[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the senate foreign relations committee meets to draft operations for syria. it prohibits american pats on the ground and limits military action to 60 days and requires a report from the obama administration. you can see that hearing live at 11 lone 30 on spone two as and chuck secretary hagel live on c-span at noon and you can also listen to it

n espn -- on c-span radio. and support building. the military action in congress on the next 45 minutes your comments on the congressional reaction to the president's proposal for syria. if you support it or are against it. mocrat democrat for -- (202)585-3880 for democrats. (202)585-3881 for republicans. d you can also contact us on twitter, facebook or email us. there's a headline from "the wall street journal" in which we take our questions. the journal's headlines support builds in congress for the strike in syria.

it egoes to the senate side inside. and talking about the draft amendment that will be debated today in the senate and then "the new york times" turns to the house. -- tweeters express support how leaders express support for syria strike. again, for our first 45 minutes, your reaction to how senators and legislatures are reacting and comments they have made, hearings that will take place. if you want to give us a call it's (202)585-3880 for democrats. (202)585-3881 for republicans. and (202) 628-0205 for independents. and you can send us questions on social media as well. to talk about reaction on capital hill our

guest justin sink. to start on the senate side, talk about the document that was released yesterday, what it says in essence and what you expect the debate will be on the senate side. >> sure. one of the big things is during the time the obama administration would have to undertake any military action in syria to about three months, it puts kind of a strict limit on whether the president can send troops into syria or say no, no to boots on the ground. and it sort of more closely says, well, we're only looking for a kind of tailored narrow interruption. and these are goals of the present. it didn't appear in the draft language that the white house submitted to the senate which

is something that i think angered a lot of senators on both sides of the aisle so with this new resolution, it's something that could pick up a lot of support between democrats and republicans and i think the thing that the white house is opposed to -- but they say no. >> is there concern on the senate side that even as the proposal goes out, it could be adammed or changed in language, especially for those maybe on the senate who don't support action in syria? >> well, there is a bit of a balance going on right now. especially on the senate side. some republican senators including john mick cane and lindsay graham who were at the white house monday pushed through it. so you're going to see a coalition from their side. looking to give the president more power for intervene more power to target additional

sites to help rebel forces on the ground. while democrats or libertarians, which is sort an odd coalition but one that's emerging in the senate could probably be asked to narrow know for resolution and the stuff for the white house is who -- f for coburn and host: justin sink on the house side. what does it mean as far as building support there. because the speaker boehner showed support for this yesterday. >> yes, john boehner, and the house majority leader are definitely a big win for the president to have at the top of his club.

as for now, back on this proposal, it's never a bad thing. that said, almost immediately after speaker boehner came out of the white house yesterday and voiced his support, an aide said it's still the president's job. it's still the president's job to sell the house and the american people on this, so wallets are buteled unevidentably, to see speaker boehner coming behind, there's still a big challenge for the president and weaver seen on a couple different occasions that speaker boehner doesn't have a huge amount of control over the caucus and his party. it will be particularly hard to win over. >> you're talking about speaker boehner, what does it mean for nancy pelosi in the days going forward? >> yes. she also provides with her fair

evolution and she, by herself is, well, you know kind of shows the red answer many democrats have voiced. but nevertheless really has kind of started to work hard on what kind of a vote she needs and that the president needs to mas a bush. what happens as far as elations with tongs op well, top administration officials -- really standing in. out across the capital -- across the capital today and as you mentioned, john cary will be back on capitol hill to talk about the economy. and expect to have phone calls with the white house, outside caucuses and the drill or a necessary part of the business. a flub zone that basically

detears into the zone. but it has and i won them over to supporting the revolution. >> and justin sink, what's your sense as it stands right now tray about the passage on oath sides, the nat is probably a ttle bit more of wherein around the truth so we have not herd right now. up in coalition, we've keep raw are un sectored. > well, with about talking about the congressional reaction to the sink. juan, bill at least if you read the headlines, there was support for the president's hand in syria.

our first call this morning is from bob in granger, end i can't thinka often our republican line. hi. caller: good morning, c-span. i am not in favor of this at all. i don't trust john cary as far as i could throw him, and if this thing goes bad, they are going to wrap this around the republicans' neck and maybe now we can get john boehner out of speakership. i'm getting really fed one these guys. thank you. host: again, secretary of state kerry and defense secretary go before a psey our also find it on website and in our video library later on.

jeff, independent line. smart i don't know how it is when we have no electrical lies really back us. if the whole world is behind the chemical weapons usage, why do we have to be the only ones to step in and do something about it . we're -- also using chemical weapons in vietnam. agent orange was used by the u.s. >> as you watch congress deal with, this what's your reaction? >> my reaction is i'm just happy we have those who are going to actually listen to the ople and vote on their bavel funny how you don't want him back. will go to of

host: hello? is >> yes. i want to thank you for all the support you get behind you for putting on the c-span show. i have to agree with the president that this is not afghanistan or iraq. but what it is, because this 56-year-old has been around long enough, this is another vietnam. we're going to have end up sending a plane over there to drop a couple bombs and it's going to get shot down and then goal to war and if it because they shot down a plane we sent over to bomb them because we have nothing to do with whether they were gassing their own people and i have to agree that if it's such a world red line that the world doesn't wafrpblt anybody to use it, where's the world? because this has got stop. > talk about congress.

congress is going into this with their head in a bag, personally. because you can see the same thing happening that happened in veet no, ma'am. we started out with just advisors in 1952. we were not going to go any foote than that. it's just history repeating itself and these bias in tongs has bought us nothing but a bunch of attacks on our omp -- that's the reaction i see from congress. they act like they are running scare. they don't know white -- quite what to do. countries have been out to get us ever since we became a country. we'll never all agree on politics but we have to agree and stick together on taking care of one another in america first. >> after meeting with the president yesterday offered his

support in what's going on. here's speaker boehner giving his reaction. the use of chemical weapons is a barbarous act. it's clear toe me that the united nations is unable to take action. nato is not likely to take action. the united states for our entire history stood up for democracy and freedom for people around the world. the use of these weapons has to be responded to. and only the united states has the capability and capacity to stop assaad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated. i appreciate the president reaching out to me and my colleagues in the congress over the last couple weeks. i also appreciate the president asking the congress to support him in this action. this is something that the

united states as a country needs to -- to do, and i'm going to support the president's call for action. i believe that my colleagues this is your department for today, we have enemies around the world that need to understand we're not going toy tolerate this type of behavior and we have allies in the region who also need to know that america it will be and stand up when it's necessary. host: that's the highways speaker from yesterday. in "the washington post" today there's charts that list how congress might vote in syria. on the senate side, five senators all republican are against public action as it currently stands. those 5 weenies, more republicans than the democratics. 60 senators undecided. >> and on the senate side, for military action, there's 20 senators listed.

on the house side against military action. 44 representatives were rep cangs than democrats leaning gainst a 70 representatives, a considerable amount of represent is. and then four military action, 16 representatives, more democrats than republicans. >> there's say -- -- how that gives you some of the key changes. we are back to charles, because i look at the reaction may soon. mike, republican line? >> yes. hi, and i'm against this thing, because this is a u.n. battle and it's not a u.s. battle. and i don't see anybody behind our backs. we ought to worry more about the murder and we're killing our own innocent babies that don't have a say with abortion

and you're judging them over there? you should be judging yourself over here because you're not judging the american babies you're putting to death and they don't have a say anytime. are that like chemicals or what? host: you're good morning. you're toint line. >> i just want to say this is the same thing they did 11 years ago. she is coming out not saying she has the weapons of mass destruction. this was the same thing. they are pulling the wool over their eyes. this is ridiculous. wake up, american people. this is ridiculous! host: on twitter -- happy to report i've contacted my congressional delegation to register my objections to syrian war. ralph? good morning from reading,

pennsylvania, independent line or battle creek, michigan, democrats line. sorry. >> yes, the use of chemical we ens. s eunder the great president ronald regan, we gave chemical weapons to iraq various hit the spotlight road. a follow dwroup coach -- and you used them against flrn their war. you used mustard gas and syrian gas and the united states did nothing. and i recall the picture of donald rumsfeld, smiling, shaking the hands of the dig tear it, assaad. our history of -- dictator, ddam hussein, so our history

-- the host: what about congress and their reaction? >> at least they are debating it. the congress should debate. the congress should weigh in and i think they should limit the scope. i think that's a good idea. i don't think we should give any president a blank check which on foreign policy. host: reading, pennsylvania, republican line, bill, good morning. caller: how are you? host: well, thank you. caller: i was in europe for 1 1/2 months and i agree with the first two callers that called you. and i want to tell you something. host: specifically on how congress' reaction? >> this is what i'm trying caller: this is what i'm trying to say to you. the congress reaction is false. it's ridiculous. they are going to put us in a bad situation, and the only thing that's going to suffer is

the people of the united states because these guys want to be big shots. that's all. talk, talk, talk. no action. nobody's killing us or hurting the united states. why do we as americans have to pay tax noun fight somebody else's problems. i think we should mind our own business. ran paul potch we mind our business, and i think the american people finally should stick together like americans and get these guys off as soon razz possible. because they are going to use and feel that. nd mccain i think to have it should carry an issue that kills somebody else. what do you care? that's not our business. host: from twitter. , finally true conservatives and moderates are something we

can agree on. not entering into a syrian civil war. and released yesterday as part to the goal tory was to cross the line. host: a series of hearings taking place on this topic. on the house side, it is the use of military force. and they will meet with secretaries kerry and hagel today to talk about that. that's going to be at noon on c-span. you can see it there and live on c-span.org later on. on the senate side, the legislation or draft amendment

we have been talking about that, will take place live today at 11:30 and the senate foreign relations committee authorization for the use of military force in syria. watch it on c-span two. on the independent line, jim, good morning. caller: yes. good morning. i have to agree with a lot of these former callers. just uss apaysed -- amazed that 24er so happy to get us in wars. wasn't so long ago rwanda africa, they had over 3 million people they killed. we didn't -- never heard anything about it. and they had over 100,000 people killed in syria and all of a sudden you get a little gas attacked and it's like end of the world. our leaders aren't very happy is to -- aren't very wise and

are always very happy to spend our money and enter into things we have no right entering into. i was on the minute on the ricin deal, and they said if we hit syria might hit saudi arabia. and so i don't think we even need to be in this mess and don't allow our politics to put our young people in harm's way. host: this on twitter saying boehner is smart. the people want nothing to do with syria. boehner said he wants to take the syrian opposition into november. gene? guest: yes. host: gene, good morning, and into ahead. caller: good morning. hi. i am gene. host: you're on. go ahead. caller: i'm calling from host: before you go. you're going to have to stop

listening toth tv and go ahead with your statement or comment, lase. caller: ok. i'm calling from west philadelphia. and i wanted to know if there's any reason. host: let me put you on hold, please. we'll come back to you. jim, republican line. caller: hey, how's it going, peter. host: it goes well. go ahead. caller: this was like if the russians floated a boat down the korean peninsula around started shooting at seoul. syria is an ally. we should leave that alone. if you see your enemies fighting each other, just stand back and let them kill each other. if we're going to get started we've got to start the draft because this is going to suck everybody in and it's going to be extremely nasty and i just think obama is doing this because he opened his mouth where he shouldn't have and

this could be possibly creating a situation where he would be able to stay in power beyond 2016, so this is an absolute crazy mess and we need to just pass on this one. host: christina wong writes about the cost for cause in syria. saying i want would likely cost -- at the center or strategic and budget analysis --

host: that's according to mr. harrison. george is up next. george is from connecticut. independent line. caller: hi. i think my reaction to the congress reaction is that first of all, i appreciate the president putting home the task and engaging them. i think that says a lot. i'm surprised they are finally supporting him in anything since they have been fighting him every step of the way. and we should be leery about how effective we should be because there's pleasant question of other things where we have not interfeared such as balfour where millions have been eliminated. but iraq's use of chemical weapons, that's kind of irrelevant. it's the use of chemical weapons against their own people and so i would ask the callers how many of you have

reached out to your congressman and either voiced your support or opposition to this. host: have you? >> yes. i would agree with the president's comments including john mctchain even though he may be a hawk, i don't think syria is in the same as iraq. much more progressive and moderate and intelligence of extremism. host: this is from a viewer concerning congress' reaction to syria saying congress is ing exactly what president planned. host: larry from honolulu. republican line. caller: yes.

