♪ morning. president obama will begin today at the white house for a meeting with key members of congress as he tries to sell his plan for military action in syria. he will conclude the day by departing washington for russia in the start of the g20 summit. on capitol hill this afternoon, the first of what will be a series of congressional hearings will be taking place at the senate foreign relations debates the syrian question. we will have live coverage of that getting underway at 2:30 eastern time live on c-span.

the question today, is the doing a precedent on residential power? the impact on the obama presidency, colin -- --call in. the lines you can join us on our social media networks and send us a tweet at @cspanwj. mail, journal@c- span.org. we will begin with the front page of "the wall street journal " --

this headline this morning from the front page of "usa today" -- an analysis piece by susan page --

and stephen dennis from rollca ll.com has this --

we will get your calls and comments, the impact of all of this on the obama residency and presidency in general. first the comments of senator john mccain, following the hour- long meeting with president obama yesterday. here's a portion of with the arizona republican had to say -- [video clip] tivee had a produc conversation. now a resolution is going to be before the congress of the united states. we want to work to make that resolution something that the majority of the members of both houses can support. a vote against that resolution, i think, would be catastrophic because it would undermine the credibility of the united states of america and the presidency of the united states of america. we want an articulation of a

time -- we want an articulation of a goal of a time -- so that they can reverse the momentum on the battlefield that is presently not in their favor because they have not received the assistance that they need, while bashar al-assad has ofeived in abundance capabilities from russia and iran. the two senators who met with the president yesterday, first from "the arizona rep ublic" -- and from the state newspaper in south carolina -- jim has this point on our twitter page --

elise is joining us from warren, ohio. democrats line. caller: i don't mean to be rude but i really do not care how it affects president obama toss presidency -- president obama's presidency. think by the red line he is .rying to save face we need to stop with all the warmongering all the time. not to mention that us americans, we keep hearing how everything has to be cut, our property taxes are going up, federal assistance is less and less. we still have enough money to go over and send cruise missiles over and bomb other countries. i just do not get it. president obama wants to have a grand bargain and cut social

security and all kinds of different domestic programs. we still have enough money to bomb other countries. i just want to give a shout out to my representative, tim ryan, i don't want you to vote for any kind of authorization anythis president ora n president again. with if he does side president obama on the syrian decision, how would that impact your vote? caller: they don't listen to us very much anyway. i voted for were present to give -- voted forpast representative ryan for the past few elections. thank you for being with us. from our twitter page --

some of you are already weighing in on our facebook page -- join in on the conversation. jim is joining us from michigan, also on the democrats line. caller: good morning.

i do not believe there is a weakening of the president's office. he was just arm twisted into coming up with this red line saying, involving the chemical weapons. i believe it was probably takeover operation to launch those chemical weapons in the first place. covert operation to launch those chemical weapons in the first place. all it would take would be a nation or the opposition force to just try to make it look like a saudi used them -- make it byk like assad used them getting behind enemy lines. i think the motivation to get america involved in this conflict would justify, in their minds, doing that. host: the front page of "the

a photographmes," of senator mccain outside the white house -- joined from lynbrook, new york on the republican line. good morning. i wonder why president obama and all the other presidents around the world would not agree that they need to attack this guy on the go. maybe two years ago is when they first started to realize that he .as a bad guy, a bad player to avoid this killing a 1400 civilians, including women and just brings back memories of not see regimes -- of not see -- of nazi regimes. reactnfortunate we do not quick enough.

it was unfortunate back then, unfortunate now. there is no conspiracy theories, this is reality. he should be taken out. he should be taken out swiftly. we do not need congress, the senate, we do not need any of that stuff. this is just the right thing to do. wait, the quicker it leaves our mind and he is going to get away with it. that is just the way i feel. host: another view from our twitter page -- the bbc has posted this story about the human impact on the situation in syria. more than 2 million syrians are refugees and the total is going up. that is according to a un report.

more syrians are displaced than any other nationality. there are suggestions that the president may be planning much wider action then just limited strikes that are publicly proposed. senior politicians are set to speak before a congressional hearing to rally for an intervention. that is getting underway at 230 this afternoon -- at 2:30 this afternoon. you can check out the schedule online any time at www.c- span.org. auce is joining us from callan, texas. the question this morning, a vote on syria, what impact, if any, does it have on the obama presidency? morning.ood -- i talked to my 91-year-old father. it would

definitely hurt the presidency. my brother was a soldier. my brothers mother was a soldier. brother wasaher's a soldier. the idea of using nuclear weapons is unprecedented. it it can not he allowed. -- be allowed. my father fought in the great war, fought in vietnam. it is disheartening to know that we are a country of flaws, and he is the commander-in-chief . it is like asking somebody for permission. the president does not need permission. i understand where he is trying caughtnstead of being up in a war for a decade that

afghanistana an and so chemical the use of weapons is -- it can not be allowed. these photographs released from the white house, showing some of the negotiations. senator mccain and graham meeting with susan rice and the president, trying to sell his plan for u.s. intervention in syria. we are asking what impact this has on the obama presidency. gary has this point on our twitter page -- from "the associated press,"

there's the story regarding vladimir putin, hosting the g 20 summit this week -- russian television showing putin meeting with the two lawmakers in russia outside his house. that story is from "the associated press." independent line, from california, good morning. agree with the lady who was talking about, there was always money for war. when there is an outbreak in another country, we see the

people out in the streets, we see them overthrowing their government, the things like this. i do not know what the viewer ship -- with the viewership for c-span is -- what the viewership for c-span is. do not go to work this week. spend time calling your representative. if this is a democracy, let's exercise it. the commander in chief does have to go to congress. that is in our constitution. jam their phone lines, go to capitol hill, and tell these people we do not want this war. this is not our fight. this is about israel and the $30 billion we give them every year. the impact all of this has on the presidency? caller: i don't think that matters, we have to be willing to-- we have to be willing

say, hey, we can change our mind. our people don't want this. as the commander-in-chief, i back down. it's a wash. host: carly has this, sending us an e-mail -- bob is joining us from pennsylvania. welcome to washington journal. thank you for taking my call. what happened over in syria is a tragedy. the united nations has not sanctioned this. the president of the united shouldand the congress be more concerned about returning veterans for more --

veterans from war, the people homes, andr the people out of work in this country. take care of america first and then we will think about helping other people. host: thank you for the call. in an editorial this morning, summit in st. g20 petersburg, russia -- meanwhile, from "the new york times," the story about russia and a warning for those in the

united states -- that story is from inside the new york times website. --ocrats line from georgia what impact does this have on the presidency? caller: good morning.

i'm not an educated man but i'm a man frowith common sense. nation that is divided. why do we need to go into anyone's backyard and declare war? blackt all this democratic republicans. until we come together under god as a nation we are going to crumble. i wish everyone would have a blessed and happy day. viewers onone of our this, a twitter, to -- comment -- we're joined from delaware, ohio. welcome to the program. is whetherquestion

anyone is looking into how assad might be prosecuted in international court, if this is a violation of international conventions. why are we not doing this judicially rather than militarily? thank you. host: this is a piece by susan page, which is one of the reasons we based the question this morning on the impact of the obama presidency. she goes as far to say the impact on the presidency itself.

as congress prepares to come back next week, the first of congressional hearings taking placefrom today -- taking today. secretary john kerry is briefing members of congress paid he is a longtime veteran of the u.s. senate. a headline from politico.com -- a reference to neville chamberlain before world war ii.

-- "he urged lawmakers to back the president's plan on a limited arrow strike. --ille chamberlin instant chamberlain infamously declared that it would lead to peace in our time in world war ii. the headline from politico.com. on hand yesterday for the meeting with the president, senator john mccain and senator lindsey graham of south carolina. here is a portion of the south carolina republican had to say. [video clip] that even ahope limited military strike can degrade their ability to use chemical weapons. there seems to be emerging a pretty solid plan from this administration.

jordan, aia, turkey, states the gulf arabs date have been helpful and becoming more overt. when it comes to financing these regions, the administration needs to share the financial cost. i cannot sell another iraq or afghanistan because i do not want to. i can't sell to the people of south carolina that if we do not get syria right, i ron is going to take the signals that we do not care about their nuclear program. it weighs on the president's mind strongly about the signals we send. if we lost the vote in the ,ongress am a -- in congress what effect would that have on iran. south carolina in skip that point. i hope we will learn in the coming days the strategy of upgrading.

we can go on the senate and say the administration has a plan, apart from a limited military action, at would allow it to get where we need to go -- gets to where we need to go as a nation, which is to destabilize the region before it is -- which is to stabilize the region before it is too late. they will lead part of the republican effort in the u.s. senate to push this resolution. there is this from the wall street journal --

that us this morning from inside "the wall street journal." maryland, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning.

good question about obama's credibility. i give him a lot of credit for taking a step back. say that io like to would like to hear from more antiwar talk, a little bit more from rand paul. i agree with everything he says. i also agree with all of the other colors that say to not go to war. we have enough problems, we are already in a war. i would also like to make a shout out to my congressman, kristen holland and i would like you to vote against this. your constituents do not want war. i have not heard one call that wants war. dropping bombs is an act of war. committed anady act of, got into their mess.

so please, everybody get together. call your congressman, have your voice heard. i did not even know who the opposition is. al qaeda? assad? it is all very murky. thank you very much. what of our regular viewers says -- --one of our regular viewers says -- from inside the washington post, there is a breakdown of where current members of congress stand. the headline -- there are three senators currently against military action, they are all republican. there are 17 senators who lean toward no military action.

