvard and they are doing great. and then there are parents who have some college or some high school degree, especially those who did not even have a high- school degree. the families are failing to four. "will it a great line, be so much better off if the people who are in the upper caste, the college educated married group, would preach with a practice." they are reluctant to that. sometimes being judgmental is important. >> we will get calls from our conversation. randy is in wyoming watching.

i agree with most of what you have to say. these programs have to be paid for, they come out of my pocket. of young boystion and girls have been kicked out of wedlock, we have to get back to that. my main point is this, as far as poverty goes -- young unmarried not realize they are in property as long as they have their cell phone and text difference -- text their friends. they have two or three kids in most cases. everything is subsidized in their life. nothing is going to change. the stigmatization has gone at least two generations.

as long as they can be equal with the paris -- equal with their peers -- i'll hang up. i think it is probably the case that the young women who have babies didn't realize they are in poverty in the beginning but they realize it soon enough. again, it is too lite. -- too late. it is a terrible track that we allow them to fall into. guest: i greatly agree. with but we do not have far responsibility to one another. tweet we feel we do not have responsibility to one another.

this is where we are today. we have 40% of women as head of household. a lot of them living in poverty. how to be actually make sure that we identify what the causes are? as do we make sure they are economically robust and pain back into the system as much as possible? i can imagine one mother out there who does not want to commit to of for the child. it cannot imagine that. you mentioned the government. one perfect example of government dysfunction is the sequestered. teachers and off closing down head start. one of the number one programs has demonstrated that not only does it provide food and education for early children facing poverty but you actually improve them in early chou intel met.

-- early childhood development. how does that community make sure that we are -- host: the does look at the survey but you did. public service on changing gender roles -- 20% say it has made it harder whereas 67% say easy. women working out of the home has made marriage harder to make it successful. 74%, an increasing number of women working for payouts outside the home has made it harder for parents to raise children. 19% say it is easier. we have seen in the new york times today.

bit more as the 50th anniversary of the equal- pay act which was signed in 1983. i would refer people to the independent woman's forum website and there you will find interesting data on why is it the woman on average make less than men? is it because they work fewer hours? they choose to devote themselves to their families. when you compare young people at the same education level before children enter the picture when men are either making the same as men are out earning a man. an economist recently did research from contemporary fami

guest: one of the reasons we have had women become heads of households is because they have been in the same industry as there has been that they were earning less. the husband who has been earning more has been laid off. it is typical of the employer to keep the bad weather. -- keep the breadwinner. she was earning less for the same equal job and it is easy for the employer to keep her on. it is illegal for you to pay her less than him if it is the same job. guest: that is why one of the reasons the president signed the letter law -- guest: that law was an empowerment law for lawyers and

and vindication. host: reducing women leaving the work force to extort a family in combat. -- to start a family and then they come back. host: we see felix tweaking eeting in--ting i let us hear what marquette's to say in the democrats' line. what mark -- what mark has to say on the democrats' line. 30 years old with a well-established career and house and ducks in the courtyard, then you can have children, that does not pass as far as i am concerned.

are wageost people earning people in america they are now making less than $10 per hour. under ronald reagan, that is when will people had to be working -- when both people had to be working. in your household? caller: that is right. but both of usb had to go to work to make ends meet. during that time most americans had to leave the household to make ends meet. host: let us get a response. guest: i did not say 30 years

old was a larger cut off. i said people should wait until they are married and stable. i challenge anyone to say that is not the ideal situation for families to form. as for the reagan era, it was a tremendous economic boom. the fact that many spouses went into the labor force. -- into the labor force, the fact is the american economy was able to expand. there is a huge influx of all of these workers, namely women. it shows the capacity of the american economy to expand. it is amazing. it should have driven wages down. host: she is a syndicated columnist. you can read her writing in a fairy -- in a variety of places. hosting a pot cast.

