i want to again thank you. i'm really sorry that you have been vilified by certain members. gu should be lauded at the i -- as the ig lauded you. 15,000nization of you are going to have some bad actors. but the vast majority of all of these people in the private sector and public sector and the epa and military are fantastic. so let's just try not to brush everybody with the ugliness and i thank you for doing what you did to call attention. >> i am incredibly proud of the folks that work at epa. >> thank you.

>> on c-span this morning, the discussion reporters broke the nsa leak. as 7:00, washington journal. the house returns at noon eastern for general speeches. at 2:00, members take up a bill to provide aid to ukraine. morning, discussing global economic inequality. he is speaking at the council on foreign relations. it is live starting at 8:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span2.

general motors ceo mary barra testifies about the ignition switch recall today. you can see her testimony before house energy and commerce subcommittee live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. >> the car spun in the circle. the driver wanted to know where her phone was because it got knocked out of her hand. she was looking for her phone. she was in the backseat and alive for about 35 minutes before they cut her out.

>> hello, i am at lynn bowne. driving.ready to start i am eager been scared. many drivers are focusing on their cell phones rather than on the road. statistics show distracted driving is incredibly dangerous and cell phones should have no place by the wheel. something needs to be done about this. >> we announce the winners of this year c-span student can video competition on "what is the most important issue congress should address this year?." see all of the winning documentaries online at student cam.org. now the three journalists who broke the story about nsa leaker edward snowden's revelations about secret surveillance

programs. a reported in event examining the global impact of snowden's revelations. >> hello. please, take your seats. welcome back. this next event, i promise, is going to be interesting. it is a skype interview on the snowden revelations. it involves four skypes. that is the miracle of modern technology and it will either work or not work. it is very tricky so somebody may go down, somebody may have a time delay which is happening with one of our three guests. it is analogous to the quadruple somersault ringling brothers.

please, bear with us. we will have problems from time to time but we have an excellent team of techies. i know because i can understand -- i can't understand anything they say. it is my pleasure to introduce our interviewer, roger cohen. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. we are going to rely on technology to try to bring this about and ignore whoever may or may not be listening. i think it is fair to say that in the immediate landscape there -- media landscape, there is before and after edward snowden. his revelations about global nsa

data vacuuming are backed with concrete evidence. the feeling i think that many of us have had since 9/11 that something has gotten seriously skewed in the appropriate balance between national security and press freedom. the state, the surveillance state and civil liberties. as a result of this, edward snowden is a rock star to some. to others, he is a traitor. here today via skype, we have the three journalists who were entrusted by snowden, chosen by snowden to be the recipients of top-secret nsa archives. here with us is laura poitras who is an award-winning journalist finishing a trilogy of movies on the post-9/11

america. this last movie concentrates, focuses on snowden. along with glenn greenwald, she traveled to hong kong last may to interview snowden. that gentleman is a senior fellow at the century foundation. a pulitzer prize-winning reporter over many years on national security issues. glenn greenwald is an investigative journalist, author, and columnist now at first look media which is a new journalistic venture which is backed by the ebay founder. he is also a former constitutional and civil rights lawyer. well, hi, everyone. the most obvious fact about the three of you right now is that you are not here.

i remember, glenn, when i met you that there was a nontrivial chance that if you travel to the united states you would be arrested, you said. can i begin by asking you if you still feel that way and why you do? >> i feel that way even more now. it was a couple of months ago when you were here. there are been other episodes were international security officials have made very clear that they view what we are doing as being not proper or dangerous and actually criminal. james clapper has been running around calling the reporters work accomplishments -- accomplices. the head of the house committee, mike rogers, said that what we are doing was criminality and thievery.

steve alexander pounded that theory that we were selling documents which was what a lot of people have been saying -- which what a lot of people have been doing for decades. people are creating these theories that could criminalize the journalism that we are doing. i think it would be wrong to allow that kind of intimidation to prevent us from doing what we have the right to do, including returning to a country. -- returning to a country of which we are a citizen. i do still think there is a rift. there a lot of divisions in the u.s. government about what should be done. my belief is still that they would do the right thing. >> are you going to come back? >> definitely. it is inevitable. we are still figure out exactly when that will be. we were honored.

