gun ownership in america. later, the new national strategy of combating wildlife trafficking. the federal advisory on wildlife trafficking. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: we will be bringing you a three r washington journal, during which we will discuss proposals on minimum wage and wildlife trafficking and the ivory trade. with the national governors association winter meeting kicking off just blocks from the white house, we will focus on some remus that on some recent comments by one chief executive who says americans prefer to elect governors to serve as

president. betterrnors make presidents? our phone lines are open to you. republicans can call at 202-585-3881. 585-3880. at 202- if you're outside the u.s., it is 202-585-3883. you can also catch up with us on your favorite social media pages . a very good saturday morning. we want to start off with those comments by wisconsin governor scott walker. he made them to the washington post tv website. we will play you a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> historically americans like to see chief executives become the top cheap executive -- top

chief executive. as governors we have to make decisions that are similar to what the president makes. i don't think any republican should get ahead of the curve and start talking about a future election. 2014 is the time we have a for us tois the time show we can lead. host: that was scott walker. we want to hear from you. do governors make better presidency echo our phone minds -- better presidents? our phone lines are open. this is from the left or center -- from the rutgers center. about 40% of all those who served as president served as governors before hand. on vice presidents, 15

previously served as governor, 32 served as non-governor and other positions. of those men who served as governor, they include hummus jefferson, james monroe -- include thomas jefferson, james monroe, martin van buren, john tyler, james k. polk, andrew johnson the, rutherford b. williamrover cleveland, mckinley, theodore roosevelt, franklinolidge, roosevelt, ronald reagan, though clinton, and george w. bush read that you faxed coming for you in this -- and george w. bush. plenty of facts coming for you. this was a subject taken up by the financial times by eric

pinion. he writes -- the story goes on to note --

we are asking you if you think governors make better presidents. we want to hear your possible pick for a 2016 candidate. we will start with josh coming in from west virginia on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. honestly i believe that anybody can take the job up and do a good job. former government -- former governors tend to do better. host: why caller: do you think that is? there is -- why do you think that is? ofler: there is a lot leadership. who better than a former governor trying to run 50 states? they already know what it takes to do that job. who would be your 2016

pick? caller: i'm hillary all the way. comment,ther recent this by house majority whip, kevin mccarthy of california. he said back in november -- that was kevin mccarthy appearing on msnbc back in november, the end of last year. we want to hear from our viewers. you governors make better presidency echo let's go to kim calling in from wisconsin on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i don't believe governors make better presidents. i lived with this man half my life.

do not hire him when he runs for president. host: you are talking about governor scott walker? caller: yes. i don't think that is true. i think it takes an intelligent person who truly cares about the people, whether it is in their state or in the country. statet happens in one does affect the other state. thate may not realize that it does paid our taxes go to other states to fix things. take a person who really cares -- they do not have to be a governor. where half of the earlier presidents governors before they became presidents? i don't think so. please have a wonderful day. host: thanks for the call. end recent comments at the of last month from governor -- the headline

from "the american prospect closed quote -- " -- merican prospect joe was waiting on our independent line from texas. good morning. caller: i do believe governors make good presidents. look at what we have in there now. no business experience, no common experience. senator does not make you a good president. look at the mess we have now. that thelieve governor's do make -- they have a lot of experience. they pull for the military, not the gay community at large. the president we have now is worse than jimmy carter and

nixon combined. cuts joe manchin possible to the military. here is a headline on that subject from "the wall street journal" this morning.

some news on that subject for those interested in military pay issue. in the next 35 minutes or so we are asking about whether governors make better presidents. we want to get your thoughts. that's go to glenn in lakeland, florida. go to glenn in lakeland, florida. about: this is not whether governors make a better presidents, this is about ideology. this is in regards to the fact that republicans did not have a candidate in 2016 to run against hillary clinton. this is not about whether governors make better presidents. if you look at the last republican president and then look at ronald reagan, ronald reagan is who started this trickle down economics theory and let the country to the recession we are in now.

the next republican governor, george bush, exploded the economy and to look at where we sit. they also want -- they are also responsible for the war we have been having in this country. that is the situation we are in. the idea that a governor makes it better president is false. the republicans do not have a candidate. they don't have one, they are looking for one. it has nothing to do with whether governors make better presidents. glen calling in from florida. some stats from the eagles institute, 17 presidents were governor before they became presidents.

and finally in 1981 when ronald reagan followed jimmy carter. the nation's governors are descending on washington for the annual winter meeting of the national .overnors association "the washington post" notes that association has been a organization -- some of the activity surrounding the winter meeting of the governors association -- president obama --

statementsnts's from that meeting -- some quotes and stories from "the washington post" preview of the meeting that is kicking off today here in washington dc. we are asking our viewers if governors make better presidents. we will go to chet waiting in

wisconsin on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have lived in wisconsin for some time. we have the most polarizing person as our governor. if your viewers would ever see what he has done to destroy the from -- destroy he is araderie -- despicable governor here. governor walker facing some fallout this week over a pair of investigations about his and ius campaign actions want to bring and jason stein, the capitol reporter with "the milwaukee journal sentinel."

we appreciate you coming out. talk about these investigations. what is governor walker actually facing and what has been the fallout? a, a seriesve had series -- have a had a series of investigations into the formal aids of the governor. -- a former aides of the governer. in the appeal of one of the aides that were convicted of propertyng on public in milwaukee, where scott walker served as a leader, there were 27,000 pages of e-mails from this former aide released. reporters have been going , looking forward

that says about the way the governor ran his milwaukee can't -- his milwaukee office and host: what is the potential fallout? what are we looking at down the road? is one investigation work -- investigation more worrisome than another? guest: the 2010 investigation is closed and that is the one the e-mails are coming from. the charge is that prosecutors charges file -- the that prosecutors chose to file is still on file. obviously there's not going to ---- from these e-mails criminal charges. so far there has not been anything to show that the governor did anything illegal. one thing that no campaign ever have 30,000 pages of

internal e-mails released. obviously there have been some things the governor would rather not see, racist jokes made by former aides, suggestions that known more about your legal campaigning that was being done by former aides that he has said. he said he knew nothing about it and had a zero tolerance policy for it. these don't appear to be the allegationstating that have come out in other places, like new jersey. stein is a capital reporter with "the milwaukee journal capital; -- milwaukee journal sentinel."

what has scott walker said in response to the news this week -- here is a story from "the journal sentinel" talking about the governor's comments yesterday. are you still with us? storieses, one of our looked at the fact that we caught up with the governor out in d.c. at the national governors association. the time he denied knowing anything -- excuse me, rather he did not say whether he had used a secret e-mail system that had been set up. with a routerstem and internet connection set up in his office that was used by former aides to do activity they would rather not have the public , such as sending out

fundraising e-mails and things like that. this was a parallel system that for staying off the county internet system so that it would not be subject to open records requests from orders like myself. say if he used that system. host: we have been talking about whether governors make better presidents. scott walker has been mentioned in relation to 2016. what has this week meant for his possible hopes for 2016? obviously he is also up for reelection in 2014. the kinds ofay revelations we have seen would be ultimately crippling.

i think the public can have difficulty grasping and relating of violatings campaign finance laws. it is a rather arcane part of the law. i think most of these allegations were public during the 2012 recall campaign. thegovernor certainly faced most extreme scrutiny i have ever seen a candidate in wisconsin face. it was scrutiny that would only be topped by the scrutiny you would see in a presidential race in the united states. those were not decisive allegations. he still prevailed. it remains to be seen. time a race for president is different than anything else. it is the difference between bringing someone home to meet

your parents -- we will see. thank you so much for joining us on "washington journal" today. we have about 25 minutes or so. we are talking with our viewers about governors make better presidents. you can join that conversation at c-span wj. -- -- someone writes in. -- someone writes --

we want to hear your comments on our phone line. good morning. good morning. i don't think they necessarily do. i think you can put somebody on the street -- also money from the street with a modicum of intelligence and they will do just as good of a job as governor. -- as good a job as a governor. somebodyike to see with elizabeth warren and alan grayson. that would be my dream team right there. they don't seem to be corruptible. that is more important to me than anything else. a little bit more from the

--gers institute of politics let's go to sheila in the florida. governors make better presidents? not necessarily. i am considering our current president. i was born in 1939. i have three children and eight grandchildren. i am here to get some wisdom.

when -- what if we got the diesdent -- when gratitude on the altar of the nation's heart he is well-nigh hopeless. we need to nurture and uplift our president. i have seen a lot of presidents but i have never seen anything experiencedhad since president obama became president. to combat all this negative energy i am going to praise the president for his love of country and people, for his love of knowledge and intelligence. he is appreciative of our diversity of cultures. and he stays calm under pressure. called no drama obama. he is an example. talking aboutlso

2016 this morning. who do you like in 2016 e echo -- like in 2016? caller: stop. stop jumping ahead. it is one big election all the time. let's just wait. there may be somebody in the wings who you never heard of who will go right to the top. sheila calling in from our line -- calling in from florida on our line for independents. next caller is coming in. caller: i like with that lady just said a little bit. of course governors make better presidents. experience.ecutive senator barack obama didn't have that. be held accountable for the decisions they make.

when you are a legislator like obama was, he was just one vote in many. he could ask that he could escape accountability. barack obama is a good lesson on why you might not want somebody who only has legislative president.being your you might want somebody who has been a governor of a successful state, not somebody who has been a governor of illinois or new york. do not consider andrew cuomo. you want somebody who runs a successful state. he is not all complicated.

less is more and simplified. i like that in a governor. host: we want to update our viewers on international news. front page of "the wall street journal closed quote -- of "the wall street journal" -- here's the latest updates from "the associated press" this morning --

that is the latest update from "the associated press." we will stay on top of the development there. we will have a full segment on monday's washington journal. today's "washington post" on the subject --

that is the lead editorial if you want to read more there on the the washington post. we want to talk about this question we have been asking viewers, do governors make toter presidency echo original statement that started this question coming from governor scott walker, paul was on our line for democrats. god help america if walker becomes president. this guy turned on surplus money to have high-speed rails from madison to milwaukee.

if you would've taken that surplus money when obama did the surplus, we had high-speed rails from madison to wisconsin. he is a joker. think governors and general make better presidency echo -- that are presidents? -- better presidents? scott walker talked about a leadership experience of being a chief executive, something that is important for the presidency. i agree with that, clinton was a great president. of walker is a disaster. walker becomes president, kiss social security and medicare goodbye. that is what republicans think. robert inill go to illinois on our line for independents.

what you think of governors serving as presidency echo -- as presidents? -- c-span.org caller: based on the track record of george bush and barack obama, it is a relevant. guaranteed $1guys trillion to general motors and the banks. these parties were responsible for a the problems we had. i believe bill clinton was a pretty good president. bush was pretty terrible and obama is terrible. obama and bush had absolutely no regard for the consumer. general motors and the pigs get all the money from the taxpayer.

