i don't think we could grow ourselves out of this. tax ourselves out of this. >> a report came out yesterday. when this report was put the favorability rating on the congress was something like 70%. 70%. the favorable reading of congress is below 20%. that is what you get for all that pandering to the public. [laughter] >> if that is true, then it adds to the dilemma of if they can do anything. they are going to be accused of not knowing what they were doing to begin with. it is going to be extremely difficult, but it does not mean

we can run away from this challenge. presidentialquires leadership as much as it requires congressional leadership. that presidential leadership is why i think the focus here has been to make sure that, if we go into the next election, that we put usher on the candidates that are going to be the next president of the united states. >> is it possible to get one of the slides up? like, the second one. next one. the next slide. yeah, that one. one of the interesting things when we were putting this together is that, if you look at -- what this is showing is a comparison of two 40 year projections.

the darker line, the black line kerrey-danforth projection from 1994 looking over the next 40 years. after 2035 is basically what they were doing. cbored line is the alternative baseline which looked at 40 years from today. they are almost identical. which, to me, says a couple of things. it raises an interesting question. for one thing, it reaffirms the idea that nothing has been done or nothing substantial has been done. but the original forty-year projection turned out not to be as bad as projected. what this says to me is that, like a lot of

things in the federal budget, the problem has been pushed out. roads been kicked down the through incremental things. some of it good luck. some of it as a result of legislation. steps havencremental not changed the curve. they have not solved the problem. they have pushed it off. it is in a large way emblematic of what is going on with federal budget right now. you look at the next session. to have they are going to deal with. a lot of the things they have just pushed off. sustainable growth rates, medicare. debt limits. they have not funded the full budget for the year. the highway trust fund. there are a number of things patched, been fixed,

or a couple years at a time. when you look at the big picture, that is what is happening in the richer -- big picture. so one could say, all right, maybe we can keep doing this, pushing things off. have alludedf us to why this is different. i want to see if i can summarize. the demographics are on a. at 1994, you had a favorable demographic scenario in the short term. the baby boomers were in peak earning years. and it was a much smaller elderly population. now the boomers are pushing 70. a lot of them are collecting social security or medicare already. that has a couple of act. it has a big effect on the

federal budget. it makes medicare much more expensive. it is a matter of a lot more theficiaries, which means programs on autopilot are going to be more expensive. that is beginning to happen now. it is becoming a demonstrable impact on the budget now. secondly, it has an economic effect. as the boomers leave the workforce, it is going to be more difficult for those that remain in the workforce to produce goods and services to keep the economy growing and keep retired boomers with what we expect with our entitlements. willorkers of tomorrow have to be much more productive given that demographic. and yet, we are investing less in the federal budget in the future of the economy, which is supposed to be producing these goods and services.

we looked at some of those trends in federal investment spending. kerry and danforth word that want about it. national savings, kerry and danforth warned about that, it has gotten worse since then. a lot of forces coming together. bill mentioned the debt. debt is twice as i now as the percentage of the economy as it was in 1900 or. many yearsrity had of surplus ahead of it in 1994. senator danforth, one of the most accurate projections in this report was the social security would begin running a cash deficit in 2012 according to the kerrey-danforth report. it actually happened in 2010. that was pretty close. things that have crisis us to postpone

over the last 20 years cannot be counted on again. maia mentioned interest on the debt. as a point, interest rates are going to go back up. yearnterest rate on the 10 treasury is not going to stay at 2% forever. it will probably go back up. at some point, we would hope it would go back out, because that would be the sign of a recovering economy. but because we have taken on more debt, that is going to put pressure on the budget by increased interest payments. one of the charts in here shows that interest payments from the from 200 billion now to about $800 billion by the end of the decade. simply, without anything catastrophic happening, with the baseline, if you look at longer-term at any of these -- could you show the next chart please? this is the current trends from the kerrey-danforth report,

