series on the magazine series on food security around the world. and the role that crime it plays. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. ♪ good morning, everyone, this wednesday, may seventh, 2014. the house could vote as early as today to find former irs official, lois lerner, in contempt. eric holder is being asked to prosecute her for refusing to testify before congress. live coverage on c-span. also, janet yellen will be before the joint economic committee today. look for coverage on c-span.org. we begin this morning with climate change. in the release yesterday, the third national climate

assessment from the white house, arguing that the u.s. is at risk now from disaster coming from disruptive weather. what is your take? is climate change happening now? you can also send us a tweet, http://twitter.com/cspanwj, or join the conversation on facebook.com/c-span, and you can .-mail us, journal@c-span.org a little bit about the 840 page report. this is on their website. assessmental climate summarizes the impact of climate change on the united states now and in the future. a team of over 300 experts, guided by --

host: the website is very interactive. if you're interested, go there and play around with it. call, e-mail, send us your thoughts as to whether you think climate change is happening now and what should be done about it. there is a washington post piece courtesy of the museum -- newseu m. herea look at this map that they have. mapping climate change, observed and projected effects of climate change across the united states according to this latest national climate assessment. take a look at the northwest, they are expecting lower water supply in summer due to earlier snow melt. in the southwest, increased competition for scarce water and more wildfires. in alaska, shrinking glaciers, thawing permafrost.

hawaii, decreased food and water supplies. the rates of -- the great planning -- the great plains, higher demand for water and energy. the midwest, higher crop yields offset by heat waves, droughts, floods. the northeast, heat waves, extreme precipitation and coastal flooding, and in the southeast, more competition for water and risks related to hurricanes. your thoughts on this? just outsidealler, washington, d.c., you are on the air. i am thinking is that after the litany of what you just explained of all the things that will possibly happen -- and has happened, we are seeing it every day all over the world -- there are still deniers. people who will hear what you have just said and will claim that there is no such thing as climate change. startk that we need to calling it climate crisis and we have to act now. in congress there are still

people who are uneducated or unwilling to see the truth and they will keep us from actually taking action on this crisis. it is a crisis. should it be the federal government or states acting on this? local communities taking the initiative to protect their resources in specific regions? caller: what is happening in china affects korea. this is a global issue and it is a global problem, not just federal. scott, good morning, independent caller. this is the first time i have called since isaac. i have been preaching for years about the global climate change. an answer tore is

this and i would like to answer it quick, we could be energy self-sufficient. the very first diesel motor was made to run off of hemp diesel. we could go to a marijuana fuel and as our plants grow, it runs on photo to -- photosynthesis that purifies the air. that would be one step. but there are many things that we would have to do to do a change. i was in new orleans after hurricane isaac. aboutuld have thought hurricane sandy hitting new york city? we definitely have a problem that is definitely out there. we have to get our heads out of the sand and realize there are simple answers, totally self-sufficient, energy usa, we can run it off of hemp you'll. it was done before we ran anything else. thank you very much, have a good day. host: on twitter it says this --

union, washington, what are your thoughts this morning? what the person just said about grants, they seem to be in bed with following the money. i am objective. i want to know what the truth is. i remember a congressional meeting from about four years ago. it showed that this was a cyclical thing. that the system had been warming at a record rate. one thing that the scientists , the environmentalists should focus on pie tins on the

shelves had been moving at a rapid rate. this is a religion of global warming. volcanoes, if you study them on the discovery channel, they have 11 pounds more co2. poisonous gas in the atmosphere, we are making changes, but not at the cost of an elective issuese to pay for this when many countries around the world, like china, don't pay any attention to it. the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, the equivalent is 40,000 people. that is the percentage of our atmosphere that includes carbon dioxide. host: you said you are open to

making some changes. what do you mean? first of all, carbon access comes from air conditioners and automobiles. fuel to the keepruction systems that carbon sequestered, anything that has to do with the manufacturing process -- i am not for shutting down the coal industry because coal is somehow bad. your father -- not your father, but somebody's father had rubber or plastic made from petroleum, it seems like the left side of the i/o wants to jump to this religion, like everything oil is bad. i am for sensible constraints, but not at the cost of bringing us back to the stone age. read,all right,

republican from union, washington. front page this morning -- host: on the jump page, in the paper, "usa today," they do cite this -- host: so, if you google nature

climate change, you can find the journal online and then you can read the science in the article. is cited inthat "usa today." let's go to tony, next. independent caller. good morning. read my lips, no carbon tax. this is a ploy to implement a carbon tax. these people are supposed to be so advanced on what is happening in the atmosphere, they are ignoring the fact that they are doing this geo-engineering. all anyone has to do is look up in the sky and see the white streaks, it is geo-engineering to give the heart machine, -- h .a.r.t., the machine is to

manipulate the climate. these people are supposed to be so advanced on what is happening in the atmosphere? they try to pretend that this big elephant in the room, the project, google it, are spraying in the sky. they do most of it at night. but then you can see it in the morning. you can see the effects of the changes to the climate. they call it weapon modification. world,e going around the telling people that if they don't comply with them economically, there will be weapon modification. onto all right, let's move kevin, new york, democratic caller. your thoughts? carbon tax idea of

is behind what is happening right now. we have on the planet plants that utilize photosynthesis in the spring in the northern climates. these plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. when the plants die, they go to the forest floor. after flooding and more and more millennia go on, they get their he deeper and deeper. the planet has a carbon tax system where carbon is taken out of the air and put into the ground. we havee early 1800s been digging up that carbon, burning it and releasing it, thereby upsetting the balance. we live on a rock. oceans, it has plants, but it is a rock. there is no father sky, there is no mother earth. there is no caring. the planet doesn't care. we are hoping and -- hoping that somewhere in the world there is an entity that cares about us,

the only people who have any type of control over what is going on right now of our current climate situation are the people. we have a situation where we tried to describe the situation to people and people will sometimes agree. but then when you mention the things that you have to do in order to make the situation right? suddenly they start screaming it is government control. well, someone has to take control. big business is not helping. there will be controls that are necessary, and i hate to say that, because i know that that is the big bugaboo. does that mean higher prices, higher utility bills, etc., for americans? look at what president obama did, he increased café standards. that is a simple thing. your car needs to get more miles

per gallon. simple things could slow the process. if you want to do severe things to stop the process that would imply not just increased costs, but pre-much a total redoing of the weighted we live in terms of we need to live closer together, we would not be able to buy and drive big gas guzzling cars. those are the types of decisions that will help to stop the process. we could slow the process with things like café standards. host: the white house released the third national climate assessment yesterday, saying that climate change is happening now and is impacting the united states, our economy, and our health care. we want to get your thoughts on this -- also, send us a tweet, or

facebook us. here is what the republican party in the senate had to say. mitch mcconnell was on the senate floor yesterday, talking about the white house and what he presumes the white house is trying to do with this climate change assessment. [video clip] we expect the president to talk about the weather at the white house. resuming his call for a national energy tax. i am sure he will get loud cheers from liberal elites. the kinds of people who leave a giant carbon footprint and then lecture everyone else about low flow toilets. that was missed -- that was mitch mcconnell yesterday, talking about what the president is doing by putting this forward. they had a forum with the panel scientist talking about this

third national climate assessment. the report was 840 pages. google that and you can look into it yourself. it is an interactive website, you can go there and play around with it, see what you think about what they are predicting here. yesterday at the white house, at this panel discussion, was the white house chief of staff, john podesta. this is what he had to say about the report. [applause] [video clip] >> i know that this is a tremendous contribution to our knowledge on climate change. thatderscores something many of us in the administration and this room have been saying for some time now, that climate change is no longer a distant threat. i don't doubt that there will be some media reports that tried to place the climate assessment within an ongoing climate change debate in washington, but what this report actually tells us is

that there is no debate. the reports on the intergovernmental panel that came out earlier this year told us that there is no debate. an overwhelming majority of scientists tell us, frankly, there is no debate. climate change is real, it is being driven by human activity and is happening right now. these are the fact, despite what those who deny the facts and seek to mislead the public have to say. podesta,t was john yesterday, white house counselor, talking about this assessment. this tweet from yesterday, "fueled by climate change, it int the economy $100 billion 2012." you can see the pictures here with the graphic. here is a tweet from steve who responded what john podesta had to say the

other day -- to sarah, ino edgewater, maryland. your thoughts? sarah? you are on the air. sarah, maryland? ontoight, let me move terri terry, oregon. hello, terry. thank you for taking my call. you look beautiful, as ever. i would like to comment on the man from new york talking about climate change and café standards for automobiles. i completely agree with him, but i would like to take it a step further and propose one simple thing that we do in this country will change the climate for the better in the future. ,imply get out of your cars

keep them if you want, but don't use them often. i lost my license two years ago due to an accident that was not my fault. it was a drunk driver. anyway, i have not been driving. been that time i have taking public transportation, which is excellent in oregon. we really are ahead of the rest of the country and that. anyway, in the process, i became wealthier, because i spent less money. healthier, i lost 60 pounds. my arthritis got better, my back got better, my knees felt better. i am 60 years old and most days, most men and women guess my age as around 40. so, i really believe in this stuff. that you happen is will slowly, over time, you will see these differences.

the payoffs are tremendous. i really believe that that is all we have to do. sorry, henry ford. thomas, republican caller, your thoughts? of these taxes that they are going to lay on us, it will create a huge burden for everybody. taxing us is not going to help the planet one bit. all it is going to do is put us in the poor house. wanted to do something, we would start addressing india and china, who are creating reams and reams of carbon pollution. but why blame us? will keep taking your thoughts and getting your comments on climate change. is it happening now? that according to the national climate assessment, the third one put out by the white house, yesterday. this from harry reid -- what is

the republican answer? they deny it is happening at all." leadership said -- "instead of making the environment drastically better, the president strategy will make the climate for unemployed americans even worse." we are getting your thoughts from outside washington this morning, your take on climate change. in other news, "the charlotte observer" had this headline this inning, drawing the -- "hey -tillis battle draws nation's battle hagan-tillis draws nation's eyes." the "fayetteville observer" this morning.

"tillis wins gop primary care go -- primary." the: so, that in "fayetteville observer" this morning. national section of "the new york times," has analysis on these primary races. establishment republicans see victory, "conservatives have already spent millions attacking ms. hagan. a poll last month -- host: yesterday there were primaries held in ohio, where opponents,r held off

but north carolina attracted the most interest for both parties. also, on election 2014 headlines there are ay," number of folks trying to return to congress -- you can see the pictures, a few there. 16 current u.s. house members have served nonconsecutive terms, according to the biographical director of the u.s. congress, 14 of them returning in 2010 alone. keep your eye on that. on benghazi? a health battle takes shape to investigate and ghazi, there will be a vote later this week on setting up a select committee to investigate what happened on september 11, 2012, in benghazi, libya, seeking to centralize the investigative authority on the attack."

host: that is the latest on the benghazi investigation. the headline this morning from many papers, the world news , "kidnapping of more

girls adds to pressure on nigeria." also yesterday, 20 female u.s. senators sent this to president obama -- host: here is what the president had to say. [video clip] team and sending in a

we are glad that nigeria has excepted the help. obviously, what is going on is awful. and as a parent, i can't imagine what they are going through. but this organization has been one of the worst regional or local terrorist organizations in the world. we are going to do everything we can to assist them in recovering these young women more broadly, but we will have to really tackle a pernicious problem , ande that country organization that has carried out ruthless attacks and killed thousands over the last several years. talkingesident obama about the situation in nigeria and the help that will come from the united states. back to this morning's topic, climate change, is it happening now? thoughts. get your thomas, california, republican caller. good morning to you. caller: good morning.

host: what are your thoughts on climate change? caller: climate change is going to happen, it doesn't matter. much they tax us. but let's touch the news points you were talking about. a man came out of the fisa court with an page judgment on how broke the constitution, meaning he is on the obama kill list in california. host: what does this have to do with climate change? this -- well -- if we don't get this guy to stop killing americans -- host: all right, we will move on. richard, good morning. old.r: i am 60 years when we were in school, elementary school, middle school, high school, the marines, we were all told about

climate change. people in the 1960's denied it. they denied it in the 1970's. in florida they lost the whole neighborhood. their ocean was so high, the tide came right up -- came right up to their living room. this is insane. we will never fix it in this country. we were forbidden to be driven in the united states and we sent them to india. the other countries in this world do not do the same thing we are doing. a losinge are fighting battle. i really do. this is insane. we are losing glaciers. everything is going crazy. i know there is big money behind it. richard, can i ask you about the military in the 1960's? what were they saying? back then they were

telling us about how the earth was changing and we had to have more vehicles ready for it, this was during the vietnam war and it was starting to show then. back then they had multi fuel vehicles that they would get rid of to go through war, nonpolluting fuel, like straight diesel. i think it ran on anything. thereuld put anything in and it would smoke real bad. even the government realized it back then. i don't understand that people don't understand this. ken, beaumont,, texas, what do you think? of all, this is a very serious issue that needs to be looked at. i am glad that folks are doing that. but if you look historically to the records, there has been continuing climate change for eons. even as far back as the sahara

thatt there is evidence there was a major forest there at one time. they have found evidence of large forests offshore of alabama and in the gulf of mexico, 60,000 years old. so, there are lots of changes that are happening. i think that the effort here is to create additional funds through taxes, national geographic just recently wrote an extensive article on co2 production and other greenhouse gases. it was a high opening that looked at other countries and where the u.s. ranked. we pale in comparison to some of these others, like china and india. that is something that we really need to look at. i think that the issue that we need to pay attention to is on a global scale, we have volcanoes expelling lots of co2 into the atmosphere.