ou know, they have people here dying here in this country. unborn babies. and you know, they are not going to get a chance at life. and then they are talking about the babies and the children -- g killed in syria by right or wrong but why don't they take care of the children here? first? ok? let's put all our effort here first, because this country begins to blow up because everything is being done wrong. host: that was yesterday that secretary cary appeared before the senate foreign relations committee to talk about the president's objectives for syria and got into an exchange, he topic at hand about whether

assaad would be inturn emboldened by them. here's the exchange. >> one of the thing sincere assaad could take five-six days of strikes and emerged saying i have held on the power and survived and at that point be further emboldened domestically and perhaps further abroad. have we then a into account? what the implications could be could and what that mean to the long-term prospects. >> yes. we already have. for certain we have taken that into account. e president's asking for a limitedri to degrade his current capacity and to deter them from using it again. he is not asking for permission from the congress to go destroy

the entire regime or to get a much more extensive kind of thing. that's not what he is asking. so he will be able to stand up and no doubt he will try to explain this is how -- something positive phish him. host: that was from yesterday. if you want to watch that exchange and the whole hearing, you can do so on our website, c-span.org. you will find the activities taking place today on critical. nd c-span.org is where you see that. caller: is there anything tells united states may want or hidden secrets? is it that snernl host: what makes you think that? caller: well, they always want to have war against other personal reasons like the

situation with bush, it was about the oil. what's the situation now? you know? what else is more important than the retaliation that the united states owns them? that they can go over there and take over somebody else's business or is it something else they are after. >> the washington most of here's some of the questions they ask. e united states determined that the syrian government has used chemical weapons in the civil war there. host: the question, what if other countries such as great britain or france participanted?

host: jim, from murphys burrough, tennessee. you're on the independent line. caller: yes. president obama backed us into the corner by saying they crossed the red line with the chemical weapons, so now we have to. because if we don't, the north reans and hof by saying that crossed the red line it put us in position. we crossed it. i was stationed at the b.m.w. those people take as long as idiots there. so they are going to start slinging missiles to north and south korea because they can't ack it up.

shannon: in the case of syria, fsm stand up. how is our allies going to look at it? we may not have our backing anymore. he said don't cross the line and they did. it's a proven fact that the regime is the one that the used the chemical weapons and killed 1,400-plus people, he had to. i know this -- host: the g.o.p. immigration on back burner.

host: absent and unexpected reversal advocates of an overhaul are predicting action in 2014. will you anne up next from louisiana, republican line. caller: hi. i had a question. if we got missiles on damascus and dropped missiles there which sounds like what we are thinking about doing, what's to stop more people from being killed? i mean damascus is a city in itself which means there are people who live there. so you're looking at 1,400 people die. to se i was from more

which it's just like more innocent people are going to be killed. behind all this. and it just seems like a waste of time for me. it doesn't make any stones gout and kill more people and if they win, you know, wherever they have got this air and then that could spread out even more and it could be more people going to other countries. switched to -- just not making any sense to me. host: from stafford, virginia. democrats line. caller: good morning. just wanted to -- first of all, you know, it's a lot of tension out there. i understand. and the conspiracy theorists are all over the place. this is what folks need to understand. the reason why we cannot, i repeat cannot stand for something like this is because

there's much more dangerous things throughout that people are being bold to use such as biologic or nuclear weapons. everyone is war we'rey from fghanistan and iraq so it's un -- it's understandable. there's other countries, bad actors out there that would be emboldened to use more dangerous things such as iologic weapons or things that so take a breath and understand that even though we're in wars and afghanistan is winding down, we can't choose the time when things happen. when bad actors do things like this, 2007 united states as a eader. fofe will not go unchallenged or anything to tolerate it at all. point blank, period. host: what do you make of the

president's strategy when it comes to what he is planning on doing? >> well the more congress gets information on exactly what of and whoever wrote the state department. they must have a clear understanding of what they are going after. and i believe that. and it's not like iraq where we say well, maybe they have him. maybe they don't. these folks used chemical weapons. we cannot tolerate that. i support the president 100%. it should be limited. we should not go into any type of armed conflict with boots on the ground, but to target and destroy chemical, biologic, tever time upon we've made so now that's just it, folks. you have to understand that. that's what we have to do.

host: eddy from virginia. the washington journal has a map looking at the story when it comes to refugees in syria and showing where they are going as far as their being displaced. 2 million have fled the country. 4.25 million people are displaced within syria and 5,000 people are fleeing syria every day and 1 million have -- as you take a look at this. we'll go to our next call. this is from our republican line. caller: yes. for all those who don't want to get involved. i would suggest they go to the holocaust miami in washington, d.c. and take a look at evil. and i think that this rises to that occasion. i think that when good men stand by and do nothing, evil flourishes.

and a strike on syria's chemical weapons facilities. if but here assaad is really getting nervous right now. because yes. maybe there's an israeli spot who knows where he is at. next thing you know. a bunker buster is dropped. game over. evil flourishes while good men stand by and do nothing. thank you. host: another story in "usa today" talks about homeless populations within the u.s. greg popo saying this number has dropped 17% in 2005 and estimated 125,000 americans 14 since ss in 2004 2009 i love the amount of home less military veterans you have track to , it is on

end home lessness, the bigger federal investment -- in ousing part of it from -- next from new jersey our independent line. go ahead. caller: i just want to say this is such a show how obama wants to cross this red line before he goes to congress which is unconstitutional and now he realizes that. you know? this is just him backtracking so ehe gets many out of syria or so he has a fall guy if something goes wrong, because in the beginning congress was saying no that he did not approve. you know? >> and now you set the change? >> now things where expected to change. i don't think what they were talking about in the classified discussion but something there must have gone on.

host: ben rhodes, the deputy national security advisor and deputy assistant to the president has an op-ed in "usa today." gives the headline military action in the broader strategy. farther of it says in the days ahead the administration will be double the efforts to build a bipartisan support for the show. the decision to protect the national security interests of the united states of america. edward, washington from the state of washington. democrats line. caller: just wanted to thank you for the show and off comment. there are certain things in life we have to do no matter how much we don't want to do it and also to try to make sometimes we want

to be comfortable watching tv doing nothing when the truth is that if we want the freems, we have to scomplatch and the freedoms cost. ey have to have to put the presents' teacher and teach ourselves how much to get involved until things we shuent also how the involve ourself if so n things we should. host: camden is next from ohio. republican line. caller: how are you doing? host: call ir, go ahead. caller: thank you. first of all, i have to thank you for having a line with an open forum where we can speak freely. we need a lot more of that in this country. secondly, my huge concern our wn national demet america -- we have all these huge dotes

pay including war debts. so priors plus our troops and their salaries. we're having trouble paying them. not to mention all the goods and services provided that we have to cover. constantly. we are having a huge problem paying that off alone. meanwhile obama has been basically dictating this country by executive order. for the last however many years and now we want to start essentially with going to him p being a veteran world war. but we're going to end up having several countries down there over this. and there's been a lot worse things that has happened than small gas strike. how many viffleans are we going to syria and taking predator drones there are already there. but the american public, if

they know about it, we are already there. host: what about the congressional reaction over this? caller: maybe 20 years ago they had something decent to say that mattered, but right now it's nothing. the whole purpose so appease the american people. host: bob from philadelphia, pennsylvania. democrats line, hello. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. what they are not doing is they are not defining success. after they do this, how are we going to know if this is a success or not? and the other thing they are not thinking about -- what if by chance this were to escalate. iran or russia takes out one of our jets and they say, bring back the draft. because everyone is tired of rotating in and out of these wars and think about this people if we were to make it a level playing field, we are

allowing this to continue. that's all we are doing. we're allowing the civil war to continue on and often by not taking this man out. people need to think about this. this is really dangerous what we are doing and we're only doing it because he came up with this red line thing and did you hear the one democrat on another talk show or radio show who said we have to back him because we dweent him to be humiliated even though the democrats don't agree with him they don't want him to be humiliated. people need to call their conferences and tell them i will be awake for it. host: this is arthur on our democrats line. caller: yes. i want to say thank you for taking my call and i have to support congress on this. because chemical warfare should not be allowed whatsoever. and we are already in the we

need to show them we are strong enough to do what it takes to keep him down. i mean, ip wouldn't alady someone to slap my child on the head after i told him not to. and well, i'm just going to keep it short and leave it like that. host: our previous caller brought up the product of escalation. what if it grows up bigger? caller: i had my tv down so i didn't hear that. host: that's the last call we'll take. arthur from louisiana. just to remind you of the events happening on capitol hill. 's at 7:30 the foreign committee meets to talk about syria. you can see that live starting at 11:30 on c-span 2 at noon on the house side, hearing with and tary kerry and

military reports in seer yare. you can see it live at noon and atch us later on our websites. with danielle of the american intergrade and we will talk about minimum twaged ability to raise minimum wage. all that and more when washington journal continues. >> announcing the opening of thanksgiving day of the 22nd annual sale of christmas -- >> this house will only grow and should. it just seemed to me such a shame when we came here how there is hardly anything before

1902 and then when we went to columbia, the presidential palace there and the history of that country, we still remember every piece of furniture in it has some link with the past. i think the white house should be like that. >> a message. as mothers are concerned. as first ladies, we are committed. our citizens of the world will pledge to do everything possible to stop this. >> season two of our original series first ladies, influence rand image looking at the private and public lives of the first ladies. including your calls, and tweets starting with edith roosevelt on c-span and espn3. >> the state house dome is one of the most iconic and recognizable sbols of the aryland state outhouse but# it's also when the building is

completed in 1779 it's topped thing ll, undersized that leaks and it was hit by a hurricane in the 177 's and by the 1980's it's built contrary all laws of of then construction begins on a new dome to the state house. they, of course have to dismantle the original one and it takes them about 12 years to completet it. the exterior construction 27 and built 19 entirely without structural nailts held together with mort truly joints and it's an arkty tech actual masterpiece. in the 19th century during the war of 1812 it was used as a lookout.