it is ok for the banks to spend all that money on unwise financial investments. back and get another loan from the government. that is pretty much it. host: on some of the financial issues that you bring up, some news on that front. here is "the washington post" --

again that is in "the washington post closed quote today. here is from the business section of "the new york times" this morning -- the documents will most likely prompt a fresh examination of the decisions made in that crisis year. another story talks about how janet yellen came across those documents that were released on friday. the headline -- more on that in "the new york times" this morning. talkve 15 minutes left to

about this subject of governors and whether they make better presidents or not. we will go to a waiting in michigan on our line for republicans. caller: good morning. i almost think it is a prerequisite for a potential president to serve time as a governor. sometimes it doesn't prove to be successful but it still should be a prerequisite. the president is driving us into debt. just unbelievable. $17 trillion is the turnaround. them and say, you are the same people that put us $17 trillion in debt and you are criticizing this guy for paying $50 billion on olympics. host: any concern that doing that would limit the pool of be elected could

president, or do you think the experience from that trumps the limiting of the pool? caller: i think limiting the pool is a good thing. up --k putting a gazebo if he is a good con artist and he can win, that is bad. i think we should limit the pool to proven employees, more or less. any concern those people could become a governor of a state and meet that prerequisite? caller: that can happen, also. everything is infallible. at least you can try to make it a little tougher for them to get the job and prove that they can do the job and -- to the job. obama is a community organizer. he gets into the white house.

that is what we have right now. we have to write out the storm. more from rutgers, the eagle institute. nationals that have been held to date, a governor has captured the presidential nomination 55 time. of those, 27 were eventually elected as president and 24 were defeated. 17 presidents had been elected governor before but some of those running for reelection and winning those nominations as well. i also want to point out this the. --we welcomed welcomed the naacp's president. she talked about whether the obama administration has done enough to help african-americans. here is what she had to say.

[video clip] are looking much more strategically. i think the president realizes that the african-american community has been it at rock of support for his administration, -- absolute -- in a bed rock been a bedrock of support for his administration. i think he is looking at a more strategic way of how he can make an impact on the ,frican-american community both with employment and health care. --x are you saying the white , are you saying the white house >> are you saying the white house has not done this before. >> i think they are doing it from a much narrower lens. i feel like they can make a

difference on it. you can actually see unemployment go down in certain areas. you can see that entire interview on sunday. hear it on c-span radio and newsmakers is also available online at c-span.org. we want to go to the front page of the washington post today. story, the story notes the president obama will correct a historical act of customer -- of discrimination next month when he awards the medal of honor to a group of hispanic, jewish, and african-american veterans who were passed over because of their race -- because of their race or ethnicity. it will hold a particularly

poignant -- a particular poignancy -- that story has to be pictures of the veterans that will be honored. there will be 24 that will be honored. , there also see stories are pictures and the stories online as well. 10 minutes left in the opening segment of "washington journal" today. talking about the meeting of the national governors association just blocks from the white house. we are asking our viewers of governors make better presidents. jeff is waiting in kentucky. there's is too much

correction. -- too much corruption. they get handed everything. food, money, you name it. then they want us to make them president. they have done nothing to help obama. he is trying to help the poor. i don't understand why we have to sit back and listen to these people. they are all corrupt. what experience would you like to see in a candidate running for president in? obviously you're not happy with one who might have served as governor. caller: i want to see somebody isn't in politics. someone who knows that the first thing we need to do is help these poor people, not these idiot rich people.

we need to get somebody who does not have any experience, has not been corrupted. you have teachers coming of college professors, you have all kinds of people who use their heads and not their pocket books to get where they are at. let's go to anthony waiting in alabama on our line for independents. good morning. what he was just saying about corruption, all of these trillions of dollars -- i live in providence, alabama. i am living proof. i am sitting here minding my own business. up i don't get involved in politics and stuff. people say obi-wan is corrupt. -- say obama is corrupt. they want to run trying -- acting like i was a terrorist.

i don't even associate with nobody. it's a lie after lie after lie. how has this influenced how you are going to vote for president in 2016? i know that obama -- everybody is watching him turn against constitutional rights. they are violating my constitutional rights right now. they have a camera in my bedroom. on.: we will move a few facts on presidents who reviews a served as governors. -- he 17

let's go to julie waiting in wisconsin and on -- in wisconsin on our line for republicans. these people that have called in from wisconsin have no idea what our governor has done. they forget what governor doyle did and the red our governor was in. i think scott walker would make an excellent president. host: do you think it should be a requirement that they govern before becoming president? caller: i think it is a great experience to have. i think they should be able to govern the people before they are put in to office. think our president is in office and he is not really accomplishing anything. he is going to do

something and he does not do it. he backtracks all the time. that is julie calling from wisconsin. it was governor scott walker that started this discussion on "the washington journal" today. on president barack obama, on one of the actions he is taken, he has a good-natured bet with stephen harper, the prime minister of canada, on the u.s. canadian hockey game. suite. stephen harper's -- stephen harper's suite. haprper's tweet.

bet on the u.s. canadian hockey game that happened yesterday. we have time for one more call on this subject. we will go to darrell from loom field, indiana. good morning. caller: good morning. host: your thoughts on the subject? caller: i think we have had excellent presidents who were governors. roosevelt did a lot to help my life. i think we have had lousy presidents who were governors, like our most previous one. wonderful have a president now in congress. he defeats the ability to have a congress that he can work with you that they refuse to work with him.

i think he has accomplished a with the opposition. host: this is a subject that has come up before. do you think it is his race or is it politics? we have two extremes. donehings that have been by democrats have helped my life, made my life easier. george w. bush is by far the worst president this country has ever had. the rate peers and pecan as to worse -- rate peers and pecan

and as the worst -- pearce and b uchanan as the worst. host: if you like to learn more about presidents who have previously served for rutgers, there are plenty from the rutgers eagleton institute of politics an. up next we will break down the recent congressional budget office report on the impacts of raising the federal minimum wage center ofts from the american progress. we will be right back. ♪ >> if there is a general sitting

in the witness chair, they tend to follow for him. petraeus.that with they were so thrilled he wasn't rumsfeld they did not ask the really hard questions and a lot of those pertained to his past activities. he was involved around contra. he was a prominent figure in the cia at the time. they required intelligence that iran was somehow moderating and that intelligence was common. >> sunday night at eight on

c-span's "q&a." >> the meaning of this spell -- of this bill announces the 22nd annual sale -- >> this universal declaration of human rights may well become the international magna carta of all men everywhere. >> the equal rights amendment will not be an instant solution to women's problem. >> i am trying to find my way through it and trying to figure out how to best be true to myself and fulfill my responsibilities to my husband and my daughter and the country. >> what they may not have imagined, looking at the white house from the outside, is it is a very normal life upstairs. >> i try to wring a little bit of michelle obama into this, but at the same time respecting and in valuing the traditions that

is america. final two-hour program reviewing our series, first ladies. see today at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, the national governors association kicks off their meeting live this morning at 10 eastern with an opening news conference. throughout the weekend, panels on homeland security, early education, and prescription drug abuse. live on booktv, speak with robert edsalel. this morning at 11 on c-span 2/ , the premiere of real america. -- of "reel america."

>> "washington journal" continues. the white house proposes to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. we are joined by james sherk and david madland. gentlemen, thank you for joining us this morning. here is how "the wall street --rnal" he ported the cbo journal" reported the cbo's findings --

james, you wrote that the findings do not surprise. why is that? a majority of labor economists found that when you raise the minimum wage, just like when you raise the price of anything else, when it becomes consumers and businesses purchase less of it. the vast majority of economic studies found that increasing minimum wage costs jobs. for some some benefits people, clearly. but that comes at locking other people out of the labor market. david, what was your take away? guest: i thought the cbo was overly a negative -- overly negative. clearly you have nearly one million people in poverty. you also have millions of in termsaving their

increased pdf a boost in that -- a boost in demand -- their terms increased. they also have a boost in demand. that will provide boost for those consumers. aboutwe will be talking the subject for the next hour. we want to open up our for months for our viewers about the cbo report about the conversation we were going to sherk and david matlin. -- david madland. the phonelines -- you focus on the job losses here, the 500,000 number from the report. where are these job losses going to come from? who is going to be affected if these projections turn out to be correct? guest: they are problem early

going to be coming from less skilled workers. -- going to primarily be coming from less skilled workers. two thirds of minimum wage more productive. not necessarily how you flip porker skills but the discipline of waking up early in the morning when you want to hit the snooze button. being a reliable employee. the sort of skills are very important to employers. until you have them you're not going to command higher wages. studies show two thirds of minimum wage workers get a raise within a year. it is 25% of pay increase. great chart on who is making minimum wage across the country, the percentage of workers paid at or below the and

him him wait. the total is 4.7%. in ohio it is 4.5%. they also break it down by age and gender. 24-year-olds, with 29 -- with 2.9% at 25 years and over. david, your thoughts on who's going to be affected. what theat we know and cbo found is that over 80% of those affected by the minimum wage is over age 20. know that over one third are over age 40. we have lots of people, most of them adults, earning at or near the minimum wage. we also know two thirds of minimum wage workers are women. women are in this fortunately

low-wage work. that is because of the low-wage health care, retail, wagering, waitressing. typically women are in those jobs. we know this is good for women with adults.ood most minimum wage workers are working full-time. my understanding is two thirds of minimum wage workers are working part-time. guest: we have most workers working at full-time and most working as adults give unfortunately the kind of jobs our economy is more and more creating are these low-wage jobs. that's because we haven't taken the kinds of actions we need to ensure our economy is getting good full-time sustaining

middle-class jobs. your recommendation to do that would be? guest: certainly we need to raise the minimum wage. we need to make infrastructure investments so the economy can for -- can function better. first twod be the things i do. longer-term, we need to boost the skills in the workforce by boosting education, especially with universal pre-k. we also need to improve the workplace skills of existing workers so we can do things like apprenticeships and on the jobs training. on this cbo report -- how much disagreement has there been since the numbers have been on thed yet so guest: issue of the part-time workers, i would encourage workers to google statistics of minimum wage workers. it is a bureau statistics report

published every year. when i took a look at that it was 67% working part-time. take -- you don't have to take my word or gave its word for it. -- or david's word for it. i think improving the educational skills and will work force -- educational skills in the workforce are the long-term solutions. most people get promoted out very quickly. it is a majority of americans working at or near the minimum wage. for those who don't, we do need that her skills. i don't think universal pre-k is the solution to that. higher to make a education more affordable, apprenticeship programs, charter schools, i think they are all things that would be a good long-term solution.

