and, if so, which direction is it heading? >> in official statistics, there does not seem to be much of a general trend. proportions ine the official statistics may have decreased slightly. as i talk about in my presentation, i believe that is a vast underestimate. i would not look to the data published in those sources for evidence of a trend or lack thereof. in the study that i conducted that looks at eta from 1990 99 1999-2008, in that data, there was not evidence of an increasing or decreasing trend in the proportion of the crashes that involved drowsiness.

i would note that, in recent the raw number of crashes and deaths nationwide has decreased and that is a good thing. there is anyeve evidence based on the best the problemta that is increasing or decreasing as a share of all crashes. if we look or use conservative estimates that we have across of of the more solid studies the proportion of crashes that involved drowsy drivers and wely that to 2012 data, estimate over 5000 were killed in crashes that involved a drowsy driver. >> you mentioned multiple you look atnd alcohol-impaired driving.

i am wondering if you can use the same technique on that data to look at fatigue-related crashes. if so, or if not, what would your opinion be? i believe it could be done. i would only do that with a couple of the data from studies that i referred to in my presentation. the national motor vehicle crash causation survey and automotive sampling system. researchers,ies, independent of the police, make the determination of whether a driver is drowsy. they distinguish between whether a driver was known to be attentive or if they were known to be drowsy. or, whether they could not make a determination.

in the data published annually by the national traffic safety administration, the fatality analysis reporting system and the general estimate system, the data on driver drowsiness is based on data from reports completed in the field by police officers and, in most cases, i do not believe they make a determination between -- a distinction between whether a driver was known to be attentive or whether they simply could not tell that the driver was drowsy or not. there is an indication in the data of whether there were no contributing factors of parent or, whether the condition at the time of the crash was unknown. the proportion in which they indicate the condition was unknown is implausibly low among crashes in which only one vehicle was involved and there

was only one occupant in the vehicle and the driver was deceased. they onlyose crashes, report the driver condition as unknown one third of the time. they% of the cases, report, no contributing factors are apparent and i am not sure how one could arrive at that determination when the person involved in the crash is deceased. >> i want to comment on the notion of a prevalence changing. question that the introduction of rumble strips and airbags may have made it safer or less likely to be lethal for somebody who drives drowsy. it is unclear to me that they have reduced drowsy driving. not engage in, do

that behavior to begin with. i think what they have done is try to other people from catastrophic running off of the road. it is not clear to me that we have the evidence to suggest that they have really prevented drowsy driving and the risk factor here is the impaired driver. if we do not have a concerted effort to teach children and adolescents at risk in this averageift workers, and people who push themselves very hard and does not get adequate anep, if we do not make effort to make sleep a priority, in addition to all of the other things we can do to protect in effect, not, dealing with the source of the problem, it adequate sleep and operating a motor vehicle. equate sleep and

operating a motor vehicle. bankingpoke about sleep or recovery sleep. take to time does it pay back sleep? if they have enough, are they safe to perform after? >> thank you for the question. it is not as easy to answer as i would like it to be. we have been -- studying this for the national institutes of health and other agencies. it appears that the old believe that you can make it all up in one night is not supported by the evidence. about but onlye allow one night of sleep and people look fine the next day so they let them go home. when you keep them and you study how they function and how safe they are, you realize that it

takes more night of steady sleep to get back. it would be better to not get sleep deprived then to attempt to recover from it. that is a harsh message for the public that has gotten used to sleep deprivation. prevention is the best way to go. recovery takes longer and it can take longer, if you have other conditions that are causing the sleepiness or contributing to it. medical conditions, etc. >> i have question. -- a question. with regards to the data and eing more drowsy in general and people reporting driving while drowsy. have the surveys look at the attitudes with the risks of driving drowsy. if so, do people make the link

between drowsy driving and risk? >> it does not appear that they do. we have looked at that in surveys by the aaa foundation. in those surveys, we asked uch of a threat they think other people who are drowsy are to their safety and whether they think it is acceptable for a person to drive when they are so tired that they have a hard time keeping their eyes open. a large majority of people consider it a threat to personal safety. those drivers are out there and they consider it unacceptable to drive when they are tired. over a quarter of them consistently report having driven in the past 30 days when they were so tired that they could not keep their eyes open and a minority that translates

to a large number of people report doing that often or regularly. >> thank you. ekind.s >> in your understanding of the data, give me the numbers. take a year. suggestsy, "the data --" th -- drowsyes driving crashes? >> based on the estimates of the prevalence that i consider credible and the recent statistics on the number of crashes in the united states annually, conservatively, 400,000 police reported crashes each year involve drowsy driving as a contributing factor. over 100,000, i would estimate

crashesximately 115,000 involving injuries involve drowsy driving and at least 5000 are killed every year in crashes involving drowsy driving. >> thank you for being direct about that. i want to talk about shortcomings in methodological approaches. a you were going to create program that would accurately define the program in an ongoing manner, what would it look like? if -- if every vehicle on the road -- or at least a large sample on an equippedasis -- were with sophisticated collection instruments, including cameras, it would give us insight into the causes and contributing factors in crashes, including drowsiness.

what i would really like to see in the national traffic highway safety administration system, which i believe is the only ongoing data collection system that has the means to make a reasonable determination of whether a driver was drowsy or whether fatigue contributed to a crash. not at the same level as vehicle cameras. investigations and police reports. if the data collection system beefedd up in size -- up in size and more depth of investigation was added, analogous to the effort in 2005-2007.

the driver,rviewed the families, the employers, and try to gain insight into what the driver's life was like and the state of the driver at the time of the crash. if that was done with a reasonably sized sample, at least 3000-5000 crashes annually, that would put us ahead of where we are now. >> great. thank you. why do you think we have a disconnect between the science of what we know involving sleep and sleep loss and our societal attitudes and behaviors. what do you think the basis is? them is that we are used to being sleep deprived and drowsy. we are used to falling asleep. no one thinks that is unusual.

years ago, no one thought it was odd that someone snored loudly when they slept. that seemed normal. you will hear from physicians, regarding apnea, that is not normal and poses health risks. this touches on the point of what you would do about it. we need to show people and drivers driving drowsy that the study done in northern virginia by dot and in the washington area was shocking. 60 minutes show the videos. it frightens you when you see it and i do not think we have shown people how dangerous it is. when you see it what the cameras are seeing and feet is closing , you get the message loud and clear.