's the tallest point and fomple so we have the son of to e barney here use whag have doing that back and forth. you have the day september of 18 14. >> more about the maryland state house as book t and we look at the life of maryland and annapolis. unday at 5:00 on c-span three. "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now daniel of foreign and defense studies. what do you think so far of the deal in syria? uest: what the president's end game is and what strategy is a

part of. i think it's partly because his policies haven't been popular and pollsal show there's limited support in the public for a strike on syria. and part of it is i think people understand instinctively that there's not enough from the president. face-off -- we've been urging the president to do more with syria for years and there was an article detailing how i thought the united states could be helpful in conducting a series of targeted strikes on air feels and things like that. mind you this field here is is just one of those -- it folds into an empty tent so it does thing to stop the use of o'identity just makes people mad. host: so if there's a scope or there needs to be a bigger picture. what would that look like?

guest: it has to be part of a bigger conference hencive plan and got to be made up of military action. simply by the united states. sure, if you want to take out his c.w. capabilities. but also take out his ability to receive weapons transfers from iran and other places so going after his airfields and sixth wring aircraft and even his wrotery wing. i'm on the level. the president said three months ago that this wasing? administration was going to do. nothing has happened. quite striking. nothing has happened. now, the president did not make a lot of fan fare about this announcement but again, if you want to do things about this, well, we're being debated. >> i used to work on capitol hill and spent 106 years on a committee and ns

asking their council and seeking their authorization. on the other hand, the hypocrisy of the president's moves strikes me just a little bit. when it was a question of libya, the president didn't seem the need for more extensival operations to go to the conflict now he does. i can only assume this is really just a delaying tactic for him because he is not actually that discouraging. so now the foreign relations committee the debate or authorization as fars i can eave you with your card. guest: and the senate foreign relations committee is a very narrow authorization. so it's 0 days plus an additional 30 if the president asks for it. it's very limited on the use of chemical strikes and

specifically prohibits certain kinds of actions from reasonable boots on the gruned perhaps less reasonable the president may see it wise to take out additional threats to our own facilities. this is going to limit him in onventional tomple secretary of state and joint chairman of the -- i suspect he at least wants to appearance of it. guest: i think it will pass. and i think the president will have to accept what's on his desk. host: from your tone you don't think it's enough? >> i don't think it's enough. whenever you're engaged in using american military power or ends that are really unclear, you're making a mistake. you're abusing our military and abusing your power and you're not advancing any particular strategy. that's problem here. no unwith has been table to

answer the very simple questions. why are you doing this. well, bashar, will he be able to use chemical weapons again? is he about to lose the war because of what we're going to do? no. do we have a coherent strategy f arming but helping the rebels? i can't tell. that's the main concern among people who oppose it. on the other side you don't want any president of the united states once he decides to take military action to be hamstrung by congress or by the kinds of limitations congress is now discussing. this is the tension we see. i want a robust policy on syria. i want to see assaad go. that's what the president of the united states said i just don't understand why he hasn't been more decisive over putting -plus years.

guest: again, i think the boots on the ground are an absolute go. for the simple reason we don't have value without boots on the ground but there's a more important thing for people to understand. i'm a big believer in democracy. i always have been and i think it's something the jithes should stand for and stand with weak people who are fighting for it. and awful ruel people guest: so it's not scombrust a humanitarian question. so what should we be doing in these instances? if people want to overthrow a leader like that. we should be doing our best to empower the best among them to do so. if we agree with their ends, and i agree with their ends,

they just haven't done a lot of everything. -- 's meaning the and st: until 8:30, danielle pletka. you can give us a call on three lines. his morning. on the democratic line or republican line or independent line. you can also join us on twitter or send us an email. as far as army rebels, the question's always been which ones to arm and what is the end result and if there are slippery sthropes do that. guest: what's important to understand is there are some arming the rebels and the assaad government was arming the rebels for quite some time

but the question was who are they arming? they were arming the most xtremist islammists aamong the m those who want a democratic future for syria. those who support serklerism and a number. they have been getting the short end of the stick, because it's only western powers who would support them. stop subcontracting foreign policies to gulf countries. isn't that a good idea? >> yes. the republican cincinnati o. and the only plan that was out there and let's get his reaction of but are we really giving them credibility if we go in with a limited strike and the day or week or month after,

assaad crawls out of his rat hole and says, look, i stood up to the strongest power on the face of this earth, and i won. so now it's business as usual here and he may say, by the way, i'm not useding chemical weapons anymore, because i don't like what just happened but i'm going continue to use chemical weapons an we're going on with business as usual and thousands are going to be killed. and our alis are going to say, what's up with the united states? you did a limited strike but you didn't finish assaad off. and the problem is just as bad as it was. what does that do to our credibility? that concerns me. >> well, snart, let me speak to that. it's a good question. first of all, i think zwrench as i will tell you, assaad may be able to crawl out of the hole and say, look, i survived but there's no way that with eality and other assessments

that we're better off. the choices made by the president. he and his military effort will not be better off. host: daniel pletka? guest: i think he raises the right question. i watched about 2 1/2 hours of that yesterday, and think of me s someone who is pretty simple eff and we need to help the rebels, and i got to tell you i thought they were incoherent and made a bad case for themselves. i thought that frankly secretary kerry and secretary hagel embarrassed themselves and contradicted themselves and didn't make a clear case. ost: how so? guest: based on reality and over assess ments. i'm sorry, what? are there other non-real

aacceptsments? they cannot rain? licy, because it'sened $10,000. >> $100,000? at the end of the day do we care about chemical do we care about chemical weapon use? children? what do we care about? what are our objectives. aboutary kerry was asked boots on the ground, and he said "maybe." someone caught him and he said "well, no." democratic loyalist supported them. thatlicans who believe congress needs to stand by the commander-in-chief and that we

need to do more in syria also supported them, but they did not do a good job. host: james off of twitter is asking to we have solid evidence aside did this in the first place -- bashar al-assad did this in the first place> ? canard thatis a bums me out. physical evidence has been collected by human inspectors. we have seen physical evidence from individuals that have been attacked. i do not think we have a lot of doubt about this happening. the assertions by bashar al- assad, which were made the last time he used chemical weapons earlier this year, which people have forgotten about because it was smaller scale, but the assertion that it was done by the rebels do not hold water. they do not have the supplies.

they do not have the delivery mechanisms. in the first attack, the chemical weapons were delivered by air. the rebels do not have air power. host: calls. panama city, florida. dependent line. you are a first for danielle pletka. good morning. c: good morning. good morning.ler: many ghazi, we went there without it's on the ground and we saw that how it turned out. if you do not think you will have babies lined up on the sidewalk after an attack, you are crazy. there is no way to win. it is a stay out policy and it best.e a benghazi at at worst, there will be babies on the street.

we have to look at who we are supporting. it is a little embarrassing for the president, but he is the one that opened his mouth and inserted foot. that is all i would like to say. thank you. guest: i have heard a lot of these analogies to benghazi and i guess the president set himself up for that because libya was so important and syria has been so unimportant in his worldview, but the analogies are not that apt. we had an ambassador on the ground in benghazi in a cia station and some consular officials. that is not what we have on the ground in syria and the president is not proposing to put anyone on the ground. the biggest criticism i heard his we did not do in benghazi what we are proposing he in syria -- we should have hit them with well-placed missiles, should have done something about the al qaeda sneaking into

benghazi and that will have stopped the ambassador and others from being killed. i do not think the analogy is apt, but the president set himself up. host:, new york. democrats line. caller: thank you for taking my call. do they really believe shooting areas is not these going to spread these chemicals even further? why is russia not trying to do anything to stop what is going on there? they are the biggest supporters, right? that is my question. guest: well done. i think those are good questions . on the technical aspect of what a strike would look like, what we hear through the news media and leaks from the white house is the president is not proposing to strike at actual chemical stockpiles, which is

risky, but chemicals are unstable. they will more likely burn up than spread. that ain't said, the -- that being said, it is more logical to go after the distribution. those are some of the things i have seen in public reporting. the russians are playing a complicated game here. serve vladimirt putin's ego nicely, i am not sure they serve russia's long- term, strategic interests. vladimir putin likes to play the nostalgic communist game -- we are on par with the united guys inyou choose your the middle east and we will choose hours. at the end of the day, bashar al-assad will not stay in power. let's hope they are better.

even if they are words, let me tell russia something, are you listening? host: is there a message going into the g 20 from the president? isst: the problem for russia serious is there only for in the middle east, -- port in the middle east, one of their few allies, and that will not be there for them now that they have taken the wrong side against the syrian people. today he said he would be open to a u.n. resolution if there were proof chemical weapons were used. maybe it is a trap for him trying to be conciliatory. a tobit is the latter. host: georgia. the public in line. rusty, go ahead. caller: my comment is about the narrow focus of the senate hearings where secretary kerry stated this was a narrowed and butsed attempt at serious,

is there not a statement in their that says the president might act upon nonstate and state actors in this, and this could bleed over into hezbollah or iran and brought in this engagement -- brought in this engagement? "usa there is an op-ed in today" that says the military action is part of a broader strategy. guest: part of a broader strategy, but not to go against hezbollah or iran. there are people that suspected his pretext for the president to go in and start bombing everyone we do not like. that might be nice in some cases because goodness knows we will need a strategy to deal with hezbollah and iran and the president does not have one, but that being said i do not think

the construction of the resolution as it came out of the senate foreign relations committee last night will allow the president any such latitude. it is very specific about targets in syria. host: mary from longwood, florida. independent line. caller: good morning. i want to point out this young the is a representative of aei. a lot of the aei scholars were the architects of the bush administration's policy, like john bolton. i know syria's oil is nationalized and the eu put sanctions on that. the few companies allowed to do business in syria has been squashed or in the civil war. lifted thishe eu section. i think this is all about oil.

is supported by corporations that we do not even know. going to syria, we need to take care of business here at home. we, the people, have a message to congress who vote yes for this. if you vote yes for this, you take your sons and your grandsons and go over there. that is all i have to say. host: thank you. guest: i am always disappointed when i hear people say do-it- yourself. i think john kerry and lindsey graham gave amply in service to their country. let's talk about syrian oil. syria has almost no oil. it is one of the biggest assadointments for the

dictatorships. they had a 10-year supply for domestic use. they are an incredibly poor country. its greatest wealth has always been its people, it's entrepreneurs, and i hope that will remain the case. i do not think oil companies have a great interest in the ascome here except insofar turmoil in the middle east is bad for business. host: ever since saturday you have heard the term war weary. what comes to your mind, especially given your experience with the iraq war when you hear comparisons? tom donnellyleague has developed what i would only call a mania on this expression weary.ary -- war how many people among the war weary are actually serving in our voluntary forces?

