cadre of students criticized imf policies that contribute to global inequality while others noted irony the students at women's college were objecting to someone who champions women's rights around the globe. these controversies led some commentators to ask whether the bar for satisfying today's students has risen to i am possibly high level. others to criticize the protests as political correctness run amok. we want to get your thoughts on this morning. what do you think? democrats, 202-585-3880. republicans 282-585-8881. as we said, if you just graduated from college or about to graduate from college we want to hear from you as well. 202-585-3883678 should these commencement speakers reflect the value of the students? back to inside higher ed piece. it says this. it would have been easy for those who e spoke at these ceremonies to avoid or at least play down the controversies

since at least some of the drama surrounding speeches involved protesters perspective that the day should be about the graduates and not the arguably, contentious views of the speakers. but that is not the path that the speakers at haverford and smith chose. william bowen, former president of princeton university and andrew mellon foundation was as another of honorary degree recipients already scheduled to speak sunday at haverford's ceremony.en in his first bite of the apple as he called the initial 10 minute speech he told story that made fun of honorary degree holders everywhere. in days leading up to commencement, bowen said via email he was encouraged to say something about the rather confused controversy and might look as if you were simply duck it. bowen did not hold back. he disputed statement by one of the protesters that the berkeley chancellor withdrawal was a small victory for the college. it represents nothing of the kind, bowen said, i regard this

out come as defeat, pure and simple for haverford. no victory for anyone who believes as i think most of us do in both openness, to many points of view and mutual respect, rather than sent him an intel frat set of demands, bowen said, the protesters should have encouraged him to come and engage in a genuine discussion, not to come tail between his legs, to respond to an indictment that a self-chosen jury had reached without countster arguments aft little bit about the come mainsment address at half verdict ford college, william bowen, criticized students who had stage ad protest and it makes "the wall street journal" this morning, story does as well, where he said the, mr., dr. birgenau, is a person of consequence and he told the students, if you expect to agree with commencement speakers on everything, who will get to speak?

someone totally boring. a college graduate in indianapolis, up first. jamal what do you think? should -- >> caller: i justin recently graduated from notre dame. >> host: okay. >> caller: my experience up in the south bend area, it was enlightening for a person who comes from the inner-city myself. my first experience in notre dame at south bend campus is protest that we had from people who wasn't even part of the notre dame family so to speak as far as students and facultity was complaining when the president was coming to speak up there. i thought that was very hypocritical because we always endure the priests with their sexual background as moral characters and compasses on our campus. it just struckas me as amazing f how they were able to protest about a visit from our commander-in-chief but i do believe though, as graduates it is our day and if majority of

people graduating do not agree with the views, whether it will be political or any other aspect of the alleged, i mean, not the alleged but commencement speaker i think that the input from the students is more valuable and important because it is our day. we don't want it to be marked by somebody who is coming in whose political views are diametrically opposed to mainstream and specifically the majority of the people that are graduating. get a lot of people that are in position to be commencement speak remembers propped up by corporate money and as a result, they tend to be able to get a pass but whenever the mainstream, specifically the students are able to speak, true feeling the pulse of the people comeue out. >> host: what about the argument though, that students are being close-minded? they don't want to hear a point of view that they may disagree with in that -- >> caller: that is insulting as a college graduate, not only is

my mind not closed, i'm able to articulate my position and i don't need to be dictated to by somebody who obviously has reached a conclusion that what their views is and their mission, crusade, whatever it may be not consistent with what i would consider one of the better days of my academic career which isde celebrating my graduation. want it to be, like i said, as african-american man i wouldn't want clarence thomas to speak in that graduation. that is the way that is. >> host: all right. georgia, democratic caller. thaddeus, are you with us? go ahead. >> caller: good morning. this past weekend there at moore house college school of medicine they insited the governor of georgia, natan deal.

very right-wing person. and now, this is a medical school. and this man refused to take money from the government to expand the medicaid rolls. 700,000 people could have insurance if he, would expand the roll. and it's, the irony of this thing is that when he was running for office down here, he made all kind of racial comments, talking about ghetto grandmothers and ghetto grandmothers can get i.d. to go to vote like anyone else.

and, this is a predominantly black college and he was asked to speak and they paid him $32,000 and he spoke in the dr. king, dr. martin luther king auditorium. and this is a person speaking at a medical school and he refused to expand medicaid so 700,000 people can, more people could have access to health care. and it's, you know, it is a real paradox. on top of it, faculty paid him $32,000 to basically come down there and say, look, you black

people, i'm not going to do what you want me to do. give me $32,000 check, thank you very much. and it is just, it really had, this weekend had the african-american community in atlanta in an uproar and being that cnn, this is a home of cnn, didn't hear a thing about it. >> host: okay. >> caller: and that's really news. >> host: i will move on and get some other voices in but on your point of money attached to these commencement speakers, npr has this story online, npr.org and it says, there are lots of reasons, schools turn to controversial big-names at

graduation. they often bring publicity with them to campus and can inspire a flood of donations from new alumni andpu their families. you want to raise money. you want notoriety but you also want to inspire the graduate, is one of the quotes from the people in this story but with the headline-making speakers comes risk of student backlash and student leaders put in uncomfortable position of having to reverse course. michelle, los angeles, democratic caller. what doic you think? >> caller: hi, get tax thank you for my store. i was at haverford glad wages and my daughter graduated and the objection they had was not about what he had to say but it's a quaker school and they are, one of their beliefs is is about non-violence. they were were going to award him honorary degree. and so the students felt that it wasn't just that he was coming to speak to the school but that

they were going to honor him. and they felt that because he didn't, wasn't aligned with their principles, that they shouldn't honor him with an honorary degree. i think that was part of it as well.as >> host: yeah. michelle, your son or your daughter? >> caller: my daughter. >> host: you were at the speech. was your daughter one that protested initially? >> caller: she did not protest but she was in agreement and the reason she was in agreement with not having him come to speak is because they didth invite him to come and they did want to have this session with him but declined. and so, even the, the substitute speaker who spoke to the kid, one of the things that he brought up was that, it would have been wonderful if the debate could have happened, or the discussion could have happenedou but because the spear declined and said, no, i don't

want to come, so then nothing could happen. he really was, i think criticizing both. >> host: right. >> caller: kids and speaker who chose not to come. >> host: that was in the higher education article as well saying thater the substitute speaker wo was william bowen, took both sides to task. what did you make of that when you were sitting there? >> caller: i, the fact that was right. well, i felt like the kid should have recognized the speaker who declined, his whole record. he was at berkeley, which is a liberal institution, but i also feel that, i also attended a friends meeting before the commencement andnd we sat in silence and people were compelled to stand up and speak which, to way quakers do their religious ceremonies. because they havee such strong