there are lots of things that we cannot control, even the greenhouse gases, like water vapor. around the country, in texas, supplying water to municipalities, they had tremendous issues with evaporation coming off these lakes. not be gettingll rid of the water supplies for dallas, houston, these other places. used to run an agenda without properly addressing all the stated facts from an objective viewpoint. host: on the front page of "the houston chronicle" this morning, courtesy of the newseum, "climate change damage is felt here, beyond." storms, the destruction could become common.

drought, some regions might get too much rain, but others will get none." front page of "the houston chronicle" this morning about climate change. caller, what do you think this morning? in terms ofller: whether i think climate change is happening? i believe it strongly enough that i spent 100 $10,000 on an electric car and put solar panels in the roof, i will be giving my personal transportation from the sun. not that that will make a big dent in the world's problem here. i have been following this for 10 years, reading the reports. if you read those reports, if you follow them over time, they are going through a bit of a shift right now. they used to talk about what we need to do to prevent climate change, now they are talking about what we need to do to prepare for it. when you look at those reports

and see those presentations, scientists from 100 countries all over the world? it is absolutely frightening. anyone who thinks that climate change is not real is crazy, i think. can i ask you, what kind of electric car did you get that cost that much? caller: tesla. host: what costs so much? caller: to replace the battery will cost $35,000 until elon musk can get his battery factory build here to bring the price down. but back to climate change, that is just what an individual can do. which is not going to make a big impact. but it is at least something i can do. in terms of the global climate change? i don't think, i know, 99% of species that existed on this

planet are all extinct. we will be the first that did it to ourselves. all right, caller. the calls are mounting to oust the veterans a share -- veterans affairs chief. and now theseki, latest republican has been a -- added to the list to step down. secretary since a key has been given "a tremendous amount of latitude because of his military record and no one disputes that, but at some point you have to ask -- shouldn't somebody be "?red others have called for his he has been ahead of the department of veterans affairs since 2009. from "the wall street journal," the veteran affairs chief told

"the wall street journal" in an interview that he won't resign. this is what he said -- ont: so, that is the latest veterans and their health care. back to climate change, the front page of "the washington times" has this story.

host: "the washington times" this morning on climate change said --

with us for down newsmakers, by the way, so if you missed that, go to our website, c-span.org, and you can see it there. tom, independent caller. good morning, what do you think about climate change? the weather is changing in new jersey, anyway. it is not like it used to be. no one, no individual can really know, but i know that , likeically industry has the tobacco industry and the us pestis industry, they have opened up on science. think that that is what we

have going on here. the fossil fuel industry has billions of dollars in the ground that they want to dig up. so, they are going to hire people who are going to say this . in any event, what i called to callers arounder what individuals can do, one of just stophings is eating this here and go to a vegan diet. no meat, no dairy. it reduces the carbon footprint on food. in other words, a person who fivea vegan diet creates percent of the carbon that a person who eats a standard american diet does. int: you might be interested this piece from "the washington journal" this morning, we will be taking a look at a new series launched by national geographic

with their may issue that takes a look at food, we are going to have to feed 9 billion people by 2050, how do you do that without overwhelming the planet? one of the ways that they suggest is that you have to change the way that we consume food. of theirne suggestions. we will look into it a little bit more here in the last hour of our "washington journal." hill,"dline in "the republicans will not let them use a room for their unemployment event. "an event highlighting unemployment insurance over the use of a hearing room -- democrats accuse republicans of

barring them from using the committee hearing room for the purpose of talking about the legislation to extend unemployment insurance." we cover the event, our website talks about it a little bit at the beginning of that event. georgetown, texas, republican caller, coleman, good morning. caller: good morning. carbon is the issue. proposed is being the same solution for global warming. climate change and global synonymous basically in the solution being proposed, so therefore this has to be propaganda, because they change the definition of global warming in order tohange fool the public because the climate always changes. freezing this morning. carbon control is the thing

being proposed. vegetation grows best in higher co2 levels, feeding the world is an issue. if you restrict the plant food, carbon dioxide, you tend to then starve the world. we have got really confused propagandists dealing with solutions to something that man cannot control. what we haveway, been showing you on the screen is from this national climate assessment report, 840 pages. if you go to the website for this report, it is interactive. you can play around with it, look at oceans, marine resources

on your screen, you can look at the different regions that will be impacted and what they are predicting for the different regions in the united states and it also talks about what could happen worldwide as well. if you google national climate assessment report, their website will come up and you can play around with it. "the washington post" this morning said this about those who are skeptical of this report -- so, that is in "the washington post" this morning. this tweet --

that is jim, on our twitter page. you can join the conversation there. quick news on the papers about ukraine this morning. this headline is from "usa today ear, "according to german officials, ukraine is close to war, nearing a point of new -- no return." piece, "u.s. peace sanctions trigger in eastern ukraine referendum." new sanctionse against moscow" according to the president yesterday, repeating russian actions in the ukrainian region of crimea, discussing whether citizens there would rather be part of russia. moscow had announced that russia had annexed the region. the russia and ukraine situation. the front page of "the wall street journal" has this this morning about alibaba.

"offering shares in the u.s. that would value the company at over 100 billion dollars, confirming the scale of its e-commerce operations, one of the largest stock listings in history. this headline, "congress is struggling with the internet tax ." millions of americans could face to taxes this fall as congress struggles with how to extend them expiring moratorium on such levies.

so, that debate is happening in congress, as well as another debate on reining in the nsa. there are rival bills and the judiciary committee is expected on wednesday to mark up and have a compromise version of the bill sponsored by republican from wisconsin, who serves as chairman of the judiciary committee. that is in the papers this morning. more phone call for right now, from david, but we will continue this conversation about climate change throughout today's "washington journal." david, go ahead. caller: good morning. i can give you a good news on the climate change story. september 11, here in connecticut last year, it was 93 degrees. trust me when i don't tell you that it is not up to me, but i was furious. it was sickeningly hot.

now, the good news is that we had an average winter. i am happy with that, but i really don't want it that hot here again next year. [indiscernible] ok, all right, david. we will keep going with this conversation. we will be talking with , and then later, henry waxman will be here with us to give us his take on the topic. we will be right back. ♪ [video clip]

>> we kind of set up our own prison, our own trap. we did not know that we were contributing to it. when you get addicted to drugs, the whole world is built around your need for drugs. i am saying? this beautiful sunrise, this beautiful day, your parents, people love you, but everything gets closed in. everything gets to be about having to go. we ourselves get caught up in the straps. on the other hand, we take it on personally and we can't see, once we are out there, we can't see of the world is really as beautiful as angels and the mentors, the people who care for you. >> an odyssey through love, addiction, and revolution, "it calls you back." by former gang member and current advocate, "luis j rodriguez."

find us on booktv.org. >> c-span's newest book, "sundays at 8:00." >> half the reason i did this book was martha. she was in love with what she referred to as the not too revolution. she wasn't fraud by the not seas, which struck me as a completely strange thing, given what we knew in hindsight, but there she was. >> erik larson, one of 41 unique andes from our book notes q&a conversations. published by public affairs books, now available at your favorite seller. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back, with charles drevna, here to talk about

climate change. the white house is urging strong action, quick action on climate change, saying that it is happening now. let's just begin with your group and who you represent. first of all, thank you for having me. we represent all the refineries and petrochemical producers in the united states. so, every gallon of gasoline, every gallon of diesel, everything that goes into all those household goods and components, everything that we use in our everyday lives. host: one caller even mentioned medical devices. guest: everything. aspirin to asphalt, helmets the , the advances in medicine, the advances and surgeries, the advances in health care, the advances in protecting our troops overseas, everything comes from petrochemicals. the president's national

climate assessment calls for urgent action. what does that mean for the companies you represent? urgentit depends on the action. listening to your callers, you see how emotional the debate is. first of all, we have to take the emotion out of the debate. is there climate change? i could say yes. yes, there has been climate change since the lord rested on the seventh day. the question we have to ask, how much of it is man? and even with the report i still think there are a lot of questions about that. and what do we do about it? what are the ramifications and outside consequences? i don't think anything -- anyone has looked at this thing holistically and said that going forward, we are talking about something that may happen by the end of the century. these scientists are using models to say that we are anding at a global model

talking about what would happen in a locality. some questions have to be raised, but again, can we just take the temperature down a little bit on this issue? what can bebout done and what should not be done to handle this perceived problem. recall -- we had a call from a republican who said he is open to some changes. are you open to some changes? specifically for the industries that you represent? guest: we are already ahead of that curve. we are investing in efficiencies. it is one of the scientific things that we really need to focus on here. our companies are investing in alternatives, and other things. but one of the problems is -- i think one of your previous this isalluded to it --

a global warming, and as you indicated, now changing over to a global climate change, it is not the lower 48 climate change. we could dot something unilaterally in the united states while the rest of the world is going to be dependent on fossil fuels for a long, long time? india. china and they are burning a coal plant per week. just keeping up with their here in the united states we are prohibiting the strip -- this construction. it does not make sense to penalize the american consumer, the american economy, when indeed this is going on, if it is going on, it calls for global reaction. you see what is happening in europe right now. they were the first group of countries to sign on to the keio though protocols.

the first countries not to be able to meet the targets. in the united states we did not sign on, but guess what? our admissions are the lowest they have been in 20 years. we beat the system. to impactt can we do this potential change while having a manufacturing renaissance brought back to the bringingates, while jobs back to the united states, while gaining leadership in economic development? those are the questions that have to be discussed holistic way. host: are you denying that climate change exists? guest: like i said, since the lord rested there has been climate change. the question is -- how much of it is man made? how much of it can we control? what are the unintended consequences? you think that the

companies that you represent contribute to the co2 emissions? guest: well, we are people. people contribute. host: but the company and its products -- >> guest: let's face it, co2 comes from the burning of fossil fuel. the question is -- what do you do? look at that report, i looked at the models that they used, the report says that there is a preponderance, for lack of a better term, the other side. i hate to say it that way, but let's call it the other side. science is sold -- science is settled. science is never settled. science was settled we would still be using bloodletting. science ishing, settled, but the findings keep changing. so, i think we need to take a step back and see -- is this whole document, is it a

scientific document? partially scientific? partially a politically scientific document? done.t what can be if russia, china, india, brazil, the developing world decides -- which they have been, what is the point? report was quickly labeled as alarmist by some, "but representatives from oil companies and environmental the assessments finding." this is a quote from chevron, "chevron recognizes and shares the concerns of government and the concerns about climate change." guest: as do we. but the question is, this whole report, is it based on total science? or is some of it based on clinical science? host: what part of it do you think is based on political science, politics? did notdmittedly, i

read all the pages. i read a good portion. host: 840 pages. guest: right, right. one of the things that jumped out at me, unequivocally over the last 50 years they have faced all of the changes in climate that are attributable to man-made emissions. and that the models that they use to predict what will happen in 15, 20, 80 years from now, the models that they use that are global models are looking at predicting at what will happen in the regions. it is disconcerting that every time there is a hurricane or a flood that the emotional part comes out and says -- see, global climate change. not to be so biblical, but we have been having floods since noah. what: that level --host:

about the notion that the level of disruptive climate has increased over the last 50 years? katrina,ck when we had we said that this was it, the definitive signs that -- the definitive sign that we would have more and more hurricanes, year after year. what has happened since then? the frequency of those have not been what they predicted. but again, i think we are falling into that trap, though, of is it or isn't it? the question right now is about what can be done. administration is proposing several things. "usa today" said that they are expanding their climate initiative. "in june, the environmental protection agency is expected to finalize limits proposed last year on new plants. they also propose setting