less than 1%. who is fighting? the 3 million americans, or volunteered?at what are the american people weary of -- talking about it, spending on it? are they also weary about social security and medicaid because we are spending those at a much faster clip than we are on any conflict, any pentagon account. i am not sure what anyone means when they say war weary. we are a great power, we want to remain a great power and enjoy the privileges of being a great power. one of those is understanding just what we need to do overseas. sometimes that involves our military. not, butn it does people should make no mistake,

our strength and our nation, the way it is constructed right now with the privileges and the economy that people have come to enjoy was built on american power, not war weariness. host: you have heard that term from the president -- guest: it has become a cliché. it is the kind of cliché that led former president jimmy carter talk about malays in the country. i understand people are sick of the problems of the middle east because they are big, intractable, and hard to solve, and they affect us in ways that we do not want them to affect us, but that being said, those that are fighting for us are not complaining, and they represent a very small part of this country. credit, and ill am amazed by the things that they do. i only wish we were supporting the more.

host: danielle pletka, our guest. american enterprise institute. peter. democrats want. caller: -- democrats line. launched missiles into syria a few months ago. i am wondering if that was illegal, and we still have to back israel up for those missiles launched if serial was to respond back to -- syria was to respond back to israel? guest: that is a good question. israel has gone in more than once from the air and taken out shipments either from iran or russia to has bulla, what israel bulla has bulla -- has and israel have gone in three times and taken out three turn -- such targets.

the syrians have not retaliated against him. what we are proposing to do is not a whole lot more germanic than that. maybe unfortunately. ofhink syria and threats retaliation are empty if israel is any measure. host: a headline in "the washington post." virginia,entreville, republican line. caller: good morning. the decision by this administration to get involved in syria would be the wrong decision. again, we are making the wrong decision when it comes to foreign policy in the middle east. after what happened in libya and what is happening in egypt, i see that the decisions made do little but harm our image in the

middle east. noting a war in syria would interests.national there were many here protesting the decision to get involved over the weekend. noting involved in syria is the emphasis of our allies. israel knew all along that charlotte sun -- bashar al- assad's regime had chemical weapons. is not thear chemical weapons in his hands, but if the weapons are possessed by the extremist groups. number three, the french opposition to the war cited that 80% of the attacks on bush are's -- bashar al-assad's regime are done by al qaeda. they would be the rebels we

would be helping. host: thank you. guest: we talked about this upfront. when the president wants to do something in the middle east that involves military power, after having spent more than five years in office, including his said career, saying we do not -- senate career, saying we do not belong in the middle east, we have no dog in this. fight, i syrian understand where the caller is coming from. the president needs to articulate what are -- what our interests are. insofar as the president is the leader of the country, and the bully pulpit as so much value, he has done nothing to build consensus around this. he has done nothing to explain to the american people what is at stake. it is not just syria. it is the spillover into

lebanon. we see bombings in lebanon, sectarian fighting in lesbian -- lebanon. turkishombings on the syrian border. we see the return of al qaeda in iraq. we see new powers position themselves in the golan heights to threaten israel. the notion that we have nothing at stake, that we can wash our hands of this -- "let them kill each other" -- someone said that to me, i think it is false, but i am just a lady sitting here on c-span. i am not the president of the united states. it strikes me that when the president made the decision to arm the syrian rebels, he did so with ben rhodes doing a conference call on friday after

night, and on monday night at 11:30 p.m., the president went moreharlie rose" to talk about the rebels. that is not selling a policy. other countries and how they watch us? guest: absolutely. it is not just the american people scratching their heads. with the gentleman said about egypt is right. electedcratically government that we did not like, the muslim brotherhood, they believed they were betrayed. democracy believe in and secular freedom, and they think we have let them down because we let my comment morsi run a muck -- mohamed morsi run amok. we are playing a lose-lose game. .ost: ralph

ridgway, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: the president ran his mouth with this red line talk. it was not a red line or i will go to congress. the republicans are falling for it. they cannot win either way. if it turns out good, the president will take credit. bad, -- it is all about elections in 2014. accusationink the about the red line is absolutely true -- part of the problem the was,dent has is that he let's say, rhetorically aggressive in talking about his red lines last year in the context of a national election where he was charged of being weak on national security. --said he was talk and

tough, and here is my red line. now the president has to lie in the bed that he made for himself, and that is part of what this game with congress is about, distancing himself. host: the deputy foreign minister said wants a war starts, no one controls what happens and we believe any attack on syria will result in chaos in the region, and be -- it mightt they have put together since 1970. we have forgotten how bad the are.s

our concern is what comes next worse. of the reason he gets out there and starts to sound like he might be making sense is because the president is not out there selling the vacuum. faye, sacramento, california. caller: good morning, ms. pletka. long, the republicans have said they're coming back to washington to shut down the government and impeach the president. span is talking- about interventions in. i think we have more serious problems in this country. thank you.

guest: ok. host: roger is next. salem, oregon. guest: i would like to encourage to act rationally. they use one of their large western beaches and invite french and u.s. military navy forces and remove them. guest: interesting idea. if assad were serious about a negotiated agreement, he would do something like that. ,e would say i did not use them in fact, here, i will give you chemicals that might be used for chemical weapons. take them from me. of course, aside is in this game to win it but he wants to defeat the rebels, retake power, and

reestablishes irani and proxy dictatorship. he will not do something rational like that. there was a time a couple of years ago where he still was a person with whom one could potentially have a conversation. that day has long passed. host: frank. west virginia. independent line. caller: good morning. i think you have done a great job of assessing the situation. two things i have not heard much of -- has anyone considered the wag the dog that we heard so much about one bill clinton was in the? irs,e is talking about the the nsa. that is all a thing of the past. there is a term i have not heard much and it is mission creep. when john kerry talked about maybe boots on the ground in stockpiles to guard

of weapons and then he backtracked, i think the people this, getwe can limit that done and be out are not recognizing the danger of making more moves and more moves and finally we are in a big mess over there. i would like to listen to your comments. guest: thank you for your comments up front. two very good questions. there have been accusations that there is a rabid dog exercise, the dog exercise, that the president wants to distract. we have some polling experts at the american enterprise institute. i would say that perhaps the caller could be right, although i do not think he is, that it would be a possibility if, in fact, the american people actually cared about these scandals. as shocking as it is to me

living in washington, i am utterly horrified by the way the beenazi prosecution has american public is not excited about these issues. your listeners are. we are very interested in these questions, but the american public is not as excited about all of this as i would have thought and a lot of polling shows that to be consistent. i do not think the president needs to distract people from these things. president iss the not doing anything about these problems -- the irs, benghazi. he is doing something have fast assed about syria and republicans are not holding his feet to the fire on any of these challenges. on the question of mission

creep, we spoke about that, and i mentioned a specific quote , and icretary kerry think there is every reason to suspect that there could be mission creep because we have not gotten any context. the administration keeps saying there will not be mission creep, it will not change, nothing will happen, trust us. again, without the context, without the narrative from the president, people will suspect -- get out there, mr. obama, tell people what you are thinking. host: an op-ed looking at the united nations question.

the u n charter has been breached, but what is one more? all of these beaches at up. late boss used to say i think we will have to agree to disagree. i'm a big believer in the constitution of the united states and not the united nations charter. it is the constitution that dictates what the president does , not the united nations charter, and i do not believe the american people believe the united nations should be an arbiter of what is in our national interest and what is not. first of all, iraq was legal because we had an authorization from the security council to use whatever means necessary to enforce what the weapons inspectors were doing. i would assert an unnecessary

technicality. what the president needs to do is persuade the american congress and the american people and forget about the united nations. host: tile. .ermont -- kyle vermont. independent. onler: i wanted to touch americans being war weary. friends and of family members come back in coffins. americans became weary when we were chasing around weapons of mass destruction and we found they did not particulary exist. go to othero countries when we see americans coming back in unjust causes. guest: i think the question of unjust causes is a matter of opinion.

i spent a lot of time talking to our forces, and i do not think there is any battle in america to see who is more sorry about our military, who gives the ultimate sacrifice in war, and the cost that that exact on families. it is thoseaid, soldiers and their families -- the notion that americans are were weary -- war weary is a little bit callous, and it is important to look to what the military says about their soldiers i talk to are enormously proud of the work they have done in fighting terrorism. call from scott in west virginia. republican line. caller: if he created a war crime by using chemical weapons, why can we not arrest him, give him his day in court, and when he is guilty or innocent, give

him his trial? guest: there are conventions against the use of chemical weapons and in addition there are charges of crimes against humanity. the case can be brought in the international criminal court. there are two sides to the question for the caller, and is another 45 minutes of conversation, but part of the problem is when you indict someone it makes them less likely they will come to a negotiated settlement. that being said, i do not think he is coming to a negotiated settlement. indict him. on the other hand, who will pick him up, deliver him? that has not been answered. in other cases where we have gone to international criminal courts or other courts that have been set up, it is a tall order to get these folks into the dock. it is only once we were able to win in the balkans that we were able to do that. pletka, american

enterprise institute. he were for joining us. from christinear owens from the national employment law project, -- next, we'll hear from christine owens and then fromct nina easton. first, an update on c-span radio. >> president vladimir putin of russia is warning the west against taking one-sided action in syria, but adds that russia does not exclude supporting a united nations resolution on punitive military strikes if it is proven that damascus used poisonous gas on its people. he went on to say that moscow has provided components to syria but has frozen further shipments and suggests russia might sell

the missile systems elsewhere if western nations attack syria without united nations security council backing. in syria, president bashar al- assad is threatening retaliation against france. he says "there will be repercussions for the the french state and on french interest," and he warns any attack could push the region into chaos and war. the french government says that punitive military action against syria could shift the balance and the civil war. said toign minister find a political solution to war , you have to "move the situation." the french parliament is debating how it will respond to the syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the science does not tell us what to do.

it tells us what we think is going to happen and we have to make choices about that. simon the implications of wordne of argument is the changing?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>d we do not know that is case?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?>?> wite climate problem -- it might be something we can adapt to, but if you take the idea that societies can adapt, he leads us to the question of even if we can adapt, is this the world we want to live and with the extreme heat, the sea level rise ? so many things we care about our being endangered by the changes and we have a choice. scan human ingenuity save the planet, -- >> can human ingenuity save the planet. ."ul sabin with "the bet

and booktv is back with "this town." read the book and see what other viewers are saying on our facebook page and on twitter. >> c-span. we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house events, briefings and conferences, and offering complete gavel-two-gavel coverage of the u.s. house. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider, and now you can watch us in hd. >> [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by christine owings.

we are talking about the fast food workers paid what was there point in -- workers. what was the point in their strike? guest: they have had far too little for far too long, and they are tired. they have gone to the street and say -- to say we need a living wage. they want to do something that would get attention, that would illustrate how hard they work, and how little they get for their work. they took a very courageous act, which is to strike, because many workers are fearful of doing that. they went on strike and 60 thousands.usands and host: where does minimum wage stand today? federal -- guest: the minimum wage is seven dollars and one quarter.

