the scope of the problem, how many lives are lost, how many injuries? >> based on the most what iative estimates of consider credible as well as the most recent statistics on the number of injuries and deaths in the united states annually, i think 400,000 police related crashes involve drowsy driving as a contributing factor. estimate -- i would approximately 115,000 crashes involve ainjuries drowsy driver. >> thank you very much for being so direct about that. the caveats acknowledged. you identified a variety of different shortcomings in all the methodological approaches. if you were to create a program

that more accurately was able to define this program in an ongoing manner, what would that look like? ideally, if every vehicle on the road or at least a large sample on an ongoing basis were equipped with sophisticated data collection equipment, including cameras, that would give us a great deal of insight into many of the intervening factors of crashes, including drowsiness. short of that, i would really like to see in the national data , which i believe is the only ongoing data system that has the means to make a reasonable determination of andher a driver was drowsy whether fatigue contributed to the crash, not in the same way

but much better than simple investigation of police reports. collection system and to be beefed up in size a number of investigations were to be done each year and of ,ittle more depth were added analogous perhaps to the motor vehicle crash causation survey, which was a one time ever done to 2007, with -- not only the drivers but their families, their employees really trying to get insight into what their life was like and what state the driver was in at the size of the crash, if that were withwith a sizable central 5000mple with 3000 to crashes, that would put us in a

good place with being able to monitor trends. >> thank you. why do you think we have this disconnect between the science of what we know regarding sleep societal., and are attitudes -- our societal attitudes and behaviors? >> one of the bases is we have become used to being sleep deprived, used to being drowsy, used to falling asleep, and no one think that is unusual. thoughtyears ago no one it was odd but someone snored loudly when they slept, and that just seemed like normal behavior. physiciansar from that is not normal and poses significant health risks. this touches on the point about what would you do about it. people drivers driving drowsy.

shocking. was it frightens you when you see it. i don't inc. we have materially wewn people -- i don't think have materially shown people how dangerous this is. once you see that the drivers head is nodding and he is closing on graphic -- traffic and moving out of lane, you get the message loud and clear. years ago when i was in australia, and they had significant campaigns and public advertisements on this showing the graphic of fall asleep crashes involving families and truck drivers and individuals alone. i brought some of those back, and the response i got was those are too frightening for the american people, but in fact, i do think we need some shots. we need to show the truth about

drowsiness. it's not funny. it's not cute. it's not willfully overcome. we have to show this is an incredibly dangerous thing to do. just as we realize driving with is dangerous to do. we need to do the same thing with drowsiness and show what it is. an extremely risky behavior. it should not be normalized. not be permitted or allowed. >> if you would just tell us, what do you think briefly is the biggest scientific challenge that is out there? think it isy i inadequate areas for people to get off the road or take a nap or stop driving. i remember my wife and i coming in from a trip

at 4:00 in the morning, and we couldn't get a hotel room and drove from new york to realize iia, and i was engaged in something dangerous. she was trying to keep me awake, and i realized this is foolish looking for a place to get off. there is no place to get off. on of the common experiences our motorways, there is no safe place to get off the road when you experience an uncontrolled sleep attack, and it is repeated and due to inadequate sleep. we need to do something to make it possible for people to get off the road and safely get some sleep and do something rather than continue to drive. for may mean added signage a place to sleep, a plan for your trips, etc., but we need to peoplething that allows to get a countermeasure.

they countermeasure is to get a nap and allow yourself to wake up. >> beautifully done. great foundation. i want to thank both of you for a great job. before you go, nice job on this panel as well. we are going to welcome debra bruce. she is going to be chairing the panel on workplace issues. that is yours as well. >> president obama pardons to things giving turkeys at the white house.

then a discussion of the phone surveillance program. ving turkeys at the white house. efforts. diplomatic an update on military operations in afghanistan. then combat operations against isis and the pentagon's response to ebola. the historian on president in wartime. washington journal begins live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this thanksgiving weekend we continue our book tv and american history programming. eig on the history of the birth control pill. then bill nye the science guy on why he thinks the teaching of

evolution and creation is not only wrong but dangerous. then george washington and benedict arnold. sunday afternoon at 4:00, gloves of american life between 1914 two -- a glimpse of american life between 1914 and 1930. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. collis, e-mail us, or send us a us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> president obama participated ritual ofnksgiving pardoning two turkeys. this year's birds came from ohio. the father is joined by sasha and malia in the white house grand foyer.

>> good afternoon, everybody. please have a seat. do this outside. the weather is not cooperating today. on behalffirst of all of malia and sasha wish giving --a happy eggs thanksgiving. today i am taking an action fully within my legal authority. the same type of action taken by democratic and republican presidents before me to spare -- thee of two turkeys lives of two turkeys from a terribly delicious fate. i want to thank the president of , and they federation

son cooper who personally raised mac & cheese. give them a round of applause. he is getting pretty excited about this. thanks to all those who voted to pick the national thanksgiving turkey. she's want you to know he won. want to to know he won. the alternate is not so bad either. if you are a turkey and you are named after a side dish, your chances of escaping things giving dinner -- thanksgiving dinner are pretty low. these guys are well ahead of the curve. they beat the odds. it is important to know turkeys have always had powerful allies. benjamin franklin once wrote, i

wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as representative of our country. he is a bird of moral character. the turkey is a much more respectable bird. i think these turkeys would agree with mr. franklin, and they will get to live out the rest of their days at a virginia a state with 10,000 acres of roaming space. i know some will call this amnesty. [laughter] don't worry. there is plenty of turkey to go around. later this afternoon, michelle, take, sasha, and i will two turkeys that didn't make the .ut to a local food pantry the turkey farm in pennsylvania for donating those birds. it has been six years in a row they made these contributions and for making thanks giving

for some fellow americans. the washington post was questioned the wisdom of the tradition. typically on the day before thanksgiving, it went, the man who makes the decisions about war and other matters of state chooses to pardon a turkey and an alternate. it is a little puzzling that i , but i willy year because with all the tough stuff that swirls around, it's nice once in a thanksgiving,appy and this is an excuse to do it. tomorrow is a special moment when we give thanks for people

we love and we are mindful of the incredible blessings we have received. we remember folks who cannot than their holidays at home, especially brave men and women in uniform who help keep the country secure. it reminds us of what helps make this country great, and that is generosity and openness. president roosevelt once said, our commitment to make a country and which no one is left out. because i know everyone wants to get out of town, it is time for engage in the official process. come on, girls. all right. cheese. from theereby pardoned

thanksgiving dinner table. congratulations. gobble gobble. [applause] he looks pretty happy about it. i will tell you, turkeys don't have the best looking heads. >> if you think about it, they are red, white, and blue, so they are patriotic. >> there is a patriotic element. absolutely. do you guys want to pet them? [laughter] thank you. good to see you.

i appreciate you. thank you, and happy thanksgiving. [applause] >> this thanksgiving week, c-span is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. watch the interviews thursday at 8 p.m. eastern. look at my newsletters from 1981 until 1984, there is no mention of human rights or religious freedom. congressman tony hall, who was the democratic member from ohio, is my best friend in congress. we have been in a group together for 32 years. go to ethiopia during the famine. i just got on appropriations and asked, can i go to ethiopia.

you may not remember the family. it's a very bad family. cap, and the embassy didn't want me to spend the night. i said, i am going to spend the night. camp, and the embassy didn't want me to spend the night. we spent the night in a little hot. it rained the next day. the plane couldn't get back. it was a life-changing experience. in the morning people died. we saw things. romania. me to you may not remember. they were bulldozing churches. those trips are bookends. rights, the poor, the hungry, and religious freedom.