here are two quotes from different sides on capitol hill -- the senior democrat on the house budgetary committee said -- at the same time mitch mcconnell released his statement. reports stateo that we can lose one million jobs turco -- one million jobs." james sherkwith from the heritage foundation. in on our lineg for republicans. me lay this out as a

chain reaction of what happens. you raise the minimum wage and all the union workers whose wages are tied to the minimum wage, they go up. the cost of everything goes up. of poverty, you just raise the poverty line, so they are still in poverty. now that the cost of everything has gone up, now people on fixed incomes are living off of their savings. you just devalued their savings. -- the people who are earning the minimum wage, their purchasing power has not gone up, so all you have accomplished is helping the unions and d luating the-- deva savings of the people in retirement. guest: i think is important to understand what happens when you raise the minimum wage. this is where i think the cbo report when a little off. james has mentioned when you raise the minimum wage he raise

the cost of employment, see employers reluctant to hire workers. that does happen, but what also happens and what is understated positiveport are two effects. workers have more money, so there's a boost in demand, that leads other businesses to choose to hire a few more workers. this other thing that happens is the workers who are on the job, who get a boost in their wages, tends to work a little harder and stay on the job at little longer. they turn over less frequently, and turnover is a big, big cost for low-wage workers. that means you have the cost of hiring and training new people. it is important because that is about 100% of the whole work force that turns over in a year full stop those costs i don't think were fully incorporated into the cbo's study, so you have sort of this balancing out, and i think the best studies have show that on balance, there is no plumbing effect of the

minimum wage because they look at all of those things and they find that they are about a wash. a lot ofes sherk, speculation of what may or may not happen if the federal minimum wage is raised to $10.10 , but there is issues -- there are states across the country where the minimum wage is higher than the federal minimum now of $7.25. are we seeing these benefits in those states that already have a minimum wage that is higher than $7.25? guest: no, we are not. you have to look long and hard to find statistics that show higher wage boost employment. raising the minimum wage, they are the minority, as the cbo reported, but they can find some legitimate studies that say that raising the minimum wage will not reduce employment. define the majority the say it will not a boost implement. you have studies going back and forth because the minimum wages so low that it affects very few workers. it affected less than 5%.

those are hourly workers. when you look at the overall population, it is less than 3% of the workforce overall. so even if it has a large effect of the populations, in terms of the overall workforce, it is not a huge effect. if you look at what happened to american samoa, a u.s. territory, they got connected to the federal minimum wage in 2007. they always had a separate minimum wage because they're per capital incomes were 1/5 of those on the mainland. about $20 an hour fewer to translate that to labor costs in the u.s. the unemployment rate went from 5% to 36% in three years. you have the territory's democratic governor saying call it off, they are torching our economy. and then congress did. they unanimously passed legislation dipping america samoa a break, but i think that shows you do not get the stimulus affect that david

theorizes. you do not see a rise in purchasing power and demand. what happens when you raise the minimum wage, is they lost a significant portion of their employment. they were trying to help. i will giveadland, you a chance to respond. the green states there are those that have a statement in wage above the u.s. wage, the white states are the ones that have the same as the u.s. wage of $7.25. the red and pink either have no law or are below the u.s. minimum wage, but david madland. guest: sure, we doubled the studies, the ones with more emphasis. the best 30s are the ones that have looked at the states with a higher minimum wage and they have looked across county pairs. so some states that basic minimum wage, not me that bo rdering area may not have raise

the minimum wage. you have got lots of samples that provide a loss -- provide a contrast. at this,e studies look they find that there is no employment effect, and to me that is a much better study then for example guam. relevant, the expense of the american states and the regions within them, or -- it is a no-brainer that the states are a much better comparison. the other thing that james mentioned was this idea of boosting demand. i do not think anyone disputes that you get a good boost in demand from raising the minimum wage. the cbo found that, the federal reserve studies have found that, the question really is, how important is that boost in demand? right now the economy so weak, the middle classes a week, that that losing demand is very important. host: this debate on the table,

also on her twitter page, you can follow along @cspanwj. arnold writes in that wasting the minimum wage is always bad for seniors. -- raising the minimum wage is always bad for seniors. they are on fixed incomes and the cost of all products and services go up. another right then, it will reduce the number of people who need government support in that is good for the nation. your question for our panel of experts, we will go to george waiting in eastview, kentucky on our line for democrats. good morning. you're on with james sherk and david madland. caller: i just wanted to say a few things. in 1965, i believe the minimum 1.25 an hour, but you could buy more then than you can now at $7.25. i know a lot of people are not on minimum wage. so one says we are not going to raise it for those people,

ofause there are too few them. you have to remember one thing. you can't take it with you. you should care but the portion of the country with poor people also. that is all i have to say. host: david sherk, i will a jump in on the caller's comments. guest: i certainly think we have to care for the least fortunate in our society. the disagreement is how do you do that. i think raising the minimum wage would hurt the people that supporters want to help. but the idea of purchasing power, this is a very important point that the cbo raised. look at the report, look at the very front page, the cover of the report, and it shows the inflation-adjusted value of the minimum wage and overtime, and what that shows is that the never been much above eight dollars an hour. its all-time high in 1958 was $8.40.

a lot of people's argue that the minimum wage was $10.50 in the 1960's. the cbo recognizes it as being less accurate and so does the federal reserve board, and it is called the consumer price index. ther inflation rates than measure the use, the measure used in the gdp report. now come over to come up 3, 4 years, that is pretty small. you accumulate that over 45 years, and it has a very high effect. the highest we had the minimum wage in this country was $8.41 in 1968. the president is proposing to raise the real by you of the of the all- 1/7th time high. i think that is a horrible idea. host: this inflation question, i want you to -- guest: yeah, most analysts will

say the minimum wage was well over $10 in the 1960's, in fact because the cpi is what we used to adjust for inflation foremost everything. for example, our tax brackets. you -- adjusted for inflation the way you talk about the minimum-wage because then payingwould be significantly higher taxes, so it is the kind of consistency here but i think is important and most people would say that the minimum wage was much higher in the 1960's, and that is really important because we are a much richer country than we were in the 1960's. unfortunately, what has happened since then is we have grown in a way that has only benefited those at the very top. that has made our economy weaker because really the minimum wage debate is about a fundamental versusabout trickle-down middle love. the idea that has divided economic policy has been

trickle-down, which means you make everything as rich as possible in business and everything will trickle-down and we will somehow be better off, but the experience is we are not better off will stop we have had a if not declining wages for over a decade. quite weak growth and we even had the great recession. instead, the much better way to grow the economy is to strengthen the middle class. that leads to the kinds of things that make the economy work. host: we showed this for our tv viewers, but for our radio history,s, the %5.15 in 1997, %5.85 in and, $6.55 in 2008, currently $7.25. 19 states mandate a minimum wage higher than the minimum wage.

-- bambi federal. i had said 18 earlier. -- the vandy federal. i had said 18 earlier. the minimum pay defaults to the federal role system, something from the "washington post." alan, good morning, you are on with james sherk and david madland. caller: good morning. i love the show and i watch all the time. i agree with the previous caller , the problem is the devaluation of the dollar. the cpi is a good indicator for poor people because you do not include gas, food, heating, although things are really what hurt the lower class. there's no doubt about it. but it really does not matter because what is happening here is technology is going to take these jobs away. you have got server jobs that are going to be replaced by ipad's. you go to the grocery store now and you scan your own things. technology is an issue that is

going to really, really replace a lot of low-wage -- especially by raising the rates because it is going to accelerate. an employer, restaurants, will invest in a technology instead of waiting. either way, you cannot stop it. very interesting c-span last week, it was the second mechanical age, a book review, and it talks about how these jobs are going to be replaced. they are already being replaced. just look around. thank you for your time. i enjoyed the discussion. host: alan, to a for watching. james sherk, are there bigger worries for potential job loss than raising the minimum wage? guest: i think he is exact the right. what the studies show, the bigger effect is lower future hiring. it is not as though minimum wage goes up and employers lay off 10% of the workers tomorrow. many of those will become more raisetive and get a anyway. but they need to make investments in technology, the

next two years, three years, four years, it will grow watch more slowly, which is a big critique of those cross county studies that david mentioned is that they do not account for the fact that it is not a once in all shift but that you are changing the hiring. you are already starting to see this happening. with the obamacare employee mandate taking effect, it will be a lot more different for full-time jobs. but what applebee's and chilies are doing is they have the tablets in the restaurant, you can order your meals, you can pay for your meals, you can order desserts, drinks. there is a new item in california call the alpha, custom grinding meat, nation, one third bison, two thirds fresh,lices the toppings at the condiments, bags that, and can produce 60 gourmet hamburgers and our with no human intervention. things like that, they're pretty pricey now.

you raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, and that will become a lot more attractive for fast food versus employing a human employee. it is not what happens tomorrow, what happens two years from now, three years from now. host: clint is calling in on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: i am in the construction, plumbing business, and the median age right now is 45 for a licensed plumber, electrician, heating and air tech. we cannot get these young guys or girls to come in if we don't start paying them more than $7.5 0 an hour. caramily has been in the business for years, and we are seeing a trend now, no one continues to qualify for a car, and you have real estate, no one can qualify for the real estate because they do not have a rental probably -- robert he because they do not have enough

income. i have people calling me that are making them away to both of them together cannot qualify for house or car payment. if we do not get these young workers, i think the economy is from thebe stagnated 20-year-olds and the teenagers coming into the economy. they have to make a living wage. host: talking about his its parent in tulsa, oklahoma. david madland, what did you hear and i call? guest: i hear the understanding of the positive effects a get from the minimum wage, which too many economists at discount. i talk on and on about the boosted demand full stop the caller was talking about -- about the boosted demand. the caller was talking about houses, cars, and you cannot do that at the $7.25 minimum wage really. he also talked about how you get , anded workers into jobs

coming you know, businesses complain about being able to find the kind of workers they are looking for. what they do not mention is they say at the low-wage we want to offer. when you boost wages, you find workers have more incentive to get the kinds of training and skills that they need a cousin there is a job that makes it worthwhile for them out there. what we have is ian understanding of how the economy works is that workers need to have a decent wage in order for the economy to function well. host: david madland is with the center for american progress. and then there is a project, what is that? guest: a project to make sure workers have what they need. i think, in essence, what is not only right for people, just like the minimum wage, what is right for people and right morally is to pay them well for a full day's work, but it is also good for the economy because when

workers have the things they need, the economy functions properly. host: and james sherk, you are at the heritage foundation. what is your role? guest: i have many of the same goals as david. we want to make the economy, country better, particularly for those most in need. we have a very different understanding of how the economy arks, but absolutely, it is very tough economy right now, and we work on research and ways to promote effective economic policies. host: david madland, you have expressed some disagreement with the congressional budget office report that came out. you are not the only one. the national economic council director gene sperling with the white house defended president obama's plan to raise the minimum wage, this according to "hill" article, also another said on tuesday after the report came out that economists would arrive at different conclusions than the cbo. i want to take our viewers to

the "christian science monitor" morning breakfast on wednesday which cbo director doug on the door was talking about -- doug elmendorf was talking about criticism his report his face and he offered his respon se. [video clip] >> i want to be clear that our outlook is completely consistent with the latest thinking in the economics profession. up to report that were released last month, very large numbers of studies, as you know, they reach a range of conclusions, and the studies all have strengths and weaknesses. the long methodological appendix to our reports, we talk about characteristics of studies that made them more or less compelling in our view. but a balanced reading of the sets of research studies in this anea led us to conclude that increase in the minimum wage