there is legislation that would raise it to $10. inincrease the minimum wage 1996 when bill clinton was president. it was frozen at five dollars and $.15 until 2007 when an increase was passed and eventually became $7.25. unfortunately, this has been the history of the minimum wage over the last 30-some years. in 1968, the minimum wage was enough to lift a family of three from poverty with one full-time worker. today, that same family is 30% below the poverty line because the value of the minimum wage has declined so much because congress has failed to consistently increase it, not keeping up with inflation or

wage growth, and workers who earn the money wage or just above the minimum wage have been falling further and further behind. take on whys your congress will not raise? the issue has not been joined in this congress as dramatically as it needs to be raised -- joined. we saw the strikes. andwalmart situation here the district of columbia is shining a spotlight on the crisis of low-wage work. we have always had bipartisan support for raising the minimum wage. there has always been a fight to get to that. as more and more members of both parties hear from their constituents about the damage we our economy overall by tolerating the expansion of low-wage work, it is just not something we can sustain. host: the minimum wage applies

to all workers in a given jurisdiction in both the private and public sector. some states and cities have separate laws and there are exceptions to include full-time workers, -- full-time students, workers under 20, and workers receiving tips and workers with disabilities. guest: one of the most scandalous exceptions is the tip worker wage. tipress voted to freeze the .orker wage technically, an employer still has to make sure his or her employees earns the minimum wage, so it has to make up the difference, but it is often the workers, andped they are largely women, often people of color, finding that

their wages end up being less than the minimum wage. if they a paycheck which is zero because there withholding tax has been taken out of the tipped wage, so these workers have not seen an increase in the minimum wage since 1991. host: we associate the minimum wage with teenagers or those that are younger. is that the case? guest: absolutely not. the economic policy institute has done an analysis on who would benefit to increasing the minimum wage, and 88% of those folks are over. the median age is 35 years old. if you saw the clips from the fast food strikes you did not see a bunch of teenagers. saw working parents -- you working parents. 40% have some college education. half of low-wage workers contribute at least half of

their family income. so, these are working adults, whose families depend on the earnings that they get from their jobs. these earnings are just not families. host: the lines will be on your screen, and unguarded -- and divided by party. a special line for those of you that actually earn the minimum wage. the heritage foundation came up with some myths, they say. number 1 -- a huge number of americans are in them wage -- they say just 2.9% of all workers earn the minimum wage. number two,

guest: this is a shell game because what the heritage foundation is doing is looking at a very tiny universe of people who aren't exactly the federal minimum wage. what we are talking about and what the legislation in congress would address his people whose wages would go up to $10.10 an hour. that universe is a much larger universe than those who earn just the minimum wage. 80% are working adults. a large share have some college education. a large share support families on their earnings. 30 millionpeople -- workers -- roughly one quarter of all workforce, would benefit from the increased in the federal minimum wage. that is a fact, not a myth. "the wall street journal"

looks at minimum wage issues, highlighting that activists rarely ventured that the federal earned income tax credit supplement the full-time minimum-wage salaries. guest: that is great. we need a strong earned income tax credit to reward work and incentivize work. there is no inconsistency in supporting both of these policies and saying in a nation in which the top 1% of the population holds 20% of our national income we should have sound policies that support people that work for a living. people who work for a living onto earn a living from work. owens from the national employment law project join us to talk about the minimum wage. go ahead, tim.

caller: my point is this -- if we complain about the bloated salaries of executives at the top of the corporate food chain you might hear conservatives argue that it is not a zero-sum game, that if a boss takes a higher cut, it is not like there is a limited supply of stuff for .he lower folks if we asked for a higher minimum wage, it is a different story. it is treated as a simple subtraction from business profits that they will never get back. be asking this until someone figures it out -- why is it a zero-sum game for business if we wage -- raise the minimum wage, andison the

hypocrisy of conservatives on this issue? guest: i think it is an excellent question. peoplelity is you hear say workers are earning the minimum wage because that is what the market to man's. .ote -- demands no one would suggest that the ceo of mcdonald's gets a $13.5 million compensation package because of the market. the fact is the rules are rigged in ways that keep wages down for working people. wagef workers saw no real increases between 2000 and 2012, 2012, wages2009 and -- 5%, orttom numeral 20% dropped. ceo compensation rose last year. this is not a market.

it is policy, rules, tax policy, wage policy -- is driving consolidation of income at the top among those that already have 20, and it is depressing wages of workers -- plenty, and is depressing wages of workers. we need to address that through policies that are designed to be what we are about, which is a nation where hard work is rewarded with an opportunity for economic security and advancement. we have become unmoored from driftingm and we are further and further away from that. it is one reason why the minimum wage is so important. we have to have policies that lift wages up, not just for the lowest paid americans, but for all workers. without such policies, all workers suffer. host: done. claremont, california. republican line.

caller: good morning. i think you are focusing on the wrong problem. she wants to make more union workers, and like the teachers union, each is completely killing all the education in the world. we have these people believing in global warming but they do not believe in god or work ethics. we of the epa putting out regulations that prevent people from working. host: specifically on them them wage? theer: the minimum wage is wrong argument. these are the just dues for the dumb kids that cap loading -- keep voting because of their oppressors in college. they will not be happy until all likes in america look detroit. guest: i know plenty of people who believe in climate change,

god and work ethic. the truth is it is the decline of unionization in this country that is a significant region -- reason why workers wages have declined since then chili. -- substantially. this is fact. we do not have to call each other's -- call each other names. it is a fact that worker wages have declined, they unionization has declined. unions today in the private sector are less than 7% of the workforce. post-, as union density rose, workers wages rose. similarly, as union density has declined, worker wages and opportunities have declined. unions, whether they are in the private sector or public sector, including teachers unit, -- unions, do a lot for all workers across the board.

it is the attack on the right of workers to organize is -- that workers part of why economic security has fallen. minimum-m twitter -- wage jobs are supposed to be entry-level jobs, not supporting a family of three. case, ideally that is the but people that benefit from minimum-wage are largely adults with tenure in their jobs. more consolidation of income at the top means there is much less economic mobility for anyone. the train on which you are born is the station at which you end up. if you are born in the bottom of the income distribution, unfortunately, that is likely where you are going to end up in your career. it means you may start in the minimum wage job and continue in

minimum wage wage and slightly higher jobs throughout your career. i worked minimum-wage jobs as a kid. i am sure most of us did. i never expected that that would be my career. there are millions of workers in this country who have no realistic expectation that absent a minimum-wage increase and absent the right to join a union that they will have any real wage growth over the course of their career. let me give you one example. ofe care workers -- the kind women that cared for my mother when she was dying -- they are exempt from federal minimum-wage and overtime payment. now, that is currently about 2 million workers. some of them enjoy minimum-wage and overtime under state laws, but not the federal law. home care, personal care, is both one of the fastest growing occupations, and one of the occupations that will grow the most over the next decade.

we are talking about a rapidly expanding workforce that will meet the needs of an aging population that does not even currently have minimum-wage and overtime protections. these are dedicated, hard- working women. for have been in these jobs years, and years, and years. they are not kids. they are not children's jobs anymore. on twitter says wouldn't increasing the minimum wage be a job killer? guest: absolutely not. what is hurting the economy is consumer demand. economists would say demand is not strong enough. we know that if we raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, that will benefit 30 million people. these are people that spend what they earn. they're not able to shelter their assets. they spend what they earn. that would pump $32 billion into

the economy overall and that would be the kind of stimulus, not a government expense, by the way, the kind of stimulus to get the economy going. host: betty. coldwater, mississippi. independent line. caller: i am calling because of the minimum wage. i have an object in -- objection to it for this reason. if i'm not mistaken, minimum- wage is an entry-level job, and it pays for a person to come in, learned the job, and know how to do it. in this area, where we are, there are people that have 10- to-15 years of experience, and their income is somewhere between $10 and $11 an hour. how can you say that a new earn the sameinto

as the person has been that -- that has been there 10 or 15 years? the idea should be you come into learned the job, and move up at of minimum-wage should not be designed to support a family of four. them wage is an entry-level job. host: thank you, caller. guest: betty, thank you for your questions. one in four jobs in the u.s. pays less than $10 an hour, so with a workforce of 140 million people, we are talking about well over 30 million people earning less than $10 million -- $10 an hour. the minimum wage for a fast food for a fastedian wage food worker is $8.94 an hour. no one quibbles that a new

employee should be paid less than someone with experience, but the entry-level pay is very low, and the opportunity for advancing much in pay beyond that is also very limited. so, a low minimum wage, really locks in what somebody's lifetime earnings potential is because there is not that much wage growth beyond a minimum wage. host: laura. florida. democrats line. caller: good morning. i have been listening to the callers, and until you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should not judge people. some people are out there with three children, newly divorced, have nowhere to go, have to get a job, so they start at a minimum-wage job, have to get on food stamps or welfare because they cannot afford to pay their bills. before people start pointing

fingers, they should realize it is not easy for a lot of these people to live. the minimum wage should be fair enough that they can put diapers on their kids, feed their kids and put a roof over their heads. for people to sit there and say they should get a better job, or they should go to college, or they should do this, well, until you walk a mile in someone else's shoes, you should just, you know, zip it. host: bob off of twitter ads do you know what would raise minimum wage for workers -- education. guest: education is important, but i want to emphasize that many low-wage workers, they actually have some college education, so we are not talking about a situation in which people are paid less because they are uneducated.

i want to respond to what laura said. over half ofell the workers that would benefit from increasing the minimum wage are adult women, and most of them are raising children, and they are trying to raise their children on very low wages. we are talking about wages that will support families. people who work the minimum wage, many of them have education, many are trying to support themselves in going back to school and getting more education, but it is hard to juggle supporting a family, earning low wages, going to $7.25. going to work on host: some of the lowest paying jobs include food preparation and service, dishwashers, cashiers, hosts and hostesses and amusement park attendees. republican line. good morning.

caller: good morning. i believe you're looking at this with the wrong perspective. i am more of a libertarian republican, a former democrat. $20 is not really a fixed. you have to look at monetary policy. was $1.25.nimal wage correct me if i am wrong. that is the equivalent of five silver quarters. in today's money, five silver quarters is $46 an hour. -- $26 an hour. in 1872, president nixon created our current policy, removing the silver-backed powers, allowing the value of our dollar. if we look at history and educate ourselves on how this occurred because in 1965 five

silver quarters equal $26 an hour. we have to look at monetary policy. guest: jason, thank you for the comment. this bit ofe about history than i do, but i want to comment about the minimum wage being a $1.20 in 1965. -- $1.25 in 1965. in 1963, 1 of the demands of the march on washington was to raise the minimum wage. around $13.would be raising it to two dollars an hour would have brought it to $15, which is what the fast food strikes have been all about. it is another reflection of how far the minimum wage has declined in value and how our neglect has had a profound impact on so many workers across the country.

