car company recalling cars in great numbers this year. there have been some 23 million recalls so far this year by u.s. automakers. gm is the one that has the biggest, most acute problem. gm is the one that is under scrutiny by the federal government for allegedly covering up safety problems that may have caused crashes and cost people their lives. i don't think any fair-minded person is going to begrudge manufacturers for putting out and selling some defective products if they are going to manufacture and sell millions of complex products a year. every single that car that runs up the assembly line is going to be flawless. that is not a fair standard. are the vast majority of your rs going to work the way

they're supposed to and will you identify problems quickly? those are the those are fair questions to ask for those who ask people to put down quite a bit of money in exchange for their cars. host: who are the specific auto manufacturers who have some of the largest recalls of some of the ones you mentioned there? guest: toyota has had a significant recall this year and that's in echo of problems that toyota had several years ago where they had substantial recalls related to unintended acceleration. again, the idea that there would be recalls is a fairly routine thing. millions and millions of cars are produced every year and some of them are going to have problems. so i don't think the point is to make a list and say that, look, every single automobile company is recalling some cars. that's true. that's always true.

the question is is the extent of it and, you know, whether the companies come clean quickly after they had a problem. host: and let's try to get max from york, pennsylvania, on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: thanks for the call. real quick. i am going to ask two and please try and answer them. number one, do you think sense the relationship started with the government and g.m. that we're seeing this decay of quality? i know that many of us are out here pretty much believe that the government touches something it kind of turns to mush. and the second thing is, i drive a ford f-150, 1998, one of the most smartly engineered vehicles that i've ever come across. it's so simple. my kid can change the brakes. why can't the major manufacturers -- certainly g.m. with the chevy scols dale.

the drive trains are still going. anybody that maintains them can still have this vehicle. can't they put together something for $20,000 and sell 900. us for $19, repeat the success of that old vehicle that worked so well to us? host: we'll give it to paul barrett for the last minute we have in this segment. guest: as for the first question, no, i don't think it's particularly fruitful to take a general theory that everything the government touches turns to mush and therefore because the government had to rescue g.m. that the government is to blame for problems that existed at g.m. for decades. so i think that's heading down a not particularly fruitful path. and i think you ought to focus on g.m. as an organization and its problems. as to the second question, that seems like the most reasonable

question, you know, i ever heard which is clearly some models of automobiles do work. and it is mystifying to me, as it sounds like it's mystifying to this caller why the auto companies can't take the models that work and just keep making them and do a better job in screening out the designs, the engineering setups that aren't as promising. it is a mystery, because i'm not an engineer, i don't have a ready answer and it sounds to me like this buyer is suggesting that people ought to be buying the model of ford pickup that he's had and enjoyed and thinks so much of and maybe should not buying those models that are being identified now with all these recalls. so you do have some power as a consumer. go out, buy the cars that work. host: paul barrett is is the assistant managing editor and nior editor at "blurring

businessweek." guest: my pleasure, thanks. host: and that will do it to today's "washington journal." we'll take you live to west point where president obama is scheduled to give the commencement address there. -- on ee you tomorrow at "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern/4:00 a.m. pacific. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> here on c-span we are live at west point for the graduation, the class of 2014 of the u.s. military academy. president obama expected to arrive shortly. we saw the arrival of the army secretary mchugh just a few moments ago. so things should get under way shortly. the president using this commencement address to outline a broader foreign policy, foreign policy magazine says that president obama will use the commencement to launch a new offensive saying this high-profile speech at west point is designed to show it has plans in place to deal with

the islamist militants in africa, syria. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the 21st secretary of the army, the honorable john mchugh, the 38th chief of staff of the united states army, general ray odierno and the lieutenant tendent, caselen.obert l.

♪ ♪ >> ladies and gentlemen, the resident of the united states. [playing "hail to the chief"]

"star spangled banner" playing ]

[cheers and applause] >> order. arms. n.

staff, return. ready. cut. staff, uncovered. >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain standing for the shear. on by chaplain >> i invite you to pray with me, if you so choose. lord, it has been 47 long months for these young men and women and their families. thank you that from our day you brought them safely through cadet basic. from calculus to physics to the ioct, we asked you for patience for the new barracks construction and the endurance to handle long nights with little sleep.

most of all, lord, we praise you that through your steadfast presence these women and men have grown from wide eyed immature high school graduates to be leaders of character. so now, lord, as they trade their cadet grays to dress blues, i ask you to lead them as soldiers into the future. may they perform their duty for total respect for those they serve and those they lead. may they live in such a way na the honor of the corps remains untarnished and unsullied and by their actions may this great country, its political and military leaders and most of all its people ever be safe. this i pray in your great name, amen. >> ladies and gentlemen, please be seated.

>> staff, recover. take seats. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the 59th superintendent of the united states military academy, lieutenant general robert l. caselen. [applause] >> well, good morning, and welcome to the graduation ceremony for the class of 2014. what a great day here in west point in the hudson valley, and it looks like the weather is holding off and let's just hope it kind of holds off for another few minutes here. but we are fortunate and

grateful. thank you, all, for being here and sharing this day with us and welcome. i want to extend a special welcome to the parents and the grandparents and the families and friends of our graduates. thank you for your continued support and helping your cadets to get here, to stay here and to make it to the end. and although it's also a beginning, that end is finally here and, boy, that sounds good. thank you and welcome. let me take a moment to acknowledge the distinguished guest who is are with us on the dais, the president of the united states, president barack obama. [applause] our 21st secretary of the army, the honorable john m. mchuge. -- mchugh. [applause]

and our 38th chief of staff of the united states army, general raymond odierno. [applause] class of 2014, today you become lieutenants in an army that is the best trained, the best equipped and battle hardened after more than a dozen years of battle, and today you also become members of the professional bonds, servants to the nation and of course members of the line. all of us up here and the many we represent who have had a hand in your development these past four years, we all cannot be more proud of you. in the past four years, you have met every challenge to become the leaders of character that our army and our nation must have in these uncertain times. on this day, as you assume the manner of commissioned officer leadership and accept the sacred responsibility and privilege of leading american soldiers, you have the complete trust and confidence of

everybody on this dais and may i be bold enough to say all of america as well. you should never doubt you are well prepared. throughout your four-year experience at west point and for some of you maybe a little bit more, you worked and sweat and maybe bled a little to become what the academy mission says, to be commissioned leaders to be committed to value, duty in country and a career of professional excellence. well, today you are there. well done and congratulations. mr. -- [applause] mr. president, you can be proud of these outstanding young men and women. to be sure they will live up to their motto, for every one team and they'll serve our nation with the dedication and commitment and character that they -- as they take their place with the many who have gone before them.