there was a ceremony. that will be an interesting opportunity to go back to. there are other opportunities like that but we are still figuring out. at some point relatively soon, i intend to test the proposition. >> laura, you have been at airports and elsewhere over several years. i am sure you share some of the same concerns and maybe you could tell us how you feel about coming back. let me add this question. edward snowden appeared recently via skype at sxsw with a backdrop of the american constitution. is mr. snowden an american patriot? >> thank you for having me at this event. it is great to be here.

in terms of coming back, it has been well documented that i've been stopped for several years while crossing the border. my notebooks have been copied. my computers have been confiscated. my main concern is different. i'm not worried about being arrested, i am worried it would subpoena me. i think it is real. yes, i am going to come back for sure. i do hope that we can talk about protecting freedom rights because what we -- the real topic with a real urgency of what we need to do is talk about the sources. the risk sources take to bring

information forward. line tois life on the reveal what were illegal programs that were done in secret. he put his life on the line and i think we all owe him a debt of gratitude. >> are there legitimate government secrets? >> sure, there are. if i could just backtrack for one second and talk about the legal environment. it is significant that director clapper use the word accomplices. the inspector general use the word agent. we have had the legal framework

because of the espionage act of 97 years ago with which our government -- we are talking about it. it has been the political culture that is graded the bearings for that. the question is whether the government will begin to shift that. as far as secrets i think there , are legitimate national security questions. the government is charged with protecting its people against external threats. the question is whether the boundaries will be drawn by the people. to some extent it is a level of , principle. is whether the government represents or get to do it all on its own. >> do you systematically run by the government? ask for a government response on

the stories you have done on the snowden revelations or other stories about the nsa? would you feel that is still an essential part of what we do as journalists? >> i approach the subject of my stories and have always done that. i spend most of my years reporting on national security stories. there are times where i understand what the documents say and i tell them what the story will be. sometimes i learn things. sometimes i get contact. i discovered that something might not be right. there is an opportunity for them to say, we will ask you not to publish this or that for the following reasons. first of all, my sense is that we need to require the authenticity of that before we

have a conversation with that. if it was real, it will be the following. i would like to know the reasons, second of all. i and the executive editor of the washington post believe -- have to be persuaded that there will be damage. that it outweighs the public interest. >> do you feel the same way, glenn? >> i think in all the reporting that i have done, i have not. the people i work with have come to the nsa the same way they would go to anyone that you reporting and say this is what you intend to report about. what is your comment or input? i think it would be ridiculous not to do that. why as a journalist would you want less information rather than more? i have been critical in the past that journalists spend lots of

time cooperating with the -- collaborating with the government and almost negotiating what it is that can or cannot be published. you often spend months with senior officials talking about the stories that we want to publish. that is starting to cross a line where you put the government on the editorial board of. i don't think the washington post or other newspapers have done that. that has been the case in the past. i do think that newspapers have aired a lot, very important -- poorly on the side of limiting information. "the new york times" holding on to the bush nsa story for 15 months and finally only publishing it. in general, i think that process

is important realistically, -- journalistically and legally. legally. lawyers will tell you that you should give the government the opportunity to have input. it is important that it doesn't become a means by which the government is reporting it. when the government says we don't think you could publish that, it will be published anyway because they didn't have any good rationale. >> there was a strong feeling among some people that edward snowden has threatened the security of the united states. that he took the oath and reneged on it. there have been stories since his revelations revealing nsa intercepts of transmissions between taliban fighters or intercepts of e-mail regarding intelligence assessment on iran. that is not domestic surveillance. it is not spying on allies.

it is what intelligence services all around the world do. how is that illegal or immoral and how is it not damaging to the united states? >> first of all, either member the intelligence committee regarding the constitution. he thought it had violations. i think it is important to understand the process that he used. it is so often distorted and ms. described. edward snowden has not published a single document in the last nine months. >> but you have? >> i have. laura has. >> what is the difference? >> he did not think that he should be in the position to decide which documents ought to be published and which ones

ought to be suppressed. he came to well-established, well regarded newspapers and asked the journalists to make those judgments about what is in the public interest to be published. specifically, a lot of what i am giving you is for background, context, per understanding but i don't think all of this should be published. if i wanted this publish, i wouldn't need you guys i would just uploaded it to the internet myself. there are stories about things like -- a story that is public that shouldn't be -- i think the question why it is published should be posed to the journalist who decided to publish it and not necessarily snowden. i will say things the country -- countries due to one another are incredibly newsworthy. the new york times pre-snowden reported that the israelis and americans are engaged by using incredibly sophisticated

viruses. that doesn't mean -- -- that doesn't mean it's not newsworthy. >> do you in your head draw a line somewhere between newsworthy and endangering? >> sure. the reason why nine or 10 months into the story we have published top-secret documents is because we are constantly engaged in that political process of what -- analytical process of what is newsworthy but what would avoid harming innocent people. i think we have done a good job at that. the proof of that -- there was zero -- not a little bit, but zero that a single story has caused harm to any individual or endangered national security in any way. all we get are very familiar, vague rituals that government officials do.