host: from twitter, american hero says people are not paid because they are educated or ignorant, but for what they produce. guest: that is right, and worker productivity has increased 25% since the year 2000, and for the bottom 60% of workers, wages have been flat and for the lowest paid workers have been following -- falling. they used to be a link between productivity and what workers earned. productivity rose, earnings rose. that was decoupled in the late- 19 70s, and has since been growing further apart had host: -- apart. host: where is the money coming from? another tweet. guest: it will come from and one of the, first caller said it was an assumption that if we raise wages at the bottom it will harm

business, but we cannot do anything about the share of income that goes to corporate profit and ceo pay. how incomess generated overall should be shared within our society. i find it hard to justify a situation in which 20% of national income goes to the top , where ceoopulation year while% last workers wages continue to fall, and we continue to see the concentration of income in the top 1% of our population. host: independent line. phil from south carolina. caller: good morning. i could go on forever. you mentioned worker productivity is up. every time the minimum wage goes up, employers cut down on the number of employees they have, and those employees have to work harder. the concept of the minimum wage

is a fallacy because all you do minimum wage, prices go up, the number of employees go down, and people complain about the fact that they are not making enough money. -- people complain -- there is a lack of education. people don't take their education seriously when they are in elementary, junior, senior high school. they don't learn a trade. people working minimum-wage jobs who have college educations, they majored in basket weaving, those types of things. it long and short of it is, is your own fault if you are making minimum wage, for the most part. just respond to a couple of things. the issue of whether are not raising the minimum wage causes jobs to be lost is probably one of the most researched issues in labor economics that there is. thathe prevailing view is

-- and this is based on very fine tuned, comprehensive studies that look at minimum- wage increases over ménière's, that compare ash over many years, that compare states that have different minimum-wage -- over many years, that compare states that have different minimum wages. a period of 16 years and finds there is no significant job loss associated with raising the minimum wage. that is the economics. for people who remember the second term of the clinton administration, we increase the minimum wage, the economy created 22 million jobs, wages went up across the board, and we had unemployment that fell below 4%. the notion that raising the minimum wage is bad for the economy, is going to cause job loss, is going to increase

unemployment, it is a nice soundbite, it just does not bear up. here is passed from west virginia, democrats line. from west pat virginia, democrats line. caller: hello. i called for two reasons. i want to dispel the myth that the minimum wage is some kind of entry-level salary to train people. the minimum-wage is the minimum- wage. if the employers don't have to pay it, they are not going to pay anymore. -- anymore. -- any more. i did not get in on labor day when he had a lawyer on who was defending right to work laws -- when you had on a lawyer who was defending right to work laws. that lawyer probably belongs to his local bar association. they said minimum fees that -- they set minimum fees that

attorneys can charge. that fellow belongs to a journey -- a union.d he quoted that he had to family parent members that had -- he had two family parent members that had union jobs. i was so glad that his parents had union jobs to give him the underpinnings so he could attend college and become an attorney. lastly, i want to make this point. nobody has to go to work on the union job. this idea that unions force their way in, don't delay union job. guest: i want to respond to one of those points. i'm glad he had an opportunity to respond to write to work as well. -- right to work as well. minimum is the minimum wage it lines the bottom of the wage floor.

-- minimum wage is the minimum- wage. it lines the bottom of the wage floor. the reality is six of 10 jobs that will grow the most through the end of this decade are low- wage jobs. 20 of the 25 that will grow the most are low-wage jobs. 60% of our job growth since the recovery began have been low- wage jobs, where 60% of the jobs we lost in the downturn were made wage jobs. it is critical that we have a minimum that is strong enough to boost wages across the bottom of the labor market. this is where jobs and our economy are growing. if we allow the wage floor to be told down more and more, that means wages across the board are going to be pulled down. i also want to respond to the comment about employers would not pay the minimum if they did not have to. my organization along with a couple of others did a survey in 2009 that was the first really

comprehensive survey of low-wage workers in los angeles, new york, chicago. the three cities that have the largest low-wage workforces in the country. we surveyed more than 4000 low- all kinds of occupations and industries, men, women, people of color, and we asked a range of questions about how many hours they had worked in the preceding week, what they had been paid, whether they had gotten -- and a team of experts analyze the data to determine what was the incidence of minimum-wage violations and overtime violations. the analysis found that 25% of the workers who were surveyed had not been paid the minimum wage in the week preceding the survey. that is a 25% violation rate. that is huge. a survey iness --

new york found an even higher rate of noncompliance. a survey of people who worked overtime and were entitled to overtime pay, 3/4 did not get paid overtime. is right that, for many employers, and i would not say all employers, but for many employers, if we did not have a minimum, they would pay as little as we could get by with. walmart,talked about the issue of minimum-wage, especially when it comes to walmart. guest: the city council has passed this large retailer accountability act that requires the companies that have more than $1 billion per year and occupy more than 75,000 square feet of space would have to pay their employees $12.50 an hour total compensation of wages and benefits.

it would immediately affect walmart and some other companies that are relocating to the district or locating in the district. the current businesses would be phased in. the legislation passed the council by and 8-5 vote -- by vote.5 vote -- by an 8-5 , the counciled could override the veto with nine votes. that is sort of the status of it right now. host: the regional manager for walmart put an op-ed in "the washington post." he said, we have an obligation to -- like any business, we have a responsibility to our customers, employees, and shareholders to reevaluate our options when it

looks as if local rules may significantly change. that there is an uneven playing field when it comes to walmart is laughable. it is the largest employer in the united states. it is a phenomenally rich company. it is expanding globally. the idea that it is going to be disadvantageous to a walmart competitively to provide a combination of wages and benefits equal to $12.20 per hour is just laughable. $12.50lity is that -- per hour is just laughable. the reality is that when walmart comes into communities, it has the effect of driving down wages and benefits. or drivepull wages up them down. it is really important that who occupy the kind of positions that walmart occupies in communities around example by set the providing stronger wages and benefits to their employees. host: and they don't build a

store, there is the potential host: if they- don't build a store, there is the potential loss of jobs. guest: they suffer a lot when walmart comes into the community. many think walmart is trying to strohm i'm -- to strong-arm the mayor. it is a question of do we want the residents of the district of workbia, people who will in nice stores, to work at poverty wages? i think the answer is no. post them a sacramento, california -- host: sacramento, california. caller: you made an excellent point about walmart and low poverty wages. but if there are no jobs, that is zero wage. walmart is -- does not build there because of the minimum- wage then there is no job at all.

worse to me. my second point is that the -- we are never given a choice. the states where you can opt out of unions, people are opting out of unions. i wonder why that is. guest: let me go back to the walmart point, then i will try to respond to the union question. on walmart, i think it is a false dichotomies is just -- to suggest we can have lousy jobs or no jobs. we are in a situation in which corporate profits are consumed -- or per profits consume the highest share of national incomes that they have since world war ii -- we are in a situation in which corporate consume the highest share of national incomes that they have since world war ii. policies, strong

economic growth, strong unionization that has driven up wages, that has created strong economic growth, that has propelled businesses. this is a question about choices we make as a society and the kind of policies we are going to adopt that really share prosperity broadly as opposed to business -- consolidating it in a small share of the population and in corporate profits. on the unions, i would just suggest that there is a real problem with the notion that individuals who enjoy the benefits of unions don't have to belong to a union, don't have to pay at least a share of union use fort the unions negotiating wages and benefits for all members. in right to work states or any state where individuals opt out of the longing to a union, the union still has a responsibility to represent those workers. those free riders get a real

benefit from union representation. host: we have a caller from oak park, michigan. he earns minimum wage. what type of work do you do? caller: i was in food service. how are you doing? for -- i may have a comment as well. let me try to make it quick. what do you get in response, thistine, two opposers to rs to the fax you just gave over -- to the facts you just gave? what do you get in response to that? guest: i think this is particularly telling. the small business alliance conducted a survey of small businesses in the spring.

or foured three questions. one was the federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour now. do you support or impose -- oppose increasing the minimum wage? 65% said they support raising the minimum wage. they posed a couple of statements that they asked the respondents to say whether they felt it was more true or less true. , "raising thes minimum wage will put more money in the pockets of consumers who will shop for my business and improve my business." sing the minimum wage is going to hurt employers and cause job loss. i get in, 65% of those small thenesses said that raising minimum wage would actually improve their businesses overall because it would give consumers more to spend. back in the early 20th century, henry ford had the idea that he needed to pay employees at ford

motor company -- i think it was five dollars a day, so that they could buy the cars they were building. it is not rocket science. a highwho have propensity to spend, meaning they need to spend what they earn in order to support themselves and their families, are going to spend that money. and they are going to spend it at their local grocery stores, at their local gas stations, at their local restaurants, movie theaters, the department stores. they are going to spend that money. it is going to be good for their local economies. host: one more call. caller: hello. it is very good to listen to you today and to get a lot of good ideas going on. thank you very much. i have a couple of points. if you look at the graphs workersthe wage of the on one line and the productivity

of the workers on another line corporationsof the , whoever gets to keep -- and the wages of the corporations, whoever gets to keep all the since the 1970's, they stay relatively even. once we get to the 1980's, the top line kept going up and up. the productivity kept going up. but the wages leveled out and stayed pretty much the same. it has done that kind of ever since then. the man who said if they have a minimum-wage job, it is their own fault, they need to go to school or they need education or whatever, i would like to respond to that. because it is not necessarily whether or not you have education.

it is so many other factors. when you go in for a job interview, you may be up against , even in the not hugely populated area. caller.hanks, the point thats productivity has increased, corporate profits have increased, ceo pay has increased, worker wages have bottomed out. host: as far as congress' actions on raising the minimum wage, d specht anything in the remainder of this term? -- do you expect anything in the remainder of this term? guest: i think we have a good shot at it in 2014. , thank you.owens coming up, nina easton from "fortune" magazine. it is part of our regular spotlight on magazines segment. we will take that up as soon as we get news from c-span radio.

thisre news on the economy hour. the commerce department says the u.s. trade visit wide in shock -- sharply in july, up 13% from a four-year low in june as companies exported fewer goods and imported a record number of foreign-made automobiles. the larger trade deficit could dampen economic growth in the current quarter. president obama is in sweden right now. he is planning to focus on climate change, trade, and technology. you will be meeting with sweden's prime minister and other leaders. he will stop at the technical university. news now, he is in a joint conference with the swedish prime minister. we will have that for you later in our programming schedule. he is taking questions on syria. his is only the second time at --. president has it is in has visited sweden. president george w. bush was the first, attending a summit in june, 2001. president leaves

for russia to attend the g-20 summit, where he will meet with japanese prime minister shinzo abe. the president's scheduled -- schedule also includes meetings with chinese president xi jinping and french president francois hollande. continuous a argument among lincoln scholars about islington with the radicals or with the moderates. the reason why that argument is continuing is that there is very strong evidence on both sides of it. and it is not just that he played both sides of the street. i think it is that he felt the pull of both sides of the argument. it is partly a difference between means and ends. i think he was with the radicals as far as ensco, but i think he was -- as ends go, but i think he was aware of the temptation of being swept about -- swept those.