57 senators, more than half remain undecided. for the three senators, led by graham and mccain are for military action. density house of representatives, 189 out of 435 are shown. 31 representatives are against military action, including a majority of republicans. action. no military this key number, 85 are main undecided. there are 15 for presents as who support military action. this is a fluid number, likely to change in the days ahead. you can get details from "the washington post close quote website. the "washington post" website. james from irvington, new jersey, independent line, good morning. i would like to say that i do not think we should go to

war. syria voted in the brotherhood. the brotherhood wanted to bring -- lost to the region. i am so sad because all of the stuff and -- all the suffering going on in the world. israel is committing violent acts against their people. we do not need to go into another war. america just needs to concentrate on us. we are not the cops of the world. let someone else deal with that. sure once we get him out we are going to get someone else that they do not agree with. host: thank you for the call. i was a sentiment from bobby williams, who is a number of people posting comments -- is one of a number of people

posting comments on facebook. from brooke, virginia on the republican line, henry is joining us. it seems clear both in the constitution, with the president being commander-in- chief of the army and navy, as well is under the 73 war powers act nowhas the power to and come back to congress later. hiscomplication is that commitment to international forums have taken him into an area where he is not finding international support and is now returning to try to find political support herein home and in congress. that has put him in a bad position. personally i think it has

weakened the presidency. listening. you for c-span radio is heard coast to 119. on channel from social media, this is a tweet sent by joseph ramirez -- from our facebook page, jeff says this -- from "the hill" newspaper --

"the middle east it's a powder cake and no one knows what might happen -- a powder cake and no one knows what would happen if the u.s. launches a military action against syria." democrats line, good morning. i don't think we should interfere into syria. when the president made the line, to me ited was a plan if the opposition loses and there could be chemical weapons, then we have a reason to go in. this could spark a lot of

problems and our young men and women will be leaving here. we are already in trouble over here. and then we have to go fight a war. if we can just settle the problem of israel, there would not be any reason for us to have to worry about that. we are supposed to separate church and state. how in the world do we get into the situation with all this full 5 million that the palestinians -- it just isn't right. is going to have to pay for cosmic justice. are -- we can settle the palestinians. it that would ease the tension of the world. span and appreciate c- the american people for listening. things you very much and may god bless everyone. host: thank you for the call.

a look at the map of the region of syria. an earlier story by the bbc, more than a million syrian refugees in leverage on -- in -- 32n, jordan, turkey million people have fled as a result of the civil war created it is now in its third year, resulting in the death of over dead00, including the 1400 by chemical weapons allegedly used by the syrian government. this tweet -- ,"om "the new york times there's this editorial --

steve clemons is going to be joining us in just a couple of minutes and he will talk about that and other issues. joe from island park, new york, independent line. good morning. i feel congress should always be involved in these type of decisions. what hurt obama is his statement on red lines. the red line occurred he kind of backtrack. that is what hurt him, not congress. i do not think anybody knows who

set off these chemical weapons. who are we going to bomb? who are we going to kill? outink america has to get of the war business and get into the piece business. i would remind everybody that we, at one time, had our own civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed. we did not expect other countries to get involved. i think we should stay out of it. host: thanks for the call. in other call from brooklyn, new york on the republican line. good morning. caller: i would like to tell all my senators -- i do not yield bad -- do not feel bad -- i do obama'sd this damages could ability. the administration in the past few years has been poor. we need to lead in getting nations together and not leading a war. the diplomatic aspect should be

intensified to the ends agree -- to the nth degree. and the economy situation it is in the united states, people's mentality could not take war. this from sandy walters, tweet -- and barbara, who lives in new york city, has sent us this e- mail --

there has been speculation over the weekend that there could be potentially a second vote in the house of commons. this is from the chancellor, who told the bbc that said there would not be another vote in the house of commons. more details available online from "the daily mail." another e-mail -- our question, what impact does the congressional vote have on the obama presidency or the presidency in general. joining us from silver spring,

maryland, our line for democrats. good morning. him willeople who like still like him, people who don't won't. i think the long-term history will congratulate him for taking this to congress, rather than just relying on the war powers act. hollen's in chris van thestreet. i wanted to point out that i am one of the people who believes strongly -- chris van hollen's district. i amted to point out that one of the people who believe strongly that we should go in there and it is the use of chemical weapons that is the key determination. we know other people have been killed. we know it has been by conventional weapons. particulart this chemical gas attack was by the assad regime. we have been waiting for that

proof to take action. listen toand i will your comments off-line. >> we just listened to your comment and thank you for sharing your voice. we have a few minutes with your calls and comments. you can send us an e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or send us a tweet. here is how it is playing out in "the l.a. times," -- current -- hartford the hartford courant-- and in the pittsburgh post- gazette. caller -- caller: thank you for taking my call. i think they should back the draft, and this time around send college students. i think we would see a change in the war debate.

host: why is that? a sea change is a question of war on peace, if rich kids -- if their children go to war i think we will see --ht see change on the war see a seat change on the debate on the war on peace. the: a photograph of president as he speaks with house speaker john boehner. in the background is vice president joe biden. this is what we have been focusing on for the first 45 minutes. a call from don in houston, texas. good morning, republican line. you.r: thank i think obama will go down as a great president.

-- will go down as a great president if he would focus on , then,against humanity as we did with old -- with bin laden, go after the people. they are the ones causing these wars. propertyneed to target , command and control airfields the need to target the people that rings about these holocausts, and that is the heads of state. it won't take 100s that it will take hundreds of thousands of soldiers. -- it won't take hundreds of thousands of soldiers. our focus should be crimes against humanity. inc. you. host: this point on our twitter page --

in this piece inside "the washington post" -- thomas is joining us from frankfort, kentucky on the republican line. good morning. thank you for taking my call. it is so sad that we have forgotten so soon the picture of

don rumsfeld and saddam hussein on the iranian border will be gave saddam the chemicals to use on the iranian people. sad we have forgotten the picture of the small vietnamese girl that was hit by napalm dropped by the united states. how soon we have forgotten the video of john kerry, when he ran for president, showing him chasing down a winded and unarmed vietnamese soldier and murdering him. that was a war crime. it is a shame we have john mccain and john kerry advising us on what to do. these two guys are complete idiots. host: thank you very much for the call. we will get more of your calls and comments over the course of this morning's "washington journal." affairsenate foreign

committee takes up the issue on that authorization, the congressional authorization of a military strike against syria, you can listen to it on c-span radio. withn can -- we continue steve clemons in just a couple of minutes. he is the editor at large for the atlantic. syria andur focus on what congress will be taking up this week and -- this week. also the turmoil of gas and oil ,rices for the fall and winter the former shell ceo john hofmeister is going to be joining us. it is tuesday morning, september 3. we are back in a moment. ♪

collects -- >> the 22nd annual sale of -- >> it just seems such a shame that when we came here we find the past and house and hardly anything before 19 two. -- 1902. the president palace in columbia had -- the president's palace in columbia had the past in it. i think the white house should be like that. ,> as mothers who are concerned as first ladies who are committed, and citizens of the world, we pledge to do all that is possible to stop this scourge. >> season two of our original series, "first 80s, influence and image," looking at the public and private lives of the women that served as first lady.

-- "first ladies, influence and image." live on c-span three. bring public affairs events directly to you, bringing you into the roof of cut rational hearings, white house events, and conferences us. offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. all is a suburbs -- a public service of private industry. he aided by the table -- by the cable industry and funded by your local cable satellite provider. you can now watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. welcome back to steve clemons, the editor at large for the atlantic. thank you for being with us. let me share with you the headline that really gets to one of the core debate here in washington this weekend.

we have been showing and watching the remarks yesterday by senator mccain and graham. yesterday they met with the president at the lighthouse. there are senator rand paul on sunday to the president's proposal. he sent this tweet -- "how do you look at a man that made a mistake?" i think it is fair to say both parties are going to be struggling deeply with their souls, their foreign policy souls. have with thati particular view is that it is not just john mccain and rand paul. i was very interested in the , basicallypost saying congress should just say no.

said -- billn cnn kristol said a vote on this resolution would be in a for -- would be in favor of assad. those divisions have greater divisions inside them. the war in libya showed that the u.s. was leading from behind, what does that mean? shorthand trying to either a plotter critique the president but waiting for international consensus, trying applaud or trying to critique the president. united states is not six times larger than the next largest economy as we were after world war ii. it is important to put together amalgamations,

international partnerships to go after and deal with these programs -- these problems. if the french and italian and british are with us an occasional lead, that is a contribution to international security, not something that undermines american security or america's interest in the world. the uniteddo not see states leading everywhere, making every judgment call and throwing all of its resources into something, they look at that as a collapse of american leadership and look at it as a derisive comment. congress is the headline from this editorial. two points from this op-ed page -- guest: we are at an interesting moment in both presidential history -- i have been supportive of where the in creatings going a punishment for bashar al- assad. a chemical weapons use is such

an outrageous step for a nation to take against its own people. that said, the debate is an important one. we have heard people like congress and cummings say that the president needs to go out and remind americans what chemical and biological weapons are really about. there is a bit of amnesia. -- a generation has grown up but did not have the cold war. really a global social contract of creating chemical weapons, there is no understanding anymore of why you need to take action when chemical weapons are used to kill 1400 people. take action when 99,000 people have been killed by other means. many americans do not understand that argument. when you look at what the president said, we had a publication in our paper come

out and say that this is why president obama's so great, it is a great deliberative step. he wants to restore -- you may remember his speech that he gave at the national defense university. speech paidarkable he's challenging congress to take away a story from the white house. we do not know if that will play out. the president has been consistent now and then that a massive growth that is unchecked by congress is not what he wanted. i would have liked to see him proceed. i think he runs the risk of losing this debate. it is a legitimate debate to have. john kerry said this is a munich moment, and that was a very damaging statement to make. it then challenge to those that had an opponent with an opposing view. the president called them appeasers. including democrats.

guest: including democrats. i think now you have a situation, as you noticed in "the washington post," there is probably seven camps in this. great degree of perspective and diversity. you're going to have to -- degree of diversity in perspective. i want to come back to that point but let me ask you but the political equation. people are looking to what the president said on saturday. alsoes lane this morning framing the debate as to whether or not republicans are going to want to have some quit row quote on domestic issues. charles is a great analyst of congress. we have people like leon panetta running ae pages,

government by crisis is no way to govern. you have different people who may be squaring off with other budgetary perspectives that have nothing to do with syria or the conflict, they can attach their aspirations to those. i suspect that whether we get a budget or budget clash, get a deal that gives an offramp to the sequester realities, which many people feel our farming -- feel is harming the nation and the defense department, i think that will be part of this equation. there is a lot to digest this next week when they come back. we do not know how it is going to be scripted. i can tell you one thing, thus far mitch mcconnell, harry reid, and nancy pelosi have not stood and made a commitment to a nonpartisan discussion that fairly brings this in and tries to look at the importance of this historical moment in a way

that would marshal behind the president. they are allowing that i pursue to take process where it goes. it is going to be interesting to see how this all comes together. host: this is the front page of "usa today," one of the key figures, house speaker john boehner -- division amongst house republicans, what is his role? john boehner and eric cantor may find themselves in the exact same position a have been, whether it is having to do with a foreign bill or many other pieces of legislation, where they are not able to corral their own caucus together. really, in the traditional sense, the same kind of leaders we have seen in the past. they have to corral deals internally. you have a significant number of

members in the house gop caucus that wants to say no to anything president obama sets forward. i think it is problematic for him and i think he knows that is an issue have to deal with. it is not just in the house. always ammings, who is thoughtful person on the side of the president, has raised many key questions that has given room to the democratic opposition. the armedg member of services committee has already said he doesn't care about it. he has decided to vote no. that is an interesting position. there are classified briefings under way, there are materials that need to be looked at. people have already decided, some very prominent people, that they are opposed to the resolution and opposed to moving forward. as these numbers shake out, we

still have enough undecided that the president could ultimately win. slam dunk,re near a nowhere near what many people -- i thought originally when i heard the president speak of this, i thought it was compelling. i thought that was an unusual moment. i did not have the sense that this was a war moment and a way to invite a broader coalition in. time, which was wrong, was that the congress would jump in rather quickly, rushed back to washington, and vote. i was on vacation, as many people, and i happened to run into a chief of staff for comment than a cut extender -- chief of staff for a prominent democratic senator. he said he does not think the president has the votes. that is a democratic chief of staff. this is going to be a tough exercise. it could make -- i think many people were right in saying that if the president doesn't succeed, it has ramifications and echo effects far beyond syria and far into the future.