it is called "need to know." she is a mother. we are talking about red weather -- breadwinners and their role in surat -- and their role in society. she's a frequent guest on an nbc her background as with the law media group and work with the legislative aide and with the democratic chairman. a while agoemocrat -- she is also a mother. julie is up next. caller: good morning. i was divorced at 41 with a small tub to race. not to work off with the government aid of received.

go back to work as quickly as i was able to. people depend on the system. i want to see some accountability from the men. we have single moms and no mail accountability. i watched two different newscasts. an illegal came here 20 years and is now an advocate in teaching others on how to get on those things. i watched a program of a man who had 22 children by 14 different mothers and paid no child support. all women had government subsidies. host: how would you change the

message or is their policy would like to see changed? how would you change the way society views the data? is it the policy change or a different conversation we have? i believe when you have especially ans attorney like your guest there advocating a for women to get out of poverty. she should be prosecuting these men who are going around impregnating girls. many come out of a loving homes. what they are looking for is love and support. they end up pregnant. host: let us g a response.

you do have a law degree. let us go to you first. it is very difficult to prosecute people for impregnating women. this is not a crime. it is incredibly socially impossible. it is incredibly selfish and stupid. to make it illegal would be in .n infringement some people will feel the sting of stigma. we do not need a huge government program. we do not need prosecutors. the stigma applied -- if the stigma applied people will change their own behavior. that is something we need.

host: what you think about the concerns of the future of the family? many to be a part of this conversation. the more we talk about the importance of that responsibility the more we make it clear to them that is something they need to take seriously. if you are a teenager and you get a young woman pregnant, what are the programs they have? it is not enough to stigmatize someone. sample soovide the they actually emulate it? host: let us hear from regina, a democrat. theer: i agree with comments on both sides of your visitors.

i have to say the and the early 1990's -- in the early 1990's i was put on welfare. i have never been on it before. here in west virginia there are a lot people on welfare system. i went back to school and i went wentto school -- when i back to school the aid was taken away from me very quickly. i raised both of my kids. the income i am able to make even with my degree is much less than what it should be. i believe that people who are trying to get out of the welfare system should be supportive so they can go and finish their education and get into a different income bracket and raise their children. let us go to the guest. guest: she demonstrates when there is government assistance and when you go to school.

that is the purpose of these programs. seize the endless cycle of poverty. you have very little recourse. some aspects of the welfare reform cost more money to the government than the previous law. the reason was they did provide the elevator of support for people who were getting an education or getting a job so they would not lose those benefits are there would not be ea disincentive for them. that would be a good idea. in the long run to make people more self-sufficient that is a good thing. there was another point. host: we will take a call and we will come back to it. tina is in alexandria virginia. hello. this question is

directed to miss charen. since we have so many ethnic groups in america how you determine based on your research which ethnic group have more children? there are several ethnic groups from europe -- we have several groups of people of color and we have latino mexican and other groups from south america. host: we have dug into this a little bit when we look at census numbers. we saw a visual on the screen about unmarried moms, those who have never been married and we did see some of the background there. why is this a concern to you? every time there is- compass -- negative connotation of african-american mothers, if

we only make up 13% in this country, how was it african americans can have more single mothers than european americans? guest: in this case it is a function of being younker. -- being younger. the average caucasian person is 42 years old and the average african-american is around 30. the average latino is around the age of 25. they're just much younger than the rest of the country. you bring up a very good point. you saw birthrates go down across these groups during the recession because it is so expensive to have kids. i think that we have to have a broader conversation.