would probably have a small negative effect on employment, but there was substantial uncertainties around the estimate as we reported. naturally, some economists focus more on studies that showed smaller implement effects. other economists focus on studies that show larger employment effect. our response ability to the congress is to report the middle of the dissolution of possible outcomes. that is what we have done in this report. if you try to compare what our analysis to what other economists have said is a little hard because most economists do not have to put numbers behind the words of their valuations. host: for those who do not know what the cbo is, explain that. guest: the congressional budget office is exactly what the name implies. they do budget and economic analysis for the congress, and

the congress that it up to be nonpartisan, so unlike the white house, where the president appoint people who tend to agree with him, and people who disagree with them do not get appointed, the cbo is independent of that. they have got a clear staff and their job is to report on the middle of the road as best they can. there are areas where david is going to agree, some areas where i disagree with them, and sometimes they are wrong. but i think it is fair to say that they do not have a dogs eye in the hunt. in response to the criticism, this is a fairly standard -- this is pretty much middle-of- the-road. you can find some studies, but the vast majority of the studies conclude that you make it more expensive to hire inexperienced then unskilled workers. i think were part of the disagreement comes as people compare the individual with the value of their labor. i think we can all agree that anyone from bill gates to those incapable of working have an

unlimited dignity and work as a human being. that is very different from saying the value of their labor is going to be $10 an hour. the value of someone's labor is what other people are willing to pay for it and the value of what they can produce, and that is subjective and measurable. but if you have someone bringing them onto a restaurant, only adds to sales by nine dollars an hour, that restaurant will pay up to nine dollars an hour. but they're not going to pay them $10 an hour and lose money. the productivity of the worker and the dignity of the worker are two very different things. host: on the issue of the cbo and some of the back and forth , here isas taken over how political put it -- everyone loves cbo except of course when they don't. lawmakers hail the agency's findings when they come from what they already believe, and when they don't, they try to hoodw up the host: david madland, i wanted to

give you a chance to respond to james sherk's comments. guest: on balance, they show that the minimum wage is really quite good. we have over one million people listened out. millions --ions and lifted out of poverty. we have millions and millions with higher incomes because of that. host: they put that number at 16.5 million. guest: directly affected and in the spillover effect would be another 8 million. so those are big, big things. on balance, they still show a positive for the economy. so what james was talking about, the value and dignity of work and the value of humans, they can be separable, but still there is a moral statement to be made about paying people a living wage when they are working full-time. important role,

statement for us to make when we may -- when we raise the minimum wage. that said, i also think the study shows it is good for the economy. now, let's talk a little bit about how and why raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. we talked about -- and jaynes argues if you raise weights, you will get less people hired -- james argues that if you raise the wage, you will get less people hired. what we have is an economy with lots of people unemployed, and that means that employers have that they dopower, not have to pay a lot because they know that someone else's out there that they can replace them easily with at a low wage so workers are not able to negotiate a bargain for a higher wage even if they are producing much greater value. i think they are producing much greater value and a lot of cases than the minimum wage. they just do not have the power to get it. host: plenty of colors waited to

talk of honest public -- plenty of callers waiting to talk about this topic. michael, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one of the most effective ways to raise wages to livable wages, if people are making less than a livable wage, like fast food restaurants, if they have their friends and families to boycott those restaurants, they will lose their customer base. if they raise the wages to a living wage, then all of the neighboring employers will also have to raise their wages to compete with mcdonald's. mcdonald's and all the fast food restaurants depend on lots and lots its customers to come in lots and lots of times. they will start worrying that they will lose their customers

forever if they do not get them back quickly. so i think that the people will have a much more effective that should be much more effective than happy politicians go after this. much more effective than having the politicians go after this. host: james sherk, can they raise it on their own if there is not a federal law? food: i think if the fast restaurant had to curb hiring or shutdown, i do not think losing the jobs would help those workers. remember, they're on the bottom rung of a career ladder. there are a job for 7, 8 months, 150% turnover in the fast food industry. the fast food job is not the -- is the experience, the discipline of getting up for work in the morning, certainly the job, doing something repeatedly. no one is going to hire someone for $12, $30 an hour until they know they are dependable and reliable and they can count on them to get the job done.

these bottom rung jobs provide that experience. and the reason we have only the country making minimum wage is because there is competition. if we had 50%, 20% of the economy making the minimum ways, then i would say ok, there is a better point there, but what we see is employees are voluntarily playing -- paying workers minimum wage, the overwhelming majority because they have to. not, they would work a higher-paying restaurant or work at another job elsewhere. and if they want to retain a productive employee, they have to pay for it. the challenge rather is we need to improve our education system to make workers more productive and more skilled. training programs, charter schools, which research

shows a very effective, boosting graduation rates. all of these things would be effective in trying to help lessen skilled workers get ahead. i will let madland, you respond, but after we hear him -- anthony calling in from east hampton, new york. caller: good morning. i'm glad to be on c-span. my first comment is yes, the price will go up slightly in all the fast food places. all the workers and shoppers are still biting their donuts and french fries and pizza for lunch. but come the evening, if they can afford it, then let them cook at home and be at home with the family. that is what they should do. i would like to comment on mr. madland's comment earlier in the program when he spoke about the infrastructure. the slide is always who is going to pay for it, who is going to pay for it.

vehicles are price on horsepower, so a little toyota, withant to buy a ferrari 500 horsepower, it is $500 more. manufacturer that lands the vehicle in the u.s. or makes it here should pay the money, get the money in here, get this if the structure going. mr. madland, you are absolutely right and i'm glad you brought that up. that will get things going. host: all right, let's hear from david madland. infrastructure, i think, is a key piece of the failing of our country right now. the country's economy. i think the caller was talking not justds, but it is roads. america's infrastructure is well beyond -- well behind our competitors in most areas, from our electricity grid, which is unreliable, to our slow ourdband, too, you know,

energy infrastructure. we are just not there because we have not made because of investments we need to. typically we make these through a combination of public and private investments. the government spending on these basic infrastructures of everyone declines a share of the economy over time. that is in large part because we have a devotional -- a dysfunctional congress, but also because we do not have the kind of money we need to make those investments. abouts really important infrastructure is it is a short- term boost now, which we sorely need, but it is also improving the productivity of the economy over the long run. you can get goods to and from consumers much more easily. those are the kinds of things that should be win-win. in fact, you have businesses and labor saying these are the kinds of wings when he to do, but our dysfunctional congress is just not doing them right now. host: james sherk, i want to ask you, is there a middle ground.

we hear a lot about the $10.10 proposal coming out of the white house. there was also a nine dollar option studied by the cbo, and according to that study, that would only lead to 100,000 jobs lost. 300,000 people would move above the poverty line. that is less than the 900,000 from the $10.10 option, but the jobs lost is less than half a million from the $10 option. is there a meeting ground? believe raising the minimum wage is going to hurt the vulnerable and less skilled workers, then obviously -- well, no pain is better than something. with infrastructure, the federal , whaty administration they found, including --

according to the government's own reports, that our roads and bridges are in better condition than they were in the 1990's. if we do have infrastructure changes that need to be made, by all means do it, but do not think it will be a job program. these are incredibly highly skilled positions. it is not the same with residential housing. that went down after the housing bubble fell. it is not that much to learn how to install drywall. the building a suspension bridge, these are four-year, five-year programs. only about one in every 200 ed workers can head infrastructure projects. increase, and we they will be hired away from the private structure. do not think it will be a jobs program. many did not have the skills to engage in these heavy construction projects that david was talking about. host: mr. madland, i want to get

your thoughts on that and also the nine dollar option versus the $10.10 option. guest: $10.10 i think $10.10 is a -- i think $10.10 is a better option. they get more people out of poverty, it raises for billions of people, and it provides an additional boost for demand. to me, those are the reasons you , andto raise it to $10.10 that brings it much more in line where it historically has been. to get back to where james was, i am sort of puzzled -- you say you don't support raising the minimum wage. if our current minimum wage still too high? would you say we should lower that or eliminate it? to hear your response. if the minimum wage is too high, we should lower it? guest: i think at the current rate, the minimum wage is not doing that much damage. i would say for teenagers, it would make sense to lower it for teenagers. also, actually for a study that came out recently that found

prime rates go up after the first year you raise a minimum wage. it turns out crime rates primarily from those with a criminal record have a substantially greater likelihood of becoming unemployed when the minimum wage goes up, and in a sense because if employers have people willing to work at any rate, the last person they want to hire is someone who has been in jail for the last five years. so those are disproportionately hurt by the increase. employers decide i do not want to hire that guy. so giving them the opportunity to improve themselves, they will give me a second chance, it has the unfortunate effect of hurting some people who pay their debts to society and deserve a second chance. host: we will let you respond to that after we hear from keep calling in from wisconsin on our line for republicans. keith, good morning. caller: good morning, gentleman, and good morning to c-span nation. the minimum wage has always been

an entry level. it was never meant to be a family sustaining, livable wage. i come from a rural world experience was of i cannot tell you any studies. i have 15 years as a business owner, and operator, and i have dealt with the minimum wage, and people that got raises i came in at the entry level, they always showed up for work on time, they had good accident tooth -- that good attitude, and they earned a raise. i own about 75 businesses, and they all tell me of the minimum wage goes up, they will not expand, they will not add new locations, and they will stay stagnant. part of the reason for that is obamacare. i think we have to repeal that, and then there will be more full-time, sustaining, family living wages. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: mr. madland. guest: i think what you are hearing is from the perspective from someone who might lose a little bit of the minimum wage because probably what will happen if he will not

necessarily hire more or less workers, what really will happen is other businesses will have more of an incentive because his workers will actually have money in their pockets and they will go out and want to buy more things, so what his business, he apparently hires a lot of low- wage workers. they might not be on that even -- he said he would not grow. but other businesses would benefit. he also -- profits might be reduced a little bit, and i think that is what the cbo finds, that those basically making less than $100,000 benefit from an increased wage, those who make higher than that might lose out a little bit. so on balance, to me that it's the kind of thing we need to do in today's economy where for most everyone, incomes have been stagnant or declining while only for those at the top it has been increasing. know, it is hard to find a policy that has no trade-offs. to me, the trade-offs involved

in a minimum wage, i think they are quite small. and they are worth making. why don't ierk, give you a question from one of our twitter followers on the "washington journal" this morning, launch it is -- lots of discussion. on twitter asked for -- and specifically what nonbiased study supports your general position that the minimum wage hurts the economy? guest: if you take a look at this report from germany west, researchers at texas a&m university, and it takes a look at the minimum wage in hiring. this initial version they published in july, and there were some criticisms from some folks on the left saying you did not account for this and that, so they updated it december 2013 . in response quite forcibly to those criticisms. i believe it is called "minimum wages and employment dynamics," but it is from germany west. with regards to the previous caller, i think he does make a

good point about the health-care law. -- for most mandate employers who do not provide health care, the way they respond to that is with any other mandate, and they will cut their employees' wages. but with the minimum wage, they cannot do that. when you add the employer mandate plus the existing wages plus payroll taxes. in 2015, the minimum cost of hiring a full-time worker is going to rise to $10.30 an hour. a 10ess has already passed dollar minimum wage. that is not going to affect the teenagers working part-time, but the adults who is trying to work full-time, the minimum wage has already gone up to $10 an hour. if congress were to pass this proposed increase, it would go hour.$12.2770 an any worker who cannot produce $12.70 if the play not going to find a full-time job if this

proposal were to be accepted. there are also many inexperienced and damaged workers that cannot do that, and this can really hurt them. guest: you have got the business argument. we have some businesses, as the caller previously was not very supportive of the minimum wage, but you have other businesses that are quite supportive, they recognize the dynamics i have describing where you have more consumers. announced they are going to raise their wages to $10.10 as part as a sensible business strategy. just the other day, walmart, which is a low-wage employer, they have in previous years supported raising the minimum wage because they know that that has provided consumers. they know that consumers are struggling to purchase anything, so they have it knowledge that at least considering opening support for minimum wage. we also have, you know, we talk

but economists, we have been debating be economics, but there was a letter recently that over signed including six nobel prize winners that said the minimum wage would be a good thing for our economy. host: you mentioned the gap news. your is the letter from cap ceo -- glenn murphy host: that was released from gap on february 19, earlier this week. let's go to herman waiting in jackson, louisiana on our line for democrats.