."andards on the existing ones epa regulations mean for companies like yours? i will join in that chorus, if i may. this administration has had a war on fossil fuels since january of 2009. i believe that they came in with an ideology. the since they had situation of energy in the united states, the policy was based on foreign sources and u.s. energy scarcity. but to that whole dynamic has been turned on its head because of what we have seen that we can do here in the united states and with our friends and neighbors to the north in canada, that is not being energy independent and having our energy secured. you talk about the ranks coming up for existing coal plants,

look what happened this past winter. shutof those coal plants down. we had a cold vortex. we used to just call it winter. happened? we had shortages. people were scrambling for supplies because of that. said earlier,i india, china, they are running coal plants daily. what will happen, particularly? our biggest expense is a refinery, the crude oil that reprocess. -- that we process. the second is electricity. it takes a lot of energy to run a refinery. so, when it electricity prices go up tremendously, which they will, our costs will go up. the consumer will ultimately not in theirit as a meter

homes, they will see it at the pump, because everything is dependent on energy. what is ukraine asking for from the u.s. and its allies? natural gas and oil. not windmills, not solar panels, not ethanol. europe understands, vladimir putin understands that this world economy is based on the hydrocarbon molecule. how much of this report we believe that we can do something about economically and -- ifently and how much the president's plans are enacted -- these plans are way back from 2009 -- how much of

those are going to debilitate our economy and drop it back into a recession that most people think we are still not out of? host: let's get to phone calls. let's start with a tweet. we will hear from joe in colorado. republican. you are on the air with charles drevna. caller: good morning. your guest did say one thing that is not quite true. in his reference to science. the science says that nasa measured the reduction of the polarize caps on mars and compared it to ours. mars does not have the activity we have here. they matched exactly. so what we learned is that climate change is a solar event.

that is what has been ignored. it is frustrating and arrogant of people in our government to say, we are not going to pay attention to this fact. what are we going to do? people are going to start screaming the sky is falling? we now know it is a solar event. we found out what it was. it has been completely ignored. all of this other stuff is hoopla that amounts to nothing. we are running around like chickens with our heads cut off. guest: thanks for the comment. --hink this is one of those we are getting to the he said, she said approach. i think we should turn the temperature down and talk about what is realistic and what we can do. no one is doubting or very few doubting that the climate is changing. what is causing it? is it man-made?

is a natural, as you suggest? it natural, as you suggest? a solar thing, and interplanetary thing? what i want to focus on is what we can do about it. my industry, the: the straight, the people providing -- coal industry, the people providing the standard of living in this country have become the targets of this. there is an interesting piece epstein written by alex , the director of the center for industrial progress. to his credit, he gave us a , the moral use of fossil fuels. he states that something is moral if it helps society, if it

benefits society, if it makes people live longer, if it makes people have a better standard of living, if they can recreate. this is done that over the past 50, 60, 70, 80 years -- it has been fossil fuels. ofsome of the proponents shutdown fossil fuels or go inetarian or have everyone the country by a tesla, it may be nice for some people, but some of these policies -- you asked me what it would do to my industry. we are pretty resilient. what will it do to the people who the president wants to help the most? it will devastate them. host: how so. guest: the cost of everything will rise. when i say the manufacturing

renaissance, i am not just talking about going into petrochemical plant. you talk about the supply chain, all the way down the road. everything we do. we are going to bring jobs back. we are going to be the economic dominant force in the world. or you can implement some of these plans, continue to shut down coal plants, continue to say we will not run on fossil that, and everything touches our daily lives, the price will rise and the poor will be hit first. host: connect the dots. companies will go overseas for the cost of producing whatever they produce is a lot cheaper? guest: perfect example. you see what is going on right now. 425-30 years, people have been putting petrochemical facilities overseas. what has brought them back to a tune of $100 billion of

investments in the united states and petrochemical facilities? low-cost fuel. hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. natural gas and natural gas liquids are in abundance. we can take advantage of it or that ande that -- cede go right back to where we were years ago. no jobs and no manufacturing base. host: science is settled. our understanding is not. mike, what do you think? they are trying to de-industrialized the country so you cannot defend yourself. breaking it down on purpose, by design. they want us to pay a tax to a imf.gn bank, the

change it to climate change because global warming is not even true. they got caught red-handed joking about it in their e-mails. hold on, just a minute. host: we will leave it there. we will go onto dana in virginia. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: i am from ohio. i am curious the amount of carbon dioxide that has been increased in the atmosphere -- 280 parts to 400 parts. that does not seem like a lot, but this is what the effects of climate change and mankind are having on the planet. we burn 23 million gallons of gasoline per day. that produces 20 pounds of carbon per gallon into the atmosphere. the planet, the oceans are not

recycling this the same way. we are having an effect on climate change. sheetse greenland ice completely melt, our oceans will rise 25 feet. they have already increased six inches in the last 50 years. we are supposed to increase at a rate of 1/8 of an inch per year. once these ice sheets melt, we will not be able to get them back. you will lose cities across the world. host: jon huntsman writes an opinion piece in "the new york times." the gop cannot ignore climate change. the approach should be neither one of denial nordstrom is him. -- nor extremism. we are not inspiring confidence, especially among millennial's,

who at least want an intelligent conversation on the subject. we need to plan for the impact of climate change at all levels of government. empower republicans leading those efforts to make decisions and investments that benefit constituents, the party, and the planet. denying science will only hinder the chance for success. he said it much more eloquently than i did in the opening statement. we need to turn the temperature down on this thing and talk about what is real, what are the right things to do. we also need to talk about what we feel are the wrong things to do. industrialtalk about revolution and manufacturing renaissance and energy security and national security and helping our allies in a vacuum.

it only does be talked about together. -- all needs to be talked about together. i'm talking about energy predictions, energy requirements. of the demand is still going to be met by fossil fuels. can we do it more efficiently? are the programs that we can do? control,command and that i believe this administration would like to put on my industry and all fossil fuels, there is also adaptation. we did not have years and years and years ago people living so close to the shore. thing -- how was the best way to get this economy up, get jobs back here, get manufacturing back to the united states, and tackle the problems that are out there? host: here is a tweet.

guest: unfortunately, you cannot make petrochemicals without natural gas liquids. you need those hydrocarbon molecules and their. -- in there. president bush talked about the hydrogen vehicle. that did not come to fruition for any number of reasons. are the building blocks for everything we use. if it is not stone or wood or metal, it is some petrochemicals. host: our guest is charles drevna. in venice,to lowell florida. hello and good morning. thank you for taking my phone

call. i agree with the gentleman who is sitting there. i would just like to say and label at the great american machine. from tech stocks to high gas prices, goldman sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the great depression. manipulate this, too. the global market warming will become a carbon market worth $1 trillion per year. this gentleman is entirely right. there are ways to get to the andlem and and sit down study it, like it should be. bylabel it an urgent action the white house is a lot omore

hot air. that is just what it is. host: we will hear from peter in new york. caller: i agree with you completely on your assessment of global warming. the issue i want you to address about bringing back manufacturing to the united states. right now, it is illegal for the united states to export natural gas and oil. the industry has been working hard to reverse that through the liquid fixation process of natural gas -- liquid fixation process of natural gas. we will also be a net exporter of oil. both of those commodities will be subject to global prices, global usage prices. is instance, in texas, oil

$13 per barrel less than the global price, but yet we still pay the global price because we still import 12% of our oil. if theention is that united states wants to bring manufacturing back to the united states, we need cheap fuel. unfortunately, what the industry is trying to do is get the global price. there was an article recently about gasoline. the price of gasoline was being kept down because we had an oversupply here in the united states. now they have markets and have been exporting gasoline, which is lower the supply, which keeps the price elevated. this is my concern and i do not believe the industry -- they are working in the interest and not in the interest of the american people. guest: first of all, thanks for the comment. there are a couple of miscalculations in your statement. i appreciate you agreeing with me on one part.

unfortunately, i will have to disagree with you on a number of things. it is not illegal to export natural gas, you just have to get a permit to do it. the department of energy has 29 permits sitting in front of them now. they have three or four out the door that will allow the export of natural gas. of these liquefied natural gas import facilities thinking that we were going to be -- from that resource scarce mentality. we have an abundance of natural gas. windmills,s not want they want natural gas. oil is a different story. it is still basically prohibited to export crude oil from the united states. that goes back to the 1970's and we had shortages. -- when we had shortages. that debate is starting. it is a long way from being over.

exporting oil without looking at other parameters, just like we talked about other issues, there are a number of other parameters and factors that have to be addressed before you have a total look at things. price of oil, the canada it is here or in or saudi arabia or somewhere else, it is set on the global market. dictates barrel in what the price at the pump will be. we are exporting diesel and gasoline to mow more than we ever have. we are a net exporter of finished gasoline and diesel. without being able to do that, given the demand -- decline in demand here in the united states , a lot of those refineries would not be working. a lot of those jobs would be gone. it is a win-win situation.

we are helping the balance of trade, we are keeping the refineries that are efficient and processing crude oil. and we continue to supply the american public. unfortunately, if i may, if you look at what is going on in , in syria, in iran, and now in ukraine and everywhere else around the world -- imagine what the cost of oil added 3 if we had not million barrels per day to our own market. that is the global market. that means 3 million barrels per day that we are not required to import. that oil is still out there. temper that able to cost of oil, which is still very high, but we have been able to temper it. host: this tweet from one of our viewers.

guest: there is no question that the exhaust from an automobile -- it goes back to when henry ford first put the model t out thee -- it went into atmosphere, there is no question. you look at what it has done over the years to control those emissions. please, let's not confuse toxic andsions of nitrous oxide other ozone causing pollutants with carbon dioxide. that is a very unfortunate comparison. as i mentioned earlier, over the last 20 years, less emissions than we had 20 years ago. the air is cleaner now. the technology has improved so much. the internal combustion engine and how we reformulate gasoline

and capture the omissions, the air is cleaner. are we where we want to be? we are working to where we want to be. look up the window today versus -- i see that mr. waxman will be on later in the program. congressman, how is the air in los angeles today compared to 20-30 years ago? is it perfect, no. is comingcongressman up in about 20 minutes. this is a diversion from the economy. in the opinion pages that this is a divergent from the pipeline, trying to get some democrats who are possibly thinking about voting for the approval of the keystone pipeline in the senate this week , to keep them in line and keep them from footing against that. what is your take on keystone xl? xl is the most

studied pipeline in the history of mankind. i think the keystone xl pipeline is more of a symbol for this administration and the anti-fossil fuel crowd. me the terminology, this is the poster child for this whole thing. to think ofhocked politics did not somehow play in washington dc. host: a climate of contradictions is the headline. as part of the big increase in oil and gas production, we are back on track to produce more oil and gas and the gulf of mexico. as for environmental concerns, that can be dealt with through the proper application of the best practices to produce oil and gas. it was a jarring dirt -- juxtaposition.

do you like president obama's all of the above strategy? if it i would love it were indeed all of the above. it has been wind, solar, biofuels, whatever and very little none of the below, coal , oil, natural gas. the president has the power to say, look at what i have done in my administration. we are more oil and natural gas than we ever have. all of the production has been in spite of the administration. if you look at the land that the

president and his administration have control over. they are still off-limits to production. that is the dichotomy we see with this administration. host: we will go to south carolina next. , i certainlyncern agree with you that it is imperative that a recent discussion about climate change reasonedmpacts -- discussion about climate change and its impacts. i am insulted by the suggestion that dealing with this matter recalling also feels -- fossil fuels is for the benefit of low income people and the economy. -- in the economy. haveompanies you represent made enormous profits over the last 30 years, triple digit profits, at the expense of low income people who must rely on

simple transportation to get a job and can't even get to work in rural areas because they ,annot afford to pay for gas while the companies that you others of this industrial complex that you talk about bringing back to america by making monumental profits simply not lowering the cost of the fuels so that the regular person, the average individual, can buy gas to pay his light bill. the last time we had the federal government attempt to lower the cost of fuels was back in annex in days. days. nixon we saw what happened there. there became a scarcity of supply and not an abundance. listen, i understand the caller's passion. i understand the need to get

more jobs here in the united states, get this economy going, get people back to work. but you have to understand that these companies, while the some,s may be large to you have to understand where those profits go. they go back into developing new sources and supplies of energy. they go into playing hundreds of millions of dollars -- paying hundreds of millions of dollars to taxes to the state and federal levels. the combined industries of oil, natural gas, refining petrochemicals, we either directly or indirectly support 9.2 million jobs in this country. just think where the economy would be today and the past 3-4 years getting out of the not forn, if it were the boom in oil and natural gas

production in the united states. host: here is a view from twitter. can in alexandria, virginia. republican. caller: i think there is a catch-22. everything that is being said is andting around one issue we have seen a spike in fossil fuel emissions. we cannot control that. the jobs have gone overseas. we do not have the companies here. if we were going to bring companies back, companies like apple computer, all of these people who put in equipment in thenric cars, we would

create more jobs here and you would have better control over emissions of those factories because we have no control over the chinese. stores that walmart sell nothing but overseas products. we have no jobs that produce any of the stuff that goes in the stores. guest: that is an excellent point. if i want clear earlier, i apologize. this is what we can do to have the manufacturing renaissance back here. it is going to all the way down the supply chain come all the way to the walmart you just mentioned. -- when we had the manufacturing decline in the country over the past 30 years or so, the idea was, make it there and we will buy it here. the mindset i want to say and that everyone wants to see is let's make it here and sell it there. that is what the manufacturing renaissance can do for us.