how are we making sure these children are not born into poverty. it is not these communities that they live in that are going to have to deal with the consequences. how're we going to support the baby boomers if we're not getting the jobs in research these individuals need? guest: i agree with that. the other key point of the law was putting time limits on the welfare benefits so people understood it is not an analyst hammock they could settle into. -- it is not an endless hammock that they could settle into. we should have never been in this position in the first place because it is tough when you are a single mom to make a go of it. regarding the ethnic breakdown, we want what is best for every american child, whatever race or

ethnic group therefrom. we want every kid to be born into a two parent family and go to school that is actually going to prepare them for a job, not one of these very dysfunctional schools in so many communities. we have some incredibly difficult work to do to get the basics right. you can pile on every program known to humanity. host: this is coming in from twitter --

we have been talking about a. pugh report on breadwinner moms. it shows a rising number of major wagere the earners for their family. thank you to our guests. executive director and contributor to msn dc. thank you. coming up next we will take a look at what is happening in syria and what the u.s. role and international role should be. first, c-span radio. >> looking ahead to the heirs of the sunday talk shows today's topics include the irs, government interception of e- mail and phone call, immigration reform, and u.s.-china relations. c-span radio read-years the program every sunday afternoon. programs every sunday

afternoon. "meet the press" is pre-empted by the french open. --sts included feinstein dianne feinstein, the chairman of the senate intelligence committee, mike rogers, the chairman of the house intelligence committee, and democratic senator mark udall. chris wallace talks with grand pauland what -- with rand n and ron johnson. john mccain and elijah cummings -- and an appearance by democratic senator mark his udall. withbob schieffer talks senator joe brand, and the longest serving member of the

house and, john dingell. those are but you buy a public- service -- the shows are but you as a public service by the network. they begin at 1:00 p.m.. listen to them all on c-span radio, on 91. fm on the dc area. satellite radio. you can listen online. >> we put on a uniform for a job that is a maintenance job, this is true if you are a building janitor or a sanitation worker, you are subsumed by the role to the point where you are almost part of the background. i am going to say almost like a machine. you are a human being wearing

that uniform. the general world gets to overlook you. it really does not see. i have called it -- it is like a cloaking device for the people that our fellow star trek geeks. frustrating and a privilege. when i am wearing a sanitation worker uniform i can observe people in ways they did not realize i am observing them. >> department of sanitation anthropologist in residence, robin nagle. tonight on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. guest: thank you for joining us this morning to talk about syria. host: the syrian opposition is it goes on to say --

considered to be a how serious is this threat? guest: we have to take it seriously. they have been a critical player for some time. they are not going to participate in the talks said they feel they are coming at a severe disadvantage. united states does have some of the region does have some leverage on them. -- united states does have some leverage on them. they may still be able to convince them to participate. host: what are the potential for these talks? we heard john kerry get together with the russians. we have not seen a date yet. are you optimistic it will happen? guest: at this point i am skeptical that if it happens they will move the ball forward.

the u.s. and russia are trying to meet again later this month. a conference has yet to be set. initially it was going to be held at the end of may. there is under book -- there is understandable concern about when the talks go off. when they too are they going to be able to affect the situation? host: what is the obama administration's interest in the talks? guest: the obama administration's interest is to seek negotiated political solutions. a negotiated solution would be best. it would ideally put syria on a track toward transition. i do think americans should care with what is happening in syria.

it is in a very vital region in the world. it is perhaps one of the most brutal conflicts happening right now. and it has the potential to destabilize the entire region, a region that is very significant in strategic interest to the united states. host: if you elect to join the conversation, republicans -- -- if you would like to join th the associated press reported recently that france and britain samples confirm the nerve gas sarin has been used in syria. holds conventional wisdom that the syrian regime propelled -- perpetrated the attacks.

that set the obama administration's position is that there is no conclusive evidence that the regime used sarin. they are trying to establish a chain of custody. they want to lay the establishment, through evidence don?o reviews that information is still lacking. on thewere they used backs that the commission is still lacking. -- used on it? that information is still lacking. assad winningdent this conflict? guest: they have been out armed from the beginning. has access toime

ballistic missiles, chemical weapons. from the outset of the conflict that has been a longstanding complaint by the rebels, they do not have sufficient arms. the syrian that regime's allies have upped their support for the machine. many believe that is why the syrian regime has been successful. i would not go so far as to say the regime is winning. this is a very deeply rooted conflict. the syrian government has lost control of vast lots of land in northern syria. there is little reason to believe they can get that back. i do believe they are consolidating their control over important part of the country. host: let us go to phones. ken is on the republican line. i hadr: miss yacoubian,

the pleasure of speaking with you a year or two ago. i would like to recount the history in the middle east, if you will recall. hussein killed 10,000 pows. they turned lebanon into a battle ground. there was the assad elder who brotherhod00 muslim membersi n one day. , 1re was the iran-iraq war4 millinon casaulties. we armed them in afghanistan.