nothing specific or concrete about any harm being done. >> please feel free to jump in any of that, laura. i would like to ask you about the question you raised of how our source is to be protected? the obama administration which jim risen called it most hostile ever towards the press have had a very aggressive anti-leak campaign targeting leakers. the technology is there to trace them. going forward, what is to be done about that? >> that is why we are gathered here today. i would love to talk about those issues. first of all our job as , journalists is to protect sources and we have to do that. we know that from the experience

recent cases, that the government is using the technology to find out who publish the documents. we have an obligation to use means to protect our sources. i think that we need to learn how to have these tools if we wanted sources to come to them. one of the things that is been no shocking to me is the lack of -- has been most shocking to me is the lack of technological awareness among news organizations. things like encryption which are not that complicated to use if you want to protect communication. there are tools that we use every day on the internet. we are using bank accounts that use encryption. >> the most familiar accusation for any foreign correspondent in a sensitive situation like a war

is that you are not a journalist, you are a spy. if we start using encryption or even elaborate encryption, isn't that just going to reinforce exponentially the perception of those that might be detaining you that in fact you are an agent, not a journalist. >> that is ridiculous. you use encryption every day when you connect to the internet. i think one of the results of snowden's disclosures is that encryption is going to be easier to use. i think that is going to become ubiquitous. people don't expect privacy. the e-mail is meant for the people they're sending it to and i think that is going to be one of the repercussions of snowden 's disclosures.

i don't think that will invade -- in danger or flight people. i think we need more encryption. >> sorry. you wanted to jump in? >> i do. there could be a political cartoonish view that the government want to know everything about everybody. that is an accurate. it wants to be able to. in regard to encryption, you use -- it regards encryption as a threat. virus products, anonymity products, it acknowledges no realm and no indications which is prepared to be denied. it wants anybody that wants. the problem is that it includes journalists. not only the nsa, but the u.s.

government in general are users of this technology. that is because leaks which are anything that the government is doing that doesn't have a press conference about. [laughter] the has to be counterintelligence threat. counterintelligence is one of the principal missions of the u.s. government. when you start regarding journalists as a threat, you open up all of the criminal, legal, most extreme kinds of surveillance tools that are available to you. you start using that sort of technology. i completely agree with laura about the necessity of learning encryption which rambles the content of your communication and anonymity. it makes it hard to tell who is talking to whom, but there are some journalistic problems.

it is first contact problem. almost all the sources i have developed over the years have been people i met in iraq while i was with military personnel. or at promotional events in washington. maybe that leads the side conversations or a phone call. for the five or 10 conversations first that will be normal and then gradually you develop an interest and level of trust. you start string closer to the line because their bosses do not want to talk about that stuff in public. this doesn't matter if you are not -- that is a problem that is hard to solve. i would say edward snowden is one of the small sample of people in my career whose very first contact with me, through laura, was entirely anonymous

and encrypted. there is some progress here. there is a terrific program. it is a terrific piece of technology that is being developed called secure drop. it makes it easier to make first contact with a reporter. it is through anonymous and encrypted techniques. we have a long way to go on that. >> sounds like maybe we should be learning different things that journalism schools these days. >> it has to be a mandatory course. >> encryption? >> the basic technology of privacy. encryption and anonymity. it has to be both. >> the government says we will not need to subpoena journalists anymore because we know exactly who they are talking to anyway.

do you think that describes the state of affairs now? >> definitely. i think there has been a lot of attention paid to the threat of the fourth amendment and privacy rights. not that every person, every word is being monitored. but it is susceptible to being monitored if the government so chooses. it is the capability for surveillance. there was a lot of attention made to the applications of privacy like how how do we adapt our behavior in a world we can't be certain that what we are doing or saying is actually being unmonitored?