principles of peace and non-violence i sided with the students's well. >> host: okay, michelle. you probably agree then with this piece that was written on huffington post-.com. it was written by one of the protesters at smith college, rutgers university, excuse me, against condoleezave rice. in this she writes that this, the thing is this. that the protests are not about the individual speakers themselves and they're most certainly not just about commencement speeches. this is our generation of young people sending a clear and strong message that racism, bigotry, civil and human rights violations receive no honor from us. michelle, what do you make of that? >> they said, although i have a few bones to pick with condoleeza rice, that overall, i admire her as well. >> host: goes on to say. this is not an issue of left or right. decisions that impact the live lie hoods of other human beings

or oppress the basic rights they are entitled to are not simply differing views that land on our american political spectrum. such things are simply not partisan issues. john next in pennsylvania, independent caller. good morning, john. what do you make of commencement addresses, protests we've seen this year? should these speakers reflect students values? >> caller: i think they're a great move on the parts of the students and faculty at those universities. half the united statesos thinks condoleeza rice is a war criminal. 3/4 of the world thinks the same thing. christine o lagarde, she heads p an austerity program that leaves other countries in debt forever. so, i think it is long past time that students started to speak out and in more numbers about this. because the folks that schools bring in are, yeah, like rice,

she is war criminal. lagarde, she is questionable in a big way and, that deal, i can't believe moore house invited him down there. that is crazy. >> host: thanks, paul in maryland, independent caller. hi, paul. >> caller: i was going to say that you have to have people with other persons because you will never learn anything if all you listen to are the opinions on your own side. i mean the first amendment doesn't apply to private parties but it is important point because it guaranties the right to say, not things that have other people agree with but the things that they disagree with. one example is that if i'm listening to the news and i hear speech by president obama, i want to find what is wrong i will turn on fox news to find out. now speaker boehner says something, and i want to find out where he is made a mistake, i'm going to turn on msnbc.

now you wouldn't turn on fox news to find out boehner's mistakes and you wouldn't put on msnbc to find out obama's mission takes. because you're not going to get a differing opinion from those who are partisan to your point of view. you have to listen to people who have differing opinions even, in you don't agree with them because youwi may learn somethig from that. >> host: okay. all right, paul.mi larry in fort worth, texas, democratic caller. what do you think? >> caller: yes. back in vietnam era most of the college students was against that, all marching saying give peace a chance. wasn't any different between them and iraq war, the war of massat destruction and all that. condoleeza rice was one of the leaders, so was george bush. i don't think blame the students not wanting her there because she is warmongerrer. i wouldn't letter speak at a dogfight. thank you.

>> host: that was larry in fort worth, texas, democratic caller. we're getting your thoughts whether or not these commencement speeches or speakers s should reflect the vw of students. should seen a wave of protests this year. some say it reach ad crescendo this year. it happened in the past but more so this year. from a little bit about previous protests here's the washingtonpost.com. says butler university deemed supreme court chief justice john roberts too controversial to speak in 2010. conservative commentator ann coulter was uninvited from a speech at fordham university in 2012. students have complained or protested about former colorado representative tom tancredo, dick cheney anded mitt romney speaking on campus. hillary clinton's invitation to speak at college of st. catherine in 2008 was resended. ebb kathleen sebelius was subject of student protests when she spoke at georgetown university graduation s in 2012. first lady michelle's obama's planned speech at kansas high

school sparked criticism by people who worried that there would be limited space and political undertones. a little bit of history for you about these protests. i want to get your thoughts, democrats 202-585-3880. republicans 202-3585-3881. also if you're a recent college graduate, 202-585 of 3883 want to hear your story as well. join the conversation on twitter. at c-span wj is our handle. and also email us as well. journal@c-span.org. we'll get to more of your thoughts here coming up. we have 28, 25 minutes here to continue talking about this and then we're going to have a roundtable discussion about what's on the agenda for congress this week. as we told you house lawmakers return after spending last week back in their districts.

the house and senate in session this week. this is from "the wall street journal," a recent article that they wrote about the list of canceled graduation speakers and how it is getting longer. and it says, that according to the foundation for individual rights in education, between 1987 and 2008 there were 48 protests of planned speeches. not all for glad wages that led to 21 since s of an invited guet not speaking. since 2009 there have been 95 protests resulting in 39 cancellations. that is from the recent "wall street journal" piece on that. greg lukianoff, who is the president of the foundation for individualya rights in educatio, he was on the "washington journal" thisca weekend talking about this very issue. here is little bit of what he had to say. >> guest: started bubbling up around 2009 for some reason we had increase in situations which students and faculty members would get together and demand

that speakers not speak there. to be clear, not just commencement but gets a lot hotter around commencement season. internally we had the joke, oh, it is disverytation season. it happens every year.se it got less and less funny every year but every year it became a little more intense. i'm a first amendment lawyer. that's why i got into this business. i'm totally fine people protesting wearing black arm bands like maribeth tinker. but i don't like it when the goal is to not get some unwith to speak on your campus. >> host: washington journal. we spoke with mr. lukianoff about, he is president of individual rights in education about the issue of commencement speaker being uninvited after students are protesting. do you think these speakers should reflect the students morals and values? mike, is it rugger glen, virginia? republican caller. mike, what do you think? >> caller: yeah, i believe what it is a symptom of, a symptom of

the liberal faculties members that we have at these schools. i don't necessarily think it is of the students. i think it is, they're led by these faculty members by these universities and that's just what we have in our education system today. i guess we have to live with it but i believe it totally being led bye the fact cult. >> host: you think it is more of an issue of conservative speakers being protested by liberal schools? >> caller: correct. >> host: okay. "the washington post" this morning has this from ann kneel, president of the american council of trustees and alumni who is quoted as saying this. our campuses have become islands of intolerance where a small group of close-minded students and faculty can cut off discussion. it is not so much a right-left political problem as it is a political correctness problem, kneel said and it's a failure of leadership. academy in too many places has

become one-sided coercive and hostile to multiplicity of perspectives. that is from the "washington post" this morning, quoting ann kneel, the president of the american council of trusteesm and alumni. let's go to steve, far rock away, new york, independent caller. steve, good morning. >> caller: good morning. to a previous caller's point, in the mid '60s at the beginning, i'm not sure if just before the united states entered the vietnam war, mcnamara was guest commencement speaker and, it was very famous photograph where a bunch of the graduates, got up, and walked out. and maybe some of you wizards at the station could pull that photograph on the screen. i'd like to know what happened to those people who got up and

walked out. and i think that would be a form of protest for today's commencement speakers. those who disagree, should just get up and walk out, right in front of this speaker, the controversial speaker, to show that they have guts, they mean what they say, that they're against the speaker. that's myth comment. >> host: all right, steve. want to remind you again that jill abramson, the former executive editor of "the new york times" is giving a commencement address today at wake forest university. that will not air live but we will air it on c-span2 one p.m. eastern time. 10:00 a.m. if you're on the west coast. jill abramson's remarks before wake forest university. so tune into c-span2 at 1:00 today. we'll show you what she had to say after being let go by "the new york times." so we're

getting your thoughts this morning on whether or not these commencement speakers should reflect the students sal use. we'll hear from ashley in springfield,' ohio, a recent college graduate. where did you graduate from? >> caller: wright state university in ohio. >> host: okay. what do you make of your question here this morning. what are your thoughts? >> caller: has a college graduate, these faculties are able to pay for these big public speakers coming in, large amounts like 32,000, they're getting it from the students tuition money which the commencement is for the student. that's their day. they spend, four, to six, to eight years in this university to get higher education but they don't want a speaker there i don't think they should have to listen to somebody they don't respect or that they don't agree with. >> host: ashley, do you remember who spoke at yours? [inaudible]