we seem to constantly be confounded by the middle east and i am wondering if we stop getting involved in syria -- start getting involved in syria as we did with iran, but will be theultimate -- what will be ultimate result of that involvement? guest: the love very much for your question. i think your point is well taken and it is shared by a majority of americans whose polls suggest we do not have an interest in getting involved in syria militarily. we have been involved in afghanistan and iraq. those of the two most recent conflict. i think president obama has made it pretty clear that he is not interested in involving america

in a third middle east war. of that is why we see cautioned that the administration is undertaking. seeing any we are emphasis right now on diplomacy and on humanitarian systems. the cautious freckly well is likely well grounded. host: democrat line. theer: if you look at iraq iraqi government has a government that is recognized by the international world as being somewhat democratic. they were hit with suicide bombings constantly all the time. if assad wins the war in syria will same thing happens with syria? will they be hit with five bombings of the time. is this the legacy of syria? is this the legacy of arab

springs? you're seeing iraq tried to emerge from a very volatile. i think the suicide attacks the unseeing, they are very troubling. i think there are characteristic of an upsurge in sectarian violence, in part of what is happening in syria. syria is already experiencing all kinds of violence, including suicide bombings. i think that is characteristic of the deep rooted instability that the country is going through. i would not go so far as to make a prediction. at this point i do not see syria in any way returning to the status quo. assadot see president winning this conflict. you think of the concerns raised about instability in the

region are very well taken. i think syria is going to be contended with violence of all kinds. with respect to the arabs think we're seeing much more troubling dynamics now. as the arabic-speaking countries and to their third year -- arabs bring countries to enter their third year it is a much different form. we're seeing a greater return to sectarianism violence. host: bill of rights and on twitter -- twitterrites in on -- that thes idea question becomes a lot harder for us? guest: i think he is right.

he is pinning his finger on zapata's compress the and the uncertainty of the conflict -- he is pressing his finger -- it has morphed from what has been started as peaceful protests to essentially sectarian civil war. that has important applications. we need to be asking ourselves the question now, as the united , is it within the united states interest to support assad? host: the new york times has a piece -- it is an opinion piece by journalist and civil-rights lawyer who writes --

why is it significant to look at the root bursas where things are now? and how is sectarianism used as a talking point? guest: is important to look up the roots we understand how and why things evolve. it is a great piece that she wrote. she writes very useful details about this area that was and this area that we may be heading towards. she's absolutely right, this does not start a sectarian conflict. syria was one of the uprisings along with egypt and tunisia, libya, yemen. we need to understand what some

of the court grievances of the syrian people are. to lift the shackles of an autocratic authoritarian regime. unfortunately i do think she acknowledges that while it was not because it is now the vehicle. i think that is true. that is very important. as we try to understand how we move forward? is are there ways that external actors can help the escalate -- help de- escalate the situation? we're seeing it in significant ways in lebanon and iraq. host: let's hear from simon from london on our independent line. caller: good afternoon.

this is a wonderful show. i love seeing it every week. and really enjoy seeing it. basically i would like to ask about the rules in the syrian conflict. there seems to be a lot of talk about the united nations, about i would say that the arab league do absolutely nothing whatsoever. it is going to be confusing. it always seems to be the wedge for invariably a lot of these countries. they get involved in these complex. -- it's whatets up gets involved -- is it extreme islamicism?