standing in the gap between whatever evil is out there in the values of our constitution, our american people. sir, thank you for agreeing to be our graduation speaker for this memorable graduation ceremony. you have honored us more than you can imagine for being here. distinguished guests, members of the class of 2014, family and friends of west point, today we are truly honored and i am privileged to introduce today's graduation speaker, our commander in chief, our 44th president of the united states, president barack obama. mr. president. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you. thank you, general caslen, for that introduction.

to general clark, the faculty and staff at west point, you have been outstanding stewards of this proud institution and outstanding mentors for the newest officers in the united states army. i'd like to acknowledge the army's leadership, general mchugh, secretary mchugh, general odierno as well as senator jack reed and a proud graduate of west point himself. to the class of 2014, i congratulate you on taking your place on the long gray line. among you is the first .ll-female command team, erin you have a rhodes scholar. and josh proves that west point

accuracy extends beyond the three-point line. to the entire class, let me reassure you in these final hours at west point, as commander in chief, i hereby absolve all cadets who are on estriction for minor conduct offenses. [applause] let me just add that nobody ever did that for me when i was in school. [laughter] i know you join me in extending a word of thanks to your families. joe, whose son, james, is graduating, spoke for a whole lot of parents when he wrote me letter about the sacrifices you've made.

deep inside, he wrote, we want to explode with pride at what they are committing to do in the service of our country. like several graduates, james is a combat veteran, and i would ask all of us here today to stand and pay tribute not only to the veterans among us but to the more than 2.5 million americans who have served in iraq and afghanistan as well as their families. [applause]

this particular useful time for america to reflect on those who sacrificed so much for our freedom. a few days after memorial day. you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in iraq or afghanistan. cheers and applause] when i first spoke at west point in 2009, we still had more than 100,000 troops in iraq. we were preparing to surge in afghanistan. our counterterrorism efforts were focused on al qaeda's core leadership. those who are carried out the 9/11 attacks. and our nation was just

beginning a long climb out of the worst economic crisis since the great depression. 4 1/2 years later as you graduate, the landscape has changed. we have removed our troops from iraq, we are winding down our war in afghanistan. al qaeda's leadership on the border region between pakistan and afghanistan has been decimated, and osama bin laden s no more. [applause] and through it all we've refocused our investments in what has always been a key source of american strength, a growing economy that can provide opportunity for everybody who's willing to work hard and take responsibility here at home. in fact, by most measures, america has rarely been

stronger relative to the rest of the world. those who argue otherwise, who suggest that america is in decline or as seen its global leadership slip away are either misreading history or are engaging in partisan politics. think about it. our military has no fear. the eyes of a direct threat against us by any nation is low and doesn't come close to the dangers we faced during the cold war. meanwhile, our economy remains the most dynamic on earth. our businesses the most innovative. each year we grow more energy independent. from europe to asia, we are the hub of alliances unrivaled in the history of nations.

america continues to atrack striving immigrants. the values of our founding inspire leaders in parliaments and new movements in public squares around the globe. and when a typhoon hits the philippines or school girls are kidnapped in nirgee or -- my jeeria or mad men occupy a building in ukraine, it is a building that the world looks to for help. [applause] so the united states remains one indispensible nation that has been true for the century past and it will be true for the century to come. but the world is changing with

accelerating speed. this presents opportunity but also new dangers. we know all too well after 9/11 just how technology and globalization has put power once reserved for states in the hands of individuals. raising the capacity of terrorists to do harm. russia's aggression towards former soviet states unnerves capitals in europe while china's economic rise and military reach worries its neighbors. from brazil to india, rising ddle classes compete with us and governments have a greater say in global forums. and even as developing nations embrace democracy and market economies, 24-hour news and social media makes it impossible to ignore the continuation of sectarian

conflicts and failing states and popular uprisings that might have received only passing notice a generation ago. it will be your generation's task to respond to this new world. the question we face, the question each of you will face is not whether america will lead but how we will lead. not just to secure our peace and prosperity but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe. now, this question isn't new. at least since george washington served as commander in chief there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that don't touch directly on our security or

economic well-being. today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in syria or ukraine or the central african republic re not ours to solve and not surprisingly after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home, that view is shared by many americans. a different view from interventionists from the left and right say that we ignore these conflicts at our own peril, that america's willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos and america's failure to act in the face of syrian brutality or russia provocations, not only violates our conscience but invites escalating aggression in the future. and each side can point to history to support its claims. but i believe neither view

fully speaks to the demands of this moment. it is absolutely true that in the 21st century american isolationism is not an option. we don't have a choice to ignore what happens beyond our borders. if nuclear materials are not secure, that poses a danger to american citizens. as the syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened extremist groups to come after us only increases. regional aggression that goes unchecked, whether in southern ukraine or the south china sea or anywhere else in the world will ultimately impact our allies and could draw in our military. we can't ignore what happens beyond our boundaries. and beyond these narrow

rationales, i believe we have a real stake, a biding self-interest in making sure our children and grandchildren grow up in a world where school girls are not kidnapped when individuals are not slaughtered cause of tribe or faith or political belief. i believe that a world of greater freedom intolerance is not only a moral imperative, it also helps to keep us safe. but to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. since world war ii, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures without thinking through the

consequences, without building international support and i will jit massey for our action -- legitimacy for our action, wowl leveling with the american -- without leveling with the american people about the sacrifices required. tough talk often draws headlines but war rarely conforms to slogans. general eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this remony in 1947, war is mankinds most tragic and stupid folly. to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men. like eisenhower, this generation of men and women in uniform know all too well the wages of war, and that includes those of you here at west point.

four of the service members who stood in the audience when i announced the surge of our forces in afghanistan gave heir lives in that effort. a lot more were wounded. i believe that america's security demanded those deployments, but i am haunted by those deaths. i am haunted by those wounds. and i would betray my duty to you and to the country we love if i ever sent you into harm's way simply because i saw a problem somewhere in the world that needed to be fixed. or because i was worried about critics who think military intervention is the only way for america to avoid looking eak. here's my bottom line.

america must always lead on the world stage. .f we don't, no one else will the military that you have joined is and always will be the backbone of that leadership. but u.s. military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership in every instance. just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. because the costs associated with military action are so high, you should expect every civilian leader and especially your commander in chief to be clear about how that awesome power should be used. so let me spend the rest of my time describing my vision for how the united states of america and our military should

lead in the years to come. for you will be part of that leadership. first, let me repeat a principal effort i said, the united states will use military force unilaterally when necessary when our core interests demand it. when our people are threatened, when our livelihoods are at stake. when the security of our allies is in danger. in these circumstances, we need to ask tough questions whether our actions are proportional and just. international opinion matters. america should never ask permission to protect our people, our homeland or our way of life.