a reconsideration of lots of conversations -- a lot of relationships we have -- it was interesting to hear staff tell me about reactions and the interest in asia about what we are doing in syria. they have got concerns about when will the united states really take action? as chuck hagel was in manila and , the reverberations of what might happen and what might not happen is being felt in places like that. we know the british prime minister david cameron will not be calling for another vote in house of congress -- in the house of commons. this is a remarkable step. i think that you have people like rockman in the financial times. -- verynteresting rock interesting look.

the allusion is over. he turned out to be a and international sculpture of the international system. now, stepping back from a conflict like this, it is taking itself out and finally punctuating the end of -- and of aspiration that perdition aspiration. -- british bremmer's basic purpose is that we are moving into a world where there is no significant strong arrangement that continues between nations, that continues to guide global affairs. it is not going to be g2 between china and the united states, not the g-8, not the g 20. we will come to a fluid set of relationships to in countries that are unsteadily ad hoc, -- that are constantly ad hoc, constantly rewritten, constantly fell apart. what we have seen britain do

give some support to ian's thesis. the: we are getting perspective of steve clemons of "the atlantic" magazine. we welcome your calls and comments. you can send us an e-mail or tweet. we were talking before the program began -- you spent a couple of years working with richard nixon, the last two years of his life. he was viewed by many as a foreign policy expert. how would he have reacted to all of this? know nixon,i got to bill clinton had become president of the united states, and yeltsin's government in russia is collapsing, and clinton reached out to nixon to get his counsel and advice, and nixon explained to clinton, as he had to the previous president bush, that it was important for the international community to reach out and symbolically support that effort. for all of the realism of richard nixon, he believed that

you need to to get japan and others. i think that nixon today looking at the situation would be appalled by the debate in congress, i think he would've believed that the president needed to take action, and that there may be people who have a harsher version of realism than whate who would argue that is going on inside syria with the chemical weapons do not justify intervention, but at the end of the day, nixon would have realized and said what president obama did, which is that chemical weapons are by a very, ,ery different kind of crime and that not to act on that shrine in any way -- on a crime permissioncreates a slip for other nations around the world to use them. what if russia were to use these against the chechens, the chinese against the uighurs? chemical weapons are an

effective ethnic cleansing challenge that can cause an arms fear and terror. if you open the door and don't respond, you not only have the anarchy of the international system, but you actually have given a permission slip. i think nixon would have opposed where john mccain and lindsey graham want to go, which is a deeper involvement and engagement with the opposition inside syria, because this is a civil war and it needs to work its way out and you need to contain it or find what you're equities are in the region and try to protect them. but at the end of the day, not to punish assad or to create this pressure -- those pressure points on this action gives a permission slip. nixon would have also said that he would've seen syria as what it is, civil war inside the country with a proxy war on top of great powers like russia, the united states and others, with stakes inside would is going on inside syria. you have these outside players, and nixon would say that what is

missing is what is the outside game, what are we doing to create pressure points with russia, how are we building in what is a higher national security concern that we have with iran and nuclear weapons? how are we building in that aspect into some sort of strategic plan? that is what is missing from the obama administration that nixon or george h w bush or people like prince grow crops would be focusing on, what is the broader wcroft would be focusing on, what is the broader strategic action, not to get a strike down into a trap of power as some critics, like myself, if afghanistan.iew it showed us to be militarily overextended. how do you not fall into that again and diminish america possibility to shape international america's ability to shape international affairs? indicatingdent assad

that the middle east is a powder keg and if the u.s. attacks syria, it will result, in his words, and a larger regional war. could have a larger regional war if we take no action as well. assad is a person who has been trying to raise the stakes and the ante for these actions and that could happen. if the president could the -- took the kinds of steps -- you have to change bashar al-assad's calculus. he is winning the internal struggle inside syria. the actions that his regime took with chemical weapons were an act of hubris. they were, in my view, tactical mistake, but they were an act of hubris, trying to wrap up an area of opposition very rapidly and consolidate more quickly the gains that the regime has made recently against the opposition. it is really an outrageous move of arrogance. the question is, why would that person even think about moving into some sort of negotiated outcome that the russians have been considering?

the key is to change assad's calculus of what he is willing to do. in the end, you have a problem inside a serious that people keep referring to. -- inside syria that people keep referring to. i wish we didn't talk about the opposition because there are so many different factions. we have had revelations this last week that they have been connecting western journalists and torturing journalists. this is part of the western -- the syrian opposition that martin dempsey and obama another second -- are concerned about supporting. i think it is legitimate concern. but when you have to sort of situation, you need to find a way eventually that the syrian regime, if it were to succeed, accommodate sensible opposition, and you change that calculus. that is why the strike obama was considering could have been

effective. it is questionable whether that could still succeed. but i think that was the objective. host: in addition to his work at "the atlantic," steve clemons is theunder and fellow of strategy program at the new america foundation. anthony from upstate, in --hester, democrats line upstate new york, in rochester, democrats' line.\ anthony, you are on the air. caller: yes. can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: first of all, i am a democrat, i voted for obama, but i find it hypocritical what is going on. number one, we didn't say nothing when iraq used chemical warfare against iran, ok? and suspicions that we might have surprised them, ok? ,nd as somebody pointed out

which i find quite right to say -- and makes no difference how you kill me if you kill me, whether it was by chemical warfare or you through a bomb on me or you shot me. why are we doing this? host: is there a double standard? guest: i think he raises an important point and many americans feel the way the caller does. my argument would be that in iraq and iran, we did not provide the chemical weapons in this case but we certainly provided intelligence, it seems, and other means of support and returned a bit of a blind eye -- we turned a bit of a blind eye. what is the double standard in that case? it is uncomfortable for americans, but it is a product of the cold war. at that time you had very horrible things going on around in world, but that ally was the u.s. camp but not in the soviet camp and there was a lot turningning -- eye with things that were going on

in the world. we are not in the cold war today and we don't have those distinctions and lines across youglobe where in places don't have democracy and things that are happening. certainly, the chemical weapons attack occurred and there have been other chemical weapons attacks. but there is the broader notion that there has not been what we thein syria, which is holder of the largest chemical weapons stashes in the world, is a casual jump into using chemical weapons. one only needat go back and read the literature around world war i and remind oneself of the gas attacks that went on, about how important it was to identify chemical weapons , biological weapons, and now nuclear weapons. these categories of weapons of mass destruction desert and international response that is difference -- that is different from other kinds of things to i know it is hard for other -- i know it is hard for people to understand but it is important tom and it is also a defining

issue for the obama-biden administration. they summon the world leaders for a major summit dealing specifically with the proliferative -- the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the supplies that go into them and trying to set up protocols around the world. it was considered one of the most important steps that barack obama was taking to rebuild mobile trust and rebuild the global commons over dealing with these wmd issues, and concerned that we were tilting into a world that was going to proliferate these systems. we also had -- and i was there as a guest of susan rice -- an opportunity for the president to share is only un security council hearing on this issue. there is a deeper investment that obama and biden have on this chemical weapons issue that many people in the press and media haven't really acknowledged and sorted through. it is a defining legacy issue for the president. i think that the issue of the death is one that is difficult to deal with.

i've been appalled, like so many people, about the horrors inside syria. that doesn't mean there is a military solution inside there for us and others to solve it good chemical weapons are a different class of weapon. host: the president begins the date meeting with correctional leaders, including speaker banner, and ends the day traveling to st. petersburg. .ichigan, independent line good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: i have short questions that piggyback off of each other. i would like to know how much we are right -- we are relying on israeli intelligence. second, how are we not going to take out another 1400 people? third, is this not just a logical that we are going to go through syria to get a knee-jerk

response from iran for israel to give us more of an excuse to move into iran after their nuclear capacities? guest: it is very important -- i don't know if yes written it yet, but ezra klein reach me over the weekend saying he was " dong something saying, people know where syria is and doesn't matter?" it does matter in the sense that as the caller just noted, noting that israel, iraq, iran and others are round -- are around in the neighborhood is important to understand the stakeholders, what is at stake and how much instability could possibly ensue later. on the broader side of israeli intelligence, i think is really was significant but not determinative -- israeli

intelligence was significant but not determinative. said today in "the washington post" that if you have all of this intelligence, the obama administration, why not show it? i think that is a legitimate point of view. that said, this is not the first chemical weapons designation that barack obama has made. there was an earlier one, and with that designation, the open -- did administration committed to providing various kinds of support, low-level munitions, and guidance that would help increase the efficacy and effectiveness of the syrian opposition. i was critical of that stuff at the time because i thought their response had nothing to do with the chemical weapons they said had been used. and i had called someone close in the intelligence community and said, what do we have on signals intelligence, which is really them talking to each other am a what do we have that tells us that the syrian command staff ordered the use of those chemical weapons?