>> host: did you go? i watched the commencement. all i can remember how glad i was it was over. so, i mean -- [inaudible]. so much money on these big public speakers to my mind are criminals. so, asking any college student. they're up for debate. they're up to listen but not thaty day. they shouldn't have to. >> host: ashley. dave in michigan, republican caller. dave.orning, >> caller: good morning. i just, i have been listening and hearing these comments about condoleeza rice being a war criminal. it is remind me of how ignorant, many, many people are. that lady has got more class their their critics could ever dream of having. but the, these commencement speakers that are an bad are primarilyda conservative speake, going to these liberal colleges. the liberal colleges are filled with professors that are usually

anticapitalistic, anti-conservative and, they get that way because they're usually failures in the capitalistic environment. they have to go back to teaching because they can't solve real life problems with they learned in college themselves. so they go back and they show somebody else what they learned in college. resentment towards capitalism because they're failures in it. >> host: all right. we got your thoughts. condoleeza rice, by the way, put out a statement after what at rutgers university, the protest there saying commencement should be a time of joyous celebration for their graduates and families. rutgers invitation to me to speak has become a distraction for the university community at this very special time. i'm honored to serve my company. i defended america's believe in free speech and exchange ever ideas. these values are essential to the health of our democracy. that is not what is at issue

here today. as a professor for 30 years at stanford university,ar and as is former provost and chief academic officer i understand and embrace the purpose of the commencement ceremony and i'm simply unwilling to detract from it in any way. good luck to the graduates and congratulations to their families, friends and loved ones who will gather to honor them. we'll go to ron in syracuse, new york, independent caller, good morning, ron. >> caller: hi. it seems to me this argument about freedom of speech is not the correct argument. this isn't a matter of academics. this t is a matter of the studes having the most important day of their college career and it being simply ruined when on someone who is anathema to them is invited. why don't students get to do inviting? i was part of a demonstration boy, 1982. i was in syracuse and alexander hague was the speaker at

graduation. this was about two weeks after he made jokes about four american church women who were raped and murdered in el salavador by death squad personnel trained by the united states government at fort bening in georgia. this was outrageous. we had a demonstration. he was not disinvited. we had dozens of people, in fact we put up like three posters asking if people wanted to talk about a demonstration. and we had to change the venue because 140 people showed up just for that, with almost no notice. whatp we did was there were two groups of four women, under their raincoats, they were dressed as nuns. they had stage blood splattered on their habits and that picture appeared in pretty much every

daily newspaper. in fact it appeared in the rochester paper. and one of the quote, nuns mothers freaked out and called her. >> host: so what? >> caller: let people know people in this country were not willing to stand for us doing what we did to that nation. 50,000 people were killed down there and alexander haig was the secretary of state. >> host: okay, ron. on process of picking the speaker, this is from npr.org story. thisea is no easy task as explained by chancellor marti meehan from the university of massachusetts. the speaker there is bill nye, theny science guy, the nod to te school strength in the field but a committee of folks on our campus and from there goes to the umass board of trustees and they vote on them. we usually decide from there who is going to be our commencement

speaker. that is a little bit about the process at u mass how she is commencement speak remembers picked. let's go to gary -- >> now take c-span with you, wherever you go with our free c-span radio app for your smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime. there is schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in when you want, play podcasts of recent shows from our signature programs like afterwards, "the communicators" and q&a. take c-span with you wherever you go. . .lk

[applause] >> you brought a lot of friends with you, didn't you? [laughter] there are few jobs more daunting than editing a newspaper. with the very viability of newspapers at stake, these days call for unusual energy, innovation, courage and judgment. meeting that challenge is the gold standard of american journalism, "the new york times." she shines brighter than ever. that is in large part due to jill abramson.

as we crack more of the glass ceiling of gender discrimination -- the speaker of the house, corporate ceos, television anchors, chair of the federal reserve board -- a seminal step was taken three years ago when "the new york times" named its first woman executive editor. she took over a great institution and leaves it this past week better, stronger, more vibrant than ever. it is said she can be a tough, no-nonsense, even pushy in her passionate commitment to truth and accountability no matter rank or party. that's what makes a great editor. it is said she has a keen eye and a range of knowledge so broad it's humbling. that's what makes a great editor. whether directing coverage of

wars, elections, disasters, the corrupting influence of special interests or the abuse of governmental powers, jill always demands excellence, the best. that's why she is such a great editor. smart, supportive, relentless, she is absolutely fearless. let me share one anecdote. jill and jane mayer wrote an acclaimed book about the clarence thomas controversy more than 20 years ago. "60 minutes" scheduled an interview with them. only when cbs showed up did the authors realize it was to be a piece critical of the book. now, this sends shivers down the spines of mere mortals, a "60 minutes" inquisition. just imagine. not jill abramson, iron lady. she got her notebook, pulled out

the facts, rebutted every charge and killed the theme. [laughter] she went eye to eye with "60 minutes." they blinked. it was on this campus a half century ago that i decided to become a journal, influenced by spending several days with a visiting new york times legend, scotty rustin. little did i realize that decades later i would be close friends with another new york times legend. she isn't a pipe-smoking, contemplative columnist, she's a thought. , courageous editor -- she's a thoughtful, courageous editor with a new york accent so thick we may need translator this morning. [laughter] she's one of the most powerful women in the world who always has time for her many friends. it's one of the pleasures of my life to be her colleague, and today it is with such pride that

i present your commencement speaker, my dear friend, jill abramson. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> i think the only real news here today is your graduation from this great university. [laughter] first of all, congratulations. [applause]

i'm impressed that your achievements have attracted so much media attention. [laughter] as well they should. laugh -- [laughter] i'm so happy tozsñ be here to se this important day. my own college graduation is still a thrilling memory. in fact, i? actually had breakfast this morning with one of my college classmates, barkley reeves, who's one of the very proud parents of a graduate sitting out here today. and one of my favorite family photos is of my busting-with-pride father at harvard. a college dropout, he never got to wear his own cap and gown, so he crammed his six-foot self into mine. [laughter] he looked silly but radiant.