>> also on thursday, thanksgiving day, we will take a tour of various age of american tribes. that is at 10 a.m. eastern journal.""washington and then a tour of the diplomacy center with former secretaries of state. at 8:30 p.m. eastern. that is this thanksgiving week on c-span. for our complete schedule, go to www.c-span.org. is ael cedric leighton formal deputy director of the national security agency. he talked about the nsa surveillance system and efforts to change the agencies phone data collection practices. this is 45 minutes. >> joining us is colonel cedric leighton, who is a former of theg deputy director

national security agency. did i get your title correct? did you do at the nsa? as i helped with the military -- >> i help with the military portion. i make sure the workforce on the military side was properly trained in all the different disciplines in sa requires to carry out its mission. requireslines the nsa to carry out its mission. it includes specialists. a very interesting and rewarding job. in the newsas been for several years now and continues to be. what kind of data collection can the nsa do legally? >> legally based on laws and procedures and policies, the basic job is to collect foreign intelligence.

there are other agencies that do collect foreign intelligence, but the primary purpose is to collect signals intelligence. that means radio communications that appear in the electromagnetic spectrum. foragency had this mission a long time. it was born in the cold war. it was designed to collect intelligence information that thatred in radio waves, appeared within the electromagnetic spectrum. with the advent of the computer age, that mission has broadened into a cyber mission as well. what that means is the collective efforts have now into the computer world. that means the nsa has a collections mission. it also has a mission to secure communications of the united its

-- united states government and its affiliates by making the codes used to secure those communications. make sure our communications are not intercepted and broken by foreign powers. that's basically nsa's job. >> if we were to pick up the phone and dial over to syria right now, with the nsa be aware bethat call -- would be nsa aware of that call? >> not necessarily. they are looking at certain discrete numbers that have been targeted. it goes through a specific their time to waste not matter.hat do by law they are not allowed to

intercept u.s. persons and get of that content conversation. they may be collecting metadata at the far end. things that is potentially connected to. that usually requires a court order to do that. it also is one of those areas where the way in which the youection apparatus works, are looking at very specific entities. if someone is calling their grandmother, no big deal, but if someone is calling the presidential palace in damascus, different story. thing theykind of look at. there are certain areas that are targeted, certain areas that are not. of it, would be aware correct? >> not necessarily.

>> if we were to take this computer and search for al qaeda and type itd isis into the search engine, would the nsa be aware of that? generally speaking not. the reason they wouldn't be type of it is anyone can it in. the sheer volume of people typing in the word isis. i have done it myself. there is a limit as to what can be collected. the fact you are looking at isis or other terrorist organizations does not necessarily mean you're going to be a member of that group. are looking for requires a degree of intent. the nsa mission should not be confused with the mission of law enforcement entities like the fbi. the fbi has a domestic surveillance program generally covered under section 215 of the patriot act. fbi it does is allows the

to look at foreign connections of domestic people who may possibly have the intent to do harm to the united states. that's basically the difference. if someone expects a knock on the door it is going to come from an fbi person. if they are financing a terrorist organization or something like that, the nsa may help. there is going to be a long process. they are not going to be a rogueg that is collection effort. everything they do is vetted by capitol hill and the white house. it is decided based on law and precedent before they actually

conduct those operations. the nsa is strictly an intelligence agency. >> how much of this metadata is ?elpful to national security >> there are various estimates. there have been a lot of statements. the previous director had an estimate. fairly sizable portion of data in helpingt useful people obtain a good understanding of what terrorists were up to. use ific analogy i would it is almost like a cop on the worlds and theal physical worlds are becoming and or twine. in order for us to have an understanding of what is going on, we need to have an

therstanding of what internet is actually doing, what is being said out there, and when that happens, it's very similar to what a cop on the beat is doing in a town, where they are walking on the street. they are making sure public safety is assured. acceptedenerally practice in american law enforcement. this is somewhat analogous from that standard. that is how the structures work and what they are designed to do. in terms of the percentage of what is effective, my personal view is the vacuum cleaner approach to collection operations is not necessarily the most effective. of collection required so you know what is normal. there is another part that it has to be targeted very specifically against those

entities that mean to do you harm. if you are looking for somebody who is going to be dangerous to you or coordinated attack or do something like that, there is a different set of signatures associated with an attack like that compared to someone with more normal social conversations. the normal ones are the ones in puts to thesa wayside. the metadata is useful in the to a it allows you to get particular state of affairs within the internet, and it also to determine what is normal and abnormal. consideration is given to privacy? >> an extensive amount of consideration. having worked 26 years within

the intelligence community, i can tell you the training for but alsonsa civilians military personnel has always been very expensive when it comes to not only -- extensive the it comes to constitution. everyone has to undergo training on an annual basis. sometimes it is even more frequent than that. in programsgaged undergo even more extensive training about what they can and cannot do with data. the rules have changed. in the old days you could not keep anything longer than six months. now it is five years. there is certainly a valid debate to be had on how long it is necessary to keep data of this kind.

the old rules apply to radio communications. the new rules apply to radio as well as internet data. the difference comes in. sometimes it takes longer to establish connections than the initial six months. >> can you share with us a success story of nsa data collection? >> i cannot share direct stories because of classification rules, but i can tell you there have been a few instances which basically point to certain elements, such as there were several terrorist plots that took place in the u.s. one that was cited was the one where the person was trying to set off a bomb in times square. a lot of people said it was actually a person who physically saw the van who called the tip into police. what it really means is there

were indications something was happening within the intelligence committee. other side of that it shows every single facet of american society need to work together to prevent terrorist attacks. having said that, that type of terrorist action sometimes will not show up in normal .ntelligence traffic in this situation there were some indications within the intelligence community something but theyhappening, weren't sufficient indications thectually say that's person. go get them. there have been other cases where they have more concrete evidence, where they actually said, that's the person. we are going to arrest that

individual. there have been several situations like that. there have been several situations where you have a much more robust coordination effort between the intelligence world and the law enforcement world, but many of those cases are in the process of being adjudicated or they have yet to come to trial. there are a lot of different aspects to that. it has been somewhat effective, but from my personal view not as would like from an intelligence perspective. >> the former deputy training director, now running his own risk management consultancy. numbers are on the screen. let's take some calls. richard is in philadelphia. how are you doing? question is about the technology development the nsa has.