we would've had recordings if that happened. i was told point blank that we had nothing. after the revelations in social media, i called the same sources who said, "steve, we have overwhelming amounts of signals intelligence indicating direction in this particular case." whether he was french and sources, or our own, it we have had a lot of debate in the community onrity the ability to pick up intelligence wherever and i've no doubt in this particular case that we found the israeli intelligence useful but not definitively important. monty. comment from a , vladimir putin has been trying to use platform after platform as a way to stick

it in the eye of the u.s. he doesn't move in a straight line in this way. there is a lot of cooperation between russian intelligence authorities and u.s. intelligence authorities and law enforcement authorities after the boston bombing incident. there has been more cooperation than one hears about between russia and the united states, back channeling on iran. there are areas of cooperation with russia, but there is no posture isputin's one that reminds in a kind of american way what ronald reagan did in the united states. reagan came into a country that felt tired, beleaguered, and uninspired with its honesty, and vladimir putin seems to be trying to reawakened in russians -- uninspired with its own mystique, and vladimir putin seems to be trying to reawaken in russians that they are country of great consequence and will not be run roughshod. whether it is recognizing

macedonia or dealing with certain areas of the balkans or the georgia conflict or dealing with the ballistic missile defense or strategy on iran, time after time after time russia has felt, rightly or wrongly, as if under their rov,ign minister sergei lav that they have tried to be honest brokers and see ways that they see their interests served. 's i don't believe that russia support of this year is only about a deeper relationship -- support of syria is only about a deep relationship. it is trying to posture itself in the eyes of the world. host: a quick look at walter pincus' piece you referenced earlier. "if there is not credible evidence that the syrian government was behind the attack that killed 1400 people, then what?" guest: it is an interesting, challenging question.

then we are back into the very uncomfortable debate about the run-up to the iraq war. i believe we are past that hurdle from various senators i know who have received a classified briefing, that it is very, very clear from the instructions that were given by the regime to their allies over and thesks -- gas masks exchanges we have that show a man staff authority in these particular -- host: but a lot of these senators are skeptical. guest: yes, some of them are skeptical, and since i have not seen the intelligence, it is hard to -- that said, the major difference between iraq and syria is that we know the chemical weapons the stashes are there and they have been used and whether it was the opposition -- there is, in my view, a fantasy, board -- but at least a conspiracy theory-the like allegation that saudi national security advisor to the

used to be savvy and mastered to the united states, was one of the architects of the assadorion -- saudi amb to the united states, was one of the architects of the opposition and he had somehow gotten them the weapons and deploy them as a way to trigger a global reaction that went over the so-called red the, that it would pull global community deeper into the conflict. i hate to talk about it -- working with people like peter bergen, conspiracy theories are part of the middle east, but that is the latest one, a very interesting accusation. i myself don't find anything compelling in it because the folks i talked to give such a significant contrast between the time i doubted thyself the use -- doubted myself the use of the of the chemical

weapons, and it may very well have been the case that the opposition leaders had been able to get chemical weapons at that time from components of the whom they co-opted or cornered and were unable to deploy them. i think one of the big issues here are the rockets that were fired and our intelligence about that and the inability of the opposition to fire those missiles. that is a circumstantial claim, not a direct claim. i think just to be quite blunt, steve, if that were to happen, and if you were to have the evidence platform collapse them a that would be a horrible, horrible moment for both u.s. foreign policy, this president, and it would take us out of the global engagement in for a while. host: this program is carried a life in the morning on c-span radio and we welcome our listeners around the country on xm channel 119. stephanie is joining us from new

jersey for steve clemons of "the atlantic." caller: yes, hi, can you hear me? host: we sure can. caller: why should we think the corporate media is looking out for america's interests in this buildup to war with syria when it refuses to address the applications of building the structure on nine/11 and any of the overwhelming evidence of preplanned sources that destroyed the twin towers? guest: different topic, i know very little about preplanned explosives. host: marilyn, democrats' line. caller: good morning. i am surely and i am from cottage city. host: good morning, shirley. my question is -- of course, i'm it vehemently opposed to participating in a strike against syria.

.o more war, please but my question is, did not france step up to the plate and britain would stand for , who was vetoed out of the war by its own people? the second question is, what about the big warlock, israel? can't they handle it? it is in their own backyard. guest: 2 very interesting questions. first of all, france did stand up to the plate and offer its support but they said they won't .o it alone thus, if the united states dust step forward and take action, you will find french support very much in place. on the other question of israel, israel is concerned, and from my discussion with their defense and intelligence authorities, is ready to take action any moment. their intelligence shows them -- chemical weapons falling into

the hands of any of the transnational terror groups that have been targeting israel. there is an awful lot of watchdogs this ugly looking -- watchdogs basically looking at how the syrian government is trying to hide these chemical weapons stashes. israel has formidable intelligence capacity and reserves the right to act alone any time it sees this, and the moment and eight of those chemical weapons -- any of those chemical weapons were to go across the border, you would find israel taking fast action. that said, israel is in a complicated, tough neighborhood, and for many reasons, ranging from the fact that a deal has not been done on israel- palestine peace, to having been essentially in a cold war itself with syria for decades, for israel to take a strike against any one of these nations and noted that up -- although, member, it did attack syria, a nuclear site, on its own, and

syria did not respond to that -- but in this particular case, it would be such a heated impact that israel has been counseled by the united states not to take those kinds of steps, because it would broaden the coalition of opposition to israel throughout the region. it is a copy gated neighborhood, it is a good question. -- it is a complicated neighborhood. it is a good question. i think israel will take action but for now, it makes good sense for the united states to position itself and its other allies is in the lead. host: george monroe on our twitter page has this question. guest: an incredibly awful leader. bashar al-assad and his regime has done an incredible thing. when you go around the world and you look at the stuff out there, you don't have democracies everywhere. it is an awful, awful thing. l,is is what made bill kristo

a leading neoconservative and the editor of "the weekly ," his comments last night so powerful. he said that at the end of the day, republicans must support the president's action on syria, even though he would like to see the president take more robust action. he said that it would be a vote , this awful, awful leader. posedone of the questions is what will success look like? think about that for a moment, and we will get a call from michael, who is joining us from mobile, alabama, independent line. caller: i would like to say, what makes the middle east such a tough neighborhood is none of

these people, including the zionists, believe in jesus christ. that is what makes it a tough neighborhood. only jesus christ can bring about peace. and because both sides reject jesus, america should reject them, because we are a christian nation, and we should never support anyone who doesn't believe in jesus christ, zionists included. host: michael, thanks for calling, and could we will turn to a question -- thanks for the call and the comment. we will turn to this question. guest: well, over the weekend, i had occasion to talk to charlie rangel, to listen to it elijah cummings, many other members. i talked to senator joe manchin over the weekend. i think that, as i said earlier, of there not 2 factions

democratic party, there are many others who will wrestle with their conscience with this, because they know their constituents are weary of four and they forget what the sequester and budget cuts -- weary of four and eight know what the sequester and budget .uts are doing they are very, very cautious and, frankly, tilting negative, and going through this again -- in going through this again or there is a joke i often use when i open speeches and talk about the president's foreign policy and the position of the united states. i was talking one-time to the equivalent of china's ministry of foreign affairs planning director, and i asked this chinese gentle man, what is china's and start -- grand strategy in the world, and he said, "how to keep you americans distracted in small middle eastern countries."

while it was a joke, there is a ring of truth to it -- there are important strategic challenges in the world other than these. is thekes syria horrible horrors of thousands of people dying in a nasty civil war, but what makes it strategically and sequential -- what makes it strategically consequential is the use of these chemical weapons. the united states is tired. it is not broke, but it has been a great deal of its resources, both in blood and treasure, in wars that didn't matter. at the end of the day, it is going to be a hard call. i think the democratic party is going to wrestle with this deeply, because they are not comfortable supporting this war for many of them. ,ost: in selling the war "national journal," part of the land immediate -- part of the atlantic media group, with this headline. intelligence summary

relied heavily on social media and internet videos to sell the case of what happened inside syria. guest: we had social media, we video from hundreds of sources showing us and dying children. that is a remarkable fact. you can send in your u.n. weapons inspectors and sorted through with walter pincus, but at the end of the day, it what really matters is who gave the comma -- who gave the command. for the first time, the public was part of the vetting of this and saw the horrors that were unfolding. to go back to the politico comment about what success will look like is a very important question. we have chuck hagel, john kerry, the joint chiefs of staff chairman, martin dempsey, who will be testifying today in the senate foreign relations committee that folks can watch on c-span later this afternoon, but in that, when the question

comes up, if i were to advise secretary hagel, i think that success looks like a step that looks bigger than many people expect him a that clearly then many people expect, that clearly punishes and rolls back syria's ability to wage war and some people -- wage war on its own people, that it is a severe enough attachment -- severe enough punishment that it changes the calculation of assad about the peace process. you have to have an all- inclusive process that brings the parties together about a negotiated outcome. right now, none of the parties want to do that, and as the regime was winning, it's calculus was that it did not need to do that, and the opposition did not need to -- if felt that too much latitude was given -- you need an equation between all stakeholders involved. that allows the united states

and russia to get on the same side of the line and to stop bickering over the attack, but you have to have an attack that hits assad and changes the calculus and embraces russia again. i know it sounds like a very fine needle to thread, but that is the strategic hope of rock obama. -- of barack obama. host: so what is going to happen? guest: well, that is impossible to say. vote were heldhe tomorrow, the president would not succeed in getting the resolution. the president has said he reserves the right to attack anyway. i don't believe president obama would attack under those conditions. you would see assad so emboldened --we see statements from the syrian government almost haunting obama. very, very arrogant after they saw the white house, in their ands, it did or -- dither be indecisive. if assad were to engage in

chemical weapons again, my advice would be to attack immediately, create that punishment. but i don't think there is a solution for the president short of assad raising the stakes on his own people. but he has demonstrated his ability to scare and put fear amongst those sunni opponents of his, and his willingness to use chemical weapons against them. when saddam hussein used gas against the kurds, the kurds would hide in the hills. he succeeded in creating such a fear among the kurdish population with what he did that they would not reassemble, so he achieved his objective, which was to plant long-term care are in the thoughts and minds of kurdish families. wouldnders whether assad need to use chemical weapons again. call,paul is our last pittsburgh, republican line.

caller: good morning. i have a couple thoughts on this. if we look back about 30 months ago, when this started, around that time, the president and then secretary of state said that assad had to go. i think we missed an opportunity , because if we were going to do something decisive, that was the time, before the slaughter of 100,000 people at the use of chemical weapons, and the incursion, substantial incursion, of terrorists. i think that was a missed opportunity. i think also we should stop this alicy, because i think it is foolish policy, of drawing redlines. i think that court is and it has no useful purpose -- that corner s us and it has no useful purpose. host: caller, i will stop you there and get a headline from your hometown.