how do you gauge in free journalism -- you engage in free journalism if the government is collectionh metadata to know every person who's how canating with you? attorneys investigate important details on behalf of their clients? how can informants talk to human rights organizations and to do so with the security that they won't be exposed? it has extreme publications for -- ramifications and range of core liberties, including the ones that americans -- it is important to our political freedom. i think that is critical. encryption is vital but it doesn't shield metadata. it shields content. anonymity tools, you can see

-- shield some forms of metadata. it is a threat to freedoms. people warned that investigative journalism is coming to a standstill in the country because of what the government is doing. they mean that is become unnecessary to do that because the climate now because of this ubiquitous surveillance makes it almost impossible to be an investigative journalist because it makes it impossible for people to communicate with one another. >> edward snowden has praised russia "for standing against human rights violations by the powerful." president putin has just invaded and then annexed crimea. the relationship between the united states and russia is increasingly hostile. there is even talk of a new cold

war. how worried should we be that mr. snowden is vulnerable to the russian intelligence services to in this increasingly tense situation? >> i need to back up a little bit. there are a lot of issues you're raising. why be in russia? he was on his way to latin america where he was going to transit from russia. united government canceled his passport when he arrived in russia am a making him, for purposes --

putin made fun of u.s. intelligence services. the one place that you can operate and go get? go get him there. it is asking a lot for edward snowden who is under international asylum. it is clear that russia was not his destination. as far as the security threat, he deliberately didn't bring any of the documents with them to russia for the purpose that he wanted to make sure he could not be compelled to disclose them. he didn't bring any means of obtaining those documents. i don't think i should go any further into that. his intention, which was quite effective, was to make sure that he could not be forced to disclose.

he said in a letter even under , torture, he can't give the russian that information. he didn't mean he was superman. he literally can't produce it. >> can i say one thing? >> sure. >> that one thing that you referenced has been distorted by so many people for so long now -- the idea that -- >> how can you distort a statement like that? >> i will explain. >> i just read it. >> as i'm sure you know, things can be taken out of context and meaning could be distorted. he was not standing up and praising russia in general as a defender of human rights. anymore than when someone is granted asylum by the united states, it doesn't mean that they are praising what the government has done or is doing.

this particular case, thank you for granting the asylum from persecution and for defending my particular human rights. >> do you think he feels uncomfortable in russia right now? >> i'm going to let him speak for himself on those questions, but i think for us as --rnalists, the convenience as far as recounting the events, not only did they take his passport, they prevented other countries from giving him save transit. it is a benefit for the u.s. government because they get to demonize him by saying he is in russia. to me, the bigger question is, why did someone who comes forward to information that exposes programs that are own courts say is illegal and unconstitutional feel the need to bee in order

threatened with several decades in prison, why is that the treatment that a whistleblower receives? that is a much more important question to me than finding out the details of whether snowden should be standing up and holding a press conference a something such as crimea. the question is, why did he feel the need to flee after watching the parade of whistleblower's who have been threatened with prison for a long time or put in prison for a long time? people can judge for themselves what they think of snowden. it is a legitimate question. peoplem baffled when bring much only look at whether snowden is right and wrong in his personality rather than the issue we are here today to talk about, which is the conduct of the u.s. government. inglenn, do you worry that

being adversarial to the u.s. government you are insufficiently adversarial to some other governments around the world? >> no, i don't ever worry about that. [laughter] my goal as a citizen of the united states is to hold my own accountable for the accident does. -- acts it does. the reason we have the first amendment and a free press is not that we need an american journalist to criticize government thousands of miles across the world, budget exercise power in our own country are not abusing that power. that is my focus. i think we need a press adversarial to the u.s. government is much as many people reporting on things around the world. >> laura, i'm sitting here in the new york times building, the bastion of the mainstream media.

, you have also been pretty critical of establishment journalists. what do you have against us? well, given that i publish a number of things that "the new york times" -- >> i know that. severalduced documentaries. the experience has been terrific. >> the feeling is we have gone soft. >> there are people who do great work and every institution and people who toe the line. we have seen that. withholding jim rise in's story for years. not using the word torture when we were torturing people for many years. problemthink it is a

for journalism. i don't think the invasion of iraq is a problem for journalism, but there was great journalism done about the war in in "the newture york times" and "the washington post" and "the new yorker." there are institutions that have relationships with government that are going to be persuaded by what the governments think can and should be public. i obviously fundamentally disagree. the fact that the nsa is now spying on congress and not releasing a report on torture, we should be ashamed. this is not a proud moment. i don't think it's particularly radical to find these things objectionable. what i think his radical is we are torturing people and spying