[applause] when global concerns do not pose a direct threat to the united states, when such issues are at stake, when crises arrive that push the world in a more dangerous direction but do not directly threaten us, then the threshold for military action must be higher. in such circumstances, we should not go it alone. instead, we must mobilize allies and partners to take collective action. we have to broaden our tools to include diplomacy and and pment, sanctions isolation. appeal to international law. and if just necessary and effective, multilateral military action.

in such circumstances, we have to work with others because collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed. more likely to be sustained. less likely to lead to costly mistakes. this leads to my second point. for the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to america at home and abroad remains terrorism. but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. i believe we must shift our counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in iraq and afghanistan. to more effectively partner with countries where terrorist networks seek a foot hold.

and the need for a new strategy reflects the fact that today's principal threat no longer comes from a centralized al qaeda leadership. instead, it comes from decentralized al qaeda affiliates and extremists, many with the focus in countries where they operate. and this lessens the possibility of large-scale 9/11-style attacks against the homeland, but it heightens the danger of u.s. peshell overseas being attacked -- personle overseas being attacked, like we saw in benghazi. it heightens less defensible targets as we saw in a shopping mall in nairobi. so we have to develop a strategy that matches this threat, one that expands our reach without sending forces that stretch our military too thin or stir up local resentments.

we need partners to fight terrorists alongside us. and this is a large part of what we have done and what we are currently doing in afghanistan. together with our allies, america struck huge blows against the al qaeda core and pushed back against the insurgenceys that threatened to overrun the country. but this is for the afghans to do the job and that's why we trained hundreds of thousands of afghan soldiers and police. earlier this spring, those forces, those afghan forces secured an election in which afghans voted for the first democratic transfer of power in their history. and at the end of this year, a new afghan president will be in office, and america's combat . ssion will be over now --

[applause] that was an enormous achievement made because of america's armed forces. but as we move to a train and advise mission in afghanistan, our reduced presence there allows us to more effectively address emerging threats in the middle east and north africa. so earlier this year, i asked my national security team to develop a plan for a network of artnerships from south asia. today as part of this effort i'm calling on congress to support a new counterterrorism partnership fund of up to $5 billion which would allow us to train, build capacity and facilitate partner countries on the front lines. and these resources will give us flexibility to fulfill different missions, including training security forces in yemen who've gone on the

offensive against al qaeda, supporting a multinational force to keep the peace in somalia, working with european allies to train a functioning security force and border patrol in libya and facilitating french operations in mali. a critical focus of this effort will be the ongoing crisis in syria. as frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers there, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon. as president, i made a decision that we should not put american troops into the middle of this increasingly sectarian war, and i believe that is the right decision, but that does not mean we shouldn't help the syrian people stand up against dictator who bombs and starves his own people.

and in helping those who fight for the right of all syrians to choose their own future, we are also pushing back against the growing number of extremists who find safe haven in the chaos. so with the additional resources i'm announcing today, we will step up our efforts to support syria's neighbors. jordan and lebanon, turkey and iraq, as they confront terrorists working across syria's borders. i will work with congress to ramp up support for those in the syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators. and we will continue to coordinate with our friends and allies in europe and the arab world to push for a political resolution of this crisis and to make sure that those countries, and not just the united states, are contributing -- fair share of support

to support the syrian people. let me make a final point about our efforts against terrorism. the partnerships i described do not eliminate the need to take direct action, when necessary, o protect ourselves. when we have actionable intelligence, that's what we do . operations like the one that brought the terrorists involved in the plot to bomb our embassies in 1998 to face justice or drone strikes like those we've carried out in yemen and somalia. there are times when those actions are necessary and we cannot hesitate to protect our people. but as i said last year, in taking direct action, we must uphold standards that reflect our values. that means taking strikes only when we face a continuing

imminent threat and only where there is no certainty that there is near certainty of no civilian casualties. for our actions should meet a simple test. we must not create more enemies than we take off the battlefield. i also believe we must be more transparent about both the basis of our counterterrorism actions and the manner in which they are carried out. we have to be able to explain them publicly, whether it is drone strikes or training partners. i will increasingly turn to our military to take the lead and provide information to the public about our efforts. our intelligence community has done outstanding work, and we have to continue to protect sources and methods, but when we cannot explain our efforts clearly and publicly, we face terrorist probable ganda and international suspicion.

we erode let jit massey with our partners and we reduce accountability within our own government. this i shall sh -- we erode legitimacy with our partners and we reduce accountability within our own government. we need to strengthen and enforce international order. after world war ii, america had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress. from nato and the united nations, to the world bank and i.m.f. these institutions are not perfect, but they have been a force multiplier. they reduce the need for unilateral american action and increase restraint among other nations. now, just as the world has changed, this architecture must change as well.

at the height of the cold war, president kennedy spoke sb the need for a peace based upon -- spoke about the need for a peace based upon human institutions and involving these international institutions to meet the demands of today must be a critical part of american eadership. there are a lot of folks, a lot of skeptic who is often downplay the effort of multilateral action. for them working through international institutions like the u.n. or respecting international law is a sign of weakness. i think they're wrong. let me offer just two examples why. in ukraine, russia's actions were called to the day when soviet tanks rolled into eastern europe. but this isn't the cold war. our ability to shape world continue helps isolate russia

right away. because of american leadership, the world immediately condemned russian actions. europe and the g-7 joined us to sbose sanctions. nato reinforced our effort to europe allies. and they helped to stable ukraine's economy. and they brought the eyes to the unstable parts of ukraine and this mobilization of world opinion and international institutions served as a counterweight to russian propaganda and russian troops armed border and militias in ski masks. this weekend, ukrainians voted by the millions. yesterday i spoke to their next president. we don't know how the situation will play out and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order, working with international

institutions has given a chance for the ukrainian people to choose their future. ithout us firing a shot. similarly, despite frequent warnings from the united states and israel and others, the iranian nuclear program steadily advanced four years. but the beginning of my presidency, we built a oalition that imposed sanction s on the iranian economy while extending diplomacy to the iranian government, and now we have an opportunity to resolve our differences peacefully. the odds of success are still long and we reserve all options to prevent eye rain from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but for the first time in a decade we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what

we could have achieved through the use of force. and throughout these negotiations it's been our willingness to work through multilateral channels that kept the world on our side. the point is this is american leadership. this is american strength. in each case we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge, and now we need to do more to strengthen the institutiones that can anticipate and prevent problems from spreading. for example, nato is the strongest alliance the world has ever known but we're not working with nato allies to meet new missions, both within europe where our eastern allies must be reassured but also beyond europe's borders where our nato allies have to pull their weight to counterterrorism and respond to failed states and train a network of partners.