i wonder [indiscernible] the data collection infrastructure and the relationship to commercial, and the commercial community has the same level of intelligence gathering. >> the basic idea is although in and other agencies have a robust collection effort, that is being eclipsed by the likes of google and facebook and whor social media companies are very active gathering data on consumers. what we are looking at is the need for a data protection statute that is very robust. it protects individual americans not only from the intelligence

, but you also need to have similar efforts that safeguard consumer data from any type of prying entity. is nsa personnel get a lot of training in the privacy act as well as the laws that apply to the interception of on american citizens. the fbi has similar programs for its personnel. google and facebook and other social media companies and ad this rigthat engage in data mining going on -- big data do not have as extensive a requirement to train their personnel in the same way the government does.

the lines in terms of who has what type of information are blurring quite a bit acres technology allows these companies to gather as much data as they can. would say itat i is very important for technological developments to be thatin such a way americans privacy needs to be protected at every stage. it's very easy to engage in identity theft right now. one of the key things that can protect us against that is the idea that people who are using personal data, whether they belong to private industry or haveovernment, need to extensive training in this area. the technological developments are such that it requires a change in the legal framework and further safeguards for americans of every stripe. >> a call from san diego. >> my question has to do with

on theou are organizational chart of the executive branch, meaning that you have all this power to view all of our communications that are coming into the united and for instance, there were some issues with monitoring of the senate and congress. i am sure the supreme court. with that type of power, who watches over you, and if you were to see the executive branch do something, making a deal with on one hand we are fighting isis and another we are giving them arms -- i am not saying that is happening. it seems they should be independent. it gives the president way too much power, whoever they may be.

>> thank you. >> that's an interesting point. let me talk about where in sa lies in the executive branch. a lies in the executive branch. it is a combat support agency. as part of the department of defense, it is designed to combat troops engaged in operations or in preparation for combat operations. is athat means is the nsa department of defense agency. it belongs to the dod, but it is also a member of the intelligence community. it does give the executive branch a lot of power. you were referring to the alleged collection of e-mail data within the committee on intelligence. central done by the intelligence committee, and

apparently that is something that goes way beyond what the cia charter should be and what they should have been doing. over needs to be watchdogs the intelligence agency to make sure abuses of any type don't happen. the way it should work is congress is supposed to execute that oversight function. seeoint of fact, where you things like that happening, were senator feinstein made specific efforts about the cia's , that really borders on a transgression of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch, so that is unacceptable conduct. in her view it is. i would share that with you. the way it needs to be done is that type of oversight needs to

be exercised by the legislative branch. the legislative branch hasn't always exercised the type of oversight you would expect it to, sometimes because they feel comfortable with the people they are working with that these inncies, but also because many cases as a trend they have ceded a lot of authority to the executive branch, and that is a process that has gone on for decades. that, wet to change have to make sure our representatives understand that's what we want and what we need. supposed tostem is exercise authority. the fisa courts were originally designed to exercise a watchdog collectioner the operations of the intelligence communities as well as higher-level law enforcement entities. that's the type of mechanism that is in place. sometimes the mechanisms don't

necessarily work to the extent they were intended to. that is where the oversight should be brought to bear. that's where we need to take a look at how we can do this and make sure our intelligence agencies protect us but don't overstep their bounds. >> is congress actively involved ?n overseeing the nsa at what level would they really respond? >> there was nothing more than to respond to congressional requests. usually there is a request. any time there was a entity of any

type, there is a whole office that deals with nothing but congressional issues. the other part is this extends not only to nsa itself but also the armed services. any time they get an inquiry, they have a special division that handles those inc. worries. the pentagon has that function as well. congressional interest is taken very seriously at the working level, and it is one of the most important things we handle. i used to serve as the air force liaison for intelligence matters to congress within the air force as intelligence director. i did work a lot with congress. anytime staff was called, we basically jumped.

>> the next call is from larry. you are on the air. with theed 10 years government. in the summer of 2001, i read a lot of articles. busted --ell people bush did three things, evoke the patriot act, invade afghanistan, and eventually get the oil in a iraq.- >> i think 9/11 was such a tragic incident that i don't think, having lived through that not somethingis that was done by the administration. i do believe certainly when the

,ountry created the patriot act they were responding to a threat they felt was real. terms of the invasion of afghanistan, afghanistan was seen as the host country for al qaeda, and the connection between the taliban and al qaeda was a symbiotic relationship. as a result i think the united states felt justified. members of both political parties felt the need to go in and do something against afghanistan. that's why we went into that country in 2001 as a response to that. iraq is a more complicated arena. supported bys major elements of both parties that saddam hussein, well not

connected to al qaeda directly, there were a lot of suspicions that he was. a lot of that had to be investigated. should it be done in the way it was done? had a situation where we went in because we felt the need to do so. there were indications saddam was doing some things that would have adversely affected the gulf states such as saudi arabia and , sounited arab emirates there was a feeling saddam hussein was a pariah that needed to go. the result is once you eliminate somebody like that, you end up getting rid of what amounted to a bizarre stabilizing force in the region. there living with consequences of that, and that is why we need to make sure would we go into places like

this we do so as efficiently as bestn but with the information out there. >> frank is in new york. >> how are you doing, colonel? >> could. how are you? >> you can tell everybody the .ruth -- good how are you? >> you can tell everybody the truth. we have to protect ourselves. we are a democracy that leads everyone in the world. the world is a big place, but when something goes down it is a small place. you found that person knew that person. you guys do it right all the time. you are doing your best. there isn't much you can do. you know the bad guys are out there. you are not going to let the same thing as world war ii go on . we are not going to let it happen. enough of genocide. enough of the bad people. i think we are doing well.

i got friends in the military. military school as a kid. instead i went to construction. a lot of my friends went into rotc, and they jumped into what you are doing. and theydoing well, are paid well, and they are smart. you got to have those people. you guys are no different from me. i am a worker. i work for myself. here is something else i see. i work for myself. i do contracting, and i work in restaurants. a lot of the restaurants i work it now, 80% of them are immigrants, people from another country running a restaurant, trying to be nice to the white person and hoping their life here becomes fluent. you see it. >> you are getting a little off topic. we are talking about the nsa

data process. >> i appreciate your comments of the workality that a lot of people in the intelligence committee do, and some of my former colleagues are truly invested. to an important area in that the quality of the personnel find -- assigned to high.a is extraordinarily it is some of the highest percentage of computer scientists actually working in one area. of the most talented people in many areas. is a national treasure. it is a national resource. whatever we do with the national worldigence agency, the

is a dangerous place. there are many entities and many people who do mean us harm. outave to have protections there to keep us safe. that includes having a robust and meaningful intelligence service that can execute its theion under the purview of law. that's very important and a very critical factor in this case. >> this is a tweet. why is a facility like bluff eededneeded -- bluffdale n if they are only collecting data? reams of data from the many different sources and put it together in a way that it can be accessed. here is the quandary you have. under the rules, the basic idea was to take the vacuum cleaner what youand go after

can find. in this case the idea of any type of storage facility like that is basically i need to store it so i can access it in case it becomes important later on. how do you know it becomes important? how do you know that meaningless conversation five months ago is at the center of a big investigation? the answer is you really don't. the advent of big data, predictive analytical tools, all of that necessitates a robust data analytical capability. you need facilities in order to do that. should they be as extensive as bluffdale? i will leave that to the experts, but i would say based on the technology at the time the facility was planned, it was

