house would make. >> thank you. have a good weekend. >> robert? . >> denied on c-span, a house commerce oversight subcommittee talks to gm and chrysler heads about why they're closing auto

dealerships. they also get reactions from several dealers who are being closed. here is a portion. >> was discontinuing these dealers are unnecessary for chrysler's survival? the answer is, absolutely, yes. today's auto industry could not support the dealers in the marketplace. we've gone from 17 million sales in 2006 to less than 10 million today. it is not profitable or viable. >> of like to mention to the committee the human element of the actions of gm and chrysler. with our closing, these people will be subjected to serious economic hardship. i had numerous offers to sell my business. i have had that right taken away. my family will be left with a single purpose dealership facility with no tenant. this is senseless. my grandfather it paid for carlyle separate -- chevrolet with his labors.

it took nearly 20 years to pay my parents for carlyle chevrolet. it took gm and chrysler a mere 24 hours to take carlyle's chevrolet for me. >> members of the house commerce oversight committee questioned the head of gm and chrysler today about the decision to close dealers. see the full hearing tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> the government funding of colleges, directed the colleges, and their students is really a 1950's thing or early 1960's thing. >> hillsdale college has never accepted government funding. today, not even government- backed student loans are permitted. >> title 4 is nearly -- is several hundred pages long. we have a lawyer in town that tries to keep the government from giving us money. he said there was not any use for it.

>> sunday night at 8:00 on c- span's "q&a." listen to c-span radio or satellite radio. you can also download the c-span podcast. >> the special envoy on climate change said that the talks with china did not achieve any breakthroughs. he did say the two countries would continue to discuss the issues leading up to a climate change summit in copenhagen, denmark later this year. his remarks will be followed by the daily briefing with spokesman philip crowley. he talks about efforts to resettle a group of chinese muslims known as the uyghers. >> he served in the white house from 1983 to 1999 where he worked on these kinds of issues, issues of climate change.

also from 1999 to 2001, he advised the secretary of treasury. the policy and politics of broader range -- of a broader range of economic issues. he was a senior fellow at a center -- at the center for american progress. again, i want to welcome mr. stern. he will make some introductory marks and take questions. >> thanks very much. welcome, everybody. i thought i would give you a little background on the trip to china. i think we had a very constructive set of meetings there. we went to china with the intention of having in-depth conversations about climate change and the copenhagen negotiations as well as to pursue our mutual interest in developing a dynamic partnership.

this is something that secretary clinton talked about in february when she went to china on a trip where i accompanied her. we were looking to start fleshing that out. i think we did both of those things on the trip. i was joined by the president's science adviser. also, the secretary for policy of international affairs at the department of energy, as well as colleagues from the treasury and the epa. i had particularly in-depth conversations with the vice chairman of the ndrc in china and their chief climate negotiator. also a very useful meeting with vice premier lee chang. i'm sure i will butcher all

these names. it was good talks with science and technology personnel. the vice minister of foreign affairs, and the national energy director. i would not characterize my discussions on climate change as producing any breakthroughs, but we talked very openly and candidly and then a lot of detail about what needs to be done on both sides to advance towards a successful outcome in copenhagen. by the way, never had any notion in my mind that we were going to -- it was not what the trip was about. we did not agree with each other on everything, but we each came away with a better and clearer understanding of each other's views and perspectives. i will say, and i have said this

before, but it is again true during this trip, i was very favorably impressed by actions that china has already taken and their commitment to develop a low carbon path forward and to take potentially far-reaching steps to contain greenhouse emissions. at the same time that they pursue what is an undeniable need to develop and grow, i think it is accurate that china is both a developed and a developing country. they are developed and some of their major cities, but there is still -- in shanghai and beijing, but they are still developing and still quite port in large and -- and quite poor and large farming countrysides. the world cannot contain climate change and cannot avoid dangerous levels of greenhouse

gas concentrations in the atmosphere without very significant action by china. we discussed this point as well as the science behind it in great detail again. it was very helpful. among the issues that i stressed were the need for china to develop a long-term low carbon pathway consistent with what the science is telling us. significant actions in the midterm range between now and 2020 will reduce emissions significantly and will keep china on that low carbon half -- that low carbon path. their actions and the underlying numbers will need to be transparent.

this is essentially the question of measuring and monitoring emissions. it goes by the rubric in the copenhagen negotiations. we will be having a very extensive continuing dialogue going forward as any number of points along the calendar or we're going to be engaging directly with the chinese. we have an upcoming meeting in mexico for the third preparatory session. there'll be the leaders meeting for that forum in italy. there'll be a leading -- and there will be a meeting later in july between china and the united states here. we will be carrying out with them very extensive continuing conversations going forward in order to find common ground.