likes-wise, the u.n. provides a platform to keep the peace in states torn apart by conflict. now we need to make sure that those countries have peacekeepers have the training and equipment to keep the peace, so we can prevent the type of killing we've seen in congo and sudan. we are going to deepen our investments in countries that support these peacekeeping missions because having countries maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put our own troops in harm's way. it's a smart investment. it's the right way to lead. [applause] keep in mind not all international norms related -- we have a serious problem with cyberattacks which is why we're working to shape and enforce

rules to secure our networks and our citizens. in the asia pacific, we're supporting southeast asia nations as they negotiate a code of conduct with china on maritime disputes in the south china sea, and we're working to resolve these disputes through international law. that spirit of cooperation needs to energize the global effort to combat climate change, a creeping national security crisis that will help shape your time in uniform as we are called on to respond to refugee flows and natural disasters and conflicts over water and food. which is why next year i intend to make sure that america is out front in putting together a global framework to preserve our planet. you see, american influence is always stronger when we lead by example.

we can't exempt ourselves from the rules that apply to everybody else. we can't call on others to make commitments to combat climate change if a whole lot of our political leaders deny that it's taking place. we can't try to resolve problems in the south china sea when we have refused to make sure that the law of the sea convention is ratified by the united states senate, despite the fact that our top military leaders say the treaty advances our national security. that's not leadership. that's retreat. that's not strength. that's weakness. it would be utterly foreign to leaders like roosevelt and

. uman, eisenhower and kennedy i believe in american exceptionalism with every fiber of my being, but what makes us exceptional is not our ability to flout international norms and the rule of law, it is to affirm them through our actions. [applause] that's why i will continue to push to close gitmo because american values and legal traditions do not permit the indefinite detention of people beyond our borders. [applause] that's why we're putting in place new restrictions on how america collects and uses intelligence. because we will have fewer partners and be less effective if a perception takes hold that we're conducting surveillance against ordinary citizens.

[applause] america does not simply stand for stability or the absence of conflict no matter what the costs, we stand for the more lasting peace that can only come through opportunity and for freedom for people everywhere. which brings me to the fourth and final element of american leadership. our willingness to act on behalf of human dignity. america's support for democracy and human rights goes beyond idealism. it's a matter of national sduret. democracy -- security. democracies is our closest friends and is far less likely to go to war. economies based on free and open markets perform better and ecome markets for our goods. respect for human rights is an antidote to instability, and the griefanses that fuel

violence and terror. -- grievances that fuel violence and terror. a new century has brought no end to tyranny, and capitals around the globe, including unfortunately some of america's partners, there's become a crackdown on civil society. the cancer of corruption has enriched too many governments and their cronies, enraged citizens from remote villages to iconic squares, and watching these trends or the violent upheavals in parts of the world, it's easy to be cynical. but remember that because of america's efforts, because of american diplomacy and foreign assistance as well as the sacrifices of our military, more people live under elected governments today than in any time in human history. technologies empowering civil society in ways that no iron fist can control.

new breakthroughs are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. and even the upheaval of the arab world rejects the authoritarian order of anything that was stable and now has the long-term prospect of respected governance. and countries like egypt, they acknowledge that they are anchored in peace treaties to israel to shared efforts against violent extremism. so we will not cut off operation with the new government but we can and will press for reforms that the egyptian people have demanded. and meanwhile, look at a country like burma which only a few years ago was an intractable dictatorship and hostile to the united states. 40 million people. thanks to the enormous curgescurge of the people in

that country -- courage of the people in that country and because we took the diplomatic initiative, we have seen political reforms open a once-closed society. a movement by burmese leadership away from partnership with north korea in favor of engagement with america and her allies. we're now supporting reform in badly needed -- and badly needed reconciliation through investment, through coaxing at at times public criticism and progress there could be reversed but about burma succeeds, we will have gained a new friend without having fired a shot. american leadership. . in each of these cases we should not expect change to happen overnight. for unlike other nation, america is not afraid of individual empowerment. we are strengthened by it.

we are strengthened by civil society. we are strengthened by the free press. we are strengthened by entrepreneurs and small businesses. we are strengthened by educational exchange and opportunity for all people and women and girls, that's who we are. that's what they represent. [applause] the trip to africa last year, where american assistance has made possible the prospect of an aids-free generation while helping africans care themselves for their sick. having farmers get their products to market. to feed populations once endangered by famine. we aim to double access to electricity in sub-saharan

africa so people are connected to the promise of the global economy. all this creates new partners and shrinks the space for terrorism and conflict. tragically no american security operation can eradicate the threat posed by that extremist group like bokeo haram, the group that kidnapped those girls. that's why we have to focus not just on rescuing those girls right away, but also i'm supporting the education of their youth. it should be one of the hard-earned lessons of iraq and afghanistan. when our military became the strongest advocate for diplomacy and development, they understood that foreign assistance is not an afterthought. something nice to do apart from our national defense, apart from our national security. it is part of what makes us trong.

ultimately global leadership requires us to see the world as it is. with all its danger and uncertainty. we have to be prepared for the worst. prepared for every concontinue againcy. but american leadership requires us to see the world as it should be. a place where the aspirations of individual human beings really matters. where hopes and not just fears govern. where the truths written into our founding documents can steer the currents of history in a direction ever justice. we cannot do that without you. i i class of 2014, you have taken this time to prepare on

the quiet banks of the hudson. you leave this place to carry forward a legacy that no other military in human history can climb. you do so as part of a team that extends beyond your units or even the armed forces for in the course of your service you will work as a team with diplomats and development experts. you'll get to know allies and trade partners. and you will embody what it means for america to lead the world. next week will i go to normandy to honor the men who stormed the beaches there. and while it's hard for many americans to comprehend the courage and sense of duty that guided those who boarded small to you.t's familiar at west point you decide what it

means to be a patriot. three years ago gavin white graduated from this academy. he then served in afghanistan. like the soldiers who came before him, gavin was in a foreign land helping people he never met. putting himself in harm's way for the sake of his community and his family and the folks back home. gavin lost one of his legs in an attack. i met him last year at walter but just as wounded as determined as the day that he arrived here at west point and e developed a single goal, today his sister, morgan, will

graduate. and true to his promise, gavin will be there to stand and exchange salutes with her. [applause] >> we have been through a long season of war.