i hope all of you in the class of 2014 are lucky enough to have at least one parent or someone who helped raise you here today. a shoutout to all the parents, grandparents and others in the audience. my own children are recent college grads, so i know how full your hearts are today, because your kids have worked so hard and achieved so much. the president suggested that i speak to you today about resilience, and i'm going to take his wise counsel. but i'm not quite finished with the parents part. very early last thursday my sister called me. she said i know dad would be as proud of you today as the day you became executive editor of the new york times. i'd been fired the previous day,

so i knew what she was trying to say. it meant more to our father to see us deal with a setback and try to bounce back than to watch how we handled our successes. show what you are made of, he would say. graduating from wake forest means all of you have experienced success already, and some of you -- and now i'm talking to anyone who's been dumped -- [laughter] you bet. not gotten the job you really wanted or received those horrible rejection letters from grad school. you though the sting of losing or not getting something you badly want. when that happens, show what you are made of. i was many china recently -- i was in china recently, and as

some of you know, "the new york times" web site has been blocked by censors there for more than a year. that means in china citizens cannot read the most authoritative coverage of their country. and every time i reflexively tried to open the times' web site, i got the message: safari cannot open the page, which made me become more and more furious. while i was in beijing, one of our chinese journalists, patrick, was detained for hours by authorities. the government meant to scare and intimidate him. why was he detained? simply because he worked as a truthful journalist. so what did he do? he came right back to work and quietly got on with things. i did what i believe, and that makes me fearless, patrick told

me after his ordeal. you know, new york times journalists risk their lives frequently to bring you the best news report in the world. that's why it is such an important and irreplaceable institution. and it was the honor of my life to lead the newsroom. a couple of students who i was talking to last night after i arrived, they know that i have some tattoos, and one of them asked me, are you going to get that times t that you have tattooed on your back removed? not a chance. [laughter] [applause] i faced a little challenge of my own not long ago. i got run over and almost killed by a truck in times square. you may begin to call me

calamity jill, but -- [laughter] stay with me here. and with the seventh anniversary of that accident approaching, i wrote an article about the risk to pedestrians with three times colleagues who had also been struck and hurt. we mentioned a 9-year-old boy in the top of our story who had been hit and killed by a cab early in the year. a few days after the story was published, i got an e-mail from dana lerner. it began, thank you for the article you wrote in last sunday's times. the boy you mentioned is my son, cooper stock. i met with dana last thursday, you know, and cooper was just killed in january. but dana, her husband and others are already working on a new law to make the streets safer. she is taking an unimaginable

loss and already trying to do something constructive. we human beings are a lot more resilient than we often realize. resilient and persevering. and there are so many examples of this. for me professionally, three heroes are nan robertson, a ground breaking reporter of "the new york times," and katherine graham, the publisher of "the washington post" which broke the watergate story. they both faced discrimination in a much tougher, more male-dominated newspaper industry, and they went on to win pulitzer prizes. my colleague, jim risen, who is standing up against an unfair washington leak investigation is another hero. i co-authored a book about anita hill who testified about sexual harassment before an all-white, all-male senate judiciary

committee in the 1990s. the senators portrayed her as being, as one of her detractors so delicately put it, a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty. he turned that potential -- she turned that potential humiliation into a great career teaching at brandeis university and writing books that tell truth to power. anita was one of the many people who wrote me last week to say they are proud of me. those messages are so appreciated. some of you have faced danger or even a soul-scorching loss, but most of you haven't. and leaving the protective cocoon of school for the working world must seem scary. you will probably have a dozen different jobs, try all different things.

sure, losing a job you love hurts, but the work i revered -- journalism that holds powerful institutions and people accountable -- is what makes our democracy so resilient. this is the work i will remain very much a part of. my only reluctance in showing up today was that the small media circus following me would detract attention away from you, the fabulous class of 2014. what total knockouts you are. [laughter] [applause] what's next for me? i don't know, so i'm in exactly the same boat as many of you. [laughter]

[applause] and like you, i'm a little scared but also excited. you know, i don't really think coachmanning could find -- coach manning could find much use for me. [laughter] but right after this speech, i booked a private session with andy chan. [laughter] whose career counseling operation is a model for universities around the world. [laughter] when i was leaving my office for the last time, i grabbed a book off my shelf, robert frost, speaking on campus. in closing, i'm going to leave you some wisdom the great poet

gave in 1956. he described life after graduating as pieces of knitting to go on with. what he7d meant was that life is always unfinished business. like the bits of thitting women used -- knitting women used to carry around with them to be picked up at different intervals. and for those of you who have never knit, think of it as akin to your tumblr, something you can pick up from time to time and change. my mother was a great knitter, and she made some really magnificent things, but she also made a few itchy, frankly hideous sweaters for me. [laughter] she left some things unfinished. so today, you gorgeous, brilliant people, get on with your knitting. [laughter] [applause]

[applause] >> if you missed any of the commencement address, you can watch it again tonight, 8:30 p.m. eastern time right here on c-span2. and more commencement addresses as we enter graduation season. join us friday for commencement addresses by louisiana governor bobby jindal, massachusetts governor deval patrick and georgia congressman john lewis. and more speeches saturday from facebook's ceo sheryl sandberg among others. next we're going to take a look at the week ahead in congress from today's "washington journal."

>> communication policy had not been reformed since 1934, so there was really a compelling need in 1995 to begin a process of massive telecommunication reform, and at that time you basically had boxes. you had a box for broadcasters, a box for telephone companies, a box for long distance, you know, cable, satellite. and our view was we had to come in and try to eliminate the lines of demarcation and promote competition, believing that with competition there'd be innovation, more investment, more consumer choice, more innovation and, you know, fortunately i think the result has proven us correct, that that's exactly what's happened.

>> when the '96 act was written, we were largely focused on telephone service whether it was local or long distance. to some extent, we focused on cable tv service, and we wanted to take the steps to make that market competitive, which we did. but the primary focus was really just what we call pot, plain old -- pots, plain old telephone service. and today the landscape is fundamentally different. the fcc has managed as well as it can without clear direction from congress about how the transition from the era of telephone service to the time when everything is delivered over the internet should take place. and in my mind, the fcc's done a good job. >> having waiting the 1996 telecommunications -- evaluating the 1996 telecommunications act tonight on "the communicators" at eight eastern on c-span2. >> next, a look at the week ahead in congress from today's "washington journal."