debate causes republican policy divide." very: i think he makes 2 interesting and important points. i partially agree with one and strongly agree with the other. on the issue of the president saying assad had to go, that statement by the president created a lot of problems. it backed us into a corner it self and gave us no on-ramp to work with the russians. it changed the incentive for everyone to participate in a negotiated outcome and 100,000 people died because of our inability to get the stakeholders together in a room and discuss a negotiated outcome. host: and more than one million refugees. guest: more than that, even -- children. the region risks being destabilized by the incredible refugee crisis. that being said, where i disagree with the caller is i don't believe it was the president's, nor america's

responsibly the to be the regime-changing agent for suggs nd the world.arou there are places around the world where democracy is not dominate and you have to, for a variety of strategic regions, i deal with thugs and regimes that are not democratic and i remind everyone, when libya, muammar gaddafi, went to the u.n. in one of his flamboyant u.n. calls, we succeeded in getting him to give up his nuclear weapons program. the controversy at the time had to do with the big tent -- and huge controversy at the time. i went on cnn and defended the qaddafi tent as a small price to pay. sometimes we need to weigh these issues very carefully and understand. on the broad issue of frontlines, i completely agree with the caller -- the broad

issue of red lines, i can clearly agree with the caller. you give the faction in that fight something to run across and try to trigger, and you pay for the debate about -- from something about what will get us to a position where the killing stops and stability can be achieved and you can look at a way to transition to some different form of government or at least an accommodation between the existing state and the other. focusing so much on red lines and these chemical weapons, the stuff that has been in the media for so long, has kept us from being able to focus in a much more constructive path for syria , in which we can do the russians, the turks, the jordanians, and others could be much more constructive. host: we will conclude on that note. steve clemons, washington editor at large for "the atlantic," thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: coming up in just a

moment, the impact of the middle east on gas and oil prices. our guest at the table, john hofmeister, former president and ceo of the shell oil company. later, we will introduce you to 2 individuals behind a new documentary called "american made movie." what is made in america and what impact does it have on the u.s. and trade around the world? first, the news. nancy calo keeping track. thisria -- more on syria hour. the israeli defense ministry says that together with the u.s. defense department, it carried out a successful test on an air force base in central israel. meanwhile, russian state-owned news agencies said earlier that russian radar systems had detected to ballistic objects fired from the central mediterranean towards the eastern part of the sea.

british publication reports that british military chiefs are being ejected from u.s. meetings about syria and was being seen as the first to consequent of prime minister david cameron's refusal to join military action following a vote in parliament. military sources say that the ate of senior officers central command in tampa, florida has been downgraded because they, and their words, cannot be trusted with high- level intelligence about a conflict with which they are no longer involved. about 30 british personnel have been working at the command. and this from republican senator john mccain in remarks earlier " -- he saysy show he would support president obama's request to move in syria if it would change the situation on the battlefield. he said it must include the airity to degrade syria's defenses, and if he does not

give the rebels a fighting chance, it will, in his words, "not have the desired effect" and that he cannot support something that would be doomed in the long run. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the writing of this dell announces the opening of thanksgiving day -- rating on this dell announces the opening of thanksgiving day. >> it seems to me such a shame when we came here to find out it was a thing of the -- hardly anything of the past in the house, hardly anything before 1902. we went to columbia and the presidential palace there and all the history of that country, every piece of furniture had some link with the past. i felt the white house should be like that. >> our message is this -- as mothers, as first ladies we are committed, as citizens of the

that, we pledge to do all is possible to stop this scourge. ladies," 2 of "first looking at the public and private lives of the women who served as first lady, including your calls, facebook comments, and tweets, starting with edith roosevelt, on c-span and c- span3. " continues.journal the: john hofmeister is former president of the shell oil company, the author of "why we hate oil companies." thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me. host: one of the headlines from "the richmond times-dispatch," an interview that bashar al- assad did warning of wider war if the u.s. attacks syria and the impact on oil prices. guest: well, if this spreads, if

the u.s. attacks syria, syria and its allies decide they are going to teach the u.s. a lesson, and they are going to theypose there will as attack, for example, israel, there is no question that israel will defend itself. whether it is by attacking hezbollah in the region or extends its attack all the way to iran, which, of course, backs syria through this whole process, we could find ourselves in incredible turmoil. we could -- it could pull in jordan, lebanon. suddenly you have a whole range of uncooked ability -- of unpredictability affecting the entire region. one of the things the world depends upon is consistent oil , a consistent supply of energy that always takes care of daily needs. if you have this much disruption in the middle east, it is unprecedented.

nobody knows what the consequences may be. m, a: from thehill.co that the by assad region is "apartheid ready -- a erupt."eg ready to guest: the reluctance of different neighbors to intervene, and with the arab spring, which we have seen going on for 2.5 years, and some declare it over -- in that sense it was not a stretch for democracy, but a reinvention of hment of tyranny, or authoritarianism as we see in egypt. the whole region lacks the fundamental institutions that can deliver the kind of predictable piece that much of the rest of the world depends upon. host: we are looking at a map of the region with the syrian foreground. who are the allies? who backs syria in all of this?

guest: syria has very few friends, largely because assad, and going back to his father -- syria was always a unique carveout in the region which fought israel in previous wars but always stood aside, stood alone. it doesn't have a lot of friends . other than in the whole shia- sunni arrangement that cuts across the middle east, where the shia arc, which is building ,rom iran to iraq, to syria perhaps egypt, perhaps further -- this issue defines much of the middle east, except that you who the alawites in syria are not part of that. there are different sect altogether. are notrity alawites particularly friends of the sunnis of the she has -- shias. host: this is a headline from

"the washington post" -- i know you just got act from britain, fracking faces, opposition amid safety fears." what was your reaction? onst: environmentalism takes a different definition in europe than it does in the united states, although all environmentalists aspire to a much cleaner world. there is a vehemence among environmentalists in europe and the u.k., which is remarkable to most americans. for example, in the gm 05 -- gmo -- thediageo meant genetically modified crops that we take for granted in the u -- and the united states -- gmo products are prohibited in the u.k. and europe. in the process of fighting those, they destroyed farmers fields. now that it comes to fracking,

the u.k. leadership has done a poor job, both the industry as well is the government, in preparing its population for the eventuality of fracking. largely depending upon the anticipated shortages of natural gas in the u.k., the fact that they have been talking about lights out in the u.k. for the last three or four years by 2016, because of the loss of power generation capability from old coal plants and nuclear plants. they assume too much, that fracking would simply be accepted without educating the public and positioning this opportunity for the u.k., which is a huge opportunity, just as in the united states. the public is not really well- informed. the u.s. is far better informed about fracking, even though we still have our issues and our pockets of misunderstanding in the united states. host: to explain the two sides of the debate, as outlined in

this morning's "washington post" story, david cameron, the british prime minister, says that fracking could change 's economy andtain dependence on foreign oil, and on the other side, asked civil disobedience by those opposed to fracking. in focus is one small town england that has about 2000 residents but has become a focal point in the fracking debate. guest: the irony is that it is a tory neighborhood -- in other words, the members of parliament tends to be conservative in that region. cameron is a tory, he is a conservative. you have people in the majority party, the people running the coalition, that are pro- fracking, while constituents are demonstrating anti-fracking behavior. it is not a pleasant scene at all. but the prime minister is actually correct -- in the same way that we have these huge pockets of prosperity in the united states because of natural resources element, including fracking for natural gas and

oil, the u.k. could experience the same. what people confuse -- they confuse the dirtiness and the messiness of the drilling site with the ultimate production of the gas or oil, whatever it may be. when you construct a brand-new building, a tall high-rise building, you have a mess on your hands to look at, while it is under construction. here in washington, all over the country, construction is messy. that is what a drilling rig is, a construction of a reduction type -- of a production pipe. but when the construction is done, all you see are a few pipes out of the ground often surrounded by a fence and shrubbery, and there is nothing there, and the land is all restored. but people get excited about the construction activity rather than look for the value creation that is going to come afterwards , and ultimately, when the well is decommissioned, you cut off the pipes, you stop them from ever leaking, and you are back

to where you were when you started in the first place. it can be a completely reconstituted kind of site work, just as we see a building go up and it is messy and we occupy the building and we take it down and we build a park on top of it. done. host: to those who have not been following the debate over the issue, what is fracking, how far down do you go, and what are you drilling for? guest: fracking is a technology. what happens when you drill a well -- let's start with a vertical well, straight down, like a straw in the ground. at certain points, or the oil formation or the natural gas formation exists in the geology, 2000, 3000, 5000 feet down, you tot to break up the earth relieve the rocks of the molecules of natural gas or oil. it has been sitting there for hundreds of millions of years in some cases. that can explode

with the device, a small explosion, larger than a firecracker but smaller than a you explode this device and it goes out words on both sides of the pipe. rock,cks the formation of which contains those molecules of oil or natural gas, and then you put pressurized water on the sand -- pressurized water, sand, into the rock, to drop open -- prop open the cracks and the molecules of oil, drooling out were the molecules of gas come flowing out, you don't just throw it on the ground -- you treat it or you bury it or you dispose of it in ways that state regulations require you to clean up the water. and then you can produce the natural gas or the oil coming up the pipe. the other is horizontal fracking . horizontal is when you go down vertically and then you bend the

pipe underground, 90 degrees, so it doesn'tds bend quickly, but you can go out another 5000 or 10,000 feet under the surface, and you do the same thing. you explode the pipe to break open the rock, you send down the water and the sand to prop it open, put chemicals -- there are chemicals in the water that people object to which are designed to lubricate the sand -- and you take all that out with the nasty stuff that comes from the earth, whatever it might be -- it might be sulfur, mercury, other heavy metals -- and you treat that water -- you don't put that into the public water system, you don't put it on the ground, you contain it and you clean it or bury it, all according to state regulations, and then you extract the oil or the natural gas for a long time to come. that is the process. host: our guest has worked in a

number of positions with the general electric and alliedsignal. he is the former president and ceo of shell oil company, and now the president of citizens for affordable energy. we're talking about energy issues and the middle east, fracking, and other drilling matters. eric joins us from delaware, republican line. eric, good morning. caller: good morning, how you doing? host: fine, thank you. please go ahead. caller: hi, mr. hofmeister. my question is, the u.s. dollar is the world's currency, and oil is bought with u.s. dollars. the reason why we will never be oil independent is because if buy oil-- if we do not in u.s. dollars, it will collapse the dollar. that is why we are dependent on the middle east, because they are the ones that control the oil, and it helps us because they invest money into our