we have faced trials that were not foreseen and we have seen divisions about how to move there is something in gavin's character, there is something in the american always try.at we'll leaving here you carry with you the respect of your fellow citizens. you will represent a nation with istory and hope on our side. your charge now not only to protect our country, but to do . at is right and just as your commander in chief, i know you will. may god bless you. may god bless our men and women in uniform.

and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] >> mr. president, on behalf of the class of 2014, i present to you our commander in chief the class battle ring. this ring symbolized our shared values of duty, honor, and country and we are for one team. service to the nation, we all bonded by our dedication to selfless service and loyalty to our country. we hope that this ring serves as a reminder of our thoughts and commitment to our brothers and

sisters in arms and our ultimate mission. thank you, sir. [applause] >> prom receiving the recognition from the graduating class of 2014 at the u.s. military academy. finishing up his 40-minute speech or so outlining u.s. foreign policy. here on c-span we are opening up our phone lines to get your thoughts on the president's foreign policy. you can join us by phone at 202-585-3885 for democrats. for independents, for 484-3886.ns, 202- and independents, 202-585-3887. e are on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. the #c-span chat. the president spent time talking about issues range interesting

afghanistan. this on the heels of an announcement yesterday we'llp keeping 10,000 troops in afghanistan through 2016. range interesting afghanistan, climate change, and more at west point. this comes four years after the speech in 2010. two years knee the first term he spoke in may of 2010 jut lining his foreign policy at that time. "the washington post" reporting on that speech is it was a departure from what bush recalled a distinctly internationalism. the president at that time pledging to shape a new "international order based on diplomacy and engagement." what do you think about what you heard from the president and what you have seen in his foreign policy? go to texas. this is lois on our democrats line. caller: i just think that this man, president obama, is a man for the times in which we live. he's reasonable.

he's thoughtful. and i agree with every word he says. host: oregon is next. this is janet on our republican line. what did you hear? caller: i heard more of the same. so much of what he says to me and my family and the people that i live around is just rhetoric. it means nothing to us. think as opposed to going to normandy. i'll be surprised if he goes because he's never been gone before. we are giving money and aid to people who hate us. i'm sure they would hate us without all that money and aid. i would like him to see -- take more interest in the american way. i don't see that. we have military men all over this contry, my husband is a disabled vet. the care for them is minimal at best no matter where you live. that was one of the things he was going to change but it hasn't changed yet.

he's got a hard job, but i don't think he lived up to the game. host: welcome your comments on facebook as well. facebook.com/c-span. bill posting, alienating u.s. allies and emboldening arab muslim states is not my deof a sound u.s. foreignpolicy. alex responds saying, i suppose drone striking over 3,000 men, women, and children in pakistan is your idea of emboldening muslim states. l.o.l. that's on facebook. e are on twitter, #c-spanchat. here's claudia from cincinnati. democrats line. caller: yes, i think that president barack obama has laid out a sound foreign policy which leaves americans safer. i believe his rationale in making deliberate decisions on when and how to go to war is one of the enormous responsibilities

that he has. i understand that domestic policies, there are many things we need to work on, including the economics of the african-american community. i think the economics of the african-american community is one issue that has not been addressed in my opinion and continues to be a source of despairment among african-americans. host: do you think the president focuses too much attention on foreign policy? caller: i think his attention on foreign policy is warranted because these are the times that we are in. if we were to shift away from that, i believe in my opinion that would he receive criticism. that he's soft on war. that criticism has even with the attention he's focused, he has

received that criticism that he's soft on war and that he's not strong. i believe there have been many instances where he has been diplomatic, but he has also shown that he is the commander in chief. host: the question for you is what do you think of the president's foreignpolicy. the president here handing out the diplomas, the commencement ceremony for the cadets at the u.s. military academy. state of oklahoma, welcome lisa on the g.o.p. line. caller: hi. host: hi. caller: how's it going? why are we training terrorists? that's one of my questions. and another one is when is president obama going to step down as president? host: you talked about training terrorists from the president's speech he says in his speech,

the most direct threat to america at home and abroad remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable. i believe we must shift or counterterrorism strategy, drawing on the successes and shortcomings of our experience in iraq and afghanistan to more effectively partnerle with countries where terrorist networks seek a foothold. on that note the president today announcing a $5 billion counterterrorism partnership fund. here secretary kerry tweets about it. it will help train other countries to take on radical extreme i. -- extremism. democrats line what, do you think of the president's speech today and foreign policy plan? caller: i totally support president obama. i think he is thoughtful. he is not impulsive. he is able to look at the whole picture and determine what is best for the united states. and i think he is very caring

and empowering, and he is an example of what president of the united states should be. i strongly support him. and i wish that republican would not dilute our power as a nation by commenting so negatively no matter what idea he comes up with. host: the president mentioning at the end of his speech he'll travel next week to normandy for the 70th anniversary of the normandy invasion of, d-day. right after yesterday's announcement, his plan to keep 10,000 troops in afghanistan in an advisory and training role, at least through 2016 following the end of combat operations u.s. combat operations in afghanistan. to the republican line. this is elcan hone, california.

hello. caller: hi. i actually -- i listened to him and i think that his message was very concerning because i think he has some things to say about i.m.f. and the world bank which align with communist man festo -- manifesto, and i think it's very concerning that they -- host: what did he say in particular about the i.m.f. in his speech? caller: that we were going to strengthen our partnership with the i.m.f. and the world bank. and if you go to carl marks' communist manifesto, it actually talks about that. it talks about the creation of a world bank and the creation of hings like the

revolutionization of farming and industry and making it all under one government control. and i think that's what he's trying to do here. host: this is part of what the president said. after world war ii america had the wisdom to shape institutions to keep the peace and support human progress from nato and the united states to the world bank and i.m.f. though imperfect these institution vs. been a force multiplier, reducing the need for unilateral american action and increased restraint among other nations. part of the president's speech. you'll get a chance to see this speech again later in our program schedule. you'll find it online shortly at c-span.org. welcome your comments on twitter. cspan chat, and facebook as well. cambridge, ohio, go ahead. caller: hi. in listening to the president whom i have never voted for and