it allows us to develop our own resources. it allows us to have the intellectually honest and emotional getting rid of kind of debate on this issue. i agree with the collar 100%. we can do this because we have the resources now. everything begins with energy. host: shane in north carolina. independent caller. caller: i would like to address the subject that i think people really need to realize that no matter what kind of tax the government puts on carbon fuels carbon emissions or whatever, none of that is going to matter. our earth is heating up from the inside, driven by natural processes. nasa has been studying this for 20 years. we have a celestial body coming into our solar system that is heating the planet up. no one is talking about it. but talk to people that run the

telescope. there is a celestial body out there heating the planet from the backside, like a microwave. there is nothing we can do about it. to get morething tax dollars out of the american people. i am not a climatologist or an astronomer asked. -- astronomer. there is a lot of talk here in washington and other places as the gentleman suggested, a tax on carbon or something. it is under the guise of the social cost of carbon. that is a very difficult thing to address. i would like to adjust the social cost of not having carbon is. you have, i don't know how many people come 85% of the planet

still lives in the driest part of the planet. 73 billion people on the planet do not have access to clean water. have million people do not access to clean water. that is the social cost of not using carbon. i think we need to address that. what is better spent? also addresse to the cost of not dealing with climate change. that is the impact of this disruptive weather on the economy. this is a tweet from yesterday. guest: again, i don't want to argue with the administration. how do you say that that was the cause of that? or this tornado in arkansas was change?y climate

that unequivocally state the 1.6 billion people who did not have electricity would like to have it. they are not going to get a by windmills and solar panels. that is the dichotomy we're looking at right now. if we have a limited amount of dollars to spend, where are they best spent right now? is it adaptation? i would like to have people adapt to a standard of living we have become accustomed to. the only way we will do that is fossil fuels. host: richard in south carolina. caller: i really commend you to spot on-- put on the "washington journal." i have been in this business for a while. i have done at all over the world. the relationship with the wind and solar in germany and europe

and the smaller countries up in the baltics have been a total disaster. wind turbine companies virtually lied to these people on exactly how much power these turbines put out. coalcannot turn off the plants or the lights will go off in germany. they have the biggest collection of solar panels in the world. the relationship between the fact that the ukraine is the biggest country in europe and has the most natural resources and they need ukrainian coal, they need west virginia coal. host: i want to get a quick response from you, if we can. guest: he is absolutely right. it is so ironic that it was europe that led the charge on biofuels and switching from coal. who has been one of the biggest importers of u.s. coal today?

germany wants it. this is the irony. the irony that mr. milbank wrote about. this is the irony we face here in the country. we cannot burn our coal here and there the same people who did not want anybody to use it, those who can burn it. host: thank you for your time. guest: thank you for having me. it was a pleasure to be here. host: we will keep the conversation going with congressman henry waxman. then later, the national geographic magazine has launched a food series related to climate change. starting with the may edition of feeding the world. first, a news update from c-span radio. a planned weekend referendum by pro-russian insurgents pushing for autonomy and portions of for

eastern ukraine. secretary of state john kerry says the referendum would be bogus and not recognized by the west. out of memphis, the republican national committee wants to take more control over how the party picks a nominee. choose members who set the calendar for 2016's list of potential presidential contenders. if the party chairman gets his way, the gop will pick its nominee more quickly than during past contests and have fewer debates in which candidates could criticize each other. the rnc is set to put in place for penalties -- penalties for candidates who do not follow the processes. act thatass-steagall was passed in 1933 was a very ther line between

speculative versions and services and things that a bank could do in the deposits it took to the services it provided regular individuals and businesses. there was a very clear distinction. the bankers were on the same side as fdr. the population was on the same side. things became stable for many, many decades after that. you contrast that with what happened in the wake of the 2000 a crisis, which has been a much more expensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the tagline unemployment level. for what was lost to individuals throughout. relative to the bailouts and subsidies that have been given cents. dodd frank come along and did remotely like dissecting andulation from depositors

traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationship between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street. saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday night at 9:00 on afterwards, part of booktv. online, our selection is "it calls you back." join other readers to discuss the book at booktv.org. >> you cannot take c-span with you wherever you go with our can now take c-span with you wherever you go with our free app. listen to c-span radio anytime. there's a schedule on each of our network so you can tune in whenever you want, play recent broadcasts from our signature programs. take c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android, or blackberry.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: beck at the table this morning. the top democrat on the house energy and commerce committee. what was your reaction to the third national climate assessment released yesterday? guest: that assessment said the science is unequivocal. climate change is happening, it is affecting everyone in this country and around the world. from droughts in california to hurricanes in florida, storms, flooding, sea levels rising. there is no question that it is happening. that it is maned caused for the most part. we are seeing the hottest year every year on record, as we go from one year to the next. the assessment says it is real. we have to do something about it. i think we are at a crossroads in this country.

we either take the science seriously and good on the path of reducing these carbon transitionnd try to so that our economy does not get jolted. at the same time, make the industry leader in the world. what seems to be happening with the republicans in the house -- deny the science, refuse to have a plan at all, and just pay attention to the fossil fuel industry and others to get your campaign funding. it is doing an enormous amount of damage. luckily, the president is acting with an action plan. if you do not like his plan, what is yours? the republicans do not have a plan. it is no to the president, no to the regulation, no to market forces.

host: we will get to the president's plan in a minute. first on this national climate assessment, how is it different from previous years? guest: they have said that the science is unequivocal and that the danger is happening. it is not going to occur in the future. now and it isg going to get more intense and worse. host: how did they get from it is down the line to know, it is happening now? guest: by looking at the climate events that are taking place, the evidence, the sea level rising, all of the predictions coming true. onusands of people worked this, thousands of reputable scientists. this is a very clear assessment of where we are now and where we are going to go if we do not take action. host: the white house is calling for urgent action. have they done enough on this

issue? the president has been in office five years. guest: the president said very clearly that he wanted congress to act. he fought hard for us to pass legislation in 2009 and 2010 that would have been a comprehensive energy effort to reduce carbon emissions and make us more energy independent. that failed, it was blocked. now the president says, if congress does not act, he will have to take on the leadership and take the actions that will be necessary under existing law. the environmental protection agency is adopting requirements that coal burning power plants must be regulated, the new and existing ones must reduce carbon emissions. are burning power plants the largest source of greenhouse gases that we are putting into the atmosphere. the president has other things that he can do under existing laws.

he has set out a whole effort in his speech last year in georgetown. his administration is moving forward to implement it. it would have been better had congress acted. under existing law, the president is able to act. he is showing the leadership that we need in this area. host: do you agree with the all of the above strategy? need forthink that we our energy portfolio, a diversification. you are not going to stop the use of oil, gas, and even coal overnight. we cannot just put all of our reliance on birding more and more of those fossil fuels. we need more solar, more wind energy, more efficiency in our use of energy. a dramatic shift to hybrids and electric vehicles. we have to to give incentives to accelerate this movement.

our own energy independence, we need to take advantage of the enormous success of natural gas that is being produced here, and even oil, that will make us less dependent on other countries. "the climate of contradictions." the administration is firing middle school and -- on all cylinders. is that a contradiction? guest: i don't see it as a contradiction. the natural gas revolution is taking place now that we did not even foresee 10 years ago. it is a cleaner burning fuel than coal and gasoline. it is a good transition fuel as we try to reduce carbon emissions much more than what

natural gas will produce. the natural gas has been a boon to our economy. manufacturing is returning to the united states. he can rely on this feel what we develop the ability to have even less greenhouse gases put into the air. host: let's get to phone calls. california, republican. caller: i think there is a little bit missing here. i live in california. we have lost all of our jobs to places with less regulations. when they go offshore, we are not helping mother earth. china, india. a few commonsense regulations instead of overburdening regulations. it does not help anybody with a weak america. host: what is the commonsense regulation? so far that weng

are sending our jobs to another country or another state that has little or no regulations. we are not helping anybody by that. west: can you imagine if could produce the technology to sequester carbon from coal burning power plants? we would be selling that technology all over the world. cheap andiquitous and puts a lot of substance in the atmosphere that is causing climate change. we need to develop the kind of technology. we need to do with a private-public partnership to rid it will help us with more jobs. not only have to be done by regulation. if we put a price on carbon, it would put a signal to the whole market system to develop ways of reducing carbon. that is what i would have liked to have seen and maybe we can still get their. marketdo not have the forces, you have to have the regulation, may be a combination of the two.

the fact that it costs jobs is just a political statement. over the years, we have required regulation and it has not cost us jobs. our economy has grown. we had more jobs as a result of it. it is not an either or. we can have a clean environment and a growing economy. was sayingast guest that companies are coming back to the united states, even the president has touted that. companies are returning here to produce all sorts of things. if energy costs go up the cousin that costs some say jobs. the companies will not come here to the united states, the companies will stay overseas. guest: it depends on the regulation. the reason we have manufacturing coming back in the united states is because of natural gas, which is cheap. you do not have a large market exporting natural gas.

that is an issue. how much natural gas should we export? natural gas is cheaper here because it is not an international price. that has been a boon to our economy, there is no doubt about it. we always have these considerations to concern ourselves. i do not think they are always a contradiction. we have to keep the right balance. host: on twitter. guest: the overwhelming amount of greenhouse gases are from nature. the man-made addition is what has upset the balance that we have had for centuries. we see now the highest amount of accumulation of these carbon emissions in the atmosphere. they concentrate in the atmosphere. they do not dissipate. if you allow too much of this, it is like filling up, polluting

the water stream. if you allow all of that dumping into the water, eventually, and you use up the ability for that water to work. the ability of our atmosphere to function as we have known it. the man-made contribution is what we control and what we need to control in order to deal with this issue. ne in sarasota, florida. caller: good morning. thank you for your service. i would like to suggest two sources from chemists about what to do with natural gas. first, a nobel laureate in thatstry, whose book shows rather than using natural gas as a power source on the planet, the most efficient transformation is to methanol. a dozen countries are using it

now, in particular, the prime minister of israel has been big on use of natural gas to produce methanol and they hope to blend in about 50 or 60% and reduce their oil consumption. the second scientist, unfortunately he is deceased, but he is a johns hopkins, it shows a power system that emits no carbon monoxide and produces methanol. he even tested out -- the book talks about that technology it is now being built in upper china that will produce electricity and water. host: we will have the congressman respond. that: you are pointing out there are so many innovative, murat kilis technologies that we could develop. -- miraculous technologies that we could print out -- develop.

we need government funding. that is being cut. then we need to give incentives for people to realize that they could make money if they develop these ways of producing energy. if it is too expensive and they cannot compete against cheap tol, then they are not going get the investors needed to take advantage of that technology. let me just talk about cheap coal. it is ubiquitous, it is cheap. because we subsidize it. pay thet ask them to full cost of the consequences of their new coal. the public has to pay for the health consequences. our planet has to pay for the greenhouse gas consequences. not having the polluter carry the burden of cost of business. that ought to be put into the way we allocate impact of their

businesses. host: here is a tweet. i think fracking is necessary to develop natural gas. i think it has to be very carefully regulated because it has the potential of poisoning our drinking water. it does not have to do that. that does not have to be the consequence. we have got to have fracking done in a responsible way. the public has to be protected. host: the government-funded the bulk of research which resulted in current fracking technics. why not solar and wind now? government has been involved in trying to jumpstart solar and wind. they are great sources of jobs. alternative energy. we need to push more for renewable and other forces -- sources of electricity and using

that electricity to generate our motor vehicles. we could use a lot less oil. guest: we will go to claremont, california. republican caller. tax or putting a carbon a policy based on how much you take is like putting a tax on a skinny guy and a fat guy. the guy that takes his health in mind and keeps running and running, he is burning a lot of carbon, he spends the higher tax. it is like asking a question in china. by the cars they are driving or the fact that there are 1.2 billion people? offpoliticians are bought by how many shares of the ipo of

alibaba they're getting. my god, think of the money that you incentivize -- how much will you pay or how many years of your retirement will have to pay? host: a lot of issues for the congressman. guest: let me give you some comments to that little bit of a rant. you tax things you want less of. a we tax pollution, we give strong incentive to have less pollution and to develop the incentive to have less pollution. not only do we give the right incentives, we then let the market system work. the best way to accomplish these goals has always been, if you put a price on carbon, there are several ways to do it -- you can

adjusted to take away the impact that might be harsh on some groups -- you unleash the entrepreneurs. as country has a history of having great entrepreneurs. don't look of all the downside. look at the positive side of this. if you want to look at downsides, look at the downside of what is going to happen to our environment if we allow more and more carbon to be put into it. one of the best comments was from elon musk in california. he has developed tesla, spacex, and so many other innovations. he said, what if 10% chance that they are right with the science? how can you responsibly take a 10% chance on poisoning the only atmosphere that we all share? it is to greater risk. -- too great a risk. if we can figure out ways to drive the reduction of greenhouse gases, of which

carbon is the leading greenhouse gas, it is in all of our interest. if we put the right incentives, it will be in our economic and environmental interests. host: what is next for you? guest: i have been in congress 40 years. i am proud of my service. we have accomplished many things. i don't know what the future is going to be to me. ofm serving until the end this year. i reached the conclusion that 40 years is long enough. not only in my seat, but also in the congress, to pick up the mantle. if there is every chance for me to have a second act after congress, this is the time to do it. host: will that include talking about climate change? guest: no question about it. i will continue to fight for public all of the overall. i will just do it from a different perspective. host: if we really think there was a problem, shouldn't we just

cap? and tax arend trade different ways to accomplish the same goal. unleashing market forces to develop ways to reduce pollution. i am willing to support a carbon tax. i thought money from a carbon tax could be reused -- used to reduce the deficit. fine.w is, let's reduce other taxes then. texas but american businesses at disadvantages. put american businesses at disadvantages. we want to drive the technologies to not poison our planet to rid host: greenbelt, maryland. caller: good morning. congress, stay on although you are retiring.