on congress or spying on entire countries. we are doing all this in secret. think should be part of the public discourse. i can tell what our obligation sets to have the skill introduce a greater understanding. that's our job. >> more than radical. it's unconscionable. do you think of your extraordinary work -- do you feel the tide is turning in some post-9/11this disorientation, this abuse of power and technology, do you think the awareness is growing of what went wrong? is great power of society its ability to correct course,

to change. the you think that is happening? the you think that is happening? i think it has been a long time it has been moving in one direction. further astray from what would and -- what one would consider rule of law. in guantanamo we had a prison without anyone being charged for a crime. i felt hopeful they would be corrected when the obama administration came in, but that has not happened. the thing that has been positive is that it has reawakened an

adversarial press. thate have been shocked these decisions have been made completely in secret without public debate, and there does seem to be some sort of a link. wouldn't call it a shift of the pendulum. >> the crucial thing that has happened here is an increase in transparency. obviously, information is power, conducted with transparent. because of this transparency you have seen not only journalism building upon itself but all sorts of things happening. you have a real marketplace for privacy.

outposts, butll they were boutique. you now have large companies competing to demonstrate to consumers the cousin of these revelations. google has encrypted all the traffic between its data centers. promised on the day they will encrypt all of by last january, so they have done so. lawsuits that try to challenge programs that violate statues with the constitution which were thrown out before on the ground the plaintiff could not prove they were effective.

now they can prove they are effective. we will find out which of these programs are constitutional and which are not. you have members of congress who happily went along with these who are changing their and all the mechanisms of accountability that exist in political and civil society are collectively, where do we draw the line? that, but iith all also think the aspect of what has changed and the way people think about all of these issues not just in the united states but around the world. what is interesting is just how global it was. if you look at the nsa scandal

of 2000 five, those were american companies. if you start talking about google and yahoo!, not only are you talking about principal means of communication but in all these countries all over the world, i think it alters politics and political discourse about how the united states is , about the dangers of allowing the states to exercise secrecy, and i think once you , irt affecting consciousness don't think the primary change is going to come from legislation the u.s. government introduces. fromnk it's going to come profound shifts in how people start thinking about all these issues and these revelations a

lot of people around the world have found genuinely shocking. >> that's encouraging. maybe american intervention is alive and well. end of ouring to the time. i think i would like to ask all three of you to try to leap forward in your mind a decade or two and say how you think mr. snowden will be remembered in american and global history. perhaps laura,ou how will he be recalled? >> i think we are at a in terms of how we decide to treat communications , and if we find ourselves in more orwellian universe in a decade i think

everyone will look back to this moment and see that he at least gave us the option to make these choices. >> glenn? >> i think it is the most instructive example, because these are perhaps not universally but widely considered to be irrelevant. attack all bloomberg -- daniel l berg, but if you go and look at how he was talked americans, he was talked about in exactly the same terms as edward snowden. he got vindicated, and i think history appreciated the information he let us know about what the government was doing, and we realize he engaged in a heroic emma self-sacrificing act to convince the public.

edward snowden already is viewed in those terms, and the next decade he will be viewed even more in those terms around the world and in the united states as well. >> i don't love the term whistleblower, because i think people understand it much too narrowly. au only get to be whistleblower if you use certain .ethods the public interest in knowing things go way beyond what is illegal. the question is what the law should be and where we want to draw the line as a society. i would say, a lantern holder or something like that and what it has done is enable us to tell where the balance is.

to mastermind. there is a fundamental conflict sometimes between security and accountability between self-defense and self government. at the work in secret the nsa has done, out of perfectly good motive of defending the country, you are going to use every tool available, but doing so in secret you are proving the possibility that people you represent are going to be able to set your boundaries, so what snowden does is allow us to make that decision. >> thank you very much. we seem to have lost glenn at the last minute. nothing sinister, but thank you very much. >> i think the most telling statistic out there has to do

with the kermit of -- procurement of metals, specifically purple hearts. the united states made so many purple heart medals dissipating casualties in the invasion of japan, that we are still getting out that same stock a purple hearts today. any american who is wounded today in afghanistan receives a purple heart that was forged for soldier who was going to invade to pan. >> american and japanese strategies at the end of world war ii. tv thisamerican history weekend on c-span3. today, an examination of caterpillar's tech strategies. compan at how the u.s. ies avoid through offshore shelters.

during this month, c-span is pleased to present our winning entries in this your student cam video documentary competition. it is the annual competition that encourages middle and high school students to think critically about issues. students were asked to create the documentary based on the question, what is the most important issue the u.s. congress should consider in 2014? maclie daly, alix swann and think, should discuss global warming. >> the overwhelming judgment of science tells us that climate change is real, that human activities are fueling that change, and we must take action to avoid the most devastating consequences of climate change.