whom i had very mixed feelings bout not only the -- his policies but even his credibility and the -- listening today and knowing things now that i didn't know before, for the first thing i want to say is that i realize that he's my president. despite the fact that i have never voted for him and that i him t my experience with a voter and citizen of this country has been mixed and often highly critical, i felt that he made oftentimes goofy simple mistakes that caused us great trouble, because he depends so

uch on his articulateness to pound his--politically supportive. i see now and i have come to see that there is so much now in the war on terrorism that -- and in the american foreign policy, that is necessaryly -- necessarily covert. so he alluded to, for example, the drone strikes. -- strikes against our enemies as they recited in pakistan. that i think from all i have ard is a very successful intervention and yet you hear very little about it in the public press. i read about it until foreign sources but not there. and i have also -- here's a

fellow with a history, myself, this i fail to compare president with say truman at the end of world war ii -- host: jeremy with two years left on his term here, where would you grade the president's foreign policy? you said you're an independent. you haven't voted for him. what kind of grade would you give him? caller: you know, with all respect i would grade him no worse than other presidents. but the circumstances he faces are unique. host: jeremy we appreciate your call. one of the domestic issues -- military domestic issues, treatment of veterans at v.a. septemberers. last week the president sprorget his v.a. secretary, eric shinseki, the issue comes to political political this evening with a house veterans' affairs

committee hearing looking at the medical care at that phoenix facility. and three official from that facility are set to testify. an unusual time for a hearing. that's because the house is coming back today. look for that hearing live on c-span2 this evening at 7:30 p.m. yes, you'll be able to follow it online as well. here's dana, a democrat in pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: hello, thank you for the opportunity to make a comment. i love this president, i always have. and i think the american people got it right twice. when they elected him into office. and re-elected him into office. i think he's steadfast. i think he's calm. i think he looks at everything in the big picture. and i don't believe he's being swayed by the ignorance that the republican people are showing us now. i have listened to the same speech that people that are calling in on the republican line have called in on.

and i don't understand why they have heard something so completely different than what i have heard. i stand behind this man. i hope he continues to bring us forward into this world instead of backwards into battle. host: a couple more of your calls as we watch the president congratulate cadets at the u.s. military academy at west point. class of 2014. a couple of quick tweets, though, c-spanchat is the #from susan, what do i think of the president's foreign policy? he can't even run his own administration. honestly i.e., v.a., i.r.s., n.s.a., health and human services. craig says a wonderful summary of the speech and goals and plans for our foreign policy. bill king tweeting, i hope he gets gtmo closed and passes climate change legislation with or without congress. both mentioned in the speech. one more, there's nothing like military pomp and circumstance. i thank god for the diversity

displayed by the graduates of west point. your thoughts at c-spanchat. also welcome them continually at facebook.com/c-span. kim in ohio, republican line. caller: yes. i sat here watching the cadet thing here. our foreign policy is -- with this prs president seems like every time -- with this president seems like every time he makes a commitment, draw a line in the sand like libya or the -- anything that happens that's real serious, where does he go? he disappears. he goes golfing. raising funds. and disappears. could you answer me why he disappears? and one more question. how did the leak get out about

our c.i.a. members in -- member in afghanistan? host: talking about the station chief who was -- inappropriately identified during the president's visit? we lost kimming there. i think that's what he's referring to. hear from tampa, florida. last call. bonnie on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i just am thoroughly amazed at the lady prior to me. i have listened to the calls coming in. obviously people are listening but not hearing. you have a man here who is running the united states of america. it's a bureaucracy. he is being blamed for everything from toilets not working to why aren't we marching in and shooting everybody that doesn't agree with us? we are no longer a country that can just go in and take over other countries. i don't want that. nobody wants that. we sit here and we look at our men without arms, legs.

we look at women that have been killed because they were sent into countries by a former president who had no idea what he was doing. we had no hospitals where they had no protection, where they had no armament. yet we went to war because that's the way we do. we don't do that anymore. we finally have a man who has a little bit of sense and who sees to lead you also have to be able to think. host: that will be the last call for this go-round. thanks for all of them. more tomorrow on "washington journal." live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. you'll be able to see the president's speech again later in our schedule. of course online any time at c-span.org. thank you for joining us. the u.s. house will be gaveling in at about noon eastern today. we will have live coverage here on c-span. of course later today they'll begin consideration of their third spending bill for fiscal year 2014. the commerce, justice, and science spending bill. the senate's out all week. just pro forma sessions.

they are back next week and deal with the nomination of sylvia burwell for the health and human services secretary. live house coverage again here at noon on c-span. up until then we'll take you to a portion of this morning's "washington journal." the president talked about climate change in his speech at west point. here's a look how the issue is playing out in the 2014 midterm elections. >> "washington journa" continues. host: we welcome back to our , ofe elana schor "environmental news." this issue has good personalities involved with big bank accounts trying to drive the discussion. at headline from a recent "l.a. "mes" headline on this topic, the koch brothers, the 2014 ."dical political bogeyman who is tom stier? a former hedge fund

manager. very successful, at one time one of the world's largest hedge fund -- hedge funds. he left that company in 20 12 because gradually he became interested and engaged in climate change and took it as a cause. he said he did not want to leave money on the table and it was his new goal for life. now he has a super pac, what we would call a political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited funds called next to jen. they have a nonprofit group called next generation. he is effectively working as a liberal counterweight to the interests of "the koch brothers -- interests of the koch brothers. made the his pack announcement last week? guest: it will be the biggest spend of an environmental group in history, if he can carry it

through. he is looking to raise $50 million from his own money and $50 million from other sources. he looking to play? governors races and senate races? guest: this is where he becomes politically controversial. he made his name as an opponent of keystone xl. the critics ofll keystone xl to get involved in their races, but he is not ruling out getting involved in other races. races whereng in climate is a factor, where he feels that there is a wedge to talk about this issue, not necessarily the biggest or hottest races, but there are a few in there, like the calm -- colorado senate race, for example. you don't have to agree with a certain set of principles to get in on that super pac? yout: he has three boxes must check. his people are very to the point about how they get involved.