this is a global issue. it is a global concern. i am a concerned phd scientist. is looking at satellites that observe the earth and the melting of the ice caps. host: where do you work? guest: i am a nasa scientist --caller: i am a nasa scientist. here is the thing. just a couple of years ago, all the states of our nation were covered with snow. where do you think that energy comes from? you have to have evaporation. children learn when they go to school, we teach these fundamentals and physics class. it takes one calorie to raise one cubic centimeter of water one degree. the amount of water you have to have to have ice.

-- let me get to the point. i will get to the point. the point is is that this is a real issue. our time with congressman waxman is short today. guest: you are right. this is a global problem. we need the rest of the world to work with us. china is a leading source of the greenhouse gas pollution. they have to be part of the effort to reduce these dangerous pollutants. have taken soe far is, they are not doing enough, therefore we should do less. say, theyaround and are doing less, so we won't do anything. that is childish. that is a mistake. if we show leadership and we chart the negotiations internationally and then a secretary kerry is looking to do this in some of the upcoming conferences, especially next

year, we need to get everybody working together to use all of the best efforts to reduce this pollution. we cannot do it alone. california has an innovative program with the cap and trade. they alone cannot solve it. it has to be the rest of the country in the world. by thehat about comments white house counselor who said, the epa is going to go forward, congress cannot stop us? this is a tweet. guest: that is ridiculous. congress passed a law almost overwhelmingly signed by president george w. bush called the clean air act. w bush called the clean air act.

that is constitutionally enacted law. it gives the epa the power to start the regulation and move forward. i do not understand why people would say the president cannot act. he has to enforce the law and this is the law. host: here is a tweet. guest: [laughter] well that sounds great. i don't know what it means, but that sounds great. host: we need to make it real quick. caller: i have a couple of questions. host: give us one. caller: do you realize that plants need co2? , all ofes below 200 ppm the plants in the world will die and he will kill the whole earth. we need to increase co2 to about 2000 ppm. that is where you are wrong. there has been no flooding in orlando.

al gore predicted orlando would be underwater by 2014. has that happened? we need to exhale and that produces co2. there is naturally produced co2. thatroblem is the addition is brought into the whole picture by man-made sources of greenhouse gases. that is what we need to stop. it is all accumulating in the atmosphere. it does not dissipate. if we have too much in the atmosphere, it would be impossible for us to change to stop that impact of climate change. that is the fear that scientist are sending us a signal about. we better take this whole matter seriously. host: we have to let you go. you had a meeting pop up this morning. you are meeting with the rest of

the democrats talking about the special committee looking into what happened in benghazi. what are you going to be telling your colleagues today? is all partisan politics. the republicans have had hearing after hearing after hearing. we even had a special task there is nothing there, but they want to keep on with the big lie, the propaganda. committee, i will say we should vote against creating the special committee. and i think we have got to be there to make sure that people understand what is really going on and not allow witnesses to be badgered and misstatements made without challenging them. dissipate? --ill participate? guest: yes. host:

go our magazine series looking at national geographic's may cover story on feeding the world, the start of an eight-month series looking at food. we will be right back with that after a short break. for over 35 years c-span brings 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 are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider.

watch us in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter. are accused of being ambitious and chinese, accused that was ald hawked, death sentence. it meant that you put the group before anything else. put yourself before the group. for chinese history, that was totally unimaginable. under the confucian period or under the socialist period. werei got there, things beginning to change in some deep way. what i began to hear around me was people talking about themselves, not in a self-glamorizing or self-promotional way, but in a self-protective way, and the way that they would say matters what i want in this world in the world i want to define for myself. even the term in chinese for "myself" was transforming.

people were getting comfortable using it. in the united states would talk asut the "me" generation being this time when we started to focus on ourselves too much. in china, it was a revolution. in the past month the we talk group, family, the clan, the village, factory. in 1979, there was an economic transformation of people had no choice but to think about themselves. that became the fundamental dynamic atrophic my -- this eight-year fascination, this investigation. >> the rising conflict between the individual and chinese government, sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. "washington journal" continues. ont: and the last hour wednesdays, we have a spotlight on magazine series. today we're looking at national

geographic's may cover, the new food revolution, part of an eight-months series looking at feeding the world. is the executive editor for environment at national geographic. he joins us. what is the food series? guest: we are trying to actually paint a picture of the role of agriculture across the world, how it is transformed the planet and what it takes to feed currently 9 billion and what it will likely the required to feed a growing population. host: in this piece, you say that it will, by 2050, there will be 2 billion more people to feed. how did you come up with that number? guest: the 2 billion more people to feed is assuming that we are going to continue to be able to grow and harvest the crops we need. that really comes from you when numbers.

-- that really comes from u.n. numbers. we have those people. the real question now is -- how are we going to eat? what will we grow? what will we eat? how much meet? how much plants? in the portion of lance -- and meat ision of plants to a big question. 2 billiondo you feed people without overwhelming the planet? how does climate change play into that? guest: two parts. one, agriculture is likely the largest enterprise on the planet . agriculture contributes to climate change by producing methane from rice farms and livestock farms. when you deforest, it produces carbon dioxide. fertilizer is also a contributor

. they contribute to the changes in the atmosphere. at the same time, agriculture itself -- i am a farm kid. i grew up on a farm in oregon. i understand what it means when the weather does not play right with you. we have to also keep in mind that the climate itself is increasingly disrupted and unreliable. that is the kind of thing that causes the faculty for crops because when you raise crops, you need a reliable supply of rain. you need to richard to be appropriate for the feed and crops you are growing. all up -- you need the temperature to be appropriate. we cede temperatures rising. we see extreme weather. all of these things are going to add stress to meeting the needs of future operations. you make of the president and the white house unveiling this national climate assessment yesterday? guest: it demonstrates that

we're living in a country where temperatures are shifting. if you look on the front of the paper today, you see that we have seen a warming across large areas of the country. there has actually been a slight cooling in the south. a baseline is is from which you are operating. so if you are living in an area with an average of, say, three degrees higher, over the course of the year that changes what kinds of actual plants you grow where you live. we have seen growing seasons shifting in the country. we are seeing winter disappear in large areas of the country. all of those things have an impact on what we can glance. people see it in their own gardens, what kinds of flowers are blooming and what kinds of trees are growing in our neighborhoods. host: you come up with a solution for feeding 2 billion more by 2050.

step one is to freeze agriculture's footprint. what does that mean? guest: this comes from johnson foley who wrote the article. he is from the university of minnesota. it was derived from a paper that was published in "nature" in 2011. the idea of freezing the agriculture footprint means to stop cutting forests. that is how we have increased yields historically. if we are in this position of wanting to save forest, save weers, save biodiversity, have to stop expanding the acres and make more of the acres that we currently have in production. host: how do you do that? guest: two things. you look at the areas that are ineady in production, areas south america, africa, eastern europe. there are yield gaps, and we

already have landed production. we could do a better job of getting more off of each acre by farming smarter, by improving our knowledge of how we go about landscapes.se on another level, it is also improving the audit committee or the efficiency of the farming that we are already doing. using crustacean agriculture. those kinds of things can -- what we are really trying to say is take the land do already have, and what can you do to get more out of it? and without also damaging water, air. host: how do we, in the united states, produce food versus other countries? guest: in the u.s., we produce food in a myriad of ways. what we try to get out -- get added the article as we have huge scale agriculture that dominates huge parts of the landscape, and we also have, as

we have had traditionally in america, before world war ii there was a much higher percentage of smaller scale, diversified, family-oriented farms that reduce day friday of crops. ofthat produced a variety crops. there is a spectrum between large individual crops and smaller scale, much more diversified farming. is producedod that in the united states and around the world, what is it being used for? guest: that is one of the interesting points we try to make in the article. if you look, what you realize is only about 55% of the landscapes that are used for agriculture across the world actually produce calories for people. about a third uses calories that go to livestock. about nine print -- about 9% or 10% go to biofuels and other uses. if you lick in iowa, you see --

if you look in iowa, a lot of the corn goes to feeding livestock, for ethanol, and for sugar. pictures of the united states in the story. in the middle 1 -- how our crops are used -- it shows a lot of purple. purple is when it is used for feed and fuel versus food for people. >> that is right. it you look at the world and see how landscapes are used, and you realize that we may have some of the most productive landscapes in the world, but while those landscapes are not necessarily being used to grow crops to feed people directly. ?ost: what do you do then if this is the situation right now, if this is the ratio of food versus feed and fuel, what do you do to help feed more people in the future? guest: there is the question about what you are doing with

your landscapes in this country. there is also how you are helping improve productivity on lance gibbs across the world. as someone who -- how you are improving productivity on landscapes across the world. that is an important educational tool for improving the productivity in the knowledge of farmers around this country. that kind of thing is very useful now as we're trying to help improve food productivity around the world to actually, may be we are best off exporting our knowledge and wisdom about how to make better use of farm landscapes than to just, say, put grain on boats and send it off. host: we're talking about national geographic's may cover story looking at the issue of food, and eight-month series they have launched this month. karen, democratic caller from florida, you are up first. florida,n this part of

we grow a lot of citrus. unfortunately, we are suffering with what is called citrus greening. our big problem actually is water here and we are already tong advised to look south the miami area to see what grows well there and move those crops up here to central florida because of the climate change. what we have done here locally organicnd get more materials into our soil to enrich our soil so that it would hold more water. also to sequester more carbon and try and get more natural restoration of our water resources that have been , in the, unknowingly past because we do not have the science to tell us do not be ditching and draining. host: organic material and soil,

if you can enrich the amount of cover in soil by using crops are not cropping the same individual crops year after year, that is very useful. another point about citrus greening, that is very devastating and currently has no solution. scientists are trying to figure out how to solve that issue and they currently do not have a solution. for this step five-step solution put forth in the national geographic cover story is to shift diets. what are you saying? guest: the first thing we need to understand is coming back to landscapes -- what are we growing our crops for? what we need to realize is when you grow a pound of beef, you might spend eight to 10 pounds of grain. if you grow a pound of fish, you might spend slightly more than one pound of grain to grow that.

in the question is, how much is appropriate for your own health and for the health of, say, the planet? if everybody were to be like americans, we would probably need upwards of three planets to do that. the question we're trying to raise, and it is really just to help get people to think about this -- do we need to eat meat seven days a week? maybe there is a way we can dial back a little bit for our own health and to reduce the demands on the system's trying to feed us. host: what about developing countries? you talk about china and other places where there started to consume more meat. what happens? that demand goes up. guest: absolutely. we're seeing deforestation occurring in places like south america, and we are seeing large-scale mono cropping systems, corn and soybeans, and those kinds of crops are being exported for the rising demand for meat.

it is a conundrum because we are not in a position where we have to say you cannot eat meat. say, look, here is what it takes to make this happen. what we are really trying to do is to connect eaters to farmers. connect eaters with the land of the planet that is supporting them, so people can begin to understand the implications of their food choices. it we can get people to start thinking about food consistently so it is not something that happens just every five years during farm, negotiations, maybe we can have a chance to raise food and agriculture in the profile of american discourse. host: what is next in the series? guest: the june issue has a piece on aquaculture. we know we have been farming the land for 10,000 years. as fishers, we have been hunter-gatherer's in the sea.