judged necessary to do that. would i have spent as much money on that to build it the way it is? maybe not. i would have to see the plans. i have seen some plans but not enough to make a decision. having said that, the idea is how are you going to make the intelligence agencies -- how are you going to enable them to collect the data they need in order to provide that instantaneous answer? you need a bit of a backbone. that is what we are talking about, relating the environment so you can discard it when you don't need it. smart collection that organizations need to grapple with. host: ron is calling from

kentucky. caller: how are you? guest: i'm good how are you? caller: i'm fine, i am a conservative republican and they say that power corrupts absolutely and i don't quite grasp the nsa and the fact that they scour the country in the world with planes and drones picking up information today at one point ever decide that a number is no longer needed? guest: it happens all the time and what they're looking at as they are searching for what they call targets of interest there looking for very specific things, very specific indicators

so if your phone number came up as an example, in all likelihood they would probably quickly discarded because there is no connection to anybody worthwhile. chances are they would not but if they did there are procedures in place to discard that kind of information. what we're dealing with here is a situation where the country as a whole and we grew up from a revolutionary origin and we really wanted to be isolated from the world. washington as your member warned us against foreign entanglements. 200 years later there are lots of foreign entanglements and we in essence have no choice because we ended up being the superpower in the world. as a superpower it is required to do certain things on the

foreign scene so we need to be very careful with how we balance the needs of a superpower with our own idea of individual liberty, freedom and our ability to maintain that freedom within the confines of our borders and hopefully to propagate that kind of freedom around the world . we are looking at doing many different things and some of them are definitely not what the founding fathers envisioned just because the world was a different place and our role as a nation has become a different role. that is the issue we are grappling with, how do you have an intelligence agency in an era that requires a lot of data collection to be effective? how do you also safeguard liberties at every stage of the way? that is the national discussion we are beginning to have. host: james is in florida, hi james.

caller: a comment and then his commentary on the question of -- host: we are listening, please listen to your phone and not the tv, will is right here in washington. caller: first of all thank you for your service you a totally thankless job and people don't always appreciate everything you guys do and we take it for granted every day that the streets are safe. we live in one of the safest places on earth and that does not just happen.

guest: thank you well. caller: people should take it in perspective that we have a bill of rights and other countries do not have a bill of rights and i do a lot more collection on citizens and we do here and all are on the world countries are collecting way more information than we collect. guest: would you do for living? caller: i work for a bank but not in collections or anything like that, but i think one of the biggest misleading numbers is that the a court approves 95% of the quest -- requests to collect, but the reason that approval rating is so high because it goes through so many boundaries before it gets a that level. guest: that is absolutely right.

caller: it's not blanket approval but because there are so money checks in place and even after he gets that -- so

many checks in place and even after it gets to that point -- guest: i appreciate the comments when people do look at those numbers in terms of the fisa approval rates, the court is not a rubberstamp and every now and then you get little snippets were they very displeased with something that had a stay -- say that the other agency has done or a couple things in the public with a said go back and try again. when that happens, these are the checks and balances that are operational. what you have to look at is not necessarily the approval percentages the that can be an indicator but it is the relevant fact that these mechanisms exist and these mechanisms are put in place in order to provide those checks and balances that we seek. this is a very valid point that

will raise because percentages don't always tell the whole story and there is a lot of work that goes into putting something in front of a report or any other court in the land and it is a matter of crossing the t said -- crossing the t's and dotting the i's. guest: -- host: richard butler tweets and thank you for your service, can nsa records be used as a political weapon? or to silence opposition? any safeguards? guest: i think a lot of the issues have come up with the watergate era where there was an attempt by the next and to use the nsa in a way that was politically expedient. richard is right to point out that there have been attempts to do that and there is always a risk that you get into a situation where an agency has -- is misuse by its political masters in this case the executive branch. there are safeguards ever since the church committee in the post-watergate. you have the watergate hearings on both sides of the house and senate, you had a very clear line of procedure and policy put in place so that things would not be abused by people in power at that moment and time. there are safeguards and whistleblower protections and there are things that are in place so that if somebody from the executive branch called up and said, director of nsa i gave you to do x y and z and involved going after somebody who was a political opponent, that would be blatantly illegal. to my knowledge none of that has

happened during my time with the national security agency or within the intelligence community. that is something where people are certainly attempting to follow the law and follow the procedures in this case. is it a risk? yes, it is always a risk and you to make sure it never happens. caller: james we are listening, go ahead. thank you for your service, ira member you made a comment before that saddam hussein did not have any weapons of mass destruction but i remember your frontline program from the early 1980's when saddam was in developing his super gun i believe they call it a railgun that certainly come up with its capabilities and range could be considered a

weapon of mass destruction just wondering if you had comments on that. >> what i will say is this that some of the reports in the press, i wanted which specific parts of some of them are corroborated by a fence that i personally witnessed during the shock and all phase of iraqi freedom. one aspect of that is there was a lot of traffic from iraq into syria over the border crossing. a lot speculation existed at the time that it had to do with saddam hussein getting rid of his artwork or his treasures of various types.

my suspicion is that was not the case, it may have been part of what he was sending to syria but there is pretty good evidence that there were some pieces of weaponry, what we call the nbc, no, biological and chemical. they probably crossed the border into syria. given that press report and those kinds of pieces of information that are starting to come out, i think it is a bit too early to say he did not have -- it is not too early to say conclusively whether or not he had weapons of mass destruction. he clearly acted as if he did, he had weapon systems, not just the gun that you mentioned but others that were in very us stages of development that indicated he wanted a mechanism to disperse chemical agents across a wide area. with that kind of information it is no wonder that a lot of people were in the administration, looking toward a way to mitigate the threat that he posed and that became something that was very important to do from a national security perspective.

that is in essence part of the reason why we ended up getting involved in iraq and as they say the rest is history. >> tweet, and your opinion is snowden a hero or villain? guest: it is a very competent in -- complicated question because you have somebody who clearly violated the rules when it came to safeguarding classified information so he became what amounts to the classic insider threat, the other side of that the discussion he has engendered is one that is probably necessary for the country to have. i do think he should come back and stand trial and the rule here with the courts say in this particular case, but i do think that he certainly took a great personal risk and i am not convinced that he acted alone.