country when the world buys oil, and also we can print more money . i would just get off the line and hear your comments. host: thank you. guest: i'm not sure that we would actually see a collapse of the dollar. it would've drop initially, but the u.s. economy is much larger and the export market to the rest of the world is much bigger than many people realize. while there may be a dip, i don't think there would be a collapse. there were probably be a selection of a bushel basket full of different currencies to set a standard, but actually, it advantageu.s.'s currently that the dollar is the currency of choice, is the global standard, and i think that the strength of the economy will contain that for a long time to come. it is really the choice of other countries to use the dollar, not a requirement. the dollar has withstood for a century all of the various aspects that have been thrown at the u.s. and ask him out on the

other side in fairly good shape -- and has come out on the other side in fairly good shape to the middle east does not ultimately control oil for the world, although it is a major factor. it is opec, which goes beyond the middle east to include countries like nigeria and venezuela and indonesia. host: when you look at this chart from last week, courtesy in decembery," back it was over $91 a barrel, and now it is just above $110. guest: it is an abominable price, huge price that americans are paying for imported oil because of the failure of the united states to come to grips with this -- with its own energy policy over the last 40, 50 years. whether you blame the current administration or the previous --en a rate administrations, seven or eight administrations, the american economy is at the

mercy of forces beyond united states for no good reason other own unwillingness to develop our own energy policy with this country that essentially uses all sources of energy, which takes us off the oil monopoly that exists today. it is that conflict with the u.s. should be -- which the u.s. should be discussing intensely. we are the victims of an oil monopoly in terms of transportation fuel that we could shift away from, we could break the bond of opec on this country's economy once and for all if we would have the kind of discussion that needs to take place and start looking at alternative forms of fuel for transportation, not the least of which is introducing natural gas , both as a liquid and as a gaseous form, as a transportation fuel, so that oil is not the only product that people have to choose from when they go to the gasoline station.

host: which leads to a related question from joe. oh, i think they are, and have been for the last 150 years. fossil fuels put co2 into the atmosphere which have been buried in the earth. i don't think anyone in the -ndustry denies that the de fossilization of the earth as to the co2 content in the environment. the question is, what do you do about it? do you continue to use fossil fuels, do you face them out -- phase them out, do you use them in ways that you can capture the co2 and put them back in the earth? there is not been a thorough examination of u.s. energy sources in ways that the public could get a grip on how much opportunity we have. instead, we have had a

competition, and adversarial competition in this country between those who advocate renewable fuels exclusively, those who continue to advocate fossil fuels almost exclusively, 2 arehe fact that the adversaries instead of cooperators -- why can't we have a best interest of the nation kind of discussion in which we could actually come to grips with a balanced energy plan grows theard that capability and the increasing use of renewables, carbon-free, while we look at ways of reducing carbon intensity of fossil fuels -- there is no such thing as a light switch that turns off fossil fuels and turns on renewal -- renewable fuels at the flip of a switch. we americans are very inclined .ith the switch idea i have been on podiums, i've been on stages with environmentalists who say that we should eliminate all coldplay y 2020 52 thatal b

is a fundamental impossibility in this country, because what replaces it? what country wants to volunteer for the blackouts that occur in the worst times of year by virtually shutting down coal without an alternative plan? but they are so anti-hydrocarbon that they just say what it off, as if there is no switch -- as if there is a switch to a there is no switch. we rely on affordable energy to sustain the economy over any decades -- over many decades where we have been the world's largest economy. the past is the predictor of the future, and because we have had this huge hydrocarbon-based, ,es, with all the co2 emissions and if we are going to get off have ase, we better long-term plan, and we have had a president promising us an energy strategy to become independent since nixon to obama

. all of them have failed. and so why i started citizens for affordable energy is to begin discussion and work with other groups, like citizens -- i'm sorry, the name will come to me in a moment, but the fuel freedom foundation, the citizens these --liance could these groups, along with citizens for affordable energy, are trying to bring the conversation to the merkin people, because the politics of energy is destroying -- to the american people, because the politics of energy is destroying energy efforts, visit spurs the -- it stirs the adversarial pot so that people on one side of the issue refuse to talk to those on the other side of the issue and nothing gets done. host: john hofmeister was the head of shell oil.

jim is joining us from north carolina, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. if you let me finish, i will try to be very brief, but this something that americans need to know and it is very important to our economy. we see the -- we see that the iraqi oil belongs to the arctic people, american oil blocks to american people. why don't we drill it out? it will be under one dollar a gallon if they did. not only that, but we could control these incidents we had , because we would not be taking shortcuts and stuff like that. it is a shame that they companies -- that big companies -- you know, all the oil here that we drill, we have enough to run this nation. take the profit out of oil.

it is too important for this country. this is what we did in the wars and everything -- the answer is right here. the companies are asking for more drilling rights and they go out and buy this land and they discover oil and they put a cap they and they wait and don't put no oil on the markets so the price can go up, and then they turn this bigot on -- they turn the spigot on. all we're doing is selling away the future of our kids, selling way the future of our country, not just american companies, but foreign countries. host: jim, thanks for the call. guest: a very important set of issues that are being raised there. we do not have enough oil with oil alone to fuel the needs of the u.s. economy.

thanve never produced more 10 million barrels a day, going back to the 1970s and 1980s. we are currently producing about seven point 5 million barrels a day -- 7.2, i should say. and we use 18 between 18 million barrels per day that we consume and the 7.2 million barrels per day the reproduce. if we turned everybody loose to go drill as much oil as possible, i think with all the risks and costs, and environmental issues that are raised, we might get back to 10, but i do not think we will go much higher. transportablele, resources where the world depends upon the flow of oil and the u.s. really needs to be a part of that flow. where we could become energy independence is the conversion substituting for

oil. we do not have as much natural gas as we will ever knew it -- ever need, but we could become energy independent for north america with the full development of oil resources between the canada, u.s., and mexico. particularly in the u.s. and mexico. trucks, trains, buses, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, converting that natural gas into methanol, just like ethanol, mixing it with gasoline and flex fuel engines in our cars. we have the technology on the road today. we have the capacity to produce more natural gas and have been making methanol for more than 100 years. we know how to make methanol.

we could put the two together and become independent for transportation in north america. that could happen in the next decade. we would not need iraqi oil or any oil from any part of the world. we would not be at the mercy of authoritarian regimes to set prices to pay for the cost of their government. not for the marketplace demand. create millions of american jobs in the process, billions in tax revenue for the government. this is the are you -- argument of the council, the argument we are making to the american people, it is a common-sense solution and we can achieve that kind of economic growth, revenue, and energy independence if we could just get the politicians to talk to each other. >> a follow-up on the president's agenda, he said "we

had a problem with a deep water blowout protection peer from how we address this contamination? >> -- guest: the deep water blowout has been highly research. bad judgments were made, made by human beings. it was the earth that was unpredictable and bad judgments were made with respect to the unpredictability. andh respect to fracking the protection of water resources, that is a critical issue and the industry knows that if they do not protect groundwater and drinking water, they will not be allowed to frack. when you engineer a well, construct a well, use the cement around the well with all of this risk mitigation precaution built into the technology you are using, the epa has yet to identify a fight where there is a confirmed leakage of water.

i think that is good news, protected news for the american people to rely upon. anecdotal stories of gas leaking into wells are no doubt tree -- no doubt true, but this occurs in the earth around the nation. natural gas has been a factor in for as long as we have been drinking wells -- drilling wells in this country. the industry has a duty to care and take care according to regulations. if there are operators that refuse to follow the regulations, who are so sloppy and cost oriented that they cut corners, they should simply be shutdown. the regulators should tell them to get out of here, that we will not tolerate your mis performance, lack of integrity, and unwillingness to follow

regulations, get out of our state, the industry would applaud the regulators for doing that because we do not want to see the opportunity for developing these natural resources spoiled by some sloppy operator who cares said little about the community they are operating within. >> c-span networks include c- span radio, heard on the fm dial in the baltimore washington area, nationwide on xm 119. steven is joining us from haymarket, virginia. good morning. are you with us? one more time for steve in haymarket. we will go to middleton, west virginia. go ahead, please. caller: you all talking about giono there are two kinds? i just had a well drilled and they used nitrogen.

it is horizontal. it went down 3,500 feet, 90 degrees, nine degrees, what ever, 10 for every 100 feet. the use of nitrogen. -- they used nitrogen. there were no hydraulics. it was clean and there were no problems with it. why not mention that? that is a better way to do it. i guess because it is more expensive than sticking those chemicals down there, people do not want to use it. excellent point, i am glad you brought it up, thank you. we have a set of multiple tests going on to move towards what we fracking.less it is a precious resource that must be drawn from the walt --

drawn from the well and cleaned. if there are other sources, like nitrogen, or if it is rocket ofl, there are a number processes being tested, a number andifferent materials different ways of doing the fracking. just like the aerospace industry, it is always pursuing what could be. when you have issues with one type of technology, you immediately began looking at other possibilities. that is what is happening here. i am glad that that well was a success using nitrogen. if the department of the interior is involved, if state parameters and regulators are involved, none of this is being done without conscious responsibility for the public interest, because the industry cannot operate -- we call it a license to operate, you cannot get the license within society

if you cannot satisfy public need for safety. >> this is what the president said this past june on that and other energy issues. [video clip]journ >> our energy strategy must be about more than producing more oil, certainly more than just building one pipeline. [applause] i know there has been, for example, controversy surrounding the proposal to build a pipeline, the keystone pipeline, which would carry oil from the canadian tar sands down two refineries in the gulf and the state department is going through the final stages of evaluating the proposal. that is how it has always been done. i want to be clear, allowing this pipeline to be built requires that the finding that doing so would be in our nation's interest.