is it possible to grow protein in the sea without deteriorating the sea? that is what we are looking at. we explore the question in june or july, the question of -- what impact does investment i countries abd -- and countries and large companies in places like africa, some would call it this land grab situation, but we are trying to explore what benefits and what costs are coming as a result of this. host: national geographic is known for their photographs. tell viewers about this picture that they are seeing. is of scott city, kansas. each combine can harvest up to r, asres of wheat an hou well as real-time data on crop yields. most of the food americans eat is now produced on large-scale

mechanized farms and farmers can cover more ground with less labor. talk about the technology happening in agriculture. guest: that is one of the most interesting things when you talk about precision farming. we now have the ability to look at land of activity for decades, crop yields. we can marry that with weather patterns. we can create programs to tell us how much fertilizer is needed, what pesticides if necessary, on very small square areas of fields so that we can be very precise. remember, if the farmer is putting too much fertilizer on, too many other inputs on and not getting a better yield out of it, that is reducing the potential for profit. this is an interesting area where we are using gps and for size location-based tools to -- it is like a science.

host: drones as well. guest: that is an emerging area. if we can get clearance for using some of these tools, it is a very useful way to monitor crop conditions. one thing that is very important now is -- what is the health of a crop through the growing season after you plant it? you need that knowledge. with irrigated lands, it will help you understand how much r additionalnd o nutrients you need to produce an optimum harvest. host: how specific can you get? guest: i heard one scientist talking about getting down to about 10 meters square. in the mayer picture edition is from brazil where 8 million hens lay 5.4 eggs a day. you talk about that demand for meat has gone up.

egg consumption has increased seven-folder. talk about this. guest: let's talk about the nature of population on the planet. what we have now is probably more people will be living in the cities than are alive today on the planet by mid-century. when we lived on the land, we grow our own food. we have seen a significant urbanization rush across the planet. where does foucault from for those people? it has to come from some place. with the farmers are being tasked with is how you grow food for people who live nowhere near rural landscapes. this is really what we're being pushed to do to try to meet the needs of expanding cities worldwide. host: let me clarify -- 8 million hens lay 5.4 eggs a day. i had a question as far

as subsidizing farmers not to grow food. guest: a question regarding subsidizing farmers not to grow food. maybe it is more specifically the question of subsidizing farmers to not grow certain encouragingp or other practices. for a long time there have been programs to encourage conservation to not lay the same crop year after year, to encourage crop rotation, these kinds of things. are benefits that can help the landscape. dennise're talking with dimick from national geographic, executive editor for environment, talking about there may cover it shoot -- issue. the new food revolution. globalline, do we need a food rationing body that can --

bottom line, do we need a global food rationing body that can tell us what and when to eat? guest: i think we probably need a more comprehensive global farm monitoring body that helps us understand what is going on on all the farming landscapes around the world. we do have that in some cases. but i do not think that we are at a point where we need to be thinking about rationing food. i suppose we are already growing meet ourod now to needs. the question is -- can we get it distributed? can the people who need it afford it? what kind of diet are we actually choosing? if we are all going to eat meat all the time ago we cannot sustain that. many plant-based foods are healthier for our own hearts, so maybe it will be easier on the planet also. from independent caller

texas. caller: what i wanted to say is that i have lived down in this area for many, many years, and i have seen countless acres of good, rich soil being covered up businesses.d at one time you could drive from 40 miles to the next town and you would be in the country. that does not exist anymore. but thery to say that, do not know what needs to be done, but this world can only hold on to so many people. host: are you talking about population or about urban sprawl? caller: i am talking about all of it. sprawl, that is

actually an interesting question. in many cases, we are covering up some of our most productive landscapes for urban sprawl. that reduces our capacity. look in china, for example, their imports are up because growing urban situations, taking good land out of production. it is a population dynamic. one thing we need to keep in mind is that what we're seeing already is a flattening of population growth. we are seeing a flattening out. in the places where we still have high fertility, countries like sub-saharan africa, those people actually have very little resource use and demand across the planet. for western industrialized nations, it is not just how many people we have or how many children we have, it is also how

many resources we are using per person that has an impact on everything we do. host: two georgette, robert, democratic caller. -- to georgia. caller: thank you. i want to talk about what i saw in hpa weekly. it was talking about cattle production, free grazing cattle, talking about sequestration of carbon. allowing the cattle to roam -- the byproducts of the cattle -- [indiscernible] do you know about this program? guest: that is an interesting dimension about how we go about farming livestock here there are a variety of people including

allan savory in southern africa and jolo skeleton -- joel sala tin in virginia. you are not raising animals in confinement. but instead of feeding them grains grown by sunshine, you put them out in the field and let them eat the grass grown by the sunshine. it helps to fertilize the landscape, their feces. it is a really beneficial way to go about it. host: one of the pictures and this may cover story is this one from a pig farm in brazil. farms can be big polluters. the average 200 pound pig produces 13 pounds of manure per day. -- this can be recycled. what theye, that is

are doing at that farm. but that is a question that we need to confront in our own country. when you see installations like this across some states, there is groundwater pollution. there is an issue. host: zachary from california, independent caller. caller: i am not sure if this was already covered. man -- by ak by an man named john brian starr, a lecturer from yell university -- yale university. he makes a claim that the chinese middle-class, once it reaches a certain point, it will be impossible to reach the meat needs due to the amount of grain grain tois not enough feed the chinese middle-class. guest: it is an assertion and is

highly possible. that is actually what we are trying to draw a circle around here, part of this story. toeat the way we do, continue to do that requires resources, a lot of resources, grains.and, energy, it is true that there are only so many acres that we can devote to agriculture. if we are going to devote more, there is a price we pay for cutting down more land. to come back to the case we are trying to make in the story, let's look at what we're doing with our landscapes. can we do a better job? can we think about how we are eating? and can we reduce food waste? host: step five is reducing waste. what are you saying? guest: two things that come down under the idea of food waste. two very different dimensions. the idea of food waste in the

united states, we have, gosh, go to a restaurant and they will give you serving that is maybe more than twice as big as what you want. if you take it home and eat it, great. but there are summerlike north of 40% of all food in this country is thrown out. -- there is somewhere like north of 40% of all the food in this country that is thrown out. we can reduce the consumption of food, and it would be healthier here the other part is on the production side. when you look across the developing countries, when you look in countries where they have emerging agricultural systems or there is not good agriculture, the question is lack of refrigeration, lack of transportation, storage that keeps disease out of crops. all of those things have a big impact on how much food people eventually eat and how much eventually can get to market. host: in those countries, that is how they "waste" food versus

how we waste food in the united states. aret: right, there different challenges. if you are trying to help improve, say, the health of people in developing countries, helping stabilize these front-end systems that allow you to get more food to people and to market is very important. host: let's talk about another picture featured in the magazine. this is from a farm in greenfield, california, workers harvesting celery to be shipped to retail outlets of the united states and asia. dubbed america's salad bowl, this valley relies on ground water for irrigation which could be at risk if the current drought continues. we have a story coming out in october about the decline of western snowpack and the drought currently happening in the west. as a result of loss of surface water in the west, there is a big rush to drill wells in the

central valley of california. studies have shown the amount of water taken out of the aquifer, you keep drilling it down, that is sort of your last hedge against desiccation. we have to be careful about drawing it down too much. host: concord, massachusetts, democratic caller. monoculturethe system of agriculture leads to increased erosion of topsoil. how big a problem is that? system of monoculture agriculture leading to increased erosion of topsoil -- i would say that is a generality and is not necessarily defendable. i would say it is possible that that cropping practice can lead to erosion of topsoil. but farmers are not going to knowingly destroying their soil

because that is the resource they need to stay in business. that we haveorrect seen a lot of topsoil erosion, and if you look down in the gulf of mexico, there is a hypoxic zone. we see the same thing in the chesapeake bay. he gives soil erosion and nutrient runoff. i think the solution to that is not just monoculture, but it is actually using cover crops and thinking more smartly about how you can't protect the soil. it is essentially in your care -- how you can protect the soil. it is essentially in your care. host: this picture is from the monsanto north carolina lab were they have corn plants. a photo booth documents their growth. they are trying to develop strains of corn and soybeans that need less water and fertilizer. reducing the use of such resources is key to feeding the

world in the coming decade. guest: that is a good point to make. it also allows us to begin to have a discussion about the role of genetics in agriculture. butear a lot about gmo's, what we are really talking about is the use of the same kinds of genomics. looking at the genetics of feeds understand to better it. using the same technology, you can breed by genes. by genotype instead of by appearance. is good, soriety let's breed it with this other variety to get that trait into this crop. they are monitoring the performance of the plants they take pictures every day of these plants. in planting and fertilizing

the fields, this, too, is very precision. this is a very interesting area where you are actually using these tools of genetic reading -- breeding but and conventional to get better crop varieties that are resistant to flood, heat, drought. it is tough to do. we need to understand that croping new fridays of takes a long time. one thing we can say to our readers, this is one area, agriculture research, where we are trying to improve the withties of crops to deal this climate change world. it is one of the great challenges. host: how long does this research take before you see outcomes? guest: it could take decades, but now you can maybe do it in several years. once you identify the traits, br thethe crops, and replicate

traits, you have to grow out the seeds. it takes seasons. we have both public and private companies, companies like dupont and monsanto and others, they are trying to do this work. look them up for this is exactly the same kind of work being done at land-grant university and being done at the international research centers through the consultative group on international ag research. work being done in mexico and in the philippines. they are all working on this. in west virginia, independent. caller: good morning. i had a question. so the farmers that are growing crops for the specific purpose of fuel, i am wondering if they are also growing additional gaps thatfill in the

those would've been for food? my second comment, i wonder in ,he agricultural communities does anybody in farming do a year of rest for all the land? crops just for biofuels, look, farmers go to the store like everybody else. that is one way they will take care of themselves. it is like when you grow a crop, if you grow corn or soybeans, and you are doing it on a large scale, you are not really saying when you sell that crop what the final purpose will be. it may be used for livestock feed. it may be used for high fructose corn soy. it could be used for fuel. host: ethanol. guest: yeah, ethanol. as far as giving the land everest, absolutely. you actually see in some cases, say, and semi, arid regions of

the world, look at southeast washington where it is dry, the actually have to give the land a rest so that enough moisture can accumulate so that there is enough water in the soil for the next crop year. pat, republican caller. addressing these issues on how to reduce the amount of land needed for farming while increasing the food supply at the same time, it would also help reduce the number of poor in the world. the paper i read was titled "a "a modesttitled proposal" by jonathan swift. have you considered pushing that forward? guest: that is a good question. one thing, especially as it relates to providing opportunity for people so that they have

income, that is actually one of the things that is being done now when you look at places like africa. a colleague of mine at the usaid who has been affiliated with national geographic as an explorer, that is what he is trying to do. he is trying to build sustainable farming systems for small family farmers in sub-saharan africa so that they can become more reliant and can improve their income. that is exactly one of the goals that we need to try to focus on. host: connecticut, independent caller. caller: i am so excited. i wanted to talk to henry waxman. this is my topic. i write letters to the editor all the time. i titled one "action speaks louder than words." in my article, it was suggested that all the fast food places and the banks close down the drive-ups, putting the bad

greenhouse gases in the air by the cars. what do you think about this? i am all for it. i am for president obama putting out an executive order on this. i talked to all my friends about it. i will not get off this topic. i am driving them nuts. guest: that is an interesting suggestion. i myself do not use the drive-up when i go to those places. i get out of my car and walked up myself. it is less unhealthy. host: another call for dennis dimick. if you i am wondering bookheard about -- a new by someone from nasa, "a case for geo-engineering." they talk about giving some , tot to cool the planet help slow down global warming.