i was in australia and they had advertisements on this, showing graphics of falling asleep crashes involving families, truck drivers, individuals alone. i brought some of them back in the response that i got was that they are too frightening for the american people. in fact, i think we need some shock and awe. we need to show the truth about drowsiness. it is not funny. it is not cute. it is not willfully overcame. driving with alcohol in your system is dangerous to do. driving with out seatbelts is dangerous to do. we need to do the same with drowsiness and show what it is, extremely risky. it should not be normalized. it should not be permitted. >> that is a perfect ending to

the panel. what do you think, briefly, regarding safety, is the biggest scientific challenge out there? > i think it is inadequate areas for people to get off the road, take a nap, or stop driving. if you drive in the northeast, ira member getting into a trip and not being able to get a newl room, driving from york and philadelphia. i was engaged in something risky. awake. trying to keep me i was driving on a high density highway. it was foolish and i was looking for a place to get off. there was no place to get off. we have no safe place to get off the road when there is an uncontrolled sleep attack. it is repeated and due to

inadequate sleep. we need to make it possible for people to get off the road safely or get some sleep. do something, rather than continue to drive. ort may mean added signage better plans for planning trips. we need to do something that allows people, if we cannot completely prevent it, that allows them to get a countermeasure. get a nap. allow yourself a chance to wake up from it and put yourself back at a better level when you get back at the road -- on the road. >> beautifully done. we needed a great foundation. we talked about the biology and the scope of the problem. i want to thank you all for a great job. a nice job with the panel. we are going to switch out and welcome debra bruce. she will be chairing a panel on workplace issues. panelists, that is your cue, as

well. >> an update on military operations in afghanistan. operationson combat against isis. david on presidents and wartime. athington journal begins 7:00 on c-span. c-span features interviews from retiring members of congress. 8:00.the interview at >> i came in 1981. i did a newsletter. ofre are no mentions religious freedom. tony hall was a democratic

member and was my best friend. and he askedether me to go to ethiopia. up and said, i was asked to go to ethiopia. it was a bad famine. camp run by world .ision there was a camp run by mother teresa. we spent the night in a little hunt -- hot. -- little hut. we saw people dying and we saw that.

in 1985, an attorney took me to romania. you may not remember him. he was bulldozing churches and i saw people pushing. these were bookends. hungry andhe religious freedom. >> on thursday, we will take an american history tour of various native american tribes. that is following washington journal. attend a groundbreaking ceremony of the new diplomacy center. and supreme court justices. that is this thanksgiving week on c-span. go to c-span.

>> congress returns on monday for a sprint to the finish. we are joined. let's talk about the deadline to get a budget bill done and the spending bill. where do we stand? >> we are heading through the thanksgiving weekend and the negotiations are ongoing between the house and senate. they are getting various hills completed. -- bills completed. there is a meeting scheduled of the top level negotiators on both the house and senate side to get the final details ironed out. now, of course, the potential problem is, if the work product of the committee gets completed, there are political

considerations that need to be had as to whether or not it makes it to the floors of both the house and the senate. it certainly may be complicated in the house by what they decide to do in response to obama's executive actions on immigration. the committee is trying to create a product that is separate from the political situation in the hopes that they make it to the floor. thatncy pelosi has said she does not count on democrats support on spending measures sed.ing pas that hass the approach an omnibus spending bill to fund the government that would, in a way not defined, carved out funding for immigration programs

to avoid funding the implementation of the executive actions. doing that in an appropriation bill is difficult to do because, while you can, and there was some talk of this in a memo from the congressional research service circulated by sessions from alabama, it is difficult to do. there are ways that you could cause restrictions on the funding or on the program. through theo that normal run-of-the-mill appropriations process and that would need to be worked out if anyone wanted to take that approach.

>> you introduced a new term, cromnmibus. fights the congress must the legislative order to the and nail. he says it should not be included in an appropriations measure. >> right. the argument from lawmakers is that it will be a separate legislative debate from something that should be tied to this bill. it is true that it is difficult to do it through a regular process. the other thing is, particularly, there is a reality that, if the government was to shut down and there was no deal by december, it would still be going on when it comes to the immigration action.

people apply for immigration for funding of this program. it gets complicated and it is a difficult question to see how they would go about doing the more persistent things. >> a couple of the last things, extending some of the tax breaks late in the week, there is a package developing and the president will reportedly vetoed that. what do you know? circulatede was ahead of the holiday.

>> everyone is trying to figure out where we would stand. if it was reached, we would make and it needs to get done before the end of the year. when it lingers around for a long time, people see how it goes. >> you are writing that a couple ambassadorous nominations are heading to the senate floor. >> i think that is probably true. other than the government funding bill and the spending package, and possibly a defense authorization bill with most of the senate schedule -- most of the senate schedule will be dedicated to getting through

before the process resets with the new congress. with the republicans coming into power and becoming the majority, controlling the gavels, it will be a taller order and everyone knows that. the democrats are trying to get as many and as they can. >> read more. thank you for the look ahead. >> thank you. >> when congress returns, so does live coverage. watch the house of representatives when they come back. you can watch coverage of the senate on c-span 2. obama pardons to turkeys -- two turkeys. talking about how environmental concerns affect diplomatic efforts. senator, carl levin.

>> jonathan on the history of the birth control pill. bill my the science guy on why he thinks the teaching of evolution and creation is wrong and dangerous. george washington and benedict arnold. afternoon, a glimpse at andican life between 1914 1930 from the film collection. find e-mail us or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation,

like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> yesterday president obama participated in the traditional thanksgiving ritual of pardoning turkeys. this year's birds, mac and cheese, came from fort recovery, ohio. the president is joined by daughters sasha and malia in the house grand foyer. >> good afternoon. normally we do this outside, but the weather is not cooperating want to first of all on behalf of malia and sasha an early happy thanksgiving. i am here to announce what i'm the most talked about executive action this month. today i'm taking an action fully legal authority, the

same kind of action taken by democrats and republican presidents before me, to pair turkeys, mactwo and cheese. from a terrible and delicious fate. joelt to thank brandenburger, the president of the national turkey fedders, gary cooper, its chairman and his son cole cooper who personally raised mac and cheese. a big round of applause. [applause] they kept a pretty careful eye there on cheese, he's getting pretty excited about this. to all those who voted online to pick the official turkey. thanksgiving cheese wants you to know that he won. mac, the alternate is not so badly off either.