herman, good morning. caller: good morning. the minimum wage has allowed me -- i am 81 years old. andmember when i would work take a quarter and he breakfast. now, i had a business of 16 in 1970. i never paid minimum wage. i never had one person leave. i had a delivery service. i had a system. i had three cash registers. had $1500.egister after $1500, whatever you made, you get half of it. to i moved on up jacksonville, louisiana. i have developed a trucking company, and i got 10 people to work. get ablem is i cannot $38,000 loan for my company

because the banks have raised the standards. they tell me that i need a 900 credit score to get a $38,000 loan. i called washington, d.c., i called new orleans, and i can't jackson, mississippi. they tell me that is another form of discrimination against minorities, and i am telling you guys, your economists and all of that, you can talk all you want to, but if you do not open up some to black people can do business and get it all, you are looking at a race riot. host: herman calling from louisiana, talking about his experience. what did you hear from his story? guest: any form of the skirmishes abhorrent. that is something that should be -- any form of discrimination is abhorrent.

that should be investigated thoroughly. he started at the minimum wage, and that is true for the majority of people in the country today. at the five percent of americans started out their careers making within one dollars of the minimum wage. it is the bottom rung on the career ladder. what we want to make sure we are not doing is sawing off that bottom rung. david talked about walmart raising the minimum wage. walmart paid wages that are already around the standard level. they compete against smaller businesses. mom-and-popily the businesses that are paying near the minimum wage. walmart is supporting something that would raise the cost to their competitors. now i can certainly understand why a big business would lobby to make it harder for a smaller business to compete against them. i would not call that a good argument for the economy. host: any time we have left, david madland, critical

prospects for raising the minimum wage to $10.10. "ere's a story from the "hill on the website going back to some of speaker john boehner's comments on the possibility of raising the minimum wage. 1996 post upe from i will commit suicide before i vote on a clean minimum wage bill, boehner said. he was then the head of the house republican conference. how possible do you think this is in this congress? guest: it is very hard to tell. you have the leader of the republicans in the house saying at least in the past no way will the minimum wage, but the thing about the minimum wage is it is among the most popular pieces of legislation out there across party lines. supportsover 70% that raising the minimum wage, and that includes republicans and

independents that have a majority support because a recognize it is essential in today's economy to ensure that workers are paid a decent living wage and that we boost the demand in our economy, so there is some hope because there is public support for it, but really the congress is largely dysfunctional right now, and anything getting past have a very hard time, so we will see action within the states. you mentioned at the outset of this program that we have lots of states already that have raised their minimum wage above the federal level, and there are a couple dozen now that are considering doing so. and i think you will see many of them pass a higher minimum wage. host: james sherk. guest: i think david is partly right in that the minimum wage does hold right well. i think it is a very principled stand for a member of congress to say no, this will hurt my wage workers, this eliminate half a million jobs, and even the most popular among my constituents, are not going to support that.

fair amounte is a of printable in the house that i do not think you will see it move. they do not want to see a half million jobs get lost. i do think if you're going to raise a, doing it at the state level makes a lot more sense rather than one federal late because of different economic conditions. $10 an hour in new york city is very different than $10 an hour entry point, -- in shreveport, louisiana. any notion of setting one uniform federal rate i don't think makes that much sense. allowing states to set the minimum wage based on their employment rate, cost of living, i don't think it is a great policy, but if you are going to do it, have the state said it rather than the federal government mandate an unprecedented increase in the minimum wage. host: running out of time, but you had somebody wanted to say. guest: that is already the law. the federal government sets the minimum wage, states can go above that, and that is exactly

what we are seeing. that is the right kind of policy , but even the federal minimum wage is too low. discussion.iate the jenna meant, you can continue it by looking at their to websites. plenty of information about. james sherk is a senior policy analyst with heritage foundation at heritage.org, david madland is the economic managing policy director at the center for american progress, that is americanprogress.org. in.k you for coming up next, we will look at second amendment issues with emily miller of the "washington times ," and later, we will discuss the white house's new national strategy for combating wildlife trafficking and how it impacts ivory sales in the u.s. we will be right back. >> this weekend, american history tv debuts its new

series, real america, featuring archival films produced by the u.s. government, industry, and educational institutions that take you on a vivid journey into america's past. this week, fills on washington, d.c. during world war ii and women workers during america's military buildup of the 1940's. >> a month ago, industry rolled out the materials of war. a plea for help when a. -- out. the call came here. docs remained idle. that was the call for help, which was still echoing in the detroit area when women began to respond. convinced they could do factory sameor anything with the strength that meant to do for uncle sam. listen, overhead, your sisters are singing. it is the song of women,

american women. america," starting this sunday at 4:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3's american history tv. >> the all new www.c-span.org website is now mobile friendly. that means you can access our comprehensive coverage of politics, nonfiction books, and american history where you want, when you want, and how you want. design site's responsive skills to fit any of your screens, from the monitor on your desktop computer to your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, whether you are at home, on the go, or at the office, you can now watch c-span's live coverage of washington, check our program schedule, or search our extensive video library wherever and whenever you want. he knew c-span.org -- the new c- span.org make it easy for you to

keep an eye on what is happening in washington. >> 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-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house -- all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span -- created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. >> "washington journal" continues. host: emily miller, a senior editor for the "washington times " joins us for a discussion on gun ownership and second amendment rights in the u.s.. let's are with what is happening right up the street at the supreme court. we are waiting to see whether the court will take up three sort of high-profile gun rights cases here. what are the cases, what are the about? guest: these are sponsored by

the nra, and a look at gun ownership in the 18 to 21 span. established once and for all that you have the right to keep and bear arms. every case coming after that now, the lower court has been going different ways on the right to bear arms, what are the limits to bear arms, and so these two cases -- this is specifically about whether 18 to 21-year-olds can buy handguns from a dealer. the law as odd blip in where if you are over 18 but under 21, you can own any gun, you can buy a rifle or shotgun from the dealer, from your friend, from anyone, you can buy a handgun from your friend, from a private person, but not from a dealer, so it is a strange thing that really needs to be resolved. the other cases 18 to 21-year- olds in texas, they can get

kerry permits -- carry permits. amendments inher the constitution that has an age limit or age split for adults, so why do we have it for this? from a broader standpoint, what they are looking at is the carry laws in the u.s. because there maryland, newes, york, california, and they say ry permit but car only if you can prove you have a very important right, if you are about to get killed, you have a large amount of cash. even it is difficult. in other areas committee take this test, pay fill -- paid a fee, these kinds of things. split over enormous the right to bear arms. johnson,hen he court

and they -- that is when the core jumps in. and there was a surprising decision out of semper cisco, role of this case that san diego, which has a system that would have an issue where basically nobody could get a carry permit. you have to have a life threatening to the police involved. looked atcircuit's heller, explain the decision, and says it violates the second amendment, so just last night, the san diego sheriff says he is not going to appeal this decision, he is going to slow walk it as long as possible, but eventually supposedly he will start giving carry permits. that i think will pressure the courts into taking one of these cases because these limits are split on the circuit level. host: several different cases we're talking about here, the supreme court cases you were talking about here, in array versus atf and an array versus mccraw. versus mccraw.

the supreme court, do they know what the next battle line was going to be in terms of gun rights and gun ownership? scalia wasice pretty clear in heller saying this is not say, i mean, the biggest decision and there is that you have the individual, the right to bear arms. then he said we have not looked at -- they left it open, these two big issues that have to be decided. what are the limits to what you can carry and bear? all of the assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans that have spread across the country in the last year, that is all going to have to be dealt with by the supreme court at some point. that is a little further down the road. the more reporting one of the carry right, the very issue, because you are taking bthe gun outside of the home. and some laws make it virtually impossible to carry guns.

in fact, where i live, they just ignore the bear rights completely. the reason they get to the supreme court level is when the circuit courts and appeals courts are split, and we see there is a big case out of maryland last year, woolard versus sheridan, and the fourth circuit overturned a comment tot maryland's laws, similar san diego, nobody can get a carry permit virtually, is illegal. and in illinois in 2012, the circuit court said that ban ons' complete carrying concealed guns was unconstitutional. at this point, it does seem at least from different groups and people looking at it, it is getting closer to the time the supreme will have to wait yet on it. host: if you want to talk about these issues with emily miller of the "washington times," the phone lines are open. republicans can call (202) 585- 3881, democrats (202) 585-3880,