that is another factor in any discussion on the future of edward snowden. host: has the conversation been good for the country? guest: i think it has, when you're in the intelligence business you want to keep as many secrets as you can do that is the nature of the business but having said that in a democracy you need to make sure that you are always working for the good of the people that you represent and even know the nsa is not elected by anybody we are appointed people and that becomes an important factor that we represent the country in that way. host: please come back and thank you for being on " "washington journal." >> this thanksgiving week c-span

is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. in 1980 one -- 1980 and came in a 1981 and if you look at my newsletters there is no mention and congressman tony hall who was a democratic member of ohio who was my best friend been in as we had little group together for 32 years and he asked me to go to ethiopia during the famine. up and i just got on the desk and said can i go to ethiopia? he said sure. i got on an airplane by myself and you may not remember the famine but it was a very bad famine. i got to a camp run by world embassy did not want to spend the night and i said i want to spend a and a guy from world missions as if you spend the night i will spend the night and right next to his camp was a camp by mother teresa and we spent the night in a little

hut and it rained the next day and the plane could not come back and it was a life-changing experience. things -- a bad trip. romania, joe chaska -- chaocheska. i saw people persecuted for their faith in those two trips were bookends. --ce that time >> on thanksgiving day we will take an american history to her of various -- american history tour of various native american tribes that 1:30 a 10 the groundbreaking ceremony with the former secretaries of state and

supreme court justices clarence alito.and samuel for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. congress returns on monday for a 10 day sprint to the rollcall joins us from capitol hill and let's talk about the deadline to get that budget bill done and that spending bill, where do we stand? head into and through the thanksgiving weekend negotiations are ongoing between the house and senate and ranking members on getting the various bills completed, the last i there is ahat meeting scheduled for december 1 of the top-level negotiators on

both the house and senate side to get the final details ironed of course the potential problem is that even if the work product of the committee gets the narrow the political concerns and need to be had about whether or not it makes it to the floor of the house and the senate, certainly that may be complicated byticularly in the house what they decide to do in 'ssponse to president obama actions on immigration but the committee is trying to create a product separate from the political situation in the hope that it makes it to the floor. pelosi has said that she is not -- the republicans in the house should not count on democrat support on getting a spending measure passed especially if it include something dealing with immigration.

acr is the so-called omnibus approach. that it would somehow in a way not yet defined carveout funding for homeland security or immigration programs in particular to try to avoid the implementation of the executive action now during that an appropriation bill is difficult to do because while you can and there was some talk of this from the congressional research service that was just of theted by the office justice in alabama that it is difficult to do perhaps through the normal course but there are ways that you could cause restrictions on funding or restrictions on the program itself but you can't do it

through the normal run-of-the-mill appropriation process and i think that is what we need to be worked out. you introduced this new term the cromnibus. he says congress must fight this executive order to the and nail through legislative means that will an act real change. he says it should not be included in any sort of appropriations measure. chairmanent from rogers and like-minded people on both sides of the aisle is that is sort of a separate debate from something that should be tied to this appropriations bill. it is true that it is certainly difficult to do it through the regular process and the other thing is particularly there is this reality that if the

government were to shut down, let's say there is no deal by the 11th of december some of it would still be going on when it comes to president obama's immigration action because of the fees that people have when they apply for immigration status and that would be funding this program so even that gets and is really a difficult question to see how you would go about doing some of the more persistent lawmakers and what they would like to do. reports in the week that there is a package developing in the house and the senate developing next week and the president reportedly will veto that, what do you know of it? a package that was circulating earlier in the week was a deale holiday

that seemed to be coming together between harry reid and the house republicans in the white house was quick to announce that there would be the intention of the telling it, so basically they have gone back to the drawing board and everyone is trying to figure out where things will stand when we come back certainly that was in the item and if a deal is reached will probably very quickly make it to the four -- floor because it should need to get done before the end of the year but also because of the kind of measure that lingers around for a long time people tend to get more opposed as it goes. >> you're writing a couple of contentious ambassadorial nominations, is the senate likely to spend a great deal of its time on nominations as they wrap up the session? >> i think it is probably true that other than this government

funding bill and the tax extenders package and possibly a defense authorization bill that most of the senate schedule will be dedicated to getting as many nominates -- nominees through to confirmation as possible before the's -- process essentially resets with congress with the republicans coming into power and controlling the majority order.uld be a taller >> follow him on twitter and read more. thank you for the look ahead. >> when congress returns so does our live coverage, watch the house of representatives when they come back monday at 2:00 p.m. eastern time and you can watch coverage of the senate live on c-span two. thanks for your comments

about our programming, here are some we received. >> i just watched your program "question and answer." it very offensive to put who knows very little about islam and syria and very little about the koran and history, she misquoted the carotid and misquoted -- the koran and misquoted the life of mohammed and was absolutely not and can refute on a scholarly basis that i find very offensive. someone that watches and respects c-span to see this program completely shocked.

i dare to say the worst program i have seen on c-span in 20 years. the wanted to comment on q&a on c-span with the author, she has given the most complete and concise articulated explanation of the muslim religion in the modern world that i have not heard of and i am a religious scholar for over 65 years. she should be commended. know whate to let us you think of the programs you're watching, call us. e-mail us. for send us a tweet. conversation,an like us on facebook follow us on twitter. special envoy for climate

change todd stern recently talked about how environmental issues affect foreign policy the recent agreement with china. for the center for american progress this is just one hour. you excited to congress he has made most recently. employment policy prior to taking on his new role in administration so we are very honored to have him.

it has the u.s. special envoy for climate change the past six years and a lot has happened in this span of time. the mystic we the administration has pushed ahead with a ambitious plan that will take years. that it isgnize truly a global challenge. that is why galvanizing international action is so fundamentally critical. fortunately under this administration and thanks to the work of people like todd the united states has become a clear leader in the international climate arena united states has built a vital new climate relationship with china which culminated in a historic announcement two weeks ago regarding a respective domestic greenhouse gas reduction we have launched new global partnerships

and we have ramped up our assistance to developing countries looking to achieve sustainable economic growth and better withstand the impact of climate change including a major new pledge last week of $3 billion for new funds. all of this is tremendously important and galvanizes the final stretch of climate talks. it aims to set the world on a sustainable path. as an address climate change of think the work that is recently happened has helped demonstrate arguments for an action or arguments that china will never act or the world whenever act have become excuses. we are very excited to have this timely conversation and i will welcome peter auden to the stage. -- ogden to the stage.

[applause] >> thank you very much and thank you todd for joining us today. and with youyou for the first five years of the administration but now i work for her. you have also come prepared, the last few weeks have given you a -- we talk about here timed it all for the benefit. i would love to start there, and particularly with what happened with china and your reference to the kind of timeworn talking points that climate action by andunited states is futile if china does not act and they never will act i think that president obama has caused people to take a look at whether that is really a viable point going forward at all.