let face it. if you're a turkey, and you're side dish, your chances of escaping thanksgiving dinner are pretty low. so these guys are well ahead of curve, they really beat the odds. that important to know turkeys have always had powerful allies. many of you know that beng miles once wrote, iin wish the bald eagle had not been chosen as the represent of of our country, he is a bird of bad moral character. the turkey is in comparison a more respectable bird. i think these two turkeys would agree with mr. franklin, and to live out the rest of their days, respectively, at estate with 10,000 acres of roaming space. will call this amnesty. ( laughter ) worry, there's plenty of turkey to go around. afternoonater this

michelle, malia, sasha and i will take two turkeys that the cut to a local food pantry that works hard year round to make sure that folks in our nation's capital have food to eat and clothes to wear. to thank daniel turkey farm in pennsylvania for donating those birds for six they've madew that these contributions and for making thanksgiving dinner possible for some much our fellow americans. finally, the washington post toes recently questioned the turkeyof the whole pardon tradition. typically, on the day before thanksgiving, the story went, man who makes decisions about wars, virus outbreaks, terrorism cells and other dire matters of state, chooses to pardon a single turkey plus an alternate. tell me about it. is a little puzzling that i year.s every

it i will say that i enjoy because with all the tough stuff that swirls around in this office, it's nice once in a while just to say happy thanksgiving. and this is a great excuse to do it. moment. is a special one we give thanks for the people we love. mindful of the incredible blessings that we have received. folks who cane spend their holidays at home, especially the brave men and who help keeprm our country secure. that atelebrate a hold best is about what makes this nation great and that's its generosity and openness. as president franklin roosevelt once said, our commitment to country in which no one is left out. everyoneuse i know wants to get out of town, mac and cheese included, it is time

me to engage in the official act. heret's see what we can do with mac and cheese. >> careful. >> come on, girls. come on. are we ready? all right. hereby pardoned, from the thanksgiving dinner table. congratulations. [applause] looks pretty happy about it. all right. to take cheese down, that's okay. i will tell you, though, turkeys don't have the best looking heads.

( laughter ) i'm saying?t you think they're beautiful? beautiful.he's and you think about it, they're red, white and blue, so their too.otic >> there is a patriotism element to it, absolutely. to pet him?t >> no. ( laughter ) >> thank you. good to see you. right, thank you, everybody, happy thanksgiving. [applause] for your comments about our programming. here are a few we received about q and a. >> i just watched your program, answer, and i find offensive to put someone on airfor an hour and

who knows everything about islam very little about syria, very little about the history. she misquoted the koran, mohammed the life of facts that were absolutely inaccurate. offensive and i'm completely shocked as someone respects c-span to see this program, i'm completely, complete shocked. thei have yet to say it's worst program i've seen on c pan in 20 years. q i wanted to comment on the and a on c-span with the author, darwis. she has given the most

concise,y and articulated explanation of the muslim religion in the modern heard of, i have not and i am a religious scholar of years. she should be commended just for this speech. thank you very much, c-span. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. e-mail us, or send us a tweet. >> the state department's special envoy for climate stern, recently talked about how environmental issues affect u.s. foreign policy, including a recent with china on climate change. from the center for american progress, this is just over an hour.

our special guest is todd stern, he is uniquely qualified to thek to us today about prospects for building the international cooperation needed the climate progress, and we're excited about the progress he's made. worked on climate policy prior to taking on his new role at the beginning of the obama so we're very, honored to welcome him back to for beings, todd here. todd has been the u.s. special envoy for climate change for six a lot has happened in that span of time. domestically, the administration with aned ahead ambitious climate agenda that and pay economic, security environmental benefits for years to come.

we all recognize that climate truly a global challenge. no single country can solve it make itself immune from its impacts. galvanizing international action is so fundamentally critical. fortunately under this administration and thanks to the work of people like todd, the become a clearas leader in the international climate arena. the united states has built a vital new climate relationship with china, which culminated in a historic joint announcement two weeks ago regarding our greenhouse gas reduction goals. we have launched new global ontnerships focusing eliminating climate pollute ant and have ramped up our assistance to developing countries looking to achieve and with stand the impacts of climate change, including a new pledge of new globalfor a climate fund. all of this is tremendously

galvanized theas final stretch of this country's race to conclude a new agreement paris a year from now that ames to set the world on a sustainable path of long-term growth. as we address climate change, i think the work that's recently helpedd has really fornstrate that are u.s inaction, arguments that china will never act, arguments that will never act, have really just become excuses. so we're very excited to have timely conversation, and i will welcome now peter ogden and todd stern up to the stage. [applause] >> thanks very much. thanks, todd, for joining us here today. i worked for you and with you first five years in the now istration, but

work -- you've come prepared. the last few weeks have given here.lot to talk about i'd love to start there, particularly with what happened china. talking of time worn point that climate action by the united states is futile as long as china doesn't expact they never will act. joint announcement that president obama and the ussident of china made has caused people to take a look at whether that's a viable point forward at all. i would love to hear how that you see asand what its most important features. >> first of all, thank you very hosting me here. part of cap i was way back almost at the

go back with the that.r of cap way before so it was a big week for us last week. back to last year even the arc of what we were wasg with china in 2013 already quite positive and on a good path. established a new working group. kerry did in april of change and got a number much initiatives launched. the president negotiated an agreement on hfc's. so there was good momentum going for. together in my office in january of 2014 wanting to think about what we could do next, how take this relationship forward in a significant way.

way.step up secretary kerry was getting ready to go visit china in early february. talking about a number of possibilities, we hit on the trying to do a joint announcement of targets that up to thell the way presidential level. that both sides looked at each other's proposals and it. comfortable with so i accompanied secretary kerry in february, and we started talking, i started my counterpart about this idea. talked to they china and others in china about this notion, and the kind of started conversation. chinese were open to it. a lot of was obviously work that needed to be done and

a lot of work that was done over worse of -- course of the year to share a information. initially we talked about collaborating on the development targets.st 2020 we said that publicly. privately with the understanding that we would shoot for this joint announcement if we could there.t i think it was always in our something that would have very significant positive impact with respect to both the climate relationship between the u.s. and china, the relationship, by latter relationship between the u.s. thechina, and of course multilateral climate negotiations. and hopefully that will all true.to be the targets that china put

forward, targets that we put forward and china put forward i think are both strong on our side. reduction below 2005 by 2025 is very ambitious. designed to be as ambitious as we possibly could on the basis of authorities that we knew we had. we didn't want to come up with a of target sky kind that's based on legislation that tomight or might not be able get. so everything that, this our target,nding in is based on authorities that we have. the 28% upper end which we are tomitted to in the agreement try to get would put us on a to over 80%e path reduction by 2050. so that it's very strong.