happening,t already there a vitamin d deficiency in the world going over 300%? guest: there is a lot there. i know david keith and i know what he is talking about. the reason he is trying to explore that issue is because we have not been reducing our emissions of heat-trapping carbon solutions from our use of coal and gas. that is causing the planet to warm. his question -- if we are not cutting back on the things causing the planet to warm, what can we do as a last-ditch effort? there are a lot of problems with that. once you start doing things like putting sulfates into the atmosphere to cool the planet,

who is in charge? who drives? it is more than just a physical question. it is a policy question. we are already altering the atmosphere in an uncoordinated way. can you imagine what it would be like if we actually tried to court in eight on something like that? that, once you start it, you must continue it. if you stop, suddenly the warming will pop up dramatically. another thing is that the oceans are continuing to become more acid as a result of the carbon solution. putting sulfates into the atmosphere will do nothing to stop the acidification of the ocean. dennis dimick is the executive editor for environment for national geographic. this is part of an eight-month series kicked off in may by national geographic, the new food revolution. thanks for your time. we're taking a short break. when we come back, we will open

up the phone lines and you can weigh in on climate change or any other public policy issue. we will be right back. newest book, a collection of interviews with some of the nations top storytellers. >> when martha arrived in berlin lovethe family, she was in with what she referred to as the not see revolution. she was enthralled by the nazis which struck me as very surprising. given what we know, how could you be enthralled with the nazi revolution? >> one of 41 unique voices. -- c-spandays at 8:00 "sundays at eight." >> the glass-steagall act passed

in 1933 after fdr came to power was a very clear line between versions ofive services and things a bank could do and the deposits it took in the services it provided to regular individuals and small businesses. there was a very clear distinction. the bankers were on the same side as fdr. the population was on the same side as fdr. and things became stable for several decades after that. you contrast that to what happened in the wake of the 2008 crisis, it has been a much more expensive crisis for the general economy, for the actual unemployment level, not the sort of tagline unemployment level, for what was lost to individuals throughout. and relative to the ale out, there are subsidies that have been given since. and dodd frank came along and did nothing remotely like

dissecting speculation from depositors in traditional banking activities. >> a look at the relationship between 1600 pennsylvania avenue and wall street, saturday night at 10:00 eastern and southern night at 9:00, part of book tv this week in on c-span2. online, our book club selection is "it calls you back" by louise j rodriguez. join other readers to discuss the book at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. with opene back phones for the next 15 minutes or so, until the house comes in. you can weigh in on anything we have talked about, climate change or other public policy issues. .emocrats --202-585-3880 .epublicans -- 202-585-3881

202-585-3882.- facebook or use caesar -- facebook or twitter. on the issue of benghazi -- the speaker announced he wanted to create a committee to investigate what happened on september 11, 2012 in benghazi, libya. that vote could come as early as thursday in the full house. susan davis reports that the seven-page resolution seeks to centralize the investigative authority on the attack with newly established 12-member panel that calls on all current committees having custody of records in any form on the benghazi attack to turn them over to the select committee within 14 days of its enactment. the committee is tasked with investigating all policies, decisions, and activities surrounding the attack,

including the ability to prepare for it. and efforts to rescue personnel. issue a final report at the conclusion of the open-ended panel investigation. the house plans to vote this week. it could come as early as thursday. democrats will vote against it. but the republican majority has enough centaur -- enough support to overcome their opposition. the house is in recess next week, which means the select committee is unlikely to begin in earnest for june. it says house speaker john leadingrebuffs calls by to provide for evil party representation on the panel. >> he was going to advise them

that they should participate in this investigation, in this select committee. that vote could come as early as thursday. akron, ohio, independent caller. what is on your mind? yes, i was listening earlier when they were talking and federalsoline gallon that is supposed to go towards our federal highways. i just cannot imagine having to pay another toll on top of all of that. there has to be some before they can just add another toll on there. we are already taxed to death.

this is just going to hurt everything, in general, at a time when we do not need anymore. independentrnia, caller. what is on your mind? caller: i would like to counteract a few things that was .aid for example, the price of dollars at over four gallon across the u.s. right now , that price is fixed more or less. saudi arabia -- the large forces around the world are controlling it. saudi arabia can increase and decrease supply. they want to keep the price around $100 a barrel. it is artificially controlled. we are having to pay that worldwide price. that is just a way to make us pay a whole lot more money than the actual cost of the oil, that

it took to produce. they are making a lot of money on us just because the price is fixed. that is all i have to say at the moment. in kenmore, washington, democratic caller. caller: your previous guest dennis dimick, i think he got spooked by one of the callers who mentioned the proposal by jonathan swift, and alter back in the 1600's who wrote about the irish dilemma and and how to deal with poverty. i do not think he realized it. thank you for taking my call. host: lynn in bishop, california. caller: good morning. we have a nice way of living, but our resources are going by the wayside. in california, i live in a very

drought-stricken area. it is affecting our environment in a great way. all these people talk about how much they care about the environment, but i wonder how much people are really willing to change their lives for the environment. i do not see anybody really wanting to park their car or give up showers. i just think we're at a point that people need to start asking themselves what they are willing to give up. how old you are, i do you think younger people are more willing than older people? 53.er: i am they think it depends on conversations going on in the home. i have adult children. my youngest is in environmental science. it really bothers him. he wants to know what we can do about it. i want to know what we can do about it, too. our lakes are drying up.

we do not have the water we need. to notw, they want us use fossil fuel, but then they want as to give up our wood-burning stoves. live, it isre i really cold. do you want fossil fuel to be in the air or do you want wood smoke? should we drill or should we not drill? you have to make a decision about how you want to live your life. thee are going to protect environment -- people throw around how much they care, but theire person is parking car. everybody still wants to travel. they still want to work out. the store to cook food at night. they want a warm shower. some people are still taking two and three showers a day and we do not have the resources for that. and so people are willing to give up some of the comforts that i love just as much as anybody else, i am not sure when this is going to begin to

change. talking, that is lynn about climate change in california. we are in an open phones for the rest of today's "washington journal." we are taking your calls on anything about public policy, climate change or otherwise. this is a piece from the "daily caller" -- resolutio -- a second resolution could happen as early as today in the house. .e will have coverage on c-span and republicans want to include amendments on energy efficiency legislation, including language on keystone xl pipeline.

the headline in the "washington times" this morning is that the push for keystone vote puts senate democrats in a bind in election year. host: it says mary landrieu, a lead sponsor of the language, it post --to question her and so energy efficiency

legislation making its way through the senate, whether or not there is a vote on keystone xl pipeline, we will have to wait and see. inwill go to william maryland. about: i am calling u.s.-sponsored regime change in ukraine. all you have to do is go to google and whor-secretary newland speaks about the $5 billion they spent to support democracy in the ukraine, and you will see and they planned this coup now blaming and demonizing putin. what is fascinating to me is how

complete the propaganda is. i have watched everything from the pbs evening news to nbc, n cnbc, all the way to the bill mahr show. they all take the u.s. line. they do not present anyone on their panels to speak about what actually happened. it is amazing, and they all know the truth. everyone should check out that youtube video. newland speaking after returning from the ukraine about the united states spending my , and in a recorded conversation she drops the f-bomb. host: all right. politico has a story this morning -- senators, hurry up and wait on ukraine. message, somebody needs

to do something about this. the wet that is and who should do it remains unsettled. as the conflict between pro-russian separatist in the ukraine military continues to worsen, lawmakers express openness to ratchet up operations and even delivering more military aid to ukraine -- host: that is the latest from politico on ukraine. joyce from florida, independent caller. talk aboutanted to the keystone pipeline. i went down to the library to look in the computer to see what the record was. in florida, we are very interested in water, as we are in the entire united states. keystone has a very poor safety record. they have had many spells. they admitted that they could

have spells with this pipeline. the aquifer, the water being the midwest land in and in the eastern part of the united states could become polluted because of this dirty oil that could ruin the water awkward for. the oil is going through the u.s. and then going to be shipped mainly to china. do we really want china to get all of this pollution, too? and the pollution of this kind of oil and putting it down to a refinery, people wonder why it will be refined in florida. that is because the standards and canada will not allow it to go through their area. poll from is a washington post-abc from march 7. most back the keystone pipeline. nearly two thirds say the government should approve the keystone pipeline.

president obama talked to cbs news about the girls kidnapped -- team madeending in a up of military and law enforcement and other experts, and we're very glad that nigeria has accepted the help. obviously what is happening is awful here it is the father of two girls, i cannot imagine what the parents are going through. but this organization, boko haram, has been one of the worst regional or local terrorist organizations in the world. we have long sought to work with nigeria on dealing with them, and we're going to do everything we can to assist them in recovering these young women. more broadly, we are going to have to tackle a pernicious problem inside the country, an organization that has carried out ruthless attacks and has killed thousands of people over the last several years. obama talkingt about the situation in nigeria with that terrorist group.

the "washington post" says that all 20 fema senators signed a letter to obama condemning the abductions and calling on him to press for sanctions against the terrorist group. a republican caller from texas. what is on your mind? caller: my name is ron. i live in texas. i am a republican. the thing i am concerned about is not in the republicans. are you there? host: we are listening. caller: my issue is not democrats or republicans. my issue is information. we all make decisions raised on information given to us, and we are given bad information. finde courts, people others guilty or innocent based on information. the news organizations give us information. cnn. you give us information.

we make decisions on appeared at the news media lies to us, and i am a fanatic. if the news media lies to us, we make bad decisions. news.hing is the what do they give us? they give us whether they think we should know. please, news media, be honest. host: we will leave it there. the houses going into session. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker.

the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., may 7, 2014. i hereby appoint the honorable david jolly to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2014, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour ebate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip but in to five minutes, no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, for five minutes. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor our mothers across america. mothers play an incredible role

in our lives. we've all seen the sacrifices they have made to raise their children and the care and devotion that they dedicate to them. we know their commitment. mothers have been our greatest advocates. when we were young, they cared for us when we were sick, supported us in our pursuits, lifted us up when we fell down and read to us at night. they held our hand when we needed them. mothers work eight to 10 hours a day in the work force. then they come home, they do the cooking, the laundry, help with the home work and then get up the next day and do it all over again. so when was the last time we actually took a moment to say thank you? thanks for our mothers and grandmothers. take enough time to say,

thanks, mom. there is one person who did in a very special way. see, a young lady born in 1864 in a small coal town in west virginia. her mother helped save thousands of lives on both sides of the conflict. when she passed away in 1902, this young lady, anna jarvis, wanted to celebrate her mother's life and came up with the idea of a national honor for mothers. mother's day. consequently in 1908, anna jarvis organized the very first official mother's day celebration which took place in andrew's episcopal church in graphton, west virginia. but anna wanted more team to honor mothers. she worked with the department store in philadelphia and soon thousands of people started

attending mother's day events all in retail stores all across america. ollowing these successes, anna added this to the national calendar. she said they are bias toward male achievements and the accomplishments of mothers deserve a day of appreciation. anna jarvis started the letter writing campaign to newspapers and politicians urging to have this special day. many towns, churches, adopted mother's day as an annual event. her persistence paid off. in 1914 president woodrow wilson signed a measure officially recognizing the second sunday in may as mother's day. anna jarvis never married or had children of her own but she dedicated her life to establishing a day to honor her mother and all mothers across america. this sunday we will celebrate

the 100th anniversary of mother's day. this holiday is just a small way to show our gratitude to our mothers and grandmothers. this sunday we can stop for a moment to simply say thank you when e when they're gone, our mothers are gone that loss reaches into all our hearts. it touches each of us. no longer will we hear the sound of their voice, the touch of their hand, their warm embrace. it causes a huge loss in all of our lives. we should pause this one day to say thank you to our mothers who love us in spite of ourselves. so mr. speaker, i ask that this mother's day we honor the dedication of anna jarvis, her vision, her dedication as well as all of our mothers. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the

gentleman from oregon, mr. lumenauer, for five minutes. mr. blumenauer: today is national bike to school day. how fitting is it that congressman jim oberstar's family requests for the remembrance of our beloved jim is a contribution to the national safe routes to school program. tens of thousands of children could get to school more safely and millions will be more safe in the future because of his tireless efforts over two decades on behalf of that program. jim oberstar, i must confess, was an uncle to me. together we spent hundreds and hundreds of hours in consultation, planning, touring, legislating. it was the most effective mentoring possible. there are those who have been known as a man of the house, and jim oberstar certainly was a man of this people's house. but even more he was a man of

the public works committee. he rose through the staff ranks to become staff director. hen succeeding his congressman a nicknick, he became member of congress and ultimately became its chair. this is something no one else has done, serving as staff director of a committee and then ultimately presiding over it. but whether his staff, as a committee member, or chair, as a member of all the subcommittees, whether in the majority or the minority, jim oberstar had an outsized influence on transportation, infrastructure for decades. it's safe to say over the last 50 years no one had more influence than jim. for almost 20 years he was the top democrat, but most feel he was the top member, period. he was totally seeped in policy, the history, the mechanics of transportation.