with that, i am happy to take questions. do i call these out? >> i appreciate you taking the time to do this. i am unclear as to what the u.s. posies this -- what the u.s. is specifically expecting. there is to be no expectation for a reduction in emission targets and mandates. did they agree on the 450 parts, and will they agree to at least not raise emissions? what are your specific expectations? >> let me try to clarify couple of things, because words matter and words can be confusing in this area. we are expecting china to reduce emissions vary considerably compared to where they would otherwise be.

in other words, to undertake policies that would bring their emissions down a lot from where they would be called the generally in this game of business as usual. it is not a reduction of where they are right now, because they are not quite at that point to be able to do that. in that respect, developed and developing countries are different. on the other hand, the reduction so if you curb ordinary, it will be like that. it is a big reduction. that is quite critical, and it is what is -- it is what is both appropriate and necessary at this point for china to be consistent with that longer-term path towards something in the neighborhood of 450.

we do not know if it is for 45, 460, -- 445, 460, but something in that range. we did talk about the notion of a peak year. peak year is a concept that says your missions continue to go up for a while, but at a much slower rate than they otherwise would have. you hit a peak, and then they come absolutely down. we did talk about that concept also. it matters a whole lot when that each year is. we do not know if they're going to come out on that. it is very important that there be significant reductions. please have to understand what is meant by reductions and what is not. it is not correct to say that we're not expecting china to reduce, because we are.

the u.s., whether they are on board with 450 parts per million, that is the concentration in the atmosphere, i do not know that we talked about it. we talked in some length about our view of what the science requires, and they didn't say that they would dispute it, but it was not -- we were not trying to have a discussion about signing on to some number. rather, we wanted to say that here is the general census of where the scientific consensus is. something along these lines is what needs to guide what you do. >> can you identify yourself? >> what impression did you get from the chinese in terms of what happened in the legislative process here in the u.s.? we're in a scenario in congress

where it looks like the house is trying to meet this july deadline to pass an energy bill in the house. what will it mean in copenhagen if we have a six month lag of a house-passed bill with no legislation in the senate? >> we did talk about the bill. i think that they were very favorably impressed by the fact that it had progressed -- and had taken the important step that it took a few weeks ago when it passed the commerce committee. i think it is fair to say that they regarded that as -- they were pleased by that. they sought as an indication --

they saw it as an indication that things are really moving here. on your other question, i think this is a one step at a time kind of deal. it was a huge, big step. it was under the leadership of chairman waxman to get the bill report out on energy and commerce. there is a kind of commitment and objectives to getting it through the house this summer. i think that there is a good chance that that will happen, and we will support it, obviously. i am absolutely not prepared all the say that is going to hit 60 votes in the senate. i think this bill will become

law. the president is committed to it, the administration is committed having strong, comprehensive energy legislation passed. i think there will be a lot of support in the senate. it will be and out of the a lot more negotiation and a debate that is going to have to happen first. i am in no way pessimistic about it. >> speaking about the bill, i was wondering, how critical would it be for a bill to clearly allow cdm generated offset credits in a u.s. scheme to get china to move forward? >> look, i think that the general concept of offsets is an important concept to be

embedded in any of the legislation. it is in the waxman bill as it stands now. this is a mechanism that actually serves two purposes. it allows for reductions in the united states to happen at a lower cost than they would otherwise happen, it just as important if not more important, it is a mechanism by which it helps to drive investment for other countries that have similar mechanisms into developing countries, whether that be china or countries in africa, india, brazil, or wherever it may be. i think it is also extremely important that the rules of the road and the standards that apply to offsets be responsible

and tight so the reductions are real reductions. it is an area that is inherently a little bit difficult to manage. it is quite important that it be done where it has real environmental integrity. i think it can be done, and i think it will be done. >> now you have had these discussions with the chinese, what is the u.s. position in regards to finding technical and financial assistance for developing countries? there is some language in the u.s. recommendation text that was sent out a couple of weeks ago about copenhagen that recognize that there needed to be some financial and technological assistance. is that something we're going to be providing to the chinese? >> i think that the issue --

let's put china side. it includes china, but it is not only china. i think there is no question that a copenhagen agreement is going to have to include mechanisms to provide for financial flows and technological assistance to developing countries. that is a particular focus to the poorer countries. then needs to focus both on mitigation, means of reducing your co2 emissions, and adaptation which has to do with dealing with the effects of climate change that are already happening and are going happen. yes, i think there will lead to be those mechanisms. there are a whole host of questions and issues that are