>> host: and we are back with two veteran reporters here in washington, bob cusack, managing editor of the hill newspaper and jim kuhnhenn who's white house reporter with the associated press here to give us the week ahead in washington. jim, let me begin with you. what's on the president's agenda thisat i week?est: >> guest: he's been doing these kind of thematic weeks. a couple of weeks ago it was energy savings and climate change, last week it was infrastructure. if there'sa i guess a theme, it's foreign investments in the u.s. so he's bringing some business leaders to the white house on tuesday, and then later in the week he's going to cooperstown to the baseball hall of fame to discuss tourism. it's his kind of, at the white house they call it his pen and phone thing where he tries to do things on his own. >> host: i was going to say, is this an interaction with

congress? what's on his agenda doesn't sound like something he's asking congress to do. >> guest: no, no. this is basically highlighting things that he thinks, that he can do or has been able to do. he has this program called select usa which is a way that he has coordinated a lot of federal agencies to help cities and states attract businesses to the, and he has a couple of examples, lufthansa set up a big plant in puerto rico. they just cut a deal with a belgian aerospace company for oklahoma, so these are the kind of showcase moments that he's got. at the same time, it kind of underscores how limited his power and ability is to deal with the economy without congress. >> host: and, bob cusack, so house lawmakers out last week, they're back this week. >> guest: yeah. >> host: the senate was in last week. start with the house, what's on the agenda? >> guest: defense. the defense authorization bill is coming to the house floor, hundreds of amendments have been

filed. the house rules committee will decide on voting some of them. with this defense bill you have nsa issues, military sexual assault, there could be immigration. there's been talk of giving people who have served this the military green cards, and this is something that's very controversial. it's kind of, basically, half of what the dream act is. and some democrats and republicans want this attached to the defense bill. so that's something to watch in both the house and the senate. on the senate side, you'll see the tax extenders bill. we talked about that last week. that got bogged down in dispute over amendments. they couldn't come to an agreement. the finance committee leaders are trying to get some type of agreement. this kind of bill is similar to the medicare physician payment formula where they can't get a big tax reform bill through congress, so these tax breaks that are popular in both parties, every year they're extended. and senator wyden who is the new

chairman of the finance committee said this is it. we're going to do this one more time, and then we're going to attack the tax code. one other thing that could come up in the senate is sylvia burwell, kathleen sebelius' replacement at hhs. she could get a vote. her confirmation process has gone as smoothly as it could go, and she will get a big bipartisan vote. and the other big thing, i think, to watch is tomorrow. we have tea party tests. we have big primaries in kentucky, georgia, idaho and oregon. and you have incumbent republicans who are being challenged from the right including senator mitch mcconnell. also in the house you have mike simpson, an ally of speaker boehner who's being challenged. the club for growth has supported the challenger to simpson. so we have some legislation moving, not huge pieces of bills, but election season is definitely up and running. >> host: so beyond what's going to be talked about on the floor,

there are, of course, the debates that happen off the floor, and one of them is immigration. the lead story for the hill.com this morning, boehner's big reform decision. what's he going to do on immigration? >> guest: that's a great question. it's a really good story by russell berman. all eyes are on boehner. there was controversy last week where white house senior adviser valerie jarrett said that she had a commitment, the white house got a commitment from boehner to move immigration this year. boehner has mocked his republican colleagues back home a week or so ago. he had to walk those back when he got back to washington. so the question is, what is boehner going to do? is he going to be the speaker next year? is this a legacy? because boehner throughout his career has been a dealmaker. he wants to move immigration reform, but it's so hard to move the house republican conference partly because a lot of republicans say why are we doing this? we're looking at a pretty good

election season, we may win the senate. why bring up something that divides us? but boehner does can feel when the senate moves -- does feel when the senate moves on something and it sits in the house, he feels like the ball is in his court. so there's been a lot of talk on conservative radio very concerned of what boehner could do and then, of course, what would eric cantor do, the possible successor to boehner? cantor has indicated he's not ready to move on anything unless it has the support of the house republican conference. and boehner has tied himself this knots and said we're not going to conference with the senate-passed bill. okay. of we're not going to move any bill unless it has the majority of the majority. well, anything on immigration right now is not close to having the majority of the majority. so it's very intriguing, and the deadline people say is the august recess. if it doesn't happen by the august recess, watch democrats on capitol hill and the white house sharply criticize republicans. they've held off until, i think,

this august. >> host: jim -- >> guest: yeah. in fact, one of the comments valerie jarrett said was we have until august to make a determination here as to whether the house is going to move. and there have been back channel discussions between the speaker's office and the white house. and i think they believe that the speaker wants to go, but they understand what his political limitations are. in the meantime, there's this kind of parallel track going on with the department of homeland security where jeh johnson, the secretary, looking at how he can soften the bite on deportations. the president has gotten a lot of criticism from the advocacy community, the immigrant advocacy community over the number of deportations in this country. so they're trying to figure out how far to go, whether to make this a wholesale executive action that vastly diminishes the number of deportations. it's not where they want to go because they think that would certainly destroy any deal that

they could get with republicans. so the fixes might be more on the margins. even if, even if congress doesn't act, even if boehner doesn't act by august, i think what you'll see from the administration will be some tweaks but nothing, nothing that's a wholesale change in immigration law. >> host: i want to show our viewers what the president had to say about this recently. last tuesday he was at a law enforcement briefing on immigration, and here's what he said about the issue right now and the prospects of it moving in congress. >> prick opinion -- public opinion is on our side on this. unfortunately, we've got a handful of house republicans right now who are blocking, going ahead and letting the legislation get to the floor. to their credit, i think speaker boehner and some of the other leaders there do believe that immigration reform's the right thing, but they've got to have of a political space that allows them to go ahead and get it

through their caucus and get it done. i've said to them if they've got ideas, i'm happy to talk to 'em. we're not hell bent on making sure that every letter of what's in the senate bill is exactly what ultimately lands on my desk for signature. but there are some core principles that we have got to get done. we've got to have stronger border security, we've got to make sure that we are dealing with companies that are not doing the right thing by workers, we've got to make sure that we've got an improved legal immigration system, because a lot of folks are getting pushed into the illegal system because the waits are so long through the legal process. and we've got to make sure that there's a way for people to earn some pathway to citizenship. >> host: jim kuhnhenn, the president last tuesday. was that a nudge? >> guest: yeah, i think so, and i think there were some interesting clues on what the president said of where the

wiggle room exists. i mean, the senate bill right now has a path to citizenship for the 11 million immigrants here illegally. there is, there's some interest in the house and certainly some of the republican proponents of immigration reform have talked about a legal status for immigrants who are here illegally but not necessarily a path to citizenship. not something that puts them ahead of others who have been waiting in line to gain citizenship. when the president says he's not hell bent on getting everything that's in the senate bill, i think that's an important point. he didn't mention a path to citizenship in those remarks, so i think that leaves an opening and an area where that could allow the house to come up with a compromise. >> host: bob cusack, do those kind of comments help or hurt? [laughter] >> guest: i was thinking about that when he was, when the president was praising speaker boehner. boehner privately has told democrats not to publicly praise

him, especially on immigration, because this is such a tough task for speaker boehner. and the interesting thing is that earlier the year boehner -- this year boehner put out some principles with the house republican conference, and it looked like all signals were go. and then the house republicans had a meeting, and they said they didn't -- not so much not like the rells, but they're not -- principles, but they're not ready to move on this. so it's a real tough spot for boehner and the president. really they don't have the best relationship. the debt ceiling fight ofázía , there are still scars from that. they've had so many fiscal battles, and boehner has since said he needs, the president needs to step up and have house republicans just build some trust. now, how does he do that? and that's what we were asking. could he give a speech where he says he's going to follow the law? i don't know if it's enough. one interesting proposal that senator schumer has said, it's