west didays the involved in any conflict. before we let you go share with us the perspective of what is happening in the united kingdom. what is the discussion about what england possible should be? iscaller: i think england getting fed up with getting involved in these conflicts. we have this come from terrorism going on at the moment. -- this home-grown terrorism going on at the moment. usemic fundamentalists british policy and i think the majority of british populace are becoming extremely bold. 9/11 was a direct threat.

inwill lose getting involved these regimes. they added an arab league to get anything involved. host: them for sharing your perspective. guest: i think he raises some good points. the arab league certainly is not speaking as a unitary voice on syria. they have undertaken almost unprecedented action with respect to syria. they have implemented economic stations, the sec suspended serious opposition. sponsors of ano- envoy in the un. at one point in the conflict they even set arab league deserters to syria. they have been more involved in syria than one would expect.

they do not necessarily speak with one voice. are veryovernments leery of pushing too hard on this question. these are governments that may have some sympathy is with the assad regime. in some ways i think the arab league is about as effective as going -- as effective as it is going to be. host: mario, republican. caller: domal, i enjoy the show. i am a conservative, not a republican. i have a couple of questions. do you think this is a proxy war? and the whole purpose of the war in syria is to get iran.

people cannot take iran down with syria there. one of the main purposes is to lock in china. we would control more oil or have more influence on oil and less dependent on this oil. i want your thoughts and a better proxy war. that toono denying many people in the middle east and many arab countries are living within certain boundaries and they do not get along with each other. there's nothing we can do. there is going to be widespread war. there's nothing we can do with the sectarian violence because a lot of people did not get the wall. >> thank you to the questions. guest: it is not because of a

proxy war. , therely with the region are powers on one hand and be sunny dominated powers on the gulf. as you pointed out it is also in some ways reflective of the difference is currently between the united states and russia. it may begard considered a proxy war with even broader implications. i do think that the united states and russia trying to come together on a position in syria is a development that remains to be seen. i think we absolutely have to watch syria closely. it does have the possibility of it doesat -- it will have -- it does have the possibility of being more difficult.

is i think it is a much more complex situation and to view it simply as a way to put undermine iran may be very important to u.s. interests in the process. the terms of your second question, about people not getting along with each other and the ways we can make a difference, it is a very good point. if we look at the experience in iraq. we had significant u.s. presence on the ground. even that was not enough to state a very bloody sectarian civil war. the point is well taken. i think what one hopes is before syria descends into the throes of a sectarian war that really could last for years and maybe even more than a decade, if you look this experience of neighboring lebanon -- is there

a place for diplomacy to try to pull the parties back from frank -- from the brink before more people perish in a very brutal conflict? host: a senior middle east adviser at the stemson center. she joined in 2011. her past experience includes a north african analyst for this department. she spent time in syria in the 1980's she was with u.s. institute with peace. if we saw president obama named his pick to be the u.n. ambassador, samantha power. the washington post looks at her writings and is inside the minds as the pieces call and look at the party has written. appointment toluol both the direction the obama mitt administration will be taking on syria?

guest: cement the power will take a more -- whether or not estimate the power will take a more -- she has advocated for a more activist approach. i think the consensus in washington is that despite the position -- her position is a little bit more nuanced, it does not translate to military. at the end of the day both she and susan rice will be the new national security adviser and are likely to defer to president obama. he really does remain the primary decider. thehis point i think indications this continue to

suggest he is not interested in military intervention. host: matthew is in the united kingdom. what are your comments or questions? caller: i hope you are all well. my comment is in relation to all of the nations who are apparently involved in negotiations. we havend of the day the president of china saying they will not interfere with internal affairs, we know that is rubbish. we have russia that it wants to maintain a military basis within the regions, trying to make sure there is a military capacity. -- whether or not it be israel, whether or not it be oil and friends benefits.