, andendents (202) 585-3882 if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. and emily miller, while folks in,dying in -- are dialing your book, "emily gets her gun, but obama wants to take yours and co. can you talk about your experience and how you got involved in these issues? guest: it really came from a personal place. most of the things i write in budgets,ington times," taxes, although it affects my life, it is not something that is really personal to me. i decided to get a gun after i was a victim of a home invasion. i walked into a house and there was a man rubbing it and he had a bunch of buddies at the end of his driveway waiting for him, and it was the first time in my life as i was going to bed that night and worry that these guys would come by, it was the first time in my life that if i had just had a gun on the night table, i would have a chance to

defend myself. i am a single woman, i live in washington, and d.c. is unfortunately one of the few places in the country that has increasing ram rates every year. homicides were up last year, -- increasing crime rates every year. homicides were up last year. even though the heller decision 30 year ban d.c.'s on handguns was unconstitutional, the city put in all these restrictions to make it so difficult to get a legal gun, that for people like me, it is virtually impossible. i got the paperwork from the police station, and it was 17 steps. it took me four months just to get a legal gun. doingviously all the guys crime on the streets, they do not go through the process to get a gun, they just go get it in five minutes. it really illuminates to me how gun control laws, while crime in this city is going up, it is not

affecting the criminals, it only affects the law-abiding. and then i saw it spread around a country last year, obviously, president obama made this one of his top priorities of his second term, and former new york city mayor mike bloomberg, the billionaire, has been funding campaigns across the country to get its candidates elected, and that is the reason i wrote this book is because i have seen firsthand that these gun-control laws are not want to do anything to reduce violence. host: italy miller is here to answer your questions -- emily miller is here to answer your questions, gun rights around the country. let's start with david calling in from iowa on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. hi, emily. about theuestion media coverage. one thing we have seen in the media is they are more than happy to take all of these mass shootings and paraded people in front of the public, the victims of these crimes of mass shootings, but they are also unwilling to show the life that have been saved from people who

have been law-abiding citizens who have stopped these from happening. it bothers me when politicians stand on the tombstones of the fallen in order to press their gun-control cases. guest: i agree with you completely. obviously i am a member of the mainstream media, but i do see how the media uses these very rare mass shootings and exploits them because, you know, it is good for ratings and it sells, and that is what they do. but i think there is an agenda behind it, and president obama repeatedly said incorrectly that mass shootings keep happening and we are more in danger. i think a responsible president would come out if they actually, we are safer now than ever. the facts are that gun murders according to the fbi from 1993 until last year are down 50%.

so we are dramatically safer than we ever have been, yet the president and the media, as you mentioned, don't talk about those things will stop and en masse -- those things. shootings, 30 years of mass shootings, which the morenment assigns as for people killed in a public setting by a stranger, said in fact mass murders had not gone up, they have not gone down, but they have not gone down. unfortunately, it is hard to get them to go down because there are these dangerously mentally ill people. there is not a lot of knowledge ahead of time of them, but they are estimated over the course of these years, it is about 18 people a year. but if you watch tv, you would think there is a mass shooting all the time. it is unnecessary to scare people like that. to be scared to go to the movies, to be scared to go to your children's school will stop what happened at newtown, , peoplewhat's horrific

going about their lives at the navy yard, but one day, i will find out that all of them happen in so-called gun free zones where nobody can shoot back, so all of these places -- recently, other shootings have been stopped by armed guns. host: a recent report that they did look at school shootings dating from december of 2012 to february of this year. they noted that there's been 44 school shootings around the country, resulting in 28 deaths, 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries. they include a map of the different places around the country where those have happened. you mentioned armed guards. what else can be done to stop this? >> these bloomberg studies are very jimmyed and i suggest people read jim lott and he's a

statistician and so many of these things are suicide or other kind of violence, as far as outside of the school. they -- when you dig through bloomberg studies to get to the numbers, it they don't take -- host: when you say bloomberg studies? guest: he's the sole funder for it and it's called mothers against -- moms demand action. it's part of his group as well. he's the sole funder for these things. and he also funds hopkins, a large school on this gun control violence. so when the boss has an agenda, it's hard to look at the study objectively, but the ones in colorado were stopped pretty quickly by an armed guard and you're seeing around the country as time has gone on and people have looked at it and half the school in this country have

already have armed guard outside of them or knew of them, this is a really good -- inside of them, this is a really good deterrent to stop shooting. they're saying to these mentally ill or violence criminals, here's a great place to go. you can this in washington, d.c. they know that the good guys don't have guns on the street. host: is there any evidence to support the notion that good guys with guns is the best way to solve the gun problem? guest: i point to the police chief in detroit this year said that -- i mean, he's been a long-term anti-james craig. he was a chief and he worked in los angeles and maine and he has been a long term anti-carry permits, anti-gun. he came out and said having higher gun ownership leads to less crimes and having more good people having carry permits leads to less crimes. it was a really landmark thing

to say considering his background and he said i've done a 180 shift on this and here's a fact. gun ownership is at the highest rate it's ever been, about half of the families in this country say they own guns, which obviously, those are people who admit to up -- on a gun and i think it's higher than that, actually. there's over 325 million guns in this country and as i mentioned earlier, gun crime is way down and keeps going down. violent crime is the most recent report as shown that violent crime is down. we don't know the exact correlation for why that happens but i believe it's a deterrent. the bad guys are like i don't know. it's not as easy as i thought. host: donna writes in with her experience. i've had a registered gun in illinois since the oinths. it's not that hard to get one. you just can't walk around shooting people.

caller: i believe it's not obviously the mass shootings but the accidental shootings and the drive-by shootings and there are single daily incident of shootings that is the larger issue. i also believe that there should be a restriction on the assault type of guns that are prolific and that people need to realize that it's a societal issue that for some reason, you know, it gives people a sense of security if they have a gun. i don't know how many people who have guns actually have training to use the gun but the people who have guns, if there are people coming in and can steal those guns so there will be more in the illegal, you know, areas, where you're indicating that

there's a reduction in crime. i think that it's a much larger issue and it's not just mass shootings that is the issue ere. guest: i don't think you should be afraid of accidental shootings or drive-by shootings. gun murders are going down every year. in fact, we're getting safer all the time. as far as the so-called vault western, i don't know if you're familiar with those, those are just rifles that have ergonomic features on them and all the rifles account for 300 in the murders last year.

host: explain what you mean by hearing nomic features in assault weapons. guest: it's a arrivele and what it has is and it's defined differently by each state what features qualify as assault. it has one or two features and

how it's combined. it's lower caliber than a hunting rifle. most people own it and use it for target shooting and a high percentage of former military and former police, because it's the style of gun that they've become customed to. -- accustomed to. all rivals -- rifles account for murders. we have about 300 murders a year. it's an unnecessary year issue that we should be debating on the national stage and i go into this in my book, the term was invented in the 1980's by an anti-gun group. and they say this will confuse the public because technically, an assault weapon in the military, an assault weapon is a fully automatic gun and because these new guns are black and made out of polymer, they look like the military guns so they've come to get that sort of

fear about them, the people just who are not experienced with firearms. host: let's go to steven for independents. good morning, steven. caller: hi, there. thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. host: i would like to say, i am not against owning guns. i own a couple myself. however, i do believe that owning a firearm should not be a quick and simple process. it's not because i don't believe in guns, it's just that i just don't believe in people. people themselves as a whole are just too primitive to be owning efficient carrying machines. thethe fact that, you know, argument that you're just only a citizen, it is nothing but armed criminals, that -- the reason criminals can obtain guns so easily is because of how easily

it is for legal citizens to obtain guns. guest: when you got your gun, did you buy from it a dealer? caller: i bought it from a private seller. guest: what did you buy? host: it was a handgun. guest: so did you shoot anybody with it? did you -- were you violent with it? were you responsible with it? ow did you store it? caller: i stored it in the case in my room. guest: that's the standard. that's why we look around the country and we have the highest gun ownership in the history and yet crime is going down. so, you know, it's this misconception with people that just because a law-abiding person gets a gun, they're going to suddenly turn into a criminal. i mean, i have a gun. i keep it locked when i'm not at home so the criminals can't get it. but i'm not going to suddenly become a violent person. the reason i have a gun and the reason i would think ebb who has

a gun owner in this country is to defend themselves against gun violence. we all try to make the country safer and make ourselves and our families safer. i would say it's not those get a gun and you go to a dealer and you have to pass a federal n.i.x.und check which is if you're a seller and you can't get a gun and the other category are drug users and illegal aliens and domestic abusers and so all the people go to a dealer and they would be stopped from getting a gun. it's not easy but as you mention, the bad guys, the criminals, they're not -- they're going to get a gun however they want to get a gun. most of them get it on the streets or steal them from drug dealers. they all have violent tendencies. host: maverick on twitter asks you what about mail order guns? there was once a ban on buying via the mail but now you can buy

guns on all components. guest: online i think he's talking about. the law is if you buy a handgun -- shotguns you can buy sent directly to you. handguns, although you still i e to go through a check, had a guy who e-mailed me on facebook. he had to transfer. we have one gun dealer. and the dealer had to turn it to charlie sikes and he did my f.b.i. background check with me in the room. there's no evidence whatsoever that buying online has any kind of criminal -- has any kind of criminal activity on it because it's going through a dealer and even though the ones that will private in state, you have to assume the person who is selling it is a responsible person and not someone who use in crimes,

the not how they're gotten. and they do it because the justice department goes into the department afterwards and pulls criminals and says what whether did you get the gun? and then they say it's on the streets, most of them, stolen. they're not bight through legal means. i mean, it wouldn't make sense if you have the intent to commit a crime that you would leave that kind of paper trail. host: we talked about what's happening a the supreme court. i want to talk about congress now. recent stories from the "washington times" anti gun forces shift to small ball effort saying when they have legislations were dashed, they are focused on modest moves and calling for smart guns. the only authorized -- that only authorize users can operate. what are small ball efforts and what do you see happening on capitol hill on this issue? guest: right after new town,

president obama within 48 hours was saying we need to have assault weapons banned, and all these different laws. and he really put most of his first year behind gun control. and it couldn't get through a democratic senate because the majority of the cub does not support more gun control effort. they think what we have is fine or too much in a lot of cases. it's not supported by the country. but they have some successes in the state so now what you're seeing is the pendulum has swung back. we've seen that in the polls that people after newtown because it was such a shocking event that will was more support for gun control and it shifted less than it was before newtown because of the expansion. so now, the anti-gun forces are moving into little bills that can appease their followers. the smart gun -- host: what is a smart gun?

guest: it doesn't exist yet. the congressman has this idea that -- and there are companies working on it that there would be different ways that you would control a gun that would be identified by a user but there's no real -- they have not perfected this at all yet. and i think, you know, there are no demand in the market for it because it remains to be seen if there is and if there is, then people can buy them. people -- the manufacturers, when you sell a gun, it comes with a lock. so people and the manufacturers with their child safe organization or the n.r.a., they teach -- this is for people with children in the house, they teach how to store lock your gun, how to store it safely if ou have children in the house.