i think there is, in his mind, a taming tension tween his commitment -- between his commitment to this worldly means , legalistic means, and otherw o orldly ends. there is always something scrupulously legal about the way lincoln works. i think that's one of the things that saved him from the power of his own idealism. ofhow the president use language conveyed the issues at stake in the civil war, sunday, 7:30 p.m. eastern. c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: every wednesday at this time, it is our spotlight on magazines segment. we are turning our attention to "fortune" magazine.

story, "the ceo who caught the chinese spies red-handed." welcome. guest: great to be here. host: who is the ceo question mark -- who is the ceo? guest: the ceo is kevin mandia. no one had heard of him. he was not on the map until he released this report that came out on the front page of "the new york times" in february, that showed ties between not just hackers in china but the chinese military and hacking into fortune 500 companies in order to steal trade secrets. host: was this a new revelation? of a lot ofs proof allegations that had either been classified or were part of corporate knowledge and corporations don't want to be waving a flag and saying, look, we have been hacked into. this is something that has been going on since -- the chinese and russian governments have been hacking into our systems

for years. 2004, 2005, we have seen an increased intrusion by chinese hackers. they get into computer systems, corporate business computer systems, and they download trade secrets, everything from factory blueprints to ingredients of products, to memos, two executives e-mail -- to executives' e-mail. it is a problem that has been building. it is something that the administration has dealt with more through quiet diplomacy. they will talk to the chinese , this the doors and say has to stop. the chinese deny it and take offense and keep doing it. , on aas been happening separate track from the mandia report, is that the administration is starting to take off its gloves on this issue. the obama administration.

they have decided to get tough on china. we saw in the president's state of the union speech, he made references to cyber security threats. he did not explain and china. but at the same time, his then -- he did not explicitly say china. , hist the same time then security adviser said -- the company response and a ghostbusters fashion to cyber security intrusions at company a the company responds in ghostbusters fashion to cyber security incursions -- intrusions at companies. he links these intrusions to a military unit in shanghai. and a 13 story building in shanghai, squeezed

parlors andge noodle shops. he is a former air force intel officer. elite unitt this within his company of former military intelligence officers. they had been building this evidence for quite some time. companies are reluctant to talk about it. government officials have been reluctant to go openly about it. they have this report. the question was, do we go public with it? the information is not classified. there are no naming of companies. he passed it through intel officials who said, tellingly, i thought, go ahead and release it. we don't have any problem with you releasing it. this was back in january or february. and with the president citing the cyber security threat and the administration giving off signals that it was going to be more open and more tough on china, he decided it was the

right thing to do, that somebody had to speak up and actually show proof that this was coming, as i said before, not just from hackers based in china, but from hackers who work for the chinese military. highlights -- host: some of the highlights of the report, a military unit responsible for the cyber hacking. blueprints, manufacturing processes, test results, contact list -- lists. this is about money. economic are in an competition with china. they are doing everything they can to build the economy, to build the middle class. but they are getting there not themselves, but by stealing our trade secrets and our inventions. when i say our, these are western companies. it was also in europe.

english speaking companies were targeted in these attacks. they don't think it is a problem to steal intellectual property and use it to build their other industries and their military as well. host: our guest is with us to talk about the cover story and the larger topic of cybersecurity. here is how you can talk to her. for (202) 585-3880 democrats. rep) 585-3881 for ublicans. for(202) 585-3882 independents. how did the ceo respond to the report being published? guest: he said i'm going to have a large target on my back. what are they going to do? -- response from the chinese

the chinese ministry said the report was unprofessional and irresponsible. he was fearful they might do was not- not he fearful, but some of his friends and investors were fearful that the chinese might hack into his company am a mandiant -- his company, mandiant, and steel internal e-mails and do a reputational -- and steal internal e-mails and do a reputational attack. on the other hand, that's not necessarily the mo of the chinese. there are certain rules of engagement that the chinese follow. when the russians come in, it is about money. it is just stealing basic money. or terrorist links

countries or organizations come in, they may be coming in to destroy -- terrorist-linked countries or organizations come in, they may be coming in to destroy. women chinese come in, they download information. ,- when the chinese come in they download information. you might get a call from the fbi or from a competitor who has just been hacked into to give you a heads up. but they don't damage systems. neither have engaged in reputational attacks or anything like that. mandia's view was, there is a danger in doing this, to his company, but it was something that had to be done, because companies were uncomfortable talking about this, because they did not want to say, we have been hacked. it hurts their companies. and companies want to do business in china and they are reluctant to take on the chinese individually. ,ince he knows these companies

he thought he would be on the front lines of this. again as a former airline -- air force intel officer, surrounded by former military intelligence officers in his company. host: doesn't name any specifics? it doesn't name any specific companies. if you raise the flag and say we have been hacked, it is hurtful to your business. it does not name companies. it cites the number of companies. they talk a bit about how these hackings occur and how vulnerable systems are. you can have all the firewalls you want. you are still going to be vulnerable to an attack. the way these things happen is that the chinese or any hacker will go in, learn about the company and its employees. it has become more of a problem with facebook and social media.

they can find out all about you. your friends, your favorite movies. they will send you an e-mail based on that, with an attachment. you are very likely to open that attachment. incomes that malware virus -- in comes that malware or virus. they can use it to grab data. looking at where hackers are. 30% in china, followed by romania, and in the u.s. guest: there are certainly hackers emanating from the u.s. and this came out with the snowden, thatard the nsa hacks for national security reasons into other systems. there is a national security ouring that comes from military and nsa and organizations like that to get a lead on national

security issues, to protect the country, and so on. on any scalet do that anybody knows of, that has talked to me, is steal trade secrets from competing companies in order to build our economy. the nsa director, keith alexander, called this the greatest national -- transfer of national wealth in history. there have been estimates made americanling ip from companies is costing $300 billion per year, 1.2 million in lost jobs, most of that hacking emanating from china. host: our guest, nina easton of "fortune" magazine. we have a collar on our democrats line. caller: good morning. nina just answered my question. i did have another question.

it seems like china already has a middle class and things of that nature. -- compel retell them them to continue their hacking and things of that nature. -- nature? guest: thanks for the call. i am from l.a. myself. it is great to hear from you. the chinese middle class is growing. it is very limited. thatmists have pointed out while we worry about the raise ,f china -- the rise of china in 2020, their per capita income still will not be anywhere near what our is -- ours is. while they are building a middle class, it is still only in the early stages. they face the potential of social unrest because they do have winners and losers in their economy. there are a lot of poor people. there are a lot of people who just are getting by. we see a lot of crises in china, like the collapse of schools him

earthquakes in these poor areas -- like the collapse of schools in earthquakes in these poor areas. the chinese are worried about unrest. they know they have to keep building the economy and keep the gap between the well off in the not so well off -- they have to figure out a way to close that. a question from washington on the independent line. question relates to the history of the theft of intellectual property. wasn't israel and other countries involved in this even before computer time? didn't they benefiting gain from this as well? and you talk about the history a little bit? -- can you talk about the history of little bit? been: there has always business espionage. there have been cases where spies have been planted internally and companies. that's the way it was done in planted internally in companies. that's the way it was done in the past.

at an aircraft company. there was a polish spy there. they were investigated and prosecuted by the fbi. that has been going on. i think that what happens with the internet is it opens up vulnerability in a way that has never been before. hacking into a computer, having thousands of people -- particularly a military unit -- as this military unit appears to have, having these hackers going day after day, hacking into companies and finding their data , it is just on a scale that we have never seen before. it poses a real threat to our economic interests. military react specifically when the report came out? did the military react specifically when the report came out? guest: they have been pretty quiet about it. there were some messages that

said the report was very important in giving the white house leverage to say, you guys keep denying that you are any part of this, to chinese officials. ,his report shows, publicly that these hacks are coming from the chinese military. exposed int the data that report is one of several in china. they went after that one because it has gotten more complacent. it was easier to go after. there are more advanced systems that are still online and very -- just going after companies. did mandia talk about what led him back to these specific units? guest: yeah. there are two pieces to this. one is the technical side, which is ip addresses leading back to shanghai. what is interesting about international hackers is they typically come to the u.s. via -- they leapfrog in.

they come in first to a less protected system like the university. even elementary schools. and then they use that as their base of operations to come into a company. they tracked these ip addresses back to the same place in shanghai. nina has these air force intelligence officers who went googling in chinese -- he has these air force intelligence officers who went googling in chinese, seeking people with english skills, computers -- computer skills, hacking skills who would like to work for this unit. there was a lot of anecdotal evidence that led them to that. hackers within the military -- they are military officers themselves, or do they hire hackers to do the work for them? guest: it's a military unit.

it is people who badge in and out and are presumably wearing uniforms. caller: this is bill. host: you are on, sir. go ahead. aller: i would like to ask question about how much do you figure that the ceos and corporate leaders in american corporations who rush to take their jobs overseas and different -- and disenfranchise american workers -- they are responsible for losing a lot of their proprietary processes. they contribute as much to this as the chinese spies do. guest: i think they contribute in that they are unwilling to stand up to the chinese because they want to do business in china. , there arer premise studies that show that companies with overseas operations that

are successful actually build jobs in the u.s. as well. they are not all guilty of shipping jobs overseas. companies have to expand globally. we are in a global economy. and you have to manufacture. that is not to say that sometimes -- they are taking jobs because they get less paid labor -- lesser paid labor. but they do have to operate and sell products in companies and have operations and factories there. i think it is a more complicated question than just that they are shipping jobs overseas. host: our guest, nina easton of fortune magazine, a senior editor and columnist, talking about the ceo look dated in the washington, d.c., area. -- the ceo located in the washington, d.c., area.

could you elaborate on this? that yous view is cannot prevent it all. you can narrow the gap of your target area, but you cannot -- all these firewalls are not going to protect it. you should not think that it will. his company is set up -- he sells a software that detects it . but the prevention -- as i described with the e-mails here there are so many ways, if you hire human beings as employees -- as i described with the e- mails, there are so many ways, if you hire human beings as employees, for the viruses to get in. this was one of the interesting numbers. a hacker can be in your system -- he found the average was about a year.