important with respect to the house structure, what institutions to use, what governments to use, where the money would come from, and all of those things are under discussion. >> my question is about the chinese partner. are they satisfied with the rain did -- with the language in the bill? i'm not sure whether the u.s. is still working on the bilateral agreements with china before the copenhagen meeting. >> i am just noting your questions down. i think china has a very active interest in technological cooperation, and there are a couple of different aspects to

that that we are working on. one is the broad, clean energy collaboration that i referenced in my remarks. we had a lot of discussion on them in the strip about that. that can involve any number of important areas, research and development cooperation, cooperation on solar energy, carbon capture and storage for coal, electric vehicles, and the like. we talked about all these things. what we're interested in doing it is to define a few areas where significant actions can take place. actions that can make a difference. there are some areas where we can do our thing and the cooperation doesn't matter that much. there are other areas where we

can work together, have a synergistic effect that would be quite positive. that is an important part of technology cooperation. that is, i think, support of of the copenhagen agreement. it exists on some level outside of the copenhagen agreement. it is a bilateral thing that can happen in any event. there is also discussion about what kind of technology provisions that would be in the copenhagen agreement. it is kind of a broader discussion, not just with china. china is very interested. we're interested in technology cooperation. >> this is a layman pose the question. recognizing that your mandate is to focus -- this is a layman's question.

can everyday citizens play in this? i am thinking in particular, for example, vice-president dick cheney's remarks. what can ordinary people play -- what role can ordinary people play to move these things along? >> i think they're too roles that ordinary people can play. the first is not exactly what you're talking about, but i will take an opportunity to say it anyway. there has got to be -- the more that political leaders here and around the country -- they recognize from their constituents that this is an issue that matters. this is, in effect, not to be melodramatic, think it is a good

question. there are too quick -- two great questions of the 20 century. it is important for people to convey their level of concern and to make it clear that, you know, failure is not an option here. dilly-dallying and procrastinating is not an issue here. we have to wrestle with these issues and get them done. that is one thing. the second thing is, everything is going to come back to personal conduct. at some level. if you're going to make a difference of a scale of where we need to make a difference, you're not going to get there by just cheerleading people to

change their lights and all of that. they should change their lights, and that is part of the equation. you have to set the rules of the road in such a way and the requirements in such a way that helped to drive people in that direction. power companies have the right incentives. they do in some states. power companies have had their profits and their sales decoupled so that they can be making money by pushy energy efficiency rather than by simply energy use. they're giving incentives to their users to be more energy- efficient. it radiates the the system and a much more effective way. >> we have time for one more question. >> and other non-specialists question. talk a little bit about the relationship between economic growth or lack of growth, and the chinese attitude towards

climate change issues. does the fact that their growth has fallen off so dramatically make them more or less reluctant to talk about these things? what they consider steps that have a cost attached? >> i think that they see that there is -- the business as usual path is not sustainable for them. i do think that they see that. i do think that they see that there is a low carbon path that they have to follow. they're trying to make difficult judgments when they clearly have huge challenges, just in terms of managing their economy and managing their system. this is probably over 8% a year to create enough jobs to accommodate the new entrants into the work force.

they're trying to move something to the tune of 15 to 20 million people a year. half of all housing in the world is going to be built in china over the next couple of decades. they are building housing at the rate of two bostons a month. that is what is going on. it is a huge country with huge challenges. if you kind of understand what they're up against, you cannot help but be sympathetic. on other occasions, the atmosphere is unforgiving. there is only some stuff that can throw up there without tipping into potentially catastrophic danger. we need to take a low carbon path. i think they get that they need to take a low carbon path.

the real issues are going to be how fast are you prepared to move along, and the speed at which -- and is the speed at which they're prepared to move along consistent with scientific requirements? i am sympathetic to the challenges the chinese are facing. when we were industrializing, nobody told us how much we could put up into the air, because nobody understood it at that point. they do have a different challenge, and not only them, other developing countries. and yet, there is no choice. has to be done. it is a critical issue. >> thank you very much. >> thanks very much. >> today, the u.n. security council agreed to additional sanctions against north korea for their refusal to end their nuclear program. following the meeting, some of the council members spoke to reporters about the resolution.

among them are representatives of the united kingdom, china, and japan. this is about 25 minutes. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. today, the security council has both spoken and acted decisively and clearly indiana mislead. -- decisively, clearly. the resolution contains some significant, tough measures with that objective in mind. it substantially expands and strengthens the arms embargo on