it's hard to believe that any gun owner would feel safe with those kinds of new technology that has not been perfected as a safety mechanism. >> host: what bullet capacity do you feel a gun should have? guest: most of the cops and law enforcement use .45, .40. 9 mill teeter. host: in terms of how many brets should be in a magazine, should there be a capacity limit? guest: no, it depends on what ou need. these high capacity magazines which is spread, you know, new

york passed this number seven maximum last year. and colorado with 5 and d.c. has 10. and the numbers are -- 15 and d.c. has 10. the numbers are made up. they have nothing to do with how much you need defend ourselves. we've seen a large increase in multiple saint attacks and in that case, you moved -- assailant attacks and in that case, you need more. in a hostage situation, if you've never used a gun in a high stressed situation, i know me, if i have to shoot them because if they're going to kill or rape me, i'm sure my aim is not going to be very good. so i want the max amount that i need. i obviously would stop at a certain point. but there's no reason for the government. and there's no evidence. the center for disease control which is very anti-gun organization, is a government agency did a two-year study and looked at every gun control law

in the book in this country. whether the high capacity or the laws, and concluded that it is -- none of these laws reduce crime. and harvard university did the same so even places that are anti-gun control trying to prove that these gun control laws will reduce crime, they don't. they just don't. host: let's go to joe waiting in annapolis, maryland, on the line for republicans. good morning, joe. caller: thank you for raising awareness on the second amendment rights. i live in maryland and work in d.c. work in a nice safe neighborhood but have to drive through some not so nice safe neighborhood to get to work. and a few years ago, i tried to get a permit to carry pepper spray or mace. i went through the miniature version ofs many miller's experience where i got the -- ms. miller's experience where i

got the form. it allowed for non-residence to carry mace or pepper spray in d.c. that's a blatant violation of the constitutional provision about privileging and immunities for citizens. so, suffice it to say, i carry the mace but i guess i'm breaking some regulation but i would like to ask ms. miller if she's familiar with proposed legislation that would require all states to recognize other states carry permit. if the republicans were to permit or to take the right piece of legislation that can be tied to it and a lot of these problems would go away. i'm very interested in that. guest: i feel for you at the mace. i wrote some of this at the "washington times" about where it takes to get mace in the city. it's so ridiculous. you have to get registered and i got my registry forms and unfortunately, forgotten and lost my mace that way. it's very complicated and it's so ridiculous because it only affects the law-abiding.

it's a really smart legislation. it just says that if you have a concealed carry permit in one state and you go to another state that recognizes concealed carry permits, you can use it just like a driver's license. and it helps people because when you're traveling and you are a carry permit, it's really complicated the system. some states recognize these four states and other states like utah has a permit that you can use in other states. it's very complicated. it shouldn't be that complicated but it makes it more likely that good people gets arrested the senator has reintroduced that in the senate. there is a push for it. it has already passed the house. it just has to pass the senate. last year in the big gun control laws, it got one of the highest number of votes in the senate i would like to see that come up again because it would have smooth out that process for people.

host: anna in desoto, texas, for democrats. anna, good morning. caller: good morning, and good morning to you ms. miller. i'm 65. i grew up in the 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, 1980's and now. my children are in their 40's. where they went to school and back in the day, people were like oh, you allow your kids to go to a school that has a metal detector? i said yes. never had a school. never had a school shooting there because of the metal detector. did i grow up around guns? oh, yeah. they were for sport, not for sports, for shooting people. the only time that guns were ever used in our family is because of my age doing the ku klux klan area and the guns were

kept then for black people just to defend themselves. now we have in neighborhoods where kids get an 18-year-old, has no business with a gun. an 18-year-old has no business with a permit to carry a gun on a campus of any kind. a lot of the schools now said here in texas, argyle, just passed where there will be teachers who are carrying guns. ok. you have a gun. you're not at the front of the building. the criminal can still get in the building and kill whoever. i don't think president obama is trying to -- and he's president obama. we have to learn to give people respect. president bush and all the others, they were presidents. and we need to have respect for people in the world and in this country. my nephew died in iraq host: i'm going to jump in to get her thoughts on your

comments. guest: i'm not sure what your question is, anna. could you clarify that? host: i think anna hung up. caller: she just wanted to talk. that's fine. host: fred is one of our viewers in massachusetts on our line for independents. fred, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all, congratulations, ms. miller in deciding to be a self-reliant and independently responsible person. caller: thank you. >> guest: thank you. caller: i have three comments. first of all, i come from a state where they don't have a must issue policy where it's a universal test. you take the test and you pass it and they have to issue you. -- your permit. this state, it -- if you're not, well, you don't. but the worst thing about it is

i think it's discriminatory and racist. all of these places that have at the discretion of the police department, the poor people who really need them can't get them. criminals will get them any way. and so what it does is it leaves the poor people defenseless and even when they do issue permits in some of these places, they make the cost of it so astronomical that no poor person can afford to get it. host: fred, on that same subject, joseph hill writes in on twitter automatic assault weapons are the ones i worry about. folks with money will get these no matter what. emily miller, let you jump in. guest: the automatic guns have been highly regulated by the a.t.f. people are legally allowed to have them. they're so expensive because they haven't been manufactured or imported since 1986 for

civilian use. the military has them since 1986 so they're extremely expensive. they are like $20,000 to $ 30,000. it's not something to be concerned about. host: and fred, did you have another quick comment before we let you go? caller: yes. when that lady called in and then the gentleman right after about well, they're going to -- eople own guns are a drarninge -- danger because that's where the criminals get them from i hate to hear those two people's solution was for rape as a male. guest: i feel much safer having a loaded gun at my home. i don't have any safe on the streets of d.c. because i'm not allowed to have a carry permit. and on your comment about costs it's prohibitive for a lot of people for d.c. i have $435 in d.c. just to own

a gun. it was expensive for me. and these carry permits do come with a high cost. and i think the courts are going to have to resolve what is a reasonable cost to process these applications so it's not discriminatory to the underprivileged. host: let's go to randy on our line for democrats. good morning, randy. caller: good morning. i am all for having a gun to protect yourself and all, but the assault weapons, ain't nobody need an assault weapon to rotect themselves. they didn't want to do all these background checks and stuff. let me ask you one question. have you or any of your family members ever been shot or been a victim of gun violence? guest: no. 9,000 people shot a year out of 350 million, it's a very small percentage of people who are actually shot but as i've said

from the beginning of a show, i am the victim of a crime. it could be a lot worse when off bunch of people in the house and the foungeed as far as made sure that that right was never to be infringed and that's why it's the second amendment of the bill of rights. host: on that same topic, your book, a former justice in the u.s. supreme court john paul stevens is out with his book. how and why we should change the constitution. i want to get you to respond one of his amendments that he proposed. stevens believed the authors of the second amendment were concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states as opposed to homeowners'

anxiety about violent felons. he thinks the best way is to amend the second amendment. he would do that by adding five words. a well regulated militia being -- guest: he is way on the fringe. you poll the american people, they don't want to change the constitution. they actually -- over 80% of people support the constitution in its current form. and in the decision which he sat in and was a minority, they made it very clear. they went back to the founding as far as document and established once and for all that there are two separate clauses. that was a concern with the tyrannical government and the other part was an individual right to keep and bear arms and

god gave us this individual right and it shall not be infringed. yeah. well, he can say whatever he wants. host: we started with those cases before the supreme court. when are we going to find outside if they -- find out if they pick up those cases? guest: hopefully, monday we'll find out if they're going to take up those cases. and if not these n.r.a. case, we will see in the next couple of years the supreme court take up a strong second amendment case. host: and that ninth circuit court gun decision, is that one of the ones that you think will eventually make it up? guest: no, the sheriff in san diego said i'm not going to appeal it. i would like to see it even go up further and for the supreme court to weigh in for the whole country. but no. it's going to stop there. the only challenge is if the sheriff doesn't go through with what he says with allowing permits so it would start a whole new case. host: let's go to shaun calling

in from pennsylvania on our line for republicans. shaun, good morning. caller: hello. how are you guys doing today? host: good. you got a minute left with emily miller. caller: why is the government so bent on changing our amendment? and the second one is in the state of. , i would like to know why new york, jersey, maryland and delaware did not honor our concealed license to carry when it is very strict to get? guest: if the supreme court ways ways in on the right to carry arms, then your permit would have to be applicable. i've got a pen. and he is flouting a lot of the separation of powers and other of the amendments and it is a concern. you're seeing in this country a

push-back on how the constitution has been sort of diluted in recent years. host: emily miller is an editor with the "washington times." she is also the author of "emily got her gun but obama wants to take yours." thanks for joining us. up next, we'll take a look at the ivory trade by the white house to crack down on elephants and rhino pooching with david barron who shares as the council. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national able satellite corp. 2014] >> 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 coverage of the u.s. house all as a public service of private industry. we're c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and funded by your local capable or satellite provider. wauches on h.d., like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> announcing the opening on thanksgiving day of the 22nd annual sale of christmas -- this universal declaration of human rights may well become the international magna carta of all men everywhere. the equal rights amendment when ratified will not be an instant solution to women's problems. >> i'm trying to figure out how best to be true to myself and how to fulfill my responsibilities to my husband

and my daughter and the country. >> what they may not imagined looking at the white house from the outside is that it's actually a very normal life upstairs. >> i try to bring a little bit of michelle obama into it bit at the same time, respecting and valuing the tradition that is america's. >> watch our final two hour program reviewing our original series, "first ladies, influence & image" at our website or see it today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. "washington journal" continues. host: and earlier this month, this obama administration unveiled a new effort to combat wildlife trafficing and crack down on illegal ivory trade. joining us from new york to help us explain that effort is david barron, a member of the advisory council. what was announced last week and why is the administration taking

these steps? guest: they released the national strategy which has been in development for several weeks. the president signed an executive order elevating the wildlife crimes of trafficking and tasking them to work together to come up with a strategy. so this 10-page strategy is really the cull him nation of the study by the administration and the advisory council and it's the road map now to move forward. host: and who is being targeted and what species are we specifically looking to help with these new rules and regulations that will being put out by the white house? guest: well, there are a range are alysts -- animals that

of great concern including tigers and turtles, including penguins but the big problem right now, the dramatic spread and it's escalated so quickly in the last very few years are the african elephants but the asia elephants too, and then the white rhino down in southern africa, especially in south africa. host: and we've got some stats that we can show our viewers on some of the deaths from poaching of african elephants. there's about 22,000 illegal killings in 2012 and 25,000 illegal killings in 2011. the estimated population in 2013 just around 500,000 african elephants on the rhino issue that you bring up, those that were poached just in south africa by a year in 2010, 333 oachings of rhinos --

what is the council that you sit on and what is your job on advising the president on this? guest: well, the task force, which is the number of government departments and agencies is led by justice interior error and state, technically coached by the heads of the secretaries and the attorney general. they are experts at staff level and they're working on the strategy and the eight members and four alternate members of the advisory council are advising those agencies. most of the members of the advisory council have expertise in international conservation. a lot of them are people i have worked with for many years, some -- veterans of

their field. host: and we want to hear from our viewers with their questions and comments for david barron. also the chairman of the international conservation cause group.on -- caucus you can call the number on your phone lines are open. if you want to dial in now. f id barron, what is the icc and the group that you work with? guest: well, the iccf, the mother ship is based in washington and acts as leadership for the caucuses in he house and the senate.