>> global warming. climate change. this problem goes by many names. one thing is certain, it is hurting our planet. changes that are happening the polar regions and to be quite far away. we might wonder whether it really has an effect on us here in the united states. they do. the first thing is, the state of alaska is actually part of that. it is above the arctic circle. there are many u.s. citizens who live in the arctic region. more than that, the changes that are happening in the polar regions are actually transferred to the rest of the world. >> as these changes become more unless action is taken, the problem will worsen. unfortunately, not everyone believes there is a problem to fix. >> the percentage of democrats

leaving in, change with from 83% in march to 87% amid the high heat and drought of the summer of 2012. and even among republicans, the number of believers who alleged that climate change was real 53%.from 45% to the party whose hallmark in congress is denial of climate change. >> any people in congress, particularly republicans, who don't have the luxury right now with the economy the way it is to close down coal-fired power plants that are still working and heating our schools or cooling our schools depending on the time of year, that keep the lights on. they think that is more important because that is what people need right now. >> global warming is an issue that definitely needs to be addressed. rising sea levels will affect the united states as well as every other country in the

world. years, sea last 100 level has risen by about 20 centimeters. we expect this to accelerate over the next 100 years. sea level rise may continue to 40 to 60 centimeters over the next 100 years. that would primarily impact coastal regions. the coastal areas around the united states could be impacted by sea level rise. >> if you go out around the chesapeake bay, you will find amenities are flooding. farmers are finding that water is intruding on their fields a row or two a year. the other one is going to be extreme weather. beinging rain that is seen on all the contents of the world. get more water vapor in the atmosphere. that is the energy that drives storms. when you get rain occurring, you get flooding rains and they can

cause a lot of problems. >> the sea level rise, that is exactly right. there has been an acceleration over the last few decades. there are a number of reasons why this is happening. the primary reason is the earth is getting warmer. as we warm up the atmosphere, we also warm up the ocean. when you warm the ocean, it expands. >> when you talk about climate change, as the global climate is changing, but when you talk about impact, it usually occurs and starts a local level. how is it going to affect you or your community or your state or your region? and so each region around the country is different. in the 1990's, we did the first assessment or scientific report the unitedaround states. we divided the united states in

20 different regions. we had them each a think about what the most important issues were. it turned out the one that was common among all of them was water. what is going to happen to water resources. -- talking different about water, the pacific northwest where it is very wet or down in texas where it is very dry, a dry area they're concerned about having enough water and if it's very wet, they're concerned about is it going to come as rain instead of snow orchid downpours that cause floods? >> other say, no, we need to worry about it is a global problem. the first thought is, if we do something here in silver spring, maryland or even in the united states, that is one thing, but global, soing is that includes china, india, and other major countries that have increasing levels of pollution and development. even if we do something here, it may not be enough to help

globally. >> the world has suffered many effects of climate change. this animated sequence shows what would happen of all of the ice in antarctica noted, causing the sea level to rise -- melted, causing the sea levels to rise. >> we have an increase in sea level rise where the melting of the greenland ice is contriving to sea level going up. that will have an impact around the coastlines of the united states. it can be disastrous. congress seems to address this issue immediately. if we delay any longer, there might not be enough of the world to save. >> to watch all of the winning videos and learn more about our competition, go to c-span.org and click on studentcm. -- post your comments. >> this morning, world bank

president discusses global economic inequality. he is speaking of the council on foreign relations. that is live starting at 8:30 a.m. on c-span2. >> the issue is no longer whether to trade, it is how to trade. it is, what are the rules of engagement? the old issue between protectionism and free trade is over. it is history. the argument over the rules of fair trade and how to get our workers and businesses on a level plainfield is the debate -- plainfield is the debate of the president in the future. our goal must be over time to betweencompatibility all countries that are trading, just as we have compatibility between all of the states of the united states. this debate