that our national interest will projectd only of this does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. the net effect of the impact of the pipeline -- [applause] the net effect of the pipeline's impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. it is relevant. host: that is from just over three months ago. john hofmeister? guest: the president is entitled to his view, i happen to fundamentally disagree with his observations and the suggested conclusion. this is a president who has focused and talked about

infrastructure building in this country, but what the president does not acknowledge is that there are over 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country carrying oil. or other petroleum liquids. on the area where the keystone pipeline is proposed they have moved it aside from the offer and the design plan, but even on that offer today there are 20,000 miles of pipeline that exist. with respect to carbon reduction, the president cannot tell canada what it can and cannot do with respect to oil development. they can bring to the canadian ,il from coming to this country but then who will we choose? venezuela? hispresident is patronizing political supporters. who paid for his

reelection are getting paid back in the president in his current opposition to the keystone xl pipeline. the nation needs it because the nation needs imported oil to get through the day every day. produce the oil to would ever global market will accept it. i have spoken to canadian officials. they are going to produce the oil. nothing the united states does, other than perhaps going to war with canada, would cause the canadians not to produce that oil. so, the consequence for the globe, regardless of what the u.s. does, i talked earlier about the need to be carbonize, but that will not happen overnight. are we going to use canadian oil, american oil, or oil from opec? i would frankly prefer canadian

and mexican oil. the president is making much out of something that is ultimately what he has proposed for the u.s. economy. middle-class jobs to build a pipeline that is infrastructure, not to serving the needs of canada, but the needs of america, so that american refineries can receive the oil and make petrochemicals, gasoline, lubricant in america for americans. why not build them in canada? canadian oil in canada? we have spare capacity in the u.s.. people say it will all be exported. no, it is not. it simply will not. people can say what they want to say and that does not make it true. i signed contracts with the president of shell oil to take canadian crude to u.s. refineries and produce the product for american marketplaces. will some of it gets -- it

exported? perhaps. if there is surplus supply. petroleum products need to be consumed within a certain life span or it goes bad. there is a natural movement of product, just like rain or corn. should we not export grain, wheat, or corn? of course we will export it, it benefits u.s. farmers. we will benefit u.s. refiners after the u.s. market is served and the market will be well served by building the keystone get past alle the president's patronizing. we can get on with creating jobs and have a more affordable local american oil. host: our guest is the author of "why we hate the oil companies." to get more information, we have this point from laura --

host: latoya,ns us from california, republican line, good morning. caller: my question is china. does china have land that is and dole for fracking they have technology available to do this? the first answer to question is yes, they have the geological formations that demonstrate a huge amount of natural gas. the technology is currently being purchased and developed within china, purchased from some of the western companies currently fracking in the united states, as well as developing their own technology. there is no question that they are devoted to developing their own natural resources and not becoming victimized like the

u.s. to the opec monopoly. they are already turning oil into methanol for transportation purposes. the consequence of china developing its own natural resources is to take care of the needs of china and the have a plan to do that. the u.s. could do the same, except they do not have a plan to do that, which is why we're trying to get the congress and the white house to come to the plan for future energy. host: this is from dana about your background -- host: are you a lobbyist? guest: no, i am not a lobbyist. we take no money, nothing, no money from energy producing companies. that is in our charter. to is truepeaking for the american economy, true

for the american consumer of energy, keeping in mind that the u.s. is the world's largest consumer of energy and may want to see energy so unaffordable that the haves and have-nots -- that is not what we stand for. we stand for affordable energy for all americans from all walks of life. ost of this is from james -- -- host: this is from james -- host: joanne joins us from san diego, republican line, last call for our guest. caller: good morning. hofmeister, so involved with our national security, it is only because of the oil and they are taking advantage of the situation.

you have ame that lot of knowledge about russia and what is going on domestically? people are suffering and taken all that money. do people just say no to the elements of the age? what is involved with russia today? guest: russia is a natural resource boundary for the world, natural resource exporter of many kinds, but also a very much state-controlled economy, so the state, meaning vladimir putin, meaning the government determines what resources will be produced where, when, and how, so it is hardly a free market. anyone who signs a contract to do business in russia does it under the terms of the russian andon and bureaucrats national figures, politicians, are not necessarily the best business people. they are very interested in

their own and national pursuit. russia has failed miserably over decades to develop its economy. i think that is likely to continue. russia only weakens itself with its state-controlled system, in my opinion. host: john hofmeister, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you. host: we are turning our attention to american thefacturing and a look at movie, "american made movie." we have news this morning from nancy callow. >> president obama plans to meet with lesbian, gay, rights activists at the group -- at the gang of 20 in russia. there has been concern over the

recent russian parliament to bridge a parliamentary laws targeting anti -- targeting homosexual propaganda. the had been invited to meet with him in st. petersburg this thursday and the st. petersburg advocacy group, coming out, said that they were invited, but have not decided to attend. news on the economy at this hour, poor logic says that u.s. home prices jumped 12% in july from one year earlier, saying that every state but delaware experienced price increase. nevada had the biggest jump of 27%. consistent job gains and rates that were historically low are spurring more people to buy homes, helping to drive prices higher. congress holds its first public hearing about u.s. plans for military intervention in syria today. john kerry, chuck hegel, and the joint chiefs chairman, martin

dempsey, will be testifying before the senate foreign relations committee. you can hear live coverage on c- span radio or watch the hearing on c-span, beginning at 2:30 p.m. eastern time. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. [video clip] >> this is one of the most iconic and recognizable symbols but it iste house,# not the first domed to cover this building. when the building was completed 1779, it was small and d and leaked. in 1785, two years after construction began, construction begins on a new dome.

about 12 years to complete it. construction on the exterior is completed in around 1797. withouttirely structural mails, put together with a labrador iron strapping. it is truly an architectural masterpiece. century, during the war of 1812, it was used as a look out, the tallest point in town. we have documentation of william up and using what was called his excellent glass to observe up the bay. on the maryland state house as we look at the history of literary life of annapolis.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: the documentary is called "american made movie." we want to introduce the directors and producers behind the film, nathaniel thomas .cgill and vincent vittorio thank you for being with us. let's begin with the trailer to give a sense for what this film is all about. > [video clip] ♪ the steel plant is closing. >> if an economy gets rid of its manufacturing base, you have a domino effect. said, motto, i always was you dream it, we build it. >> we lost those jobs. he told me something like this. >> in the united states it was

overseas. 5.5 millionbout manufacturing jobs. incredibleed unemployment. >> i am almost 50 years old and all that i know is this. >> the country is realizing that making these sacrifices is important. >> americans. getting back to good business, investing in your community. >> we understand why businesses offshore production. >> we are making more sales, more shifts. >> you do not want me?

>> it is about believing in something. what if you fail? >> that is not an option. is "americanle made movie." was the message? guest: we think that this movie has the possibility of changing the country. it is about all of our responsibility and his that we all have to manufacturing, whether realize it or not. we believe there is this relationship between the products that we buy and the things that are made in this country. host: why this topic? why you? guest: we feel that these topics need to beproducts that broughte attention of the general public. nathan and i both have a relationship to manufacturing through our family history and

we realized that as things went on a decline, there is still a great day ahead and we were able to get back deeper into that subject for a better understanding of what is happening in manufacturing. host: there is a connection to the baseball playoffs this washington"the post." in a town in ohio, a town that manages -- puts out about 7000 football's every year, 120 full- time workers. you begin the documentary with a bit about baseball. let's watch. [video clip] a deep sense of nostalgia that comes with a day at the ballpark. unique, patriotic spirit that

brings everyone together, not unlike fireworks on the fourth of july. i wonder, how often do we think about the elements that go into making a baseball game? how american is america's pastime these days? the truth is, in an increasingly global economy, it takes manufacturers from all over the world to make the things necessary to have a baseball game. as consumers we often consider the price of consumers and the overpriced hot dogs in terms of our own enjoyment. have you ever thought about the people involved beyond the coaches and players? the about the bats, balls, gift shop merchandise? the pattern holds true for all purchases in our everyday lives. as these companies try to get a leg up on each other, the manner in which your money is spent becomes even more crucial.

host: from the movie "american ," can you explain the numbers on the screen, vincent vittorio? guest: we will talk about the different elements of baseball and what is made here, what is not, showing the country of thein, as well as some of pieces of the whole, whether it is baseball or there might be items from multiple countries that might be dissembled in different countries. we kind of break it down. you put this film together, what stuck out gecko what did you learn? what stockout? what did you learn? guest: we went from community to community and really took a look at what went on in manufacturing

today. there are absolutely heartbreaking stories around the country about this, but it focuses on a tale of entrepreneurship. what is it like to compete today in this global economy? we focused on a small company and a larger company to really tell the tale of the american manufacturing. host: our phone lines are open. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. you can also join us on our facebook page, send us an e- mail, journal@c-span.org or send as a tweakeet at twitter.com/c- spanwj. guest: seeing the companies that be focused on, new balance, for instance, the last athletic shoe

manufacturer in america, producing shoes in the new england area in several factories. when you go there you see the spillover effect uc coffeeshops, breakfast places, things that are there, bowling alleys, things that go with a business being there. maine,s a small town in seeing the effect of those jobs and what it goes to in that community and to its employees, if you think it applies to anyone in america and you imagine that stripped away, like detroit, spending a lot of time there you see the size of these large factories and you think of these people who have children who went to school and have relatives that were in similar fields as this. maybe that is the depressing part of at the same time that we go to places that are alive and well, you know that the effect

it has done the community is everlasting and expands beyond itself. what about the political questions facing the next mayor of that city? guest: and what are you going to do about that city that is historically known for manufacturing and industrialization? really in the film we focus on detroit as the poster child for the decline of manufacturing. there is no question that if you look at it today, what manufacturing has become is a different type of story. you have all of these processes in one particular area where they focused completely on that. manufacturing design and the way that manufacturing has changed is certainly affecting that area over the last 50 years. host: your calls in just a

moment. back to new balance and this town in maine, we have more from "the american made movie" documentary. [video clip] >> it really is something to be >> -- youyou know know? >> it is all about pride. >> by having due balance in town we are able to filter more of the economy through the area. they are a part of our family. it is perfect. i heard them call it a threat in

the tapestry. they put it really well. again, it is a part of the philosophy, we are in the community and our prepped to host. >> if we do not want to give up low corp. -- low prices but increase manufacturing, who can trust to make it happen? guest: who -- host: who can we trust? guest: i would like to say that it is your own community, as we look at things on the national level, going one way or the other, but ultimately be forget about this in the community. that is where it starts for

consumers. look at our community first, then the nation, we can make a change would things, supply and demand shows that the money that we spend in our economy and in this country is something that truly increases manufacturing. but not where everything has to be from there. take, for instance, california. coaster rica, guatemala, you name at. for me not to look at the state of california first is kind of a injustice to my own community and if people can get it in their heads to think that they can do something by spending money where they live first -- nothing extreme, it will this help supply and demand in this country. -- host: thisine

e-mail -- host: that could be a can -- contributor to the decline in american manufacturing? guest: absolutely. if you think about that for just , that industrialization was a great step forward, building america's middle class, moving along like nothing would change. werting to compete with us, realized you're going to other companies. that is the story of manufacturing. ay did anyone nothing to make planned? good question. host: a look at manufacturing by , $70,000 each year,

responsible for total u.s. exports. "young folks are looking to get the simplest and cheapest education, exactly the problem as we move into the future." guest: education is something we need to look at. what is the true purpose? as we go through, a city this city, it really is about workforce development. how do we get them interested in these high-paying jobs? we have been on the factory floor where they have looked at these machines and said that they should be running, they would be if i had warm bodies that were properly trained. we have a skills gap in this country where we have jobs that

we can provide but we need the folks with the right type of training. a four year university degree will not get it done for the economy as a whole. host of democratic line, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering if you had given any consideration in your filling to the trans-pacific partnership currently being negotiated. anything pulled out that was politics or newsworthy because we were afraid that it would kill the date of the film. something that applies to those principles of the importance of manufacturing in the community and the role of the consumer plays. we wanted to keep the argument about why manufacturing is important to the come -- the country.