the firstinese, it's time ever, obviously, that they a peak oftted to their co2 emissions. this is a big step, if you look analytic bodies, the e estimations tended to be higher that.er than the announcement includes their earliernt to try to go than 2030. i think our sense is that they will have a good chance to do assuming that the broad program restructuring that president xi is pursuing are and the chinese committed to assuming that goes well and that there is a real tonce that they will be able peak earlier than 2030. the targetart of that they announced is target to get 20% of their nonfossil

policer of their energy from nonfossil sources by 2030, which is actually a huge for them.g it would require them to build like 800 to s thousand gigawatts of renewable and nuclear energy. by way of comparison the to the u.s. generating capacity in our is a little over 1100. toyou're talking about 800 1,000 for renewable and nuclear by china, and that is also by comparison around what they do now, maybe a little more now total for do i think a very big deal, you know, we will see what transpires. really, a really big step. the, my sense is

willthe way that this resonate in the broader climate be very, well, it of things up no doubt, but i think it will overall be very positive and to theve momentum negotiations. i think it will spur countries their ownrward with targets. way ithink generally the put it in one conversation recently is that if you were parisg stock in the negotiation, your stock would have gone up after this announcement. here you have the two historic antagonists, the two players on climate change, having come together at the presidential level to say we're going to work together, what we're each doing. the announcements being ambitious. and a commitment by the two presidents to work together to try to get paris done and indeed try to clear obstacles that

might come up. in all very good. >> that's very helpful overview. and i wonder if one of the things you mentioned was the u.s.-chinaf the relationship over the past, not just going back to sunnyland, to 2009. >> right. >> do you have views on how that's matured or what would have been the important moments in that relationship? >> yes, well, at one level copy en hagen -- copenhagen was a very important moment in that relationship in greater desireng more, to get the relationship on a more cooperative feuting. copenhagen was a very important meeting and important things got done, and positive things that happened since wouldn't have happened if copenhagen

hadn't occurred. thehaving said that, interaction between the u.s. and china was pretty rough in that meeting. think that both sides came out. i certainly think this is true for the chinese side as well as work inth a desire to as collaborative and cooperative possible. and i have developed i think a good relationship with vice ndrc, he's ahe good friend at this point. we've taken each other to our towns, we've spent a lot of time together and long since maybe times, how of how many times we've met hourser and how many we've spent. but i think we work quite well together. and so i think that has been

in 2010, 11,ears, 12, and then as i said last year stepped up, 2013 ofpped up to another level engagement with the new climate change working group. and a lot of discussion and respect to those workedives that we have on there. and then this year a whole another level. been gradually improving and gradually building andrd what we've got now, obviously this isn't the end of the story now. we just have to keep moving forward. >> obviously a lot of attention gets paid now to the china's fully confront its local air quality challenges. >> yes. >> do you find that that and goal is very present in your climate discussions now in a way that it years ago?t a few because i think back to 2010, we

worked on this, it certainly wasn't directly front and center. does it, is it just influencing it from above or around? >> i think more the latter, actually. is a matter of first order priority for the chinese home. that thengly, i think embassy, wehe u.s. didn't have anything to do with this, by the way, this was an theiative that occurred in embassy. but the fact that the embassy theted to publish the aircs about pollution statistics and make those available to people in had a bigually probably transformative effect look athey started to the air pollution problem.

got the bitletely between their teeth on this now, they think it's very real, it is matter of high priority at the highest levels. in china. and i think that has an impact on what they do on climate. is not the case so much that when we have our climate discussions there's a bunch of about air pollution. it is, as you said, it's around influencing from our point of view the thing that's most important, we've obviously to ourese views known chinese counterparts quite clearly, is that the deal with air pollution problem in a also positive agarding climate change in way where there are synergies, not self evident. if you decide the way you're

going to deal with the air allution problem is to take the coal plants and move them west and bill big transmission lines and just push all the but not actually reduce coal, that doesn't help you very much from a climate point.of although it would get air pollution out of the eastern cities. so the critical thing is that they can do it in a way that's positive for both air pollution and climate. toone last thing i'd like ask before we move on from china for a little bit. about how the china's attention and interest itthe u.s. target itself as was being developed, was that something, you know, how much or interest did they show on that side of the ledger? clearly you and the a lot abouton cared it. how important it that the united states was developing a pledge that was both am and credible? was that a big concern for them?

>> i think so. i think eachthey, side has the same understanding have tore was going to be mutual pledges that the other to warn,s good enough having their present, our president and their president stand up and make this announcement. so if we had come a low ball, kind of which obviously wasn't in the cards for us, but if they had seen something that was inadequate, i think that would have concerned them. i think they were just as concerned about the notion of to capacity of the u.s. implement the target. politicsys watch our very closely, they're always looking at what's on on the hill what's doable and not doable

and so forth. our capacity to stay quite ambitious but also something we based on the authorities we have, i think that was important to them. all the progress with china, i think it's caused of people to ask about india, it will be interesting to do.what india is going to and just a very important player of the climate talks generally. cap cochairs know, india on climate issues, and we happened to just delhi doing that meeting broke.is news >> well timed. >> perfectly timed, to bring a budge of people who usually have a lot to say, to for a moment. thinkwas a window when i

people really were trying to internalize what this tectonic shift would mean. since then i think a lot of people have started to really begun to be more interested in the dynamics are around the u.s.-india relationship and how in a multilateral forum. you've had some experience with the prime minister's first visit here to washington, where climate was on the agenda. and now we are the news that president obama is going to be out there at the end of january delhi returning the visit. so i'd love to get your thoughts on on the state of that relationship and how you see that developing. thanks. india is obviously an enormously important country in connection with climate change as well as so many other things. think that they have a

relatively new team as far as we're concerned, given the of the prime minister. bit gotten to know a little my counterpart on this and i well.im quite i don't know yet, it's a little say, where exactly they'll position themselves with respect to negotiationings. hand, india is an enormously important country. on the other hand, i think that they bristle a little bit at the seen, chinathey're and india, as if they go together. but it's ard, distant third compared to china. so the u.s. and china are the biggest. china, depending on what specific, whether you're looking co2 from energy or energy examcement or what your numbers are. but if you look at that figure,

which the very good agency from forget theands, i exact name, but nay do very good numbers, and china by their accounts is around 29% global emissions and i think india is around 6 or so, so there's a big difference. that, india is huge, it's going to be hopefully growing at a rapid pace and the grow and the carbon intensity with which they do or to be very going important going forward. the most important thing at some level is for india a path tot there is to eradicating poverty, and to energy access. there's still somewhere between 300 and 400 million don't have any electricity. they've got to see that there's

those to get to fundamental development needs have, that they have, ast is as low carbon possible. big, bigot based on a bet on long-term dirty coal. that's, it's going to be very challenging. i think that our inclination is want to work with possible.osely as you know, exactly how they'ring about to play in the negotiations i don't know. i hope as constructively as possible. had a very good relationship overall with india both duringalks, periods of time when we've agreed about more things and in when we haveme been on different sides. be quitell managed to

and kind ofe and, you know, have useful discussions. every expectation that that will continue. long way around, we don't theo yet. >> it's interesting you accesses as agy major concern. there's potential for that to shape and motivate climate policy in some of the ways that have actually been foundation for a healthy and constructive climate policy. >> right. by the way they've got their own air pollution kind of at ach are china level of intensity. think it's, not clear political as big a issue internally in india as it

is in china, but it's a big problem. in at least a lot of their major cities. they and i think prime minister lot of interest in renewables, in solar. tremendous potential both for grid connected but also solar, and indeed a tremendous potential for using the to reach a lot of people, because most of those people are rural who don't have access yet. i think that don wright, the access -- that done right, the access can be addressed in a positive and low carbon way. but it's a huge challenge. >> i imagine you're going to be spending time in delhi between january.he end of reservations.