i/w8#)] w:.ó if there is a deal, and i am deal,ul, if there is a that could be a compromise. news story that dominated last week, that is what is going on at the health care authority. the story continues over the weekend. think will happen with the white house this week with the pressure building? administration, , they dohave seen this not chop the heads off of people in positions of authority until much later in the process. you saw the white house doing the send inre.gov debacle,

one of its most trusted fixers to go into the hhs and bail kathleen sebelius out of the problem, in this case, he has ,ent his deputy chief of staff who has long ties with the hill, because he's to be legislative director for the white house, they sent him to help with this review of what the problems are, .here is a bit of a difference that was centralized and in one place. v.a. nva hospitals arefuse any one of them can be a problem. and so once you start seeing two or three or four, it starts looking systemic. and i think that's the problem that the white house needs to get ahold of right now. >> host: and the washington times front page story this morn

was warned that there were schedule failures that threatened to deny veterans' timely health care. what do you make of this story and the impact that it has on this week for the administration? >> guest: well, you know, the white house likes to say that i think it was bob gates, former secretary of defense, who warned the president at the very beginning that he should realize that every day someplace, someone in the federal government is screwing up. and that eventually some of those end up on his desk. and i think, yes, you might have warnings. i think the white house would tell you that they have tried to tackle one of the persistent problems which has been these long lists of disability claims and that incredible backlog there. they say that they've been able to shorten that. it's that assertion is, perhaps, comes into question once you start seeing that at the very hospitals they were gaming the

system and gaming the numbers on other types of treatment. so, but in any event, the white house says, okay, we've tried to deal with some of these problems that we were dealing with at the beginning, but here's one where you actually had 40 people die while waiting for treatment in arizona. so it's a big problem for the white house. it probably right now is overshadowing benghazi. as an issue. and yesterday, you know, the chief of staff, dennis mcdonough, had to go on tv and say that the president is mad as hell, and we haven't seen the president mad as hell yet. he hasn't seen anything, but certainly at least his chief of staff is saying that they're taking it seriously. on the hill there are efforts, legislative efforts, i believe, to give shinseki more authority to fire people which he doesn't have at this point. so that's a way that congress is, in addition to hearings that they've held, is to give

shinseki some authority -- >> host: bob cusack, is that how senate democrats are responding to this? >> guest: yeah. the house considers that bill that would give shinseki that much more power. in his testimony last week, shinseki, i think, did fairly well. he said he was mad as hell. he took a lot of the blame. a trio of republican senators have called on him to step aside. we still don't know the extent of everything here, ongoing investigations, there are going to be lawsuits on this, but overall he's been able to keep his job and repeatedly says he serves at the pleasure of the president. his first impulse is not to fire people. so he has not called for his resignation, and, but this is, this is going to go on for a while, and the investigations will certainly, could yield to other things. one of the most damning things is not only do you have these cooking the books, but you have the cover up, and that certainly seems to be the case in arizona.

>> host: well, on thehill.com you have that the former senator, bob kerrey, democrat of nebraska, called on shinseki to go. why does it matter that the former senator is saying this? >> guest: well, in these type of scandals whether you're a republican or democrat, if the other party is calling for you to step aside, well, that's common place. if it's members of your own team and we've seen that over years where different politicians have gotten into trouble, when your own team turns on you, that's when you're in trouble, and maybe this could be the beginning of -- and also we're in election season. so, certainly, democrats don't want to be defending shinseki when he's in a moment of fire. so maybe this could be the first of several democrats. we'll see. >> guest: and bob kerrey, he's a veteran, navy seal, lost his leg in action. so he brings a bit more weight to the argument. >> host: right. as the hill notes, served in

vietnam war as a u.s. navy seal officer, was awarded the medal of honor for his heroism in combat. after his service he was afacient of the va for eight or -- a patient of the va for eight or nine years. first phone call, actually, bob is in virginia, democratic caller. hi, bob, you're on the air. go ahead. >> caller: hello, greta. >> host: morning. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. yeah. what really bothers me is how they're saying that hillary has brain damage. and i'd like to know what bob thinks about that. you know, she's a terrible secretary of state, she's responsible for benghazi, bow coharam, everything. boko haram, it's just horrible what they're doing to hillary, and it's outrageous. and karl rove and the republicans. please respond to that. >> host: okay, bob, all right. your thoughts, bob cusack, on the debate.

>> guest: yeah. big, big controversy last week, and it's going to go on for a while because in all likelihood hillary clinton is going to be running for president. i believe she'd be 69 if she were elected which would be roughly the age that john mccain would have been but younger than ronald reagan. republicans, obviously, didn't like the way rove did it and how he did it and, clearly, it's going to be -- when you run for president, there's so much pressure for you to the release your health records, and she has had health issues before. bill clinton attacking cal rove's -- karl rove's attack on his wife. so this is certainly, whether it's health or her reign at the state department, she's going to have to make the case for benghazi. she said that was her biggest regret at the state department. so every candidate has strengths and weaknesses, ask as far as her record -- and as far as her record at the state department, i think she's going to have to make a compelling case, this is what i did, number one, number two, number three, and benghazi

could have been handled differently. >> host: the select committee that was created in the house to investigate what happened on september 11th, 2012, do they call the former secretary of state before them? >> guest: that's a big question, and would be a huge risk but also a lot of republicans feel like they have to call her. she, obviously, testified before congress in the senate, and i think they probably will. and it's going to be quite a theater if she, if they do call on her to testify. but that's what republicans said is that the initial investigation that she was not questioned on it. so, now, i think republicans are going to need to say these are the three questions that we don't know about benghazi, and they started to come up with their message on that. big question, of course, is whether democrats are going to participate in this special committee. they have not made the decision. they've been divided on it. and there had been talk of boycotting it completely.

they want equal representation. there's seven republicans on it, they want seven democrats. boehner has said that's not going to happen, you're going to get five. we're in the majority. senate republicans have told us they want to have a house-senate special committee, but the senate democrats are not going for this. what will the democrats do? it's up to nancy pelosi. will she appoint one member? i think when push comes to shove, i think they're going to put in five democrats, as many as they can get on the committee, because when hillary clinton's in the room, democrats are going to want to defend her if they do ask either subpoena or ask ask her to testify. >> guest: yeah. i think initially this idea that they could delegitimize the committee by not appointing members has probably lost some power. now, at the white house they did talk about this idea of naming one. they were ceding that decision to pelosi realizing that she had this kind of political issue and

political problem with her members. but this idea of naming one just so that they could keep track of what was going on in committee so that they would have staff at depositions of, that they took was something that had brought some attention at the white house. ultimately, if they realize that delegitimizing is not the path to take, then might as well just appoint five to it. >> host: and yet at the same time this select committee is about to launch, about to get under way this week, you've got the house oversight and government reform committee continuing on with its investigation, working with the state department to try to get secretary of state john kerry there before them. he's had some traveling conflicts. what's going on, bob cusack, between the leadership there and who's really doing this investigation? >> guest: well, remember, boehner didn't want to have the special committee in the first place. it was a resolution by congressman frank wolf, and he