climate has to be a wedge issue. in florida they want to talk about sea level rise. there has to be an opponent who climate denier. an example of this would be in the michigan senate race. in colorado, cory gardner has expressed skepticism that this is contributing to the climate changing. the third issue is -- where might there be a community where it is on tap? farmers in iowa where a drought is decimating their crops, they feel that there is possibility to reorient. republican reaction to his announcement last week, this advertisement came out from terri lynn land, who you mentioned was targeting congressman gary peters, amongst other criticisms, for having

support from tom stier. we will play that and come back to your thoughts. [video clip] on american jobs and paychecks waged by gary peters. he supported carbon taxes that would raise gas prices by $.20 per gallon, killing up to 96,000 michigan jobs, causing the largest tax increase in american history, gary peters voted for it. fill it up,it on, flipped the switch, plug it in, gary peters will leave you in shock. why is he waging a war on michigan jobs and paychecks? he supports the obama job killing agenda and is bankrolled by billionaire radical tom stier. he also supports the call to kill the chat -- kill the cap and trade scheme. >> under my plan, electricity

rates would necessarily skyrocket. >> terry peters, waging war on michigan jobs and paychecks. >> just one of the reactions from republicans to the work that he is already doing this cycle. tom stier doest: not believe he is the same as the koch brothers, he sees them as crafting a political message in line with business interests. he sayss he is concern that this is personal, not business. but the truth is on the campaign trail? a are playing the same in ads like this. they will continue to do so. the role's talk about of the koch brothers and how they play when it comes to energy and climate change issues. as we do that, abc had a chart breaking down the koch brothers versus tom stier, noting their net worth. the koch brothers were worth about $81.2 billion

manufacturing textiles and paper goods, tom stier making his .oney in hedge funds we talked about next to jen climate action. talk to us about americans for prosperity. it is very well connected to the koch brothers. they played a role in founding it and it is their libertarian believe that guides the spending. they are also focused on obamacare and general budgetary issues. they are different and looking forward to climate energy. james writes -- host: we are taking your tweets forcomments and questions elana schor in this segment for the next 35 or 40 minutes or so.

you can also send us an e-mail. we are talking about the koch brothers. the two koch brothers have been the subject of several comments over the recent weeks and months senate majority leader harry reid. i should say criticisms, not comments. [video clip] >> their bid to takeover american democracy is calculated to make themselves even richer. yet they continue to assert that these hundreds of millions of dollars are free-speech.

that may pose a question to everyone, including my friend, the republican leader. if this is free-speech, where does that leave our middle-class constituents? the poor? it leaves them out in the cold. workingevery day american families make their voices heard if money equals free speech? should voters continued to worry about climate change if they are worried about their children's education? should they accept credit cards? is our involvement in government completely dependent on financial resource as? answer should be a resounding no.

the shadowy koch brothers, in attempting to buy america, if they succeed the answer to that question will be yes. host: elana schor, are democrats defending tom stier? harry reid himself defended tom stier soon after that speech. myself and other reporters asked him about tom stier afterwards. he basically offered what tom stier has offered, that he and the democrats want to see campaign spending limits and is about to call up a constitutional amendment to do so but that in the meantime, democrats should not disarm or refuse money from guys like tom stier. for republicans, that is highly debatable. your we are here to take

questions and comments. mike? you are on with elana schor. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. the big earthquake that we had, if you spin and rotate over the this, it isrs like going to change the requirements. lot inrter inch being a your measurement, you take the and we haveearth seen changes in our son. we get up when the sun rises in the east. years ago my

my cousins and friend lost a son. at the end of the school year, it was directly in line with route 30. >> coming into the 2014 election is climate change a top issue for you? in low income, we are forced to watch our electric bill. what i am saying is the sun is left of where it should be. host: mike brings up watching spending on energy department. some of the arguments here are that some of the climate change

proposals go through, it will increase energy prices. mike lives in pennsylvania where the governor's race will hinge in part on whether pennsylvania should join a regional climate change tact. -- packed. there are rules that will push states in that direction. the democratic nominee says i would get in a compact to apply to epa. >> is this sort of a state-level cap and trade system? >> yes, that is essentially what they are. regional versions of the that failed in

congress in 2009. ron in vermont on our democrats line. caller: good morning. through hundreds of years, it is always been the same. give me your first one, give me your prettiest girls in the village, you know. plague when you had a solar eclipse, give me all these things or the sun will not come back. is the kind of thing being perpetrated on the people today. usingare people who are fake --i will say it is

to gain the system. i do not buy into it at all. by now, 2000 13, water would be in miami. i think it is just a way of control. >> richard rogers on the same subject. is the earth warming and our humans contributing? scientists at this andt agree earth is warming humans greenhouse gas emissions are playing a role. the degree to which they are primarily or secondarily driving this is the subject for much of the political brouhaha. stop but it will get more intense next week after the epa unveils its proposal. people feel very strongly that climate change being a

generational as opposed to an immediate impact means they will just have to pay out of their pocket books for an uncertain impact 20 or 30 or 40 years in -- years from now. it will probably run into a lot of headwinds. states is in , the former secretary of state, we showed you the ad earlier. southfield on our line for republicans. good morning. it is fun how the argument is more from global warming. now all of a sudden it is from global climate change. the climate has changed for billions of years before people were even here. also, guess what, if you are a hedge fund guy, you will make a lot of money if there is cap and trade when they start buying and selling these credits.

he definitely has a hidden agenda. he is not just looking out for everybody. your work, doing know about tom's investments. could he benefit from these systems? republicans plan to use this against him. when he left his hedge fund, it was clear he wanted to wind down financial stake and be free of investments in oil. xl and in coal, all of which are uniquely dirty fuels. oil and gas, however, were not addressed. republicans are already addressing the media on whether he was involved. they feel it would be hypocritical. green energy investments, they were always very small. according -- there is very little chance he would be able to benefit on the cap and trade programs.

host: we heard from a caller earlier skeptical of the climate change issue. calling for action on climate change and noticing the powerful quotes by the commencement speakers, they note martin o'malley had a jab at climate change. those who say it is not caused by human activity, let's encourage them to go to college and study physics and economics. for the rest of us, let's get to work. noting bill nye the science guy, his address at the university of massachusetts, called up to years he eras delaying action on climate change. they are for lazy people who do not want to get down to the business at hand. instead of doing less, we have to find ways to do more with less. that is the key to the future. those are quotes compiled by the left-wing center for american

progress. connecticut on our independents line. caller: i would like to ask what she and her global friends will do about solar flares causing climate change and not man. i want to know what they will do about that. guest: we are neither liberal nor conservative. just journalism. we cover solar flares. as far as scientific research is concerned, we do not propose solutions. new york on our line for republicans. think she already answered the question. my original question was to have experts really have a handle on