talked i'm glad that, we a little about air quality in india. toore we move all the way to paris theater, i want talk a little about some of the nonformal climate tracks. one of the areas where a lot of diplomatic work has been done protocol.n the i know both back in 2009 or 10, the climate clean air coalition was launched, there see ifn a real push to we couldn't address some of those. >> '12. >> '12. this was the, there were the seeds of real opportunity recognition that, you know, this was an area where climate sufficiently been focused, there was lots that

could be done, and in fact there of interest in doing it after secretary clinton itnched that initiative, grew rawp rapidly. but then when president xi came his first summit with president obama, there was a terms ofakthrough in finding a way of interacting in it as thei see forerunner to what you just agoeved a couple weeks where we didn't really work out all the issues around how to get a protocol amendment to address but there oh carbons, was a clear signal, the dynamics changed and that has had a very palpable impact on that itself.ion you just had the latest round i'm not sure protocol week.ations last

any thoughts about the role that should play, or is this that as we get too close to paris do you think maybe the pressures of paris cause countries to sort of adopt a little more of a wait and see attitude? >> well, it is sort of both of those things are possible. i think that there was actually good progress made on hfc's in the montreal protocol during the last week. just in paris. i just finished on friday. lot of progress made there. this is something we've been colleague at the state department, has been on years.at now for and it's got to be four or five over ago where there was 100 countries expressing support for an amendment, such an amendment to phase down, not cleat out, but to phase down the use of hfc's. and to do that under the

protocol. there's, there has been some resistance historically about bunch oft, because a countries who have not wanted to have said hfc's are a gas.house not to get into the weeds too hfc's were developmented as a substitute ozone deploating substances, not do a good job of theyting the ozone, but warming.n global the protocol is the most

successful environmental treaty ever. it was set up to to deal with the ozone hole and has done it really well. have, montreal's got one fundamental reason for being and that's to phase out industrial chemicals, face out or phase down as the case may be. so they've got expertise, they've got a fund, multilateral fund that was set up and that's and that helps, countries pay for the transition. so it is a very good venue to do it's a venue that could be effective in doing it. of the book keeping and accounting and all of that for reductionings in hfc's would still happen under the unf triple c. be deprived ofot its jurisdiction owe this but the actual work of getting it phased down

would happen in montreal. to happen.what ought the discussions last year andeen president obama president xi and what led up to that was very important in feeting the -- in getting the chinese propositionwith the of doing this, using montreal for this purpose. second by lateral agreement between the two on,idents in september which went a step further to say to agree to the specific procedural step under montreal of setting up a so-called contact group, which is the formal way in which these take place,ussions in which a discussion for a new would take place. and this is what we were trying past week in paris, was to get that contract group set up. got pretty close, but there were still a few countries who

reluctant to let it go forward, and this is, these are montreal, like do you have say no, then it does not happen. but there was really very conversations in which countries were expressing the of concerns, not just the political concern that the actions in the climate treaty, concernsmore specific about safety alternatives, you temperaturembient climates like the middle east and so forth and how could this get done. going to pick it up again in april and hopefully to take the step there. i have no doubt that there may be a littlewill nervous by the fact that paris is coming up. but the two things are separate, would hope that we will be

working hard to get progress made. there's a way in which all of respects indirect, with to the climate discussions, and that's the upside potential of taking this action on hfc's is really very large. what people talk about is a to avoid something on the order of 90 giga tonings of car upon equivalent. big number. giga tons atwo year. if you look at what the emissions gap and so forth is, that people publish, big.s so there's a big big payoff, hangingrelatively low fruit, you can do this without spending an arm and a leg. we just have to get everybody there. but we made good progress.

other you referenced some climate has, where come up repeatedly. haven't really looked into whether the arctic council might leadership. are there other what do you say as the, you know, the right you're pouring all this efforts and time, your personal time focusing on paris, these other channels. that? you orchestrate >> we have always focused on channelings outside of the main the same timet that we understand that the negotiations are still the event. so the center ring is involved, to say --ing so the center of attention is the multilateral

negotiation. you referenced the climate and clean air coalition that we work with five other countries to get going, we got a idea that number of others interested in. ant launched with announcement by the state department in february of 2012, not yet three years later, the six countries are now over over 40es and noncountry members. probably 10 or so initiatives of various kinds much we have been u.s. onused in the partnership to reduce methane in the oil and industry. we did announce that, on the the u. n. climate meetings this september. done a lot of work on

reducing methane from land fills. there's a whole host of efforts that some of which we're involved in, some of which other involved in. and i think the ccac has some good potential. the arctic council is another venue, as you sid. the can chairmanship of that formally in april. we're working hard on that already. secretary kerry, comes as no is veryo you, interested in having climate change be an important part of our presidency. chairmanship of the council. and we will be working to do waysboth in some concrete in terms of policy and also to platform to, of anlic education and send important message for the urgency of taking action on climate. you know, we started the major

we first forum when 2009.n in and that, there was a group of countries that president bush had pulled together in what they the major -- andad a different focus purpose, but it was a good group of countries. days of writing articles as a cap fellow, i had written an article about the for a,the need for something quite like that for a countries whoof could meet at a high level on a and have a kind of ongoing conversation at a level and intensity and focus that you just can't find you get 190 countries in.ther

took that group of countries, we changed the name a little to give it a different most importantly gave it a different mission which was first to try to facilitate negotiations but also to see whether there were things that could be done. dos group of countries could in terms of low carbon development. back in 2009 when there was group,rs meeting of the that led to the leaders taking done onial work we had technology road maps and energy ministers to run with it. the creation of the clean energy ministerial now. is a going concern we work very closely, the d.o.e. works with us on the nef and we work with them, and we have some

that about how to carry process farther forward, and i happen.t will so there's a number of activities that are important that take place outside, we've already talked about montreal. both go together, the biggest game in town in year is going to be paris. of the next 12, 13 months. >> that's what you wanted to ask about next. i'm afraid of talking about its countdown that you'll look at your watch and realize that you don't have time to be here, and will head to the exit. hand, a year before we were, the president -- for johnworking transition.he obama >> i guess the question is, and you actually alluded to this i think given that you