i would love to hear and i think people would love to hear how that came about and what you see as the most important feature. >> thank you very much for hosting me here as she said i was part way back almost at the with johnand go back podesta the founder of cap way before that. it was a big week for us last question, if you look and the arkst year of what we were doing with china and 2013 it was re: quite positive and on a good pass we established a new working group on secretary kerry in april 2013 on climate change and got a number of initiatives and significant ones launched and the president negotiated an

agreement at sunny lands with the president so there was good momentum going forward and we got together in my office in january 2014 wind to think about what we could do next and how we could take this relationship forward in a significant way, secretary kerry was getting ready to go visit china and early february and after talking about a number of possibilities we hit on the idea of trying to do a joint announcement of targets that would go all the way up to the presidential level. assuming that both sides looked at each other proposals and felt comfortable with it so i accompanied secretary kerry to china in february and i started talking to my counterpart the minister about this idea and secretary kerry talked to

president she and others in china about this notion and that kind of started the conversation and the chinese were open to it but there was obviously a lot of work that needed to be done and a lot of work done over the course of the year to share a lot of information that initially we talk to collaborating on the development of our targets. publicly with the understanding that we would shoot for this announcement if we could both get there. think it was always in our view something that would have potential for very significant positive impacts with respect to both the climate relationship between the u.s. and china and the broader relationship between

the u.s. and china and of course the multilateral climate negotiations. hopefully that will all prove to be true. targets that china put forward, that we put forward and china are both strong on our side. levels byn below 2005 and it wasambitious designed to be as ambitious as we possibly could on the basis of authority that we knew that we had, we did not want to come up with a pie-in-the-sky kind of target based on legislation that might not be able to get so everything that was the grounding of our target is based in theority that we have

28% upper end which we are committed in the agreement to try to get will put us on a straight-line path to over 100% reduction by 2015. it is very strong. chinese it is the first time ever that they have to co2 emissions and this is a big step if you look at all sorts of analytic bodies, the estimations tended to generally be a good deal higher than that. announcement includes their commitment to try to go earlier and i think our sense is they will have a good chance to do that the broad economic restructuring program is pursuing hard and the chinese are very committed assuming that

goes well that there is a very real chance that they will be .ble to peek earlier than 2030 the other part of their target as a targetnounced to get 20% of their nonfossil energy -- 20% of their energy from nonfossil sources which is a huge undertaking for them and will require them to build something like 800 to a thousand gigawatts of renewable and nuclear energy and just by way of comparison the total generating capacity in our country is a little over 1100 so you're talking 800 to a thousand four renewable and nuclear by china and that is also by way of comparison around what they do now and maybe even a little more than what they do now total. dealnk it is a very big

and we will see what transpires but a really big step and i is that theur sense way this will resonate in the broader climate community will will rile a lot of things up but it will overall be very positive and i think it will give momentum to the negotiations and it will spur countries to come forward with their own targets. the way i putlly it in one conversation recently is that if you are holding stock in the negotiation your stock would have gone up after this announcement because here you antagonisto strict

the two biggest players on climate change having come together to say we will work , who is what we are each doing. and a commitment by the two presidents to work together to get paris done and to clear obstacles that might come up. all in all we are very good. i wonder if one of the things that you mentioned with the evolution of the u.s.-china relationship not just going to do youands but to 2009, have views on how that has matured? the important moments in that relationship? was aone level copenhagen very important moment in that alationship in terms of spur -- spurring the greater desire

to get the relationship on a more cooperative footing. -- my view is that copenhagen was a very important meeting and important things got done and positive things have happened and would not have happened if it had not occurred but having said that, the interaction tween the u.s. and china was pretty rough and i think that both sides came out and i certainly think this is true for the chinese side as well as ours with the desire to work in as collaborative and cooperative away as possible. gooddeveloped a very relationship with the vice-chairman of the end the rc and he is a good friend at this point, we have taken each other

to our hometowns and spent a lot of time together and have long since lost track of how many times we have met together, but i think we work quite well together. i think that has been true in the years 2010 and thousand 11 and last year i think it stepped up to thousand 13 stepped up to another level of engagement with the new climate change working group and a lot of discussion and meetings with respect to those initiatives that we have worked on their and this year a whole another level. i think it is been gradually improving and gradually building toward what we have now and this is not the end of the story, now we just have to keep moving forward. obviously a lot of attention

gets paid to the china's ruling this to fully confront local air quality challenges. do you find that interest and goal is very present in climate discussions that it wasn't a few years ago? and it certainly was not direct front and center, is it now or is this just sort of influencing from above or around? >> i think more of the latter actually, i think it is a matter of first-order priority for the interestingly i think that the process of the u.s. embassy -- we didn't have anything to do it this by the way, this is an initiative that occurred in the embassy but the fact that the embassy started to the statistics about the

air pollution and make those available to people in china and actually had a big transformative effect on how they started to look at the air pollution problem. bit completely got the between their teeth and i think it is very real and and area of high priority at the highest and i think that has an impact on what they do on climate but it is not the case so much so that when we have our climate discussions there is a lot of discussion about air pollution. it is as he said around and influencing from our point of view the thing that is most important that made these views known to our chinese counterparts but clearly it is

that they deal with the air pollution problem in a way which is also positive regarding climate change in the way that there are synergies because that is not self-evident. if you decide the way you will deal with the problem is to take all the coal plants and move them west and build big transmission lines and pump all the power back but not reduce coal, it doesn't help you very much from a climate change want to view although it would get air pollution out of the eastern cities. is that theything do it in a way that is positive for both air pollution and climate. >> one last thing before and move on from china, can you talk about how china's attention and interest in the u.s. targets ?tself and is being developed

how it's concerned of a show on that side of the ledger clearly you and the administration cared a lot how important was it that the united states was developing a pledge that was both ambitious and incredible? that -- i think each side had the same understanding that there would have to be mutual pledges that the other guys saw as good enough to their presence and our presence -- presidents stand up and make this announcement. something thatn was inadequate i think that would concern them, but i think that they were just as concerned about the notion of the capacity

of the u.s. to implement the always watching our politics very closely and they're always looking at what is going on in the hill what is doable and not doable so forth and i think that our capacity to say both quite ambitious but also something we can execute based on the authorities that we have i think that was important to them because of all the china, i think it is caused a lot of people to ask about india and the interesting things that india will be the's third-largest emitter in just a very important player in the dynamics of the crime and -- climate shocks generally we haven't dialogue with india on crime issues -- climate issues and we happened to just be in delhi doing that meeting during

the international session when this news broke for the morning to bring actly timed whole bunch of people that usually have a lot to say to silence for a few moments and i think if there was followed quickly by a lot of words but there was a moment there was a window and i think people really in trying to internalize what this tectonic shift would mean and so since then i think a lot of people started to really become more interested in what the dynamics are around the u.s. in the relationship and how india operates you have had some experience recently with the prime minister's first visit here to washington where climate was certainly on the agenda and now we have news that president obama will be there at the end of january returning to visit so i would love to get your thoughts on the state of that

relationship and how you see that developing. india is obviously an enormously important country in connection with climate change as well as so many other things they have a-- relatively new team as far as we are concerned given the election havee prime minister and i got to know a little bit my counterpart and i like him quite well but i don't know yet if it is too early to say where they're going to position themselves in the negotiations, i think that on the one hand india is in a normal sleep important country but on the other hand i think they bristle a little bit at the notion that they are seen china and india as if they go together and they are

third but it is a distant third compared to china so the u.s. and china are the biggest and china depending on what specific whether you're looking at co2 for energy or energy plus cement or what your numbers are but if you look at that figure which is very good agency from the netherlands, the netherlands environment agency, i forget the name but they do very good bybers every year and china their count is it around 29% global emissions and india is probably around six or so so it is a big difference. having said that india is huge. it will be hopefully growing at a rapid pace and the way they grow in the carbon intensity with which they do or do not grow will be very important going forward and i think the most important thing is for india to see that there is a