the group is a watered umbrella that involves now, groups similar groups in paurlments and congress around the world. host: we can show a map of africa, the vanishing elephant population in africa. the lighter shading are the range of the african elephants back in 1979. about 1.3 million elephants then in the darker areas, just in 2007, the 500,000 or so number hat we talked about earlier. why is this causing an increase in demand? there's geographic graphics by

the way. national geographic has done a great job telling the story, especially brian christy that wrote the ivory story. it's leading the charge on crisis. there happens to be things like ivory. there's new money chasing it. it's a finite amount. it's dwindling. unfortunately, we're at the point now where the trade -- it's such a crisis that the trade can't even be regulated. thus, the advisory council and the administration pursuing a

ban, at least for some number of years until the populations return. host: and the "national geographic" pointing out the country for the most ivory seize has taken place from 1989 to 2011, china, with 90,600 pounds of ivory seized in that time period. thailand, next. hong kong, taiwan, vietnam, the philippines, japan, malaysia, singapore and india are the different countries represented on that chart. plenty of callers looking to talk to you, mr. barron. we will start with lynn from utah. good morning. caller: good morning. i told the screener my question was that i wondered if the guest had ideas on how the public could be more informed but then as soon as i got on hold, he said that the media's doing a great job on publicizing the

issue. so i want to change my question to have there what is that more habitat could be set aside? does the guest have ideas on how the public could support more habitat? host: excellent question, lynn. guest: that's a good question, lynn, thanks. this is a big challenge. we have got to stop this surge with better law enforcement. we need more rangers on the ground. we need more training for those ranger they need better equipment. they need better communications equipment and transportation equipment and etc. but ultimately the future of these wild animals and others is an economic model that justifies the local people who actually controlled the habitat being invested in these animals. we've got examples where there are large areas, actually, that are available but the people

round them, the habitat, see the animal as competition for their livelihood. lions eat the cattle and goats sometimes eat the children and elephants destroy their crops and sometimes housing. so tourism is a big part in some places but not in most places. so they have to be other avenues so that there's value of these animals that local people can realize which is why the iccf coined the term national resource wealth management. an ey can be handled an annuity that co-exist for them, that they can benefit from them, they can extract a return on that annuity, as long as they don't invade the cull pit. it's a new model that has to be unleashed and that will justify the habitat that's now being infringed upon being sacred to

local populations. it's working well in those places where the economic model works. host: let's go to brian waiting in san diego, california, on our line for independents. good morning, brian. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i wanted to briefly touch on the big cats. i know that most of the species, especially the bengalle tiger and in india, it's nearing extinction and my question would be do you have any advice on which conservation groups are doing the most effort, not trying to plug any specific groups, but it might be good for the pub to know which specific groups that money would be best? uest: good question, thanks.

let me point out a few. you mentioned the tigers. wildlife conservation society and their team are doing a great job in tiger habitat that there are more lions and more habitats -- sorry, more tigers. there are more tigers now that the human animal conflict is worsening as a result of it. it needs to be dealt with. there's a man eater now that's killed some 20 people in india. that is the exception, of course. this is a natural heritage and engaged ulations are like w.c.s. is doing in india, they will benefit from it as well, tourism and other ways. there is no better organization on the ground in africa. actually, doing the law enforcement is a difficult task in africa parts. most haven't heard of it.

it's a smaller n.g.o. it's african based. they do this institution. they have support in the united states. people like rob -- wal-mart are generous supporters. they are able to go into parks that are in virtual collapse and they take them over in long-term leases. one example, they went into a mike made d that famous in "national geographic" where they were losing hundreds of elephants every year. they've lost 20-plus game rangers in eastern congo. in south africa, where the rhino poaching is such a problem. the wilderness foundation of

south africa started by the famous dr. ian player, are coordinating a lot of efforts there in south africa to combat the rhino poaching. volkswagen began is giving them 19 vehicles as part of this poaching effort. host: it is one of the most in the -- successful and it involves unleashing the value of those animals to the local population and more conservancies are taking on this product. guest: it's an american signature project. there are others. the big groups have small projects that a great successes and a lot of the small groups have big projects. those who are on the drowned tend to be the best. those who are running parts, involving communities, developing and implementing models, these are the ones that

are the most effective. not those that are spending money on conferences and reports and advertising campaigns. host: let me ask you. going back to these rules that were announced by the obama administration last week, would the obama administration, would the efforts on this be better served by spending money on the ground to some of the groups you're talking about rather than working on new trade restrictions, new ivory restrictions in the united states and efforts by law enforcement to crack down on the selling of the united states? guest: i hope that the funds that are involved -- that are being committed to international conservation won't be diluted anywhere except in the criteria right now in law enforcement and -- crisis right now in law enforcement and more and more into the economic models. but the united states has a problem you read the list of the worst countries. the u.s. is probably not in the

top 10 but there's also an issue here and i think there's a trong -- that we need to get right first so law enforcement program in the u.s. is also justified. the long term best-case scenario is that populations return to the point where the ivory trade could be allowed again. that may not happen in the future. but it would be the best economic model if it were possible. so i hope that the law enforcement funds can do what needs to be done in this country and in helping, working with interpols and working on the side. and on the ground is the imperative side. host: let me get your reaction on this. obama's ivory trade overkill. it says in practice, virtually every collector, dealer, and

other person in america is now prohibited from selling ivory items even if required legally, owned for decades and worth hundreds of thousands of dollars - he goes on to say the administration rule is unfair to thousands of americans. why is the administration penalizing the law abiding? can i get you to respond to that? guest: well, there may be some truth in what doug says, actually. i've known doug not well, but for a long time. i'm a conservative republican. id e fought this myself logically. and again as i said a moment ago, our yield is we can return to numbers where ivory trade is

allowed again. it can benefit these people. t doug is right that they're awe abiding honest people in the united states that are going to suffer from this. but if we can stop the crisis now and it really is a slippery slope and it's out of control, they in the long term will benefit, meaning that the ivory trade could be secured again for future generations. there is an exception in the president's national strategy r dealers of validate -- verifying the source of the ivory, how they acquired it. i think a complete exemption for antique ivory which is more than 100 years old. it does restrict importing or exporting or trading in between

states. there are still be some markets allowed. that's still being determined. it hope it doesn't completely box in the honest dealers that -- but it also may be that some legitimate dealers are suffer from this. but for the greater good in the long term. host: 10 minutes left with david barron, a member of the federal advisory council on wildlife trafficking. chris is waiting on our line for democrats from new haven, connecticut. chris, good morning. caller: good morning. and david, congratulations on your equipment. it just shows that president obama doesn't just appoint democrats. i think poaching is far too general a word for what you're talking about. that's not like taking, you know, animals from the cage. this is murder. this is slaughter. and in fact, murder literally when you talk about the rangers that are being killed.

haseminds me of -- i myself been held to gun point. i've healed man who was shot between the eyes while he died. it's terrible. and that's what's happening to these animals. it's just miserable. and so thank you, and congratulations on your work. have a good day. guest: well, thank you. it is tragic and -- host: go ahead, david. guest: let me just make the andinction between poaching this current epidemic. the tradition has always been especially in africa because people harvested from their local abundance, including animals for their own livehood. this is your tradition. it's been since the origin of man. and it's unfortunate that the situation has progressed to the

point in the commercialization of wildlife trade that has taken away that right to a lot of people also or largely taken it away. what we're dealing with here, however, are criminal syndicates that will also involved in the trafficking of weapons, of drugs and of human beings. they are now in the trade of ivory and rhino horn. a lot of this -- these funds actually benefit these car tells which are outside the -- cartels which are outside the continent. and some of the funds go on the hands of terrorist groups. the house of representatives, ed royce has gone over -- gone after with great vigor joseph

coney. an al qaeda affiliate. these groups greatly supporting themselves on illegal ivory right now. so it's not just an emotional thing. doug and my conservative friends. this has national security ramifications in the united states. it's destabilizing governments and compromising the economies of local people and it's actually funding enemies of the united states. so we have to do something. and we have to do something dramatic right now until we're in control again. host: let's go to mike waiting in gillette, wyoming, on our line for republicans. good morning. you're on with david barron. caller: yeah, i would like to comment, i guess, that i read a couple months ago that was it somewhere in colorado they ground up like six tons of ivory that were made in a decorative stuff and it seems to me that

that it just gets rid of the, you know, makes more of a demand because you're lessening the amount that's out there if you flooded the market with it. it would lessen the price and maybe cost less in trafficking. what does he think? guest: well, i have mixed emotion about this too. from an economic perspective, there may be truth to some of what you say. i was invited to go to the grinding. i did not know and did not oppose it because my confidence is not real high right now that normal economic models can work in the time of a crisis. ivory is being burned or being destroyed in other countries. in a best-case scenario actually, in very poor countries that are desperate in need for capital they fund law enforcement to manage reserved,

protected areas to be able to utilize that ivory in order to feed the conservation effort is the ideal. but we're in an emergency right now. we really are at war -- with these poaching syndicates. and so i agree that it's the best thing we can do right now is just to stop everything. until we're in control again. until we have enough law enforcement officials on the front line, until we have enough resources that are committed and deployed that we actually -- largely shut down these cartels. eventually, i hope we can see the utilization again because that's the economic model that has long-term feature. host: can david comment on the threat of extinction faced by many species in africa? guest: yes. well, listen, these iconic expertise that we're speaking

of, elephants and tigers and ino, they are ski on the species. we're protecting all the technically lesser species, but there's a threat across the board. ultimately, the threat is more and more people, less and less land. it is a habitat issue. so, if we can create the economic models, if we can engage in the local people. if we can -- unleash the power of the marketplace, then people will invest in more animals and more protected areas. especially on the domestic livestock and more will go into wild animals. wild animals could be profitable. kenya, the leadership in their conservation caulk in the kenyan paurl. passed new allies there which has to be worked out but it will return the value of the animals

to the people who reside with those animals instead of those animals belonging to the emperor in rome. but we have models now that we can employ and with global environment facility, which is a great funder of conservation globally and which the united states is a major investor in, funds lenched by other country d other donor countries with our partners, we will make enough resources available if we can just stop the emergency right now. host: and about the two minutes we have left, i want to give you chance to also respond to this editorial. this one coming from the "new york times" also in the wake of those new regulations announced

by the obama administration last week. that editorial states -- host: do you think that the serious muscle is going to be put behind this as the "new york times" hopes for? guest: well, i'm glad the "new york times" is focused on this. they need to do a little fact checking though. the united states is not second. that is a statistic i repeated over and over again and the professionals say that's not a realistic number. i don't know what it is. i don't think we're in the top

10. but we do need muscles. there's a mandate now. the president has begin a mandate, especially the u.s. department of interiors leading the way on this with support from u.s. standpoint and justice. so i -- state department and justice. i hope we can get mean and lean. there's new money thanks to the leadership of the international conservation caucus and the congress. new york's need a lawyer working with our friend from texas, kay granger. democrats and republicans working together. they have provided an emergency fund. i hope we can keep it focused on the immediate and i hope there will be more funds to follow. but, yes, with the new mandate, with the funds to actually finance the implementation of these directives, i think we have a chance of turning the

tide and i think in 10 years, we can look back and say we saved the elephants and the rhino and now we can look at different economic models that might ustain them for a longer term. host: janice, good morning., i wanted to janice, on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: what i have to say, as a member -- host: go ahead, janice. in a countryperson where the buffalo no longer run, how can you stop people from farming and fishing off their land and people who do not have a penny in their pocket who have to feed children? i don't like to tell you this, but i fear that the buffalo and the elephants and everybody else is going to be just at a stockade sooner or later. you can protect our borders and you can make all the laws you