have a unique perspective having involved from day one here through copenhagen and now to conference that will be sort of the successor to copenhagen and will be the last contribution here. just offer your thoughts about, first of all, what copenhagen, what the of copy en copenhagen are that you're trying to apply here. talked a little about the u.s.-china relationship has been deepened and in that intervening period. you there other things that think are important to maintain, of copenhagen that you want to build on, and other ones where you think we need different? little >> well, first of all, the process is quite different. you said, we came in end of

january, basically 10 months from a standing start to the onto a very quickly moving train and to try to deal with it. where as here we negotiated the underlying mandate for this work,ation and have been it through from its early fadeses. the first year or two, to the point now where we're much more kind of negotiations toward a, toward what will turn into a text. i think that there in fact will elements of what happened in will be visible happens in paris. obviously i don't know what's going to happen. going tonow what's happen in lima much less paris,

ideas.have thathis is a negotiation is intended to produce a new somement that is in fashion, is that a legal agreement in some fashion, the fashion wasn't spelled out the mandate. the language in the mandate made fullyar that it wasn't fleshed out. youink the language is could negotiate a new protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force. applicableed to be to all, and to us i think to a great many countries that was an few words critical us, sorry,t said that said to us that we weren't

kioto. and kioto is in some, you could some technical way, it's applicable to all, because all in some sense under kioto, but it wasn't. obligationings, the requirements coming out of kioto were just applicable to countries, so it was really very much applicable this is not all, and meant to be different. because of the need to have in the game, there has developed, and in this respect i think maybe more than any other, there's a fair amount of in these negotiations, fundamentally, focusing first on mit gaition, the most -- other issues are obviously important. gaition is still the from

piece. there's a bottom up structure with, at one point in the discussion it was nationally determined commitments that turned into nationally determined -- it.e's no other way to do there were early on there were countries who expressed about that as a structure, and our, what i said is understand it's not beautiful, you give me an alternative that you can imagine countries being part of. we've tried to come forward with ideas that design to prod to the nextntries ambition, and the one that we from pose was a

consulting perfect which creates a sort of two step. the intention is for countries forward with their intended so-called mdc's early, essentially we have done that now, but to come subjectearly and to what every country is proposing to do, to full sunlight. the views of other countries, the views of civil society and the press and an littic bodies and everybody else can look to dinwhat china, the u.s., india, europe or anybody else is to do, and you take whatever criticism you get, and structures that that pushes countries to come forward with their best shot right away, they don't want to be .mbarrassed

so i think that is an important the structure. proposalsa lot of about elements of what we've condition call accountability system, which is , various rulesew and how young manage your emission commitments and so forth. onwell as important stuff finance and the other elementings. i think ifthey will, we can succeed in what we're haveg to do what we would is nothing that will be perfect, absolutely guarantee you it won't be perfect. we could get it done, i think what we would have is for first time an agreement that

some important respects, that has everybody involved, that is more ambitious anything that's come before, that has a lasting structure, so you don't have to renegotiating this all the time. but instead you have a structure set, and then an understanding that each x years it be five, there will be debate about whether each x years but countries have to agree on their mitigation commitments, and to have that expectation that it be and higher rain right into the agreement. agreement that elevates more than has ever happened before, adaptation with the understanding that there needs both more planning and more resources to implement the plans. that will provide for financial and

technological support for developing countries, and all of structure that a can last and that it's, that not perfect, but is a good strong start. do.'s what we're trying to whether we get there or not, i don't know. of the things that will be most challenging, we're going to in spades in lima and we will see it in paris is the age the fire wall between developed and developing countries, and we are, as i've said, more times than i can count to my counterparts, we don't have have any problem with the basic notion of we supporttion much it. it can't take the form of saying bifurcatedve a agreement with two different in 1992 andreated never changing and never determining the nature of an supposed to gos for decades forward.

challenge.l be a but i think there's a big payoff if we get it right. >> do you think that the major announcement that the united to plenty or has pledged 3 billion to the green climate fund, which was a commitment to establish a fun in copenhagen. ity think there's an a sense that the commitments in copenhagen have been methodically met. climate fund met.y is a,y're, this is kind of seems to me a demonstration and a big point in the negotiations to build contrying send shus and cross some divides negotiating

between developed and developing countries. word aboutay a few how the green climate fund what that means, why that's so significant. >> sure. i think it's a big, big deal. was a commitment copenhagen,n reaffirmed in cancun. the the instrument that was sort of foundational document for it was negotiated over the think 2011 leading , and now there's a location lives near, there's a a taf and as of last week there's an initial capitalization which is getting to $10 billion, which is what we were hoping we would see. around 9.6, but not everybody has been hurt from it get it to hope we can

10. and the u.s. came forward i strong way with the pledge of $3 million. imagine, as you can there are always an enormous number of needs that are internally, you don't want to forget about congress even when trying to work through your budget internallyings there's an enormous amount of are competing for limited dollars. i think that it was, i always the real importance of having a strong pledge here with to the, just the substantive of facts of what kind of financing could help to do in developing countries, but also as a matter negotiations that countries

were looking at the develop, the donor group to come forward big, biggestously here the player in the donor group. so we understood from the beginning that it's very go forward, and of the level of importance that climate change has for the obama administration, that we were upe to have such a big step in that funding as compared to anything that had come before. say, starting with the inaugural address to fofer for term 'going for to the climate action plan on the president's speech in georgetown that havee things happened, the power plant and havehe things that happened since then, the president is keeping a tremendous, tremendous emphasis it's been from my

terrific,iew >> i would like to take a couple of questions from the audience. if people have anything that hey would like to add. >> i was just wondering, you said in your talk that china's a keen observer of domestic political dynamics and how these change over the time and how those constrain what's possible and what isn't possible. i was just wondering, when your chinese counterparts ask you what commitment mechanisms exist to carry forward these pledges that were recently made over the coming -- over the

coming decades and implied by that over the coming electoral cycles. what do you tell them about what to expect as inevitably the executive branch will change hands, congress will change hands between parties? and how will that affect the u.s. pledge? >> well, thanks for the question. i think that the chinese focus in the first instance is on this period between now and 2025, which is the end date for our target. and i think what -- we walked them through the kind of central elements of what we have already announced. which includes on the transportation sector the power sector building sector with the whole suite of efficiency standards that have been rolled out and that are still getting rolled out as well as action that we will be taking under the meth thain strategy and on

that d on other actions are still doable on the basis of existing authority -- usually existing congressional authority. so i mean, a -- we walked them through what we saw and how in those areas and what reductions we thought were possible in those areas. i mean, that was really the nature of the discussion. so i think that they were -- again, the promise was not -- and we can get there if we get some new piece of legislation that we haven't -- that is just speculative but rather -- we will need to work hard. we will need to push -- i mean, this is a stretch target for us. but our sense is that we can

get there using the authorities that we have and as those will be followed -- carried forward by obviously the next administration. this administration runs out at the end of 2016. hat's not news to anybody. but what we're talking about can be carried forward. i think that they were reasonably comfortable about that. >> woman in the tan suit here in the front row. >> thanks so much. developing countries and ngo's say one of their top priorities is going to be closing the gap between what countries are doing and what science says is needed to hit 2 degrees. one of the things that they're going to be pushing for is countries to improve their pre-2020 targets, not just focus on paris.