growth toth eradicating poverty and to energy access which is still somewhere between 300 million and 400 million indians who do not have electricity. their fundamental development carbon as is as low possible, relatively low carbon, not based on a big bet on long-term dirty coal. that will be very challenging and i think our inclination is to want to work with them as closely as possible. exactly how they will play in the negotiations and how they in paris and so forth

i hope is constructively as possible. we've had a very good relationship through the climate talks there was a time when we agreed about more things and a time when we have been on different sides. we still managed to be quite and cordial and to have useful discussions. i have every expectation that , but the long way around we don't know yet. >> it's interesting you mention the energy access is a major concern. i wonder if there is potential for that to shape and motivate their climate policies in some of the ways that local environmental concerns -- ask that the foundations for healthy and constructive climate policy. the way i think they have

their own air pollution concerns which are kind of at a china level of intensity. i don't think it is clear that is -- that it is as big a political issue but it is a big important problem. minister haverime a lot of interest in renewables and a lot of interest in solar and there is tremendous potential in both for a grid connected or off grid solar and indeed tremendous potential for using that to reach a lot of the people because most of those people are rural and do not have access yet. the axishat done right issue can be addressed in a

positive and low carbon way but it is a big challenge. i imagine he will spend some time in dehli between now and when the president -- >> probably. i'm glad that we talked a little bit about air quality in on i and before we move want to talk a little about the non-formal climate tracks and one of the areas where a lot of diplomatic work has been done. back in 2009, 2 dozen 10 or two dozen 11 whenever the clean air , or 2011, never

the clean air coalition was think there was the idea of real opportunity and recognition that this was an area where climate change had not been efficiently focused and there was a lot to be done and interest in doing it after the secretary launch that initiative it grew rapidly but then when firstesident came for his summit with president obama, there was a major breakthrough in terms of finding a way of in many ways it was a forerunner to what you achieved a couple of months ago, we did not work out how -- all the issues for how to address hydrofluorocarbons but there was a clear visual of how the dynamics have changed and that

has had a really helpful impact on that negotiation itself. you just had the latest round of protocol negotiations last week, do you have any thoughts and particular about the role that can play or should play? is it something also that as we get close to paris that maybe the pressures of paris itself will cause countries to adapt a little bit more? >> both of those things are possible, i think there was hfce good progress made on iotocol during the last week just finished on friday so i think there's a lot of progress , this is something like how the state department has been on this beat four years

-- for years. cassidy four or five years ago when there were over 100 countries expressing support for themendment to phase down use of hfc's and to do that under the montreal protocol there has been some resistance historically about doing that because a bunch of countries who had not wanted to go there have that you can only treat fccc which ise un not true without dragging you into too much -- the weeds too hfc's were developed as a substitute for ozone depleted gases and they do it good job of not depleting that

layer but they do a bad job on global warming so they were created as a creature of the montreal protocol and for that reason for the jurisdiction to be completely fine to deal with with the montreal protocol was the most successful environment treaty ever. it was fed up with the ozone hole and dealt with it really well. they have expertise and they have a fund, a multilateral fund that was set up and is actually payed that helps countries -- it is ansition very good venue to do this and avenue that could be effective.

all the bookkeeping and accounting for reduction in agencies would happen under the it would not be deprived of its jurisdiction but the actual work of getting this down what happened in montreal and that is what ought to happen. >> the discussions last year between president obama and what led up to that was very important getting the chinese comfortable, they have to become will at least with the proposition of doing this and using montreal for this purpose. second bilateral agreement between the two presidents in september which went a step further to say that we are going to agree to the specific procedural stuff under montreal setting up a contact formal way in the

which these kinds of discussions in which a discussion for new amendments would take place in this is what we would try to do in this past week in paris is to get that contract group set up and they got pretty close but there were still a few countries who were too reluctant to let it go and montreal like the body in a a consensus face a know doesn't happen but they were really contents -- contentious conversations were countries were expressing the kind of concerns -- not just political concerns if the action should be in the climate treaty but much more specific and sermons about safety ambientives, high temperature climates like the middle east, they will pick it

hopefullyn april and we will be able to take the step there. i have no doubt that there may be some who will be a little bit but the two things really are in progress. there is a way in which all the things do interact with respect --climate discussions

>> the low hanging fruit that you can do this without spending an arm and leg you just have to get everybody there but we made good progress. >> you sort of reference some other multilateral flora where does keep coming up on the agenda, some of my colleagues have looked into whether or not the arctic council might provide opportunities and there are as the- what do you see right balance as you are pouring all this effort and time and personal time focusing on paris versus these other channels? >> we have always focused on

channels outside may negotiations at the same time as we understand the negotiations are still the biggest event. ring --er >> as you started in reference the climate and clean air coalition that we would follow the country's to get going and really an idea that we dreamed up here and got a number of , and launchested in of state department by secretary clinton in 2012 and not yet three years later the six countries are now over 40 countries and 40 non-country sobers, probably 10 or initiatives of various kinds and we have been most focused in the u.s. on launching a partnership

to reduce methane in the oil and gas industry and we did announce u.n.on the margins of the september, we have done a lot of work reducing methane from landfills because there is a whole host of efforts which other countries are involved in and i think the ccac has some good potential, the arctic council is another venue as you said and we take the chairmanship of that in april and we are working hard on that already and secretary kerry would like to have climate change and important part of the presidency. that inworking to do concrete ways in terms of

policies and also to use it as a educationor public and send an important message for their urgency of climate. we started the major economies inum when we first came in 2009. countries group of that president bush had pulled together. in purposerent focus than what we were interested in syria it was a good group of countries. back in my days of writing articles, i had written an article about the need for something quite like that. a smaller group of countries that could meet at a higher andl on a regular basis

have an ongoing conversation at a level of candor and intensity .nd focus you cannot wind we took that group of countries. change the name a bit to give it a different brand. more importantly, give it a different mission. first to facilitate progress and see whether there were things that could be done that this group of countries could do in terms of low carbon development. back in 2009 when there was a , that led to leaders roadmaps andlogy

charging the and history -- ministers to run with it. we work very closely with them. we have some ideas and how to carry that process farther forward. there are number of priorities. the biggest game in town will be paris. >> that is but i want to ask. i'm afraid of talking about the countdown. hand, if you look , quite leisurely

-- i guess the question is an thealluded to this earlier, perspective had been involved from a one here through copenhagen another conference will be the last contribution here, if you could offer your thoughts on what copenhagen -- with the lessons are you are trying to up fly here into this negotiation. has been inow it that intermediary period. other other meetings you think are important to maintain?

you want to build upon? well, the process is quite different. .e came in try to deal with it. negotiated the underlying mandate. cap and working it through its early phases. to the point where we are much negotiations toward turning it into a text. think the fact of the elements

of what happened in copenhagen will be visible. happens -- i don't know what will happen. we have ideas. this is the negotiation that was intended to produce a new agreement that is in some fashion wasn'tct spelled out in the mandate. i think the language when a great outcome -- it is supposed to be applicable to all.