while that is a very important forc, it is still evolving years to come. host: vincent vittorio and nathaniel thomas mcgill, let me begin with you nathaniel thomas mcgillthomas, your background? background isly's all in manufacturing. i went a different direction, going into film and working on the documentary. plants closed and there is no longer manufacturing in the area. it has been a very personal for both of us. host: one of our viewers says that detroit is broke, that the gms when overseas and 70% of cars are made overseas.

have to lookzy, we at it from the perspective of a global economy. where i am from in georgia, if you want to buy a car made in georgia, you're looking l.a. made-- looking at a kia, in georgia, that is a korean car. a lot of things have changed. it is interesting to see where it is going. you have to do a little research, but if we demand more american made goods we will see more jobs and more politicians figuring out the best way to manufacturing here. guest: let's take a new balance

example from earlier. united states,e they are the same cost as a pair nike made in china. they are a lot more expensive, i can understand that, but at the same time companies are realizing that making this more important, you are going to see ofthe next five years a wave companies coming back to this , making a bigger deal that they are making things here. making sports celebrities millions of dollars to be in a photo with their product, you do not have to pay millions of dollars, you just have to produce it in this country. i really think that back to the question, there are a lot of goods that are worth more money than they make, because they require hiring pieces to assemble it.

the end of the day there .re a lot of goods the confined -- you can find. host: your background? guest: my family is from the sat -- southeast, with a mixture of industry backgrounds. i focused on journalism in school. my connection to manufacturing is my wife, her family grew up heard all the stories and saw what happened to who grew up and lived building cars and factories that were no longer there. guest: i would like to add the fact that we started looking at the food movement and what was going on in food, which was encouraging. we had done this before, think aboutguest: i would like to adde fact your grocery store, the

way that people started buying food at local farmers' markets. now when you walk into your porsche restore there is an entire section designated to organic goods. that is not too much different from the made in america label. if we start demanding more and more of that, you will definitely start to see companies using that as a marketing tool. i think that that demand, consumers are want to start to demand these things. wal-mart committed to $50 billion in american made goods. apple will be making computers here. these are relativelyway that peg new announcements because of demand. we are going to have an apple, mobile, and wal-mart calling to say -- what is the best way we can do this? i think that is the way it works.

host: where can people view your film? guest: right now they can go to the website. it will be opening in theaters next week limited. guest: peter joint -- host: peter joins us from richmond park, new jersey. guest: how -- caller: how are you? have been working for years in seen itustry, i have completely fossilized, but we went from accounting in the furnishing industry, the biggest challenge we have is suppliers and contractors making those parts. it is not always about price.

because the industry had taken such a long time, there were suppliers who made those products and it was a challenge for a lot of people trying to challenge for a lot of people trying to make goods here. host: thank you for the call. guest: i agree. i think it goes back to the principles of supply and demand. there are certainly things like labor where we will not be able to have consumer rages seen it completely fossilized, but we went from accounting as -- consumer wages as the reason that they have to manufacture it here as opposed to china or vietnam, but base manufacturing has changed. there might be a factor with labor costs of moving to china, but for now products are being not the but these are same workers. these are the workers who have the technical mindset of operating machinery, where there

are things that go into it that are not as simple. not only going back to the skills gap, making things with your hands, building things, but it is also encouraging because there are companies that change the way they manufacture and to where they can do and not rely on the cheapest labor. the caller mentioned that it is harder, but he is still making things here. he sees the importance in his community. tweak --s >

guest: it is traditional filmmaking and investment. , no onevate investors with any connection to the topic whatsoever, holding the creative was abouthe process telling stories in a unique way. leaning towards the right and it is about the of the peoplees manufacturing today and the things that they are dealing with. what are the struggles? what are the ups and downs? the film really looks at that sort of -- those sort of heart to heart topics as a base of understanding, historically, for future. can go in the

this point -- es host: surely, good morning. caller: i know i am going to love this movie. i work for factory. is you haveoblem the television set on. turn the volume down and we will hear you much better. guest: ok. i lived in pittsburgh. i worked for westinghouse electric. at that time i lived in pittsburgh with westinghouse electric and at that time there were 32,000 men working. they were inventing the first

computer. it was an entire building. everyone said that it would never go. my father worked for them, that -- it isso beautiful still beautiful, but now it is all technical. when i see something made in america, gosh i am thrilled to death. work as hard as you can. guest: i love it. that is the story of america. this is about all of us. we are the greatest innovators, inventors, the greatest minds coming up with american things. if we go to work every single country,n change this we remember innovation and championing those things. those dollars impact real

americans across the country. host: this is from our twitter page -- guest: that is an interesting situation. these companies when he up realizing they can save a little bet on labor they start those chips, that is the move and a response a problem. documentary filmmaking granted, there are filmmakers who have done things that were very , where ourn nature

role is to bring a topic where people do not have the full understanding. or they did not have the time to get the research together. it is about what they can relate to. that is encouraging, and people respond to the topic, how patriotic is that? historically that is a part of their lives and i think many way.cans feel that thomas shoes, for instance, putting the money towards a player -- a pair of shoes, i think the same thing would be true if people realized that they bought this object and were employing americans. i think that is encouraging to the topic.

host: our guests are both behind "he film "american made movie, available online. jim, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. when you talk about manufacturing in the economy in this country, i do not hear anyone talking about currency. since the unconstitutional act of the federal reserve, the dollar has plummeted 90%. do you plan to expose the federal reserve in your new documentary? talk abouto not currency or currency manipulation. we feel it is an important issue, but like we said with this film we are giving a base of understanding for the topic, as well as telling the personal stories of manufacturers today. what we did not talk about were

the topic changes on an annual basis. we wanted this film to have a long shelf life where it was between screens and universities, educating students, it can be a base of knowledge for people for decades. guest: raising the minimum -- host: this -- host: we have this question -- raising the minimum wage is important, but there are still good that our cost to other things. like wal-mart announcing that they would put that money into specifically american made goods. like that is the first shelf the juicy, when people come out and start purchasing things on the shelves all of a sudden there

will be a second and a third and they will have to say -- listen, these, these of the things consumers are demanding. we will find a way that these products can be manufactured for life. are not important, there are still goods out there. guest: even if we had more money, would it be contributed to american made goods? is thea $20 here, show up really going to and do that? until we start changing the minds of people on this issue, we will see more of the same. what has to change is where we ,re, taking responsibility now try to find one more thing that is made in the u.s. it just might be changing the

kinds of paper plates that to buy or paper cups the to buy. or where your toilet paper comes from. take a look at the variables and you can find things that are made here in america and it is just a matter of choice. host: the film itself takes about 90 minutes. we will take another look in a moment. carol, rockaway, new jersey. caller: when they exported the production in our industry, [indiscernible] as an americane thetical body for political, corporate entities to take over our economy. everything they do with regards

to the so-called free trade horrifies and and richest economy, jobs, salaries, and middle-class, eradicating it. host: your thoughts? guest: within the film we give an understanding of what our viewpoint is on this issue. if you look at the protectionist view point, you can then look at the free trade viewpoint. those are the fine for the viewer. the caller is talking about the free-trade views across the spectrum. we have seen democrats sign seen agreements, we have republicans in the same -- the same agreements. it is really a protection or free trade issue. we tried to put other viewpoints out there and put it

back onto the consumer because the the end of the day, washington does not make decisions if the american consumer is demanding a lot of a certain kind of good. ablee not ever going to be to bring back manufacturing to the levels it once was when we were the only person doing it in the world, but where we stand today in this manufacturing to the levels it once was when we were the only person doing it in the world, but where we stand today in this economy, the job back this type of in america again with companies coming back here to make more things and if you did that we would by your good. fill with health care and education, the cost might be more effective. thank you for taking my call. awas raised, my father was

tool and die setter for as long as he was working. i know what is like to have a dad who was in the factory business. what scared me is that i am now 70 years old and have five grandchildren and i have put aside money for their college goingion, but are there to be jobs for college graduates? that really scares me, because so much is now technology. guest: it is a great question. that is something that was mentioned earlier about finding of education in america. it is hard, looking at these four year universities, that is great, the thing that everyone needs to do in order to have a proper understanding in the thinkrce, but i do not that is true for everyone. there are jobs where we do not have a skilled work force to

have these jobs and you need to redefine the family unit as a community with important jobs and understanding how to operate machinery. i think it the technical and vocational activity should not slowed down. there might be 3000 people graduating with an education degree. ironically enough, this is the topic of our next motion picture, dealing with education and understanding its purpose in north america. have this question from josie -- not?r tell why the manager has probably -- -- likehile the

mississippi. [video clip] happeninge thing was across the country. >> the u.s. steel corp. announced that they were permanently closing 16 plants. were a total of 12,000 here that would soon lose their jobs. >> devastating news last year, general motors confirmed today that they will be closing plants, almost 30,000 workers. >> 200 steel mills shutting down their operations. >> in the 1970's and 1980's, other companies began to open to

trade and investment in education and infrastructure, domestic business to organizations. under the tax code, company executives began leasing outside the u.s. to improve profitability. companies that made their products in america began to close down the manufacturing divisions and started out sourcing network to other and thank you so much for having a son. the message and the response has been about the like going off. people saying -- i am glad that this is something you can put together. it has changed the way i look at my products.

to be 100%as american, but if we all just do our little part and look deeper we can really change things in this country. guest: go to the website, sign up for the mailing list, go of the theaters and get engaged. host: one thing that surprises you? guest: the amount of manufacturing still being i am a big advocate. that sees company the importance of embracing this country to manufacturing things. i think other companies will come back. they will see their something great about this. >> thanks very much for being with us. we will continue the conversation tomorrow morning