got a lot of support, a lot of cosponsors, republican cosponsors. and boehner initially resisted because he said we want to go through regular order, and i want to defer to my committee chairmen, most notably darrell issa, the chairman of the oversight committee. so, but then the pressure and the -- there was an e-mail from a white house adviser, ben rhodes, that came out not because of any investigation, but because of a lawsuit brought by judicial watch, a conservative group, through the freedom of information act. and that's when boehner said, okay, we need more power. we've got to step it up. and the committee chairmen were not craze i about this idea -- crazy about this idea. but he's saying they can continue doing their informations. interesting -- investigations. interestingly, he did not put any of the committee chairmen on this special committee. john kerry is going to testify, it's just a matter of when. and remember, john kerry was not there when benghazi happened. but as far as the documents

republicans claim that the state department has not been a as forthcoming as they should be. >> host: and as bob cusack was saying, this is a headline from fox news' web site, that republicans want new clinton testimony on benghazi and float the possibility of a subpoena there. we're talking with bob cusack and jim kuhnhenn, white house reporter with the associated press. taking your questions, your comments about the week ahead in washington. we'll go richard in texas, a republican caller. hi, richard. >> caller: good morning, greta. >> host: good morning. >> caller: look, i just wanted to ask the panel their assessment on the unemployment extension. i note that the labor secretary, i believe, recently raised the issue again. is this issue finally dead, or does it still have life? >> host: jim kuhnhenn. >> guest: well, certainly the white house is still pushing for it, but congress just hasn't acted. they haven't had, the numbers aren't there. bob might have a better insight into, you know, what the

politics are, but this just hasn't moved. i think partly some of the steam gets, goes away from this issue as some of the unemployment numbers have come down and as you've seen hiring increase. but that's a fluctuating number, and, you know, you go month to month and then suddenly you're back to a low hiring by the private sector. but i don't know what -- >> guest: yeah, i agree. i mean, the momentum for this bill -- earlier this year it looked like it was going to happen. it stalled in the senate, and then through a lot of negotiation they got it through the senate. so this is another bill that, a lot of bills that the house passed are sitting in the senate, this is a bill like immigration that is stuck in the republican-led house. conservatives don't feel the pressure to act on this, and i do think as you mentioned, jim, that the dropping unemployment rate hurts the effort to move

this bill. and really we haven't seen the push from the white house has been intense at times, but it's faded. >> guest: yeah. >> guest: and i don't, i think the chances of this bill are very slim. >> host: steve next this westport point in massachusetts, independent caller. hi, steve. >> caller: hi. i'd like to make just a couple observations. one of your guests mentioned that john boehner and the president don't have such a great relationship. and they probably don't, but i think it's more the fact that i think john john boehner would like to have a good relationship. your quest mentioned that the great debt crisis where they could have had a brand bargain, they were only a hand shake away, you know, the president did everything he could. the tea party kept raising the bar. first they wanted $1.50 for every, of cuts for every dollar of revenue, then it went to $2.50. the president trumped them and went to $3. john boehner said you got

everything you want. tea party said you shake his hand, we're going to destroy the party. john boehner could have gone down in history. i think the problem isn't so much the relationships, i think it's -- it's not even the policies. no heart what the president seems to want to do -- no matter what the president seems to want to do, there's going to be that tea party faction that just says we're against it. >> host: okay. bob cusack. >> guest: yeah. i mean, there's to doubt that john boehner has to watch the tea party guys in his conference and can the caller mentioned they were -- and the caller mentioned they were very close to a grand bargain, extremely close, which would have been very controversial. it would have been tough to move, certainly, through the house. but it raises the issue what is john boehner's legacy as speaker? and that could have been one, the grand bargain, but it didn't happen. could it be immigration? could be. but other than that maybe, you know, curbing spending here or there, but i'm sure that he wouldn't saw it publicly, but

that crosses john boehner's mind. >> host: tomorrow is primary day in several states, and this is a test, you said, for tea party candidates. what does it mean if tomorrow comes and some of these tea party candidates have won, what does it mean if some of them have lost? >> guest: well, so far we have this fight on the right. and there's a fight on the left, too, and hillary clinton, and there's some people who want to have a primary with her, a4glzoñ contested primary. so there's some concern with her on the left. but still the bigger intra-party fight is on the right, and it's establishment versus tea party. and be we saw this play out in different pnsp)ies over the last couple of elections where republicans feel they elected unelectable people. they won primary and then lost in the general election including a challenger to harry reid a few years ago. this is another test. there's a tea party challenge to mitch mcconnell. it looks like mcconnell is going to win and could win big.

if he wins big, that's a big deal. there's also a contested primary in georgia where some republicans don't want congressman paul brown to win. they think he could struggle in the general. so we have this fight, and right now the establishment is kind of fighting back and winning. we shall see if mike simpson loses, congressman mike simpson loses his seat because of a tea party challenge, that's a win for the tea party. so tomorrow's a big day. and we're going to see it throughout the next several months. >> host: right. is the white house watching this, and do they sort of strange their strategy, you know, for the rest of the year depending on what happens in these primaries? >> guest: well, i think what the white house sees here is a, whether the tea party is weakened by this or not, they still see the republican party as a whole having move today a more conservative stance. and i think that affects how they view and how they create their strategy for dealing with congress. you know, there's really not

that much more other than immigration as a slim possibility that's going, that's out there for these two sides to negotiate over. so, but i think and my colleague, chuck babbington, wrote this over the weekend. this idea that even as the -- even if the tea party suffers these losses, you have seen the party in general move to the right. at the same time, you've seenz1 the chamber of commerce come in as kind of a representative of the establishment of the republican party weigh in in this race. you mentioned the georgia race. i think they put money in for jack kingston in that race. >> guest: uh-huh, yep. >> guest: so they're trying to affect these races as well. but again, i think that fundamentally there's been, that the needle has moved a little bit to the right because of the tea party whether they win these races or not. >> host: a couple of viewers weighing in on twitter: it's clear the majority of u.s.

citizens are against amnesty. the president's release of over 36,000 illegal alien criminals is unconscionable, and bill king says: why is not moving on immigration, minimum wage, unemployment and states not accepting -- expanding medicare not hurting the republicans? bob cusack, is it not hurting the republicans? >> guest: well, it's not. i mean, if you look at the election, i mean, the math favors republicans in this year because democrats have to defend far more seats than republicans. so history also shows that the six-year, seven-year itch when you have the president's party, second term, midterm not a good situation. so overall this has been frustrating to congressional democrats because on these individual polling issues, they do pretty well. immigration is one that is not a top, shoe as far as one or two -- issue as far as one or two jobs in the economy always trumps it. the white house democrats -- >> host: let me just jump in because even with the hispanic population, it polls below jobs in the economy.