is that idea dead in the water? does that stand any chance? and if not what's left? all the voluntary thing that is you were talking about and hfc's? >> i think that there is ongoing focus. discussion tracks came out. one was post and the other was action pre2020. i don't think that there's that much focus at this stage really on the notion that countries e going to change their 2020 targets. i think it's more what are you doing to push forward in every possible way mitigation. and that includes at the national level, at the subnational level. for us, what's going on in california. what are the redge states doing what are any other number subnational entities doing. what initiatives are happening

at the -- even at the private sector levels. so i think that that's more what the pre-2020 discussion is about, as well as exactly what countries are doing to implement targets that they've -- that they have. you know, if we're lucky to even go beyond to have implement that actually sees the target but more that countries are going to come up and say we decided to change our target now. i don't think people are focused on that at this point. i don't think people think it's realistic. thank you. you are engaged for a long time now in climate politics.

and up to now -- in the past, arguments have been based to assumptions of, first, the world will run out from fossil fuels, and the second, prices for fossil energies will go up continuously. and it seems that both basic assumptions are not true. they are not valid. o how did that change your strategic thinking? how did this change the framework for climate policy? could we rely only or mainly on technological progress making renewable energies, solar wind always cheaper? or which kind of public policies and which kind of super national legal framework do we need to prevent businesses and states from

xploiting this huge resurgeons of fossil fuels which we can't afford for the backdrop of climate change? -- that's a nk big question. and has a number of different aspects. you know, i think that one of the elements of focus for the u.s. government and for a number of others -- this is actually an undertaking of the g-20 but not one that's been carried forward very far yet is to phase out the subsidies that . ck up fossil fuel energy there's -- depending on -- you see different numbers from different analysts who undoubtedly have different assumptions on how they count.

but they kind of low end of that is about $500 billion a year and the high is more in the range of $1 trillion of how much money is being spent on i sil fuels subsidies and -- had a long conversation on this subject at one point with the chief economist of the iea. he was saying really quite small portion of that has to do with supporting poor people. i mean, if you have somewhere between 500 billion and $1 trillion going to fossil fuel subsidies i don't know if it's 10% or 15%, but it is a small percentage that is designed to take care of poor people. and you could obviously take care of poor people in a different way if you got rid of the subsidies and you would both reduce demand further and you would free up a lot of money that could be used for

other sources -- for other purposes. that would obviously be enormously important. i don't think anybody thinks at this point that the way that we ill solve climate change in an adequately is that we will soon run out of fossil fuels because we're not going to run out of fossil fuels that soon. but, you know, as they say -- people say over and over again, the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones. so there is going to have to be a solution that leave as lot of fossil fuel assets in the depround. i mean, that's -- ground. i mean, that's reality. my guess is that i mean, the more positive things that happen with respect to climate action i think that the u.s.-china agreement 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 are going to be starting at some point we hope to be pricing their -- to be factoring in what the future is longer range for fossil fuels. we're not going to get rid of fossil fuels overnight, -- but we're -- we're not going to solve climate change on the basis that all the fossil fuels in the ground come out. that's a good question and a hard question. >> on that, i want to give you time to get back to your important task here. i really appreciate you coming. thanks, everyone, here for oining us today. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> michigan senator karl lench is retiring from politics after serving six terms in the senate. we recently spoke to him about his political career and the current state of washington politics. this is a half hour. >> senator carl levin, chairman

of the senate armed services committee, why are you retiring? >> a number of reasons. i didn't want to spend these two critical years out campaigning, raising money. i just felt there was too much at stake now, and i have a responsibility for some of those things as chairman of the armed services committee. it is not the way i wanted to spend my time, basically. the wife and i have been married for 53 years, and now 42 of those years have been in public life. we felt it was time. am also 80 years old now. i just felt it was time to go home, spend a little more time with the grandkids. the main thing was that these two years have gone by and they have been so important in terms of america being at war, but also in terms of recovering from a recession, or as chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations

-- there are important investigations that need to go on. i wanted to not take time away from that for campaigning. also, the budget situation here, which led to a crazy sequestration, needs to be revamped, to get rid of that approach, the automatic, across-the-board cuts approach that we call sequestration. to do that, it will require some additional revenue, as well as some modification in he entitlement area. we now need to focus on collecting the revenue which is lost because some of the most profitable corporations in america avoid paying taxes by

shifting revenue to tax havens, by a bunch of tax avoidance gimmicks, which has happened in the last couple years. you put all that together, it is time not to run for reelection. >> you mentioned campaigning a couple times too. do you like campaigning? >> i like campaigning, i he's raising money. >> why? >> i think there is such a huge role for money in campaigns. it is painful, frankly. to continually ask people for money, particularly if those people have matters in front of the congress. the amounts are not what they used to be. the amounts used to be much more manageable. you could ask people, an average person, for a lot of money.

but it is not the unlimited funds that are now available, because of terrible supreme court decisions. people and corporations can be asked for unlimited amounts of money. they can also be kept anonymous, those contributions. and that is a real tragedy, i believe. it has changed the nature of the game, so there is too much money in these campaigns. i didn't feel comfortable being out there, asking for money in his setting. >> what are you going to miss? >> the reporters. my friends in the senate, my staff. i have a fabulous staff and a lot of good friends.

we will miss our house. we will miss capitol hill. we like living on capitol hill, we are urban people. we live in the city of detroit, that has always been my home, but we have got a wonderful neighborhood here. we have a wonderful eastern market where we love to shop. there are some things here that i will miss. i won't miss the excessive partisanship. the unwillingness of some to compromise, ideological rigidity. i won't miss that. but i will miss my colleagues. it is a great job. i am not leaving because of the job, i love the job. i love every minute of it, even when there is too much bickering going on. i have got a fabulous job. that is going to be hard to leave.