, that is an absolutely critical few words. us -- kyoto is in way is applicable to all. wasn't.tries are -- it the requirements coming out of kyoto -- he was very much applicable to some. this is meant to be different. there has developed a fair amount of consensus in the

negotiations. there is a bottom-up structure. part of the negotiating process in warsaw. other way to do it. early on countries expressed unhappiness about that. is you give med you and all -- an alternative you can imagine. we try to come forward with some

ideas that are designed to prod and push countries to the next level of their ambition. the main one every proposed was a -- thecreates intention is for countries to come forward with their and early.-- the views of other countries, the views of sissel -- civil society and everybody else can indiao see what china or or europe or anyone else is proposing to do. you take whatever criticism you

get. the hope is that structure pushes countries to come forward with their best shot right away. they don't want to be embarrassed. that is an important future of the structure. proposalsa lot of about elements of what we started to call and accountability system. various rules for accounting and manage your ambition, asmitments, and so forth well as important stuff on finance and any other element. can succeed in

what we are trying to do, but we would have is not and would be perfect. if we can get it done, i think what we would have for the first time is an agreement that is legal in some important respects .hat has everybody involved more ambitious than anything that has come before. as a lasting structure. you have a structure that is set and an understanding that each x it to bewe would like 5 -- countries had to re-up the medication commitments to higher levels of ambition and have that expectation of higher written into the agreement. an agreement that elevates more

than what has happened before. the understanding the needs to be more planning and resources to implement the plans that will provide for a significant financial and technological support for develop countries. all of those things in a structure that can last and that again is not perfect, that is a good, strong step. that is what we are trying to do. one of the things that would be most challenging, we will see it in paris. the age old problem of a firewall. i have spent more time than i can count to my counterparts. we entirely support it.

with can't to the form they have a africa hated agreement -- b iforcated agreement. that will be a challenge. i think there is a pay. -- payoff. >> think the announcement the billion pledged $3 which was a commitment to establish a fund in copenhagen -- i think there has been a it has beench methodically met. the public and private funds. distinctind of

administration point in the negotiation where you are trying to build consensus across some historic negotiating divide. >> sure. that is a big deal. mades a commitment first in copenhagen. reaffirmed in cancun. instrument that was a foundational document for it was negotiated over the course i think 2011. a location. there is an executive director there. , it is not quite

there. tohope to get all the way 10. the u.s. came forward in a strong way with the pledge of $3 billion. was -- there are always in needs --number of enormous number of needs. needsrmous number of the that are competing for limited dollars. importance of

having a strong ledge -- pledge with respect to the substantive facts of what that could help in .eveloping countries biggest player and donor groups are. we understood it was very important to come forward and strong. -- one it is a scion of of the great many signs of the level of importance of climate change that we were able to have such a big step up. started with the inaugural dress and going forward to the climate

forward plan. is keeping a tremendous emphasis on climate. terrific.n it has pretty dramatically change the impressionable united states internationally. i would like to see if we could ask a couple of questions -- answer a couple of questions from the audience. anything they would like to add? the gentleman in the suit. i was wondering -- china was

a keen observer of the political dynamics. what is possible and what isn't possible? when you're chinese counterparts ask you, what commitment mechanisms exist to carry forward these pledges that were recently made over the coming decades and electoral cycles? what do tell them about what to ranch as the executive will change hands between parties? how will that it affect the u.s.? >> thanks for the question. think the chinese focus is on 2025 forod of now and the target. we walked them through the central elements of what we have

announced which includes the .ransportation sector there as well as action that will be taken under the methane strategy. doablections that are the basis of existing authority. we have walked him through what and what reductions we thought were possible in those areas. that was really the nature of the discussion.

we can get there if we get some piece of legislation. push.l need to this is a stretch target for us. our sense is we can get there. those will be followed carrying forward by the next administration. what we are talking about can be carried forward. >> front row. >> thank you so much. -- limang countries

will be closing the gap which are what countries are doing and what is needed. one of the things they will be wishing for is for countries to target their pre-2020 s. is that idea dead in the water? what is left? voluntary things you are talking about? i think there is ongoing focus. two discussion tracks came forward. i think there's still a lot of focus on that. i don't inc. there is as much focus on the notion -- think there is as much focus on the notion they will change their 2020 target's. i think it is more what you are

doing to push forward in every possible way. what are any number of enemies doing? what initiatives are happening even at the private sector level? what thehat is more pre-2020 discussion is about as well as exactly what countries targetsg to implement that they have. if they're lucky to have implementation that sees the target -- countries will come up and say, we decided to change our target.

i don't think people take it is realistic. >> thank you. let's assume you are engaged for a long time in politics. all to now -- up to now, arguments have been based on assumptions. ofst, the world will run out [indiscernible] for fossilces energies will go up continuously. it seems that both basic assumptions are not true. they are not valid. yourid that change strategic thinking? how did it change the framework?

mainly onely technological progress? cheaper? or which kinds of public policies and supranational framework do we need to prevent states from exploiting this huge [indiscernible] which we can't afford. think the question has a number different aspects. focus for elements of the u.s. government and a number of others which is an is toaking of the g-20

.hase out subsidies on -- you see different numbers from different analysts who had different assumptions. the low end is about $500 billion a year. trillion onher in how much is being spent on -- fossill subsidies fuel subsidies. we were saying it quite small portion of that has to do with supporting poor people. 500ou have summer between billion and when chilean dollars

going to fossil fuel subsidies, i don't know if it is 10% or 15%. it is a small percentage that is designed to take care of four people. you could take care of poor people in a different way if you got rid of subsidies. reduce demand further. you would free up a lot of money that could be used for other sources. that should be enormously important. --on't think anyone thinks we will not run out of fossil fuels i assume. again say over and over the stone age ended because we ran out of stones.

reality.he the more positive things happen with respect to climate action, agreemente u.s.-china that was just announced is a part of that. i think if we get a successful outcome in paris, that will be another signal. there is going to be companies and investors all over that will tostarting at some point factor in what the future is longer-range. we will not get rid of fossil fuels overnight. to -- that isle perfectly how it is. a good question and a hard question. >> 20 give you time to get back

to important path. i appreciate you coming. thank you to everyone for joining us here today. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up, congressional exit interviews with retiring senator carl levin and representative ralph hall. and the dangers of drowsy driving. president obama pardons two thanksgiving turkeys at the white house. on the next "washington journal" an update on u.s. military operations in afghanistan. then combat operations against isis and the pentagon's response to ebola. and presidents and more time. washington journal begins at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span.

thanksgiving, case that is featuring interviews from retiring members of congress. 1980 -- if you look at my newsletters, there is no relation of human rights a religious freedom. the democratic member from ohio is my best friend. -- i workedgether together for many years. sure. famine.s a very bad camp.in a

i want to spend the night. if you stay the night, i'll spend the night. there is a camp run by mother teresa. we spent the night in a little hot. -- hut. it was a life-changing experience. i saw people persecuted for their faith. those two trips were like bookends. since that time -- thursday,