but not just transportation. aviation, marine, waterways, the water works of america as well, they were all his areas of expertise. jim oberstar was a partisan, not necessarily a political partisan. he was an infrastructure partisan, a true expert. that's why his partnership with congressman bud shuster, although of a different party, was so effective. bud was jim's partner for years on the committee. even before either of them assumed their respective top leadership positions. infrastructure came first. partisanship second. one of my best memories of how our transportation and infrastructure committee, under the leadership of jim oberstar and bud scheuster, speaker gingrich and president clinton, when it mattered on our highway bill in 1997. jim was a man of remarkable memory and learning. he spoke a half dozen languages. he never stopped fighting for

what he believed in and what he knew, for his district, his state or for the american people. he was a man of faith that never waivered. but as much as he loved the job of being congressman, his people, his bicycle, his first love was his family. i don't think he ever recovered from the loss of his first wife, jo, but then he found jean and they were married 20 years and they were a remarkable team. jean is a knowledgeable and experienced transportation professional in her own right. she knew what jim's speeches were about. in fact, she could encourage him occasionally in good humor to shorten them just a little bit. over the years, dozens of members of my staff felt in a sense that they worked for jim oberstar as well because of his commitment, his skill, his innate decency. i'm hearing of their sense of loss from people around the country. we all knew that jim oberstar

had a lot to say. what he said was worth listening to and america is a better place, not just because of what he said, but what he did in a remarkable career spanning almost 50 years. few people had more lasting impact on this institution of congress and on america than jim oberstar and we're all richer for his life of outstanding service. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson, for five minutes. mr. speaker, i rise today in deep appreciation for a group of individuals who will hold in their hands the future and that's our nation's teachers. this week is teacher appreciation week during which we thank the countless men and

women who strive every day to ensure our child's potential can become reality. americans' ability to outcompete rival nations is contingent upon the next generation of minds possessing the education but also the confidence to think outside the box. ur future competitiveness is contingent upon our next generation of children having the skills but also the creativity, the vision and the know-how to build the future. each child's potential is realized through engagement of families and communities but also teachers rising to the occasion which they have done for generations. so let us take a moment to recognize the compassionate individuals who dedicate their lives and professions to the cultivation of minds and the betterment of our nation. during this teacher appreciation week, let us not forget those teachers who of' helped shape our own lives. they deserve our praise. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, for five minutes. mr. mcgovern: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i've come to this floor once a week during the 113th congress to talk about hunger, specifically how we can end hunger now if we simply must have the political will to do so. technically defined as food insecure by the department of agriculture, there are nearly 50 million hungry people who live in the united states, the richest country in the history of the world. these people don't earn enough to be able to put food on their table. simply, they don't know where their next meal will come from. now, let's be clear. this has not been a particularly kind congress to those who struggle with hunger. we're seeing nearly $20 billion cut from our nation's preimminent anti-hunger program known as snap. snap is a lifeline for the 46 million americans who rely on it to have something to eat

each day. yet, this congress decided that americans who live at or below the poverty line can simply absorb massive cuts to snap. sadly, republicans and some democrats joined together to cut a benefit that was already meager and didn't last for the month even before these cuts took effect. these cuts are bad and hurtful but just as hurtful how these americans were described and depicted on the floor of this house during the debate about cuts to snap. during the debate on the farm bill, some republican members came to the floor to justify cuts to snap as a, quote, way to prevent murderers, rapists and pedophiles from getting a government benefit. poor people have been routinely characterized as those people as part of a culture of dependency. they have been described as lazy. mr. speaker, i'm sick and tired of poor people being demonized. i'm sick and tired of their struggle being belittled.

we are here to represent all people, including those who live in poverty. unfortunately, insults continue. for the most part we try to keep campaign rhetoric off the house floor. today, i want to highlight some rhetoric that is even more vial than even some of the language that was used on this house floor during the snap debate. few weeks ago, a republican candidate for the united states senate in south dakota actually equated snap recipients to wild animals. that's right. we are now where it's ok for political candidates to den grade our fellow citizens by comparing them to animals. one shared a viral image on her facebook page that said the following. i quote. the food snap program is administered by the department of agriculture. they distribute free meals to 46 million people on an annual basis. meanwhile, the national park service asked us, please do not feed the animals. their stated reason for this policy being that the animals will grow dependent on the

handouts and then they will never learn to take care of themselves. the post continues, this conclude's -- concludes today's lesson. any questions? end quote. what an offensive thing for any person to say. i was taught to love -- i was taught to care about people and to strive to make their -- everyone's life better, and that -- and what is being tolerated as political dialogue violates those teachings and my core beliefs in humanity. we can all do better. some of us may need a handout in order to get by, but that doesn't mean they are lesser people for it. they deserve our respect and they deserve our help while they're struggling. it's hard to be poor, and because of many of the actions that have been taken by this congress, it is even harder to get out of poverty. the doctor should apologized for the 46 million of her fellow americans who rely on snap who need food -- to get

food on their tables and those that don't know where their next meal should come from and republicans should repudiate her disgusting remarks. i am an optimist. we need to make the commitment to end hunger but hurtful rhetoric like this simply divides us and does nothing to help us toward achieving the goal of ending hunger now. hunger is a political condition. we have the food and we have the ability to make certain that nobody in this country goes hungry. . demonizing the poor, as so many in this chamber have done and continue to do so, is a sad commentary on this congress. our government has a special obligation to the most vulnerable. it's time we lived up to that obligation. the war against the poor must stop. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry, for five minutes.

mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of national charter schools week. in preparation for national charters schools week, i visited a lot of charter schools that are in my district that i had not yet visited. took some time to understand what exactly they do that's unique and different from other charter schools. what i found is that a school, a curriculum, student body that was fitting in one place was very different in another charter. and what i learned is that diversity actually delivers a better result for those student populations. there is pinnacle classical academy in shelby, north carolina, a charter that uses a classical learning model focusing on providing their

students with the skills they need to succeed in the 21st century. then there was evergreen community charter school in asheville. evergreen employs a holistic education model with the goal of teaching their students the importance of environmental stewardship and community service. finally, this past week, i visited mountain island charter school in mount holly. mountain island has a traditional curriculum focused on bidding the character of students and instilling a spirit of community within them. each one of those three charter schools, as well as the others in my district, and across america, have a unique learning environment. what i found in these schools is that these students flourish in that right environment. there is a unique environment for every student to find success. and one student's successful environment is so different than

another. and while each school was different, they are similarly -- their similarities highlight the benefits of charters. each school utilizes a challenging curriculum that encourages not just the students but their parents as well to stay involved. and that parental involvement is such an important part of the educational process. after each of these visits, it's clear that our educational system would hugely benefit by expanding access to charter schools. i'm proud to co-sponsor h.r. 10. i look forward to voting for it this week. and in the hopes of giving all american children greater access to quality charter schools and educational opportunities of their choice and their parents' choice so that we have a better educated work force and stronger america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, for five minutes. mr. kildee: thank you, mr. speaker. it has been one month since the senate acted in a bipartisan fashion to pass emergency unemployment extension. just hours after the senate acted, i introduced a bill, h.r. 4415, the same language, passed by the senate, it's fully paid for, would not increase the deficit. unlike the hundreds of billions of dollars in permanent tax breaks that the republican leadership intends to bring to the floor this week. yet a month later we still have no vote scheduled for extending unemployment insurance for millions of americans. no vote despite the fact that over 150 members of congress, democrats and republicans, have co-sponsored h.r. 4415.

no vote despite the fact that 2.6 million americans have already lost this important benefit, and 2.8 will have lost that benefit by the end of the month. almost three million americans. no vote with 72,000 individuals, americans, hardworking americans every week at risk of losing their unemployment insurance if we don't act. helping jobless americans who are actively looking for work is not only the right thing to do, but we have done this before. we have done this under democratic administrations and republican administrations. it's not a handout. it's simply a life line to help those folks who have lost their job staying above ground, above water before they get their next job. this should not be a partisan issue. yet yesterday the republican leadership said no to letting some of these jobless americans

testify at a capitol hill hearing. we were locked out of the room that we had requested. 2.8 million jobless americans. they may be invisible to the house republican leadership, but they will not be silenced. so while they are lorked out of the hearing room -- locked out of the hearing room at the rayburn house office building, i and these other americans joined these unemployed americans yesterday, went to the steps of the capitol, and listened to them as they told their stories. this is their capitol, not ours. it belongs to them. and their voices deserve to be heard. i also ask hardworking americans who are unemployed to tweet and email me their stories. my news feed and inbox was flooded with stories of people just trying to get by, struggling to pay their rent, struggling to feed their families as they continue to be denied a vote in the house of representatives to renew

unemployment insurance. they have continued to be denied their voice in the house of representatives, and this is the people's house. what i would like to to with my remaining time is just tell a few of the stories that have come in. lynette b. says, i quote, we just received our foreclosure letter on our home. i am 49 years old and this is certainly not -- this is not where i see myself at this age. i am educated, and i have been applying to no less than three jobs per day only to not get a reply for most of them or else i'm overqualified. jennifer s., this is jennifer and her family, i never thought i would be in this position. unemployed and worrying about feeding my two growing boys, 14 and 9. i have had to go to food pantries to keep food on the table. i am behind in my car payment. and the utilities since my

unemployment benefits stopped december 28. laura b. writes, quote, i need the extension so i can afford to keep the internet on to look for jobs and afford the gas to go to interviews. it's very hard out there and there are so many unemployed people looking for each job that the chances are slim. angela m. writes, quote, please help with u.i. i have lost almost everything. sold my car, pawned my wedding rings, selling furniture to keep a rented roof over my kids he' heads. -- kids' heads. elaine g. writes i live with my 27-year-old daughter and sleep on an air mattress. i have no phone, i complete applications now and ask employers to contact me through email. i expect any day that my car will be repossessed.

as soon as the finance company is able to locate the car. carol c. writes, come june 1 i will have to leave my apartment. my car, phone, internet will be gone. i have no money for essentials like goods so how does somebody find a job? thank you, mr. speaker, fo -- for allowing me to raise these voices. these are real americans. they are real stories. some of the questions we face in this congress are complicated. this one is simple. take up h.r. 4415 and we can take away the pain so many americans, almost three million americans are facing. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to the inform the house that the senate has passed h.r. 4192, an act to regulate the height of buildings in the district of columbia.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to recognize the extraordinary life of johnny erickson toda. when johnny was 17 years healed, she was just like any other high school graduate. she was thrilled to be on the brink of college and she was excited to spend a summer swimming in the nearby chesapeake bay. with high school behind her, she was ready to really begin her life. she was not prepared, however, to have her fourth cervical vertebrae crushed in a terrible accident. an accident which would render her a paralyzed quadraplegic and shatter her mobility and independence forever. unfortunately that's exactly what happened. on july 30, 1967, while diving

with her sister, she misjudged the depth of the water and snapped her neck at the bottom of the water. she lost all movement in her hands and legs and was rushed motionless to the hospital. johnnie spent many crueling months there and often thought about killing herself. she thought her life was not worth living and she didn't want to be a burden on her loved ones. there were many nights i would wrench my head back and forth on the pillow hoping to break my neck up at a higher level. i wanted to die, johnnie later said. there were times she even asked her friends to help her commit suicide. she was desperate to end her life. but despite her intense depression, despite her intense physical suffering, it was during this time that johnnie turned to her christian faith and began to surge for new purpose in her tragedy. she studied her bible, leaned on her friends and family, and prayed for guidance until she realized almost overnight that

while she could never be able to walk again, she could choose to live through her disability. the lord could use her to inspire and encourage others. so she revolved, and i quote, one night lying there in the hospital i said, god, if i can't die, please show me how to live. and i'm glad to say, mr. speaker, that she has lived well and is one of the most inspirational figures i know and has touched so many lives with her incredible story. let me briefly outline some of her many accomplishments and undertakings. during a two-year rehabilitation period after she left the hospital, johnnie learned how to hold a paintbrush using her teeth. she labored away at this skill and often struggled until she mastered the technique. today her art work is prized around the world and is just one of the many ways she has provided inspiration. in 1979, she founded johnnie and

friends, a christian ministry dedicated to serving the disabled community around the world. it partners with local churches to provide resources and support for thousands of families afflicted by disabilities. in fact, her organization has served families in 47 countries and in 2006, opened a new facility in the united states. just a you few weeks ago i had the pleasure -- just a few weeks ago i had the pleasure to meet and talk with johnnie about her ministry and privileged to introduce her before she spoke at belhaven university in jackson, mississippi. the ministry does such incredible work and let me tell you, i don't think she has any plans of slowing down. in addition to all this, she has somehow found time to publish over 50 books, many of which are critically acclaimed and rank on bestseller lists, her radio show, johnnie and friends, is broadcast in over 1,000 outlets and in 2002 won the radio program of the year award from

the national religious broadcasters association. johnnie has even helped us get things done here in washington. she has represented the disabled on numerous government committees and was instrumental in the passage of the americans with disabilities act, and she continues to help. as for awards, her list is very long. she's the recipient of the victory award from the national rehabilitation hospital, the golden word award from the international bible society, and the courage award from the courage rehabilitation center. she's the recipient of the william wilbur force award. she holds degrees from westminster seminary, indiana wes layan university, columbia university, lancaster bible church, western maryland college. as i said, she's quite the achiever. and how doee