>> legislatively, what sticks out in your mind? >> as much as we've accomplished and 36 years, i don't want to look back at that so much as to look forward to the next couple months. and the next couple months, there are a couple things i would like to do. one is get my defense authorization bill passed. it is a major effort involving hundreds of provisions that need to be first addressed by the senate, hopefully. then addressed in conference with the house. this is a massive annual job. we need to get that job. our troops deserve it, their families deserve it. i also want to finish up some work on the subcommittee of investigations, looking at gimmicks which are used to

avoid taxes. some gimmicks which are used to get people, particularly large banks, certain special advantages over the rest of the world. i have spent a lot of time looking at that. there is some work that needs to be done there, as well. the biggest part, which will probably be undone, or left undone, will be what i call the unjustified tax loopholes. everyone talks about tax reform. everybody says they are for tax reform. when you start looking at what are the credits in the tax code, the deductions in the tax code, that should be closed, people then say -- wait a minute, that provision serves a useful purpose, this provision serves a useful purpose, that

other provision serves a useful purpose. the truth of the matter is that most of the tax code serves a useful purpose. most of the tax code does things like give your child care credit, deductions or credit for charitable contributions, for mortgage expenses, for accelerated depreciation, for energy onservation. i favor those things, those are useful. they serve an economic or social purpose. what i am focused on at the permanent subcommittee on investigations, on a bipartisan basis -- because i have worked with the ranking republican -- now that john mccain is the ranking republican, we have worked together to look at the tax loopholes that don't serve any justified or economic purpose. there is no economic purpose

served when microsoft or apple are able to shift their revenue to puerto rico to avoid paying taxes. there is no economic purpose served when one of these new, intellectual property giants -- they produce good stuff, i am not quarreling with apple. they create wonderful products. my quarrel is the way they avoid paying taxes on those profits, and shifting profits and their intellectual property to themselves, to their own corporations and tax havens to avoid paying taxes. those are the loopholes that we need to close, and we need the revenue in order to avoid another round of sequestration, which is there's absolutely mindless way to budget, where

everything gets cut, including the national institutes of health. we are in the middle of an ebola problem. research has been cut at the national institute of health. ecause of this sequestration method of budgeting, which has an automatic, cookie-cutter approach. we have got to end that, and most of us -- not all of us -- not the tea party guys, the libertarian guys -- but most of us really want to end sequestration. from whatever perspective, whether it is domestic programs, infrastructure, roads, health care, so forth, or whether it is from the national security perspective. we need to close the unjustified tax loopholes that don't serve any economic purpose, in part to use that revenue in order to make sure we do what we need to do in

important areas such as national security, education, and so forth. we probably can't finish that. a lot of republicans will join with me after the election, for those who really believe in what i am saying to do it before the election. hopefully in a lame-duck session we can at least set the table to get tax reform done in the right way, not so that revenues can be used to reduce tax rates for people who don't need a tax rate reduction. in order to come up with a different approach to a budget so that we can do whatever deficit reduction we want to do on a much more logical way. >> senator, 1978, what made you run? >> a lot of things that. my wife whispered in my ear that i should run for enate.

i have known a local official in detroit for years before it ran. i love my hometown. detroit has a lot of problems, and one of the problems that had was 20,000 vacant houses owned by the government. they were open to trespass, used as dope dens and other things. we had a huge battle going on with the housing and urban evelopment department. i wanted them to act and they wouldn't act to remove all those houses. this was a big issue and it till is. so, they said, they could not remove the houses. we can't tear the down the way we would tear down a privately owned house. had a big battle, and i

anted to take that sentiment to washington, that i have to be a strong supporter of what they were trying to do, which was create housing. i am a democrat, i believe there is a useful role for that. but i am also someone who has seen waste in government. wanted congress to have the power to veto regulations of the bureaucracy. i didn't want to be told by my elected official, we can to do anything about it, go to some federal agency in chicago or something. i wanted my elected official to be accountable to me, as a

citizen of detroit and an elected official. that was something i felt very keenly about, to take the spirit to washington, that, yes, if we wanted to preserve what is really good and important about government, the opportunities of education that it can provide, the infrastructure that can provide, the health care which it should guarantee, the esearch on diseases which -- if we want to preserve that, we have got to take care of the wasteful part. the part that is frustrating to people because it is, at times, seeming so distant and rigid, one-size-fits-all. that is what i wanted to bring to washington. it was a major part of the campaign. it wasn't one thing which may be want to run for office here

in washington, but i would say my experience as a local official in detroit was a major part of it. >> was it a surprise that you won? >> not to my wife, not to me, not to a whole bunch of supporters. but it was always a close race, going in. it was something of an upset. it wasn't a total upset, but it was something of an upset. >> senator levin, how did you end up on the armed services committee? >> i felt that was kind of a gap in my life. i wanted to learn more about the military. i had always had respect for the military, at what had happened in vietnam. but what happened after vietnam was unfair to the troops. wanted to learn more.

right away, i went to the armed services committee. the three committees i joined are the same three committees i am on. that was the main reason that i wanted -- i wanted to learn. it has been a great learning experience. it has really increased my appreciation and respect for what our men and women in uniform do for us. and not just military people, but the military leadership is so often so far advanced from civilian leaders in terms of war and life and death issues. there is a much greater caution on the part of military leaders to go to war than some of our civilian leaders. some of the civilian leaders, too ready to go to war without understanding complexities, the

history that may have gotten various countries where they are, the risks that are taken. so i have come not just for men and women in uniform but for the military leaders of our country. they think deeply about war and peace. they are also great diplomats, many are terrific diplomat. >> when it comes to the military spending issue, are we spending too much? it is sort of a macro question that you can break down -- but are we spending too much? too little? >> we spent too little in some areas. some of our modernization programs, on nuclear program -- too much money being spent. i don't think we need thousands of nuclear weapons.

you can't use one, really. they are useful to deter, that is about it. during the cold war, they were a deterrence. we spent a lot of money on our nuclear weapons. and we continue to reduce the number of nuclear weapons that we have. i think we are going to have to make some difficult reforms in terms of some of the costs that we have. it is not a black-and-white issue at all in terms of military spending, because there are some areas where we have cut too deep. we can hopefully remedy that, but at the same time, we have to keep going on the reform peace, including acquisition reform. senator mccain and i were leading the way, at least in the senate, on acquisition reform, to make sure that the

level of cost was brought down. t was much too much. we had done some of that with some success. there are some areas where you have stuff that we are spending too much money for. but in terms of the amount of competition that we have, we passed the competition in contracting act many years ago, which was very important. but also this acquisition reform act. we led the way in the senate on a bipartisan basis. it was a very important reform and we have to keep trying to get rid of the waste that xists in the pentagon, in an operation that size there will be raced but you have to keep fighting it. >> when you want to go have dinner, who are some of your friends here? who do you call? d