it is very hard to prevent. what you have to do is limit the damage. chinese hackers went into "the " after thises, series of pieces into the premier, wen jiabao. the chinese went in and hacked into their system. "the new york times" hired kevin mandia to go in. what he and the company did is sit back and kind of watch. they went in for six months to track them and understand, almost like a detective, to understand how they were operating before they got in and got them out of the system. it was very interesting. kevin mandia is somebody who is trained in forensics. he was a fan of detective shows

growing up. he really likes and understands that element of -- you are a detective going after a criminal. host: and spent some time in the air force. guest: he went into air force right after college. he went to college at lafayette college. he did rotc, when into the air force, and ended up shortly after joining in the military intelligence unit news pentagon. he goes back -- military intelligence unit near the pentagon. he goes back to the 1990's, where modems were still dial-up. he was looking at people trying to hack into systems even back then. chinese, russians, a lot of the same players. but it really took off seven or eight years later, the intrusions really expanded. host: i don't know if you

mention this specifically in your story, but does kevin mandia talk about the policies that the u.s. takes towards cybersecurity in general and how they can be improved? guest: i think he sees the first at as being able to share information. this is going on in congress and the white house right now. there is legislation and there is an executive order. having a way to share information about what is happening between companies and companies with the government and doing it in a way that is not going to get a company in trouble with its shareholders because they are disclosing this. i think he thinks the first step is information sharing. thethe big question is limits of diplomacy. there are people calling this -- calling policymakers, people on the hill, who call for punishing china over this, but there is the fear of sparking a trade war if you take action on the trade front as a punishment.

it is a delicate balancing act. china is -- they are not an enemy, they are a competitor. sorto you deal with this of bad behavior, as it were? while we are still looking at have them as a major market, still be in good standing since it is one of the few places growing in the world. its growth has curbed a bit this year. but it is a growth market. earlier, a caller talked about the middle class, which is still in the early stages of growing. those are big markets for american companies which build american jobs. we are inextricably linked. the chinese also own a huge percent of our u.s. treasuries. we are so linked. it is a very difficult diplomatic nut to crack. host: you said in that regard that as the u.s. takes the

gloves off, the president of the united states met with the leader of china. one of the issues discussed was that about cybersecurity. in june.ey met he raised this issue and got nowhere. it was sort of a curt denial from the chinese once again. from texas on our democrats line. she is nina easton. go ahead. if you i'd like to ask know a lot about the norcal communications takeover by the chinese? guest: i don't know enough to talk about it in depth, but i do know of it. host: why do you think it is important, caller? caller: it's a very significant amount of technology we lost, and market sales, too. for telecom. it is being taken over by the chinese. they hacked into other management today a gourd warnings that they were attacked. all their trade secrets are gone

within a year. the company is gone now, basically. guest: that case has been cited as an example in the telecom area, where you really see the damage from chinese cyber espionage. ,uest: thomas shipman -- host: shipman says, doesn't stealing patents drive down prices and make it cheaper to consumers? guest: no. stealing patents -- it's an interesting argument. again, itgue that hurts the u.s. economy. if you have copycats -- if you have copycats, you are building a new street -- an industry off of copycats. you have companies that have put millions of dollars into research to develop technology. for china to seal it and make money off of it, -- to steal it

and make money off of it hurts the companies and employees. who is getting attacked? what is important to know about this? guest: the important thing to know about the graph is they are hacking into defense industry, the pentagon came out with a , very concerned about chinese hackers getting into defense contractors and building a military off of it, building advanced weapons systems based on our technology. once again, we put all the money and effort into our national security. it is a national security issue. they are a military competitor as well. as an economic matter, getting into these companies that have poured all of this effort and

resources and money into these weapons systems and, suddenly, it is showing up in the chinese military. host: st. petersburg, florida, next. go ahead. caller: i would like to ask two questions of your speaker. we know how to do embargoes. we know how they work and how they don't work. why is there not some technology embargo that we can put in place here? and i don't think that the market of the chinese should be the one thing that is out in front when they are stealing from probably every country in the world. slap them hard. can't we force them? guest: i think that's an excellent point. i'm surprised there isn't more juice behind that on capitol hill. for example, in the 2012 presidential election, governor romney talks about currency war, currency manipulators, and called china a currency manipulator. i would argue that it should be -- we should slap their hands,

as you said, on these issues. it is something that people can really understand and really get their hands around, this idea of stealing our technology. -- s something i agree with you. expertseen op-ed's, talk about it, so on. but i have not seen much action on capitol hill to really do something. host: james up next on the republican line for nina easton. hello. go ahead. caller: hello. host: you are on. stop listening to the tv. go ahead and make your comment or statement. caller: i would like to know, how did the chinese get away with taking over norcal? guest: well, we just talked about that. host: one of the lines from your piece about kevin mandia -- " when he answer those calls

from nervous executives, mandia is aware that the club of the hacked is a lowly one." guest: we talked about this a little bit for. you don't talk about it if you are a company that has been hacked. you worry, if you have been hacked -- particularly early on, and that is why this report was important, companies were thinking they were the only ones. in fact, most american corporations rate about a c in their protections. very few have the kinds of systems in place that can detect and crack down on this. you don't want to talk about it because your subject to shareholders saying you did not regulatorssubject to , your but -- your bank saying you did not do enough. a lot of these companies feel like they are big and but they can't really talk about it -- they are victims but they can't

really talk about it. did you write about this in the early snowden days? guest: the story came out in final edits as the snowden story was breaking. i had to address that. the way i address that was saying it complicates our diplomatic conversations with china over this. because what he did, first of all, he went to china with these documents. and he made the allegations about the nsa hacking into all sorts of other governments. so, that becomes a problem for the white house, talking to the chinese about cyber espionage, because the chinese come back doing., look what you're you are hacking. even though it is not cyber espionage. for whatever reason, it is a separate international security issue or not.

but it is still muddying the water and it makes it a less clear and less compelling case. that year earlier caller's very good point, why don't we do something -- back to your earlier caller's very good point, why don't we do something ? i think it makes it more difficult to have these conversations to round up the support to do that. ant: does kevin mandia have ear capitol hill? do people talk to him? guest: yes. house intelligence and senate intelligence committees. there was a sense that this report documented what -- there have been a number of government reports on the chinese cyber security threat. it is done in a very general way. it was like large ice tags associated. but to drill down on the very specifics, this military unit in

high.ai, 13 stories from there, these attacks are emanating. i think legislatures -- legislators appreciated that it gave them that kind of proof and evidence and talking point that they needed to make this more clear cut. if you talk in generalities, people don't really get it. host: and it gives a perspective many have not heard before. us fromton joining "fortune" magazine. a few minutes left with her, talking about the cover story about the ceo in the washington, d.c., area, kevin mandia, and what he found out about chinese hacking, especially when it comes to business. if you want to call, the numbers are at the bottom of the screen. because he put out the one report, is he working on others in a similar fashion?

will there be a follow-up? do you know? guest: he left out a lot in this report on purpose. he said i want a sucker punch them -- i don't want to sucker punch them. i want to let them know we have proof, but without giving them -- not being too aggressive. so, they held back. i heard him say openly in congressional testimony, look, if they keep denying, we will put more out. that kind of threat hangs out there. they do have more evidence. -- into all of what they have, but they have more evidence that they think will more solidly make clear what the chinese have. not: the initial hesitation to put everything out goes to not wanting to embarrass the government? guest: it has to do with naming names and not wanting the -- youent to just get

backed them so much into a corner that it has distracted them so muchu back into a corner that it has destructive effects. host: good morning. go ahead. caller: if you look at the growing middle class of the chinese and the size of that and you look at the different ways they can take our technology, whether it is through old-fashioned methods of getting employees and our ,ompanies or having people here more of the old-fashioned, 1989 types of ways, and you add to that the impacts of technology and what that brings. the size of their middle-class yet to come versus what we have. my concern would be from a macro perspective, the scale of what we really do have to lose. guest: right. i would just add to this point

about cybersecurity and the chinese one other thing to understand. the chinese now have this policy --led indigenous novation innovation, which basically means they are trying to promote typically state owned , sorprises as innovators that when an american company wants to come in and do business forceda, they are often to partner with the chinese company and hand over technology as part of that agreement. ways, companies are hurting themselves. they don't want to stand up to the chinese on any of this. they are leading the chinese set the rules and terms of agreement . host: steve from mississippi, republican line. caller: where are they getting the people qualified and training them to learn how to do this hacking?

china is basically a third world nation. the average person does not have access to computers to know how to do this. are highly trained military people. what is interesting, as i mentioned earlier, one of the ways that kevin mandia and his company were able to find a particular unit is that they found resumes on -- at a university there -- requesting resumes, looking for people with english-speaking skills, hacking skills, certain kinds of computer skills. please apply to this military unit. there is certainly -- universities are turning out very sophisticated computer systems. obviously, they have a very sophisticated military and a lot of sophisticated science and technology systems. george froms missouri. independent line. good morning. you are on, sir. caller: i think what ought to be

done is all the americans ought to wake up and quit buying anything that is made in china. and then the people in this country who have businesses over there, put a big import tax. jeans, before they took them and started making them in the other countries, were $17 a pair. now they are $49 a pay. -- pair. our government needs to put in import tax on them that is 10 times what it costs. then these companies would come back to the united states. guest: it is interesting to hear you. really, this needs to come from voters like you guys. inthis issue was raised more town halls and so forth with lawmakers, why aren't we doing something about this -- this is not something that people talk about much. it has not become an issue. if there was a groundswell,

grassroots determination to say , as you said, we are not going to buy your goods, or trade action that we took -- i would encourage viewers to take this up with your lawmaker peered try to get this more in the mix to be talked about -- with your lawmaker. try to get this more in the next to be talked about. host: every company wants to do business with china. guest: companies are complicit. they don't want to make an issue. to be named.nt they want to partner with companies, even if it means turning over some of their technology. i have heard, kind of off the record, behind the scenes, some corporate executive saying it is i'mworth the cost anymore, not doing this anymore. whether we will really see that

as a growing movement -- unlikely. it is interesting to hear that. host: kevin mandia -- what is the reaction to your story? did he give you one? guest: i just interviewed him at the fortune brainstorm tech conference. it is a fabulous conference. we get to see all the cool stuff coming out of silicon valley. i talked to him then. he had not read the story. he does not like -- he is an interesting guy, super smart and confident, but also a little bit shy. he said it was really weird walking through airports and seeing his picture on the magazine. initially you approached him for the story, what was his reaction? guest: i think they were ready to talk because of the report that came out in "the new york times." ready to talk about this issue and get it out as an issue. again, nothing is going to happen on this front unless people start talking about this issue. host: let's take one more call.

this is from colorado. you are the last color on our independent line -- the last caller, on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wondered if your guest had delved into the bigger consideration, back in 1996, when the chinese hacked into our missile guidance system from the clinton administration. i wondered if she had any thoughts about that? guest: i don't. i would reiterate, if you're interested in that issue, read the pentagon report that just came out a month ago, two months where now, that looks at hacking is happening now inside our military-industrial complex. host: it is the cover story for "fortune" magazine. the ceo who caught the chinese spies red-handed. nina easton serves as senior editor and columnist for

"fortune" magazine. thank you. for today's ""washington journal." another edition comes your way at 7:00 tomorrow morning. hearings taking place on syria. more information on our website, c-span.org. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ispresiden barack obama overseas today, opening a three- day trip with a stop in the swedish capital stockholm. he was speaking with reporters this morning and was asked about his past comments, drawing a red line against the use of chemical weapons. mr. obama said it was a line that had first been clearly drawn with the chemical weapons treaty ratified by countries around the world