genuinelyms to ask us what we would like to happen? like a two-state solution. we would like syria to be a peaceful country, once again. unfortunately we have all of these global players out there, making decisions. we are simply being silenced. i really do think the u.s., china, russia can put the guns on the table and see what you got. if you do not have a full set of cards in that region -- unless europeans do with the situation. it is not there, not right. -- not fair, not right. have sent in a

military force to resolve this when it first started. i'd like your opinion on that. thank you for your time. i think the issue on military intervention is that because of concerns about the opposition, the armed opposition both in terms of their and al qaeda, because it is a fractious opposition, and because there is increasing the ground position in syria there is concern about military intervention, even armed rebels. be and up -- the arms may end up in the wrong hands. europe has had a much more activist stance, certainly on libya.

and also on syria. you have the decision to let the eu arms embargo laps. lapse. embargo there is controversy that not all of the conservative party or the opposition labour party are favoring this. it will likely be put into a vote in parliament. i guess i would say that it is hard to imagine the u.s. or russia backing off from the middle east. i think we have seen more than activist stance on the part of europe. concerns and, that's about what the military engagement might mean. host: 8 tweet --

guest: this is probably one of the main pivot point the debate. senator mccain has been an advocate for military intervention in syria. the understanding is that a no- fly zone is a much more involved military endeavor, it requires pretty extensive military intervention to take out syria's anti air defense system, which points to the russian question of -- i will talk about that in a moment. it was a significant involvement of u.s. forces. that is 0.1. 0.2 is concerned that there is hard -- there's the potential of deepening intervention. third, this is all developing at a time of a sequester and a time when u.s. military readiness is

compromised as a result. this has been a very active question in the news. union about the arms -- windy e. you allowed the arms embargo to lapse -- when the e.u. allowed the arms embargo to lapse -- they are considered to be game-changing weapons. syria said they would not abide to such weapons and they would strike at them. russia has since backed off on the idea of sending them -- i am to -- they are holding it out there. understand russians how serious it would be if in fact they did send those missiles. let us go to a local

caller in mclean, virginia. john on the independent line. caller: thank you for your wonderful program. i was wondering why we are looking at the pain in the middle east and not at cause of the pain? believe all of the sectarian activities and terraced escalated -- sectarian activities in terrorists escalated. -- you think iran is there very clearly. why don't the superpowers help the people of iran to get rid of this regime and then everything will be back to normal and people will have to have lives been there would be gnosis -- there would be no necessity for military intervention.

i do not know why they did not have -- [indiscernible] thank you very much. guest: thank you for the question. certainly iran has a role to play. they are the most staunch supporters of the syrian regime. they have provided financing, weapons, and vice, there are advisers on the ground in syria. to reduce everything that is happening in syria and beyond to just iran is an oversimplification. i understand the collar's concerns about the situation inside iran. it is quite difficult, per to go after the failed green revolution in 2009. u.s.e e see in any way

getting involved. what we will be watching is the concerns over nuclear ambitions. does that lead to some sort of competition at the west host half host: -- at the west. host: a story saying -- and us across the border the influence in this area. guest: turkey has had contacts that the protests. we started as protests against the environmentalists who were opposed to destruction of that green space. of the prime minister.

in terms of how it affects syria, a think the issue is as it stands even before these protests started there has been some discomfort in turkey with the turkish government's very forward position. turkey is a strong supporter of the opposition. they have been calling for military intervention but they are not interested in doing it on their own. they have a number of syrian opposition groups that have and they have hosted a large number of syrian refugees. what has happened is that turkey has gotten more sucked into the syrian conflict. that is provoking a deeper concerns amongst the turkish population. there was a double car bombing last month in southern part of turkey. it ended up with quite a number

of people killed. they're provoking protests and deep concerns among feet turkish population. i think this concern predates the protests and i think the ongoing protest probably makes it even more difficult for the turkish government to take on board and move forward on syria. host:, so much for talking with us this morning. "washingtonfor journal." we will be back tomorrow. our guest includes derek chollet. healthcare," jonathan block.

and finally we will look at the cost of overseas military bases. we will see you then. have a good day. followed byabenow military leaders testify on sexual assault in the military. irsr, testimony on spending. >>