>> guest: yeah. we were looking at some congressional web sites and challengers. two things we looked at; one, how do they deal with the affordable care act, did they mention obamacare, and also immigration. and certainly, we found a lot of democrats were not talking about obamacare, maybe health care in general, but not the law which is not very popular. on immigration surprisingly, not a lot of people were mentioning immigration unless it's in certain districts where it's a top issue. >> host: next from california, republican caller. go ahead. >> caller: hi, good morning. >> host: morning. >> caller: i have a couple comments. i'm a republican, and i feel very discouraged. the two representatives there representing the media, i watch c-span very thoroughly and pretty much -- [inaudible] other media outlets. i watched the hearings in congress and on the floor when the bills cop -- come up.

and i do my research. and to see that these two representatives here continuously misinform the public -- >> host: okay, sophia, what did you hear that was -- >> caller: they're just misrepresenting the information that is out there -- >> host: okay, give me an example. give me an example. >> caller: one example is the fact that just this morning when, when reince priebus was on talking about hillary clinton about her health records and her age and so forth, age doesn't have too much of anything to do with anything about the records, her medical records. just as much as one of the republicans on the republican side of any person that's running whether it be rand paul. because look at his record and his history of what he has done

as a politician. >> host: okay, so what did you hear -- >> caller: and his mentality. he has not given any information to the public. chris christie -- >> host: i'm going to move on. we'll go to steve this trout run, pennsylvania. republican caller. hi, steve. >> caller: morning. boy, there's a lot of good topics here. immigration and all the scandals, va. i'm an eight-year vet, and i'm tea party. the first thing about in this -- about this hillary clinton and the bushs, it's like the two -- why is it everything focused on the two? that can save the country? hillary, benghazi's a big thing with her. and her accomplishments, i don't

see any. >> host: okay. all right, steve. so let me ask you this, is the remaining month here of this legislative session, is it about 2014, or is it about 2016? bob cusack? >> guest: i think it's both. certainly, democrats are saying the investigation on men gaz sigh's all about 2016, and it's all weakening hillary clinton who when you look at it, republicans are very hungry to get back in the white house, and are there going to be other democratic challengers other than hillary clinton? yes, there'll be a few. will there be any substantial challenge to her? i don't think so. a lot of people -- some people think elizabeth warren's going to run, she's said she's not, i don't think she runs. and on the republican side there's going to be a lot of people running. so the legislative agenda, certainly 2014, the big question is can republicans win back the senate? we've seen some popular bills where republicans, there are enough republicans that it moved through the senate.

you can't blame the senate republicans, that's what they say, blame the house. the house republicans are in a position where they expect to pick up some seats. now, democrats think they'll pick up seats, but the chances of democrats winning back the house unless something dramatic happens in the next several months, that's just not going to happen. >> host: so, jim kuhnhenn, for the white house is about 2014 or 2016? >> guest: well, they don't have that much interest. he doesn't have a dog in the 2016 fight, ask he's been very careful not to give a nod to east hillary clinton or joe biden -- to either hillary clinton or joe biden. but when it comes to 2014, the one thing they're relying on the president to do is to raise money. a lot of candidates really don't want him campaigning with them, but they certainly like the way that he makes a pitch for donors, because he's still very effective at doing that. in fact, every week has been sprinkled with fundraising events, and this week he's doing

one here and one in chicago. the one example that doesn't prove my point is last week, i guess, when he went to little rock, and senator pryor invited him to come. senator pryor has been trying to distance himself from obama policies, but on, when you have a disaster like what the tornado wreaked all over the state of arkansas, having the president there is more a symbol of bringing, that you have the clout to bring the most powerful person in the country into your state, and i think that was an effective way for pryor to use the president without having to embrace his policies. >> host: bob, you said at the top that in the senate you could see a vote week on sylvia burwell to head up hhs. a shakeup over at white house, moving some positions around. jim kuhnhenn, san antonio mayor -- >> guest: julian castro. so what's the president doing

here? >> guest: well, he's bringing in sean donovan who's the current secretary of housing into the white house to be his budget director. that's what he wants. and then moving julian castro who's popular, well liked at the white house, he's one of two brothers who have kind of made a name for themselves in politics, his brother joaquin is a member of congress. and so when, if donovan goes to the bunt office, the -- budget office, the omb, he would be replacing sylvia burwell who will have a vote this week on being secretary of health and human services. and then castro would come in as secretary of housing if he is confirmed by the senate. it's an interesting move because castro really is kind of a known figure, rising star within the democratic party, but his base is as mayor of san antonio and,

perhaps, within the hispanic community this is an attempt perhaps to kind of raise his visibility, give a hispanic more prominence and, certainly, the white house has been, has come under some criticism for not having more hispanics in positions of authority within the cabinet. tom perez is the one that stands out at labor department. >> host: we'll go to jesse next this michigan. democratic caller. hi, jesse. >> caller: hi, greta. yeah, i've got two comments i want to make. can you hear me? >> host: yeah, we can hear you, jesse, go ahead. >> caller: okay. when it first come out about how the veterans were being treated at these hospitals and things, and they're saying obama said he wanted to -- [inaudible] why you want to add a billion dollars to something that's already being wasted, the

biggest waste in the department we've got? i want to give a billion dollars to you. why not try to clean it up instead of adding more money on to it? the other thing i want to say is i watch c-span quite a bit, and i watch rachel maddow because she brings stuff up we don't talk about. [inaudible] you know what, they don't mind wasting money like this, but when it comes to food stamps or social security, you know, social security's going to go broke. when is the military ever going to go broke? i'm not against the military, but we know how much waste goes on there. we know about it. >> host: okay, all right. okay, sir, we've got your point, bob cusack, let me hand you the defense spending one because, as you said, the defense authorization bill's on floor this week in the house.

>> guest: yes. we had the sequestration deal that was struck. boater parties didn't like it, but they couldn't get a grand bargain. we had the sequestration through the deal struck by patty murray and paul ryan late last year softened that. but still there's a big debate about defense spending and food stamp pend ising as the caller mentioned. that was a big issue in the farm bill which finally passed, and they made some cuts to it, but not as many as the house republicans wanted. these kinds of debates are going to go on for years. until some republicans and some democrats say if you look at medicare and social security, reforms have to be made because these policemans, especially medicare -- these programs, especially medicare, are headed for bankruptcy. >> host: and, jim kuhnhenn, the caller was calling for wrapping

up -- >> guest: well, you know, i think ultimately congress has to decide what they're going to do through appropriations and whether to, whether this is kind of problem that requires financing or requires change in leadership. i don't know that the white house is making that big of a push for an infusion of money before they make a determination as to what the problem is in the first place. >> host: we'll go to bill in scranton, pennsylvania, republican caller. hi, bill. >> caller: thank you for your time, folks. >> host: morning. >> caller: my question today, the irs scandal. i think this runs deep, and i think this is being undercoverred bigtime. the abc, cbs, this nbc networks have not given it any coverage, and the ap hasn't given it much coverage either. from citizens united to this day, carl levin, the latest news on carl carl levin. why isn't this getting