how they come up with a number, a percentage, of the earth's ,arming is due to human events human contributions to global warming. assuming they do not know, is it possible for a solution to bring the economy to the -- from the 20th first century to the 20th century or 1 century? if we reduce the economy, we reduce all the impact on the planet. is that a possible solution? thank you. host: in a shrinking of the economy? rapt: we saw our greatest in national greenhouse emissions

during the global recession. he has a point in that lower gdp hurts americans but it also kills omissions because we're growing them. is ae really thinks that solution, however. >> we talked about the koch brothers. tom was on our newspaper -- newsmakers program here on c-span. we talked about some of the comparisons made with him in the koch brothers. >> there are real the stations between the koch brothers and us. their policies line up perfectly with their pocket berks -- pocketbooks. that is not true with us. ideas and principles we think are incredibly important but have nothing to do with incomes and assets. that is a distinct difference. in as tying to do this

sparing a way as possible. we are trying to be completely open in why we're doing it and what we are doing, documenting what we are doing so there is no question about something going on here in secret. there have not been huge embraces of transparency. brothers, to their credit, are successful. prosecuting business at the highest possible level and they are funding levels in politics. at 6:00not getting up to work in politics, but to work in the refining and chemical businesses. i quit my job in the private sector, which was, by all standards, age or every job. for me and the people i work with.

that is true, but the way we are approaching it is very different. >> if you want to see that full interview with tom, you can check it out online. inant to get your take away that interview. >> tom is pushing that line. coke brothers want to benefit their bottom line with political spending. the scope others disagree with that. they are bringing energy subsidies of all stripes that might hurt our energy investment because they are in line with conservatism and not necessarily our pocketbooks. however, he is also unable to comparisons in the press between them and the koch brothers. some of democrats are concerned but a lot of them welcome our -- is -- welcome him.

host: your calls for the next 15 minutes or so on. good morning. myquestion is, part of isment is, the supreme court turning us into a nation of oligarchs. let's voice for the poor and the middle class and more for the billionaires. will be thelet total amount that will be split -- spent politically on both sides in 2014 and what is the estimate there? in 2016, it is impossible to tell. we know if he follows through on his plans, he will have on hundred $50,000 to spend. i would suspect if this number

reaches 100 million -- the coast can be reasonably various in their groups. on all of that will be environmental issues. environmental groups tied to the clintons in the run-up to 2016. is very true. hillary clinton is a blank face on the environment. cap and trade on the environment but she famously inclined told be improve keystone xl, a major out of the environmental movement. they made her feel part of the conservation world, pushing her to the left on this. what will happen in the

2014 elections when it comes to the ongoing approval process? guest: not much. the court case in nebraska over whether it is legal. the nebraska state court will hear arguments on that case probably in the fall but it will not rule until 2015. barring a last-minute turnaround, we will not know until 2015. host: we are talking about a lot of energy news. a reporter has covered the keystone xl pipeline extensively. we are talking about climate change and issues in 2014. missouri on our lines for independents. caller: i get my news from you.

and iment is, my wife have been farmers in missouri for about 14 years and we are surrounded i generations of .armers, cattle, vegetables it is obvious things have changed. our planning zone has moved up by ones own as far as knowing when to put seeds in. it may affects my politics. watch and see who is just running to run for office and who is actually caring about our concerns. the comment, the question is, are you familiar with the banks, the international seed banks, where they are preserving seeds? there are three or four of them. i have been curious to wonder whose money is backing those up and if the koch brothers maybe have enough money to be on the

proverbial both sides of the bank of the river. i thank you once again. >> a topic you have looked into at all? class i cannot staff have. i have looked into micro-targeting data these groups have on farmers, like our caller. -- sweethe suites part spot he hopes to use. they are already seeing impacts of weather on their crops and saying, here is how you can vote on candidates who will hopefully shield generations for more than this. the koch brothers versus tom steyer debate? hopes it is today. would not hold your breath. least the or at spokesman has told the press,

that they do not feel they should talk about scientific issues publicly. they do not have the expertise. that plays right into mr. steyer 's hand. he has launched a grassroots campaign calling attention to their not debating him. what will carbon limitations due to the steel industry? i do not believe they will be much of an impact. manufacturing itself will probably be hit by any kind of epa program. there is no steel versus other areas, however. gary in sterling, virginia, on our line for republicans. caller: three things i would .ike to say about co2 the first is an elementary school experiment where you take a piece of bread, two pieces of

red and two jars. you what -- you put one piece of bread in a jar, close it up, and breathe on it three or four times and then close it up. long story short, in a year, the one you briefed on has three percent more co2 will be dust. the other one will be a shriveled up shrunken piece of bread. it will still have structural integrity that you can tell was a piece of bread. that is one of the effects of co2. will get moreou moss, mold, and mildew. a lot of things will grow better , but they will not have as much sugar in them. you need to do that experiment. i know a 300-year-old forest that 50 years ago, the moss was two feet high on the trunk. 1968, i saw it again and the moss was four or five feet high. then i did not see it for 40

years. in 2007, i saw it. the moss was 100 feet up in the air. it tells me one of the effects of moss mold and mildew, more co2. i appreciate the suggestion. albuquerque, new mexico, on our line for democrats. caller: good morning and thank you for your presence this morning. wonderful topic. i am curious. any of the listeners out there seen the documents -- the documentary, "chasing ice." the canadian lady, the world passes is foremost authority on water conditions? tributaries, rivers, oceans? her productions for 2030 are extremely dire. by 2030, it is predicted the

world's demand for water will 40%.d the supply by it could mean millions and millions of people dying as a result of no water resources. there is so much information out there and americans in should be highly embarrassed that we represent only 3-4% of the world's population and yet, we utilized 25% of the world's energy. it is time to make very serious changes. is nothing political about it. these are facts. these are things jimmy carter stated in radically in a 70's when he put solar panels on the white house, only to have them removed by republicans. is aestion is, there scientist out there, guy mcpherson, who has predicted consequences for

us over the next 24, 25 years regarding whether civilization -- whether we will even have civilization. wondering if she is familiar with them and if she has any comments about what he had to wait. out and concluded the world has utilized over 50% of the ocean's plankton, something he claims is your reversible and that is my question. i cannot say i am specifically familiar with his work, but i am a millionaire if the intergovernmental body that produces reports on the >> we'll leave this portion of the "washington journal" with a reminder that you can follow "washington journal" live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. and any time online at c-span.org. the u.s. house about to gavel in shortly. later today, they'll begin

consideration of the commerce, justice, and science spending bill for 2015. fiscal year 2015, the third spending bill they have considered so far. that will be later on today. first though for general speeches. live to the house floor now on c-span. [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,