which we updated using the cbo alternative scenario numbers. you can see the net interest eventually becomes the real driving force. entitlement programs as the boomers begin to retire. health care costs continue to develop. certainly, that is problematically -- programatically, the thing driving the gap between spending and revenues. but if you keep doing that, as has tried to live off a gregoire knows, that is going to be a problem for the federal budget. so that is allowing us to take on this new debt without interest going up substantially. that is kind of a one-shot deal. i do not think i appreciate the point that we got through the last 20 years without catastrophe. there are a lot of things that

happened that are not going to happen again. we have kind of run out of time for us boomers. i wish i had that 20 years back. i felt better years ago. i would not say in 1994, i could this, and this. i do not think we will be able to do the same stuff 20 years from now. we need to look at our country as and aging population. do look at the things we can as a nation if we get our fiscal house in order. for the candidates, what we have to tell them is the debt is your running mate. you are stuck with it. it is going to be there when you raise your hand and take the oat ofh office. it will be at your first cabinet meeting. you have to come up with a plan for dealing with it. you might as well start

preparing the public during the campaign and try to get some ideas on the table. your campaign platform, if you want to cut taxes, increase defense spending, take care of medicare and social security, whatever your campaign agenda is, it will not be credible if it relies on this continuing stream of borrow cash. said, the jack have media and the public, getting the public involved in this is really crucial. >> ok. so we have been talking a lot. questions from the audience? yes sir. >> there's a microphone or. >> national economist club. one of the issues that has been raised is the automatic cuts.

we cannot get it done through political measures. those that are to our today, you take it out of control. i would like to get it -- your views on how that my work. >> anybody want to take on sequestration? >> right now, what we have is automatic fun cuts as part of cuts towrong kinds of do. there are triggers that you could put in place. the trigger we put with us sequester is let's put together a package of cuts that are so stupid members of congress will never let it hit. i went around sort of confidently saying they are never going to let it hit. it will force them to call with a deal. for those of us who thought that, i guess we overestimated congress's ability to do the sensible thing. you learn from that unfortunate situation. sequester is doing real damage.

we are cutting the wrong parts of the budget. we are not doing anything to fix the problem. at the same time, i believe politicians are showing themselves unable to make tough choices. to doe not been trying this for so long with so little success on the real issues because we are dealing with a bunch of really courageous politicians. that is the reality. they have some very hard constraints as well. i do think we are going to have to move towards more automatic changes in the budget and then what you want to do is instead of building in stupid policy changes that happen automatically, you want to build in things that are more sensible. what if we said whenever your gdp,hit x percent of policymakers have to come up with a plan to bring it down so it is not growing faster than the economy. if they do not, we put in automatic changes. i would say you look at the revenue side and sending side of the budget. you look at all parts of the

budget. you do not want to rely on automatic changes. you want politicians to make choices, will at priorities, pay for priorities. if they are unwilling to, your backup plan should be something you can live with. so you start looking at what kind of plan you can have as your automatic sequester that would a smarter way to get policy changes in. >> can i just briefly add that since the offer, the bottom line is that there was a negotiated agreement on what the sequester should be which basically became the sequester of 1985. i agree with my a completely. knowing that it didn't work, let's go back and change the trigger. if you are going to have a trigger, let's go back. let's put social security into it. let's put medicare at 2%. let's put the whole spending into that. then i think you will get their attention. then the sequester will have some impact. when the threat will have some

impact on actually making hard decisions. >> we have another couple of questions. , did you needth to -- >> i am going to leave pretty soon. [laughter] >> i thought that might be the case. thank you, senator. we will take one or two more questions. the stars are out here. two questions. >> my name is roberta stanley. i am a former news reporter. you made several references to relying on the media to keep people honest your mike wallace's debt. candy crawley is leaving cnn. the backbone of a lot of the media now just isn't there. do you have recommendations on

who in the media might step up to the plate? >> while. that is one i did not expect. think -- we were having a discussion this morning about how congress has become more polarized and political. the institutions around it have as well. media has. you see an ongoing polarization that is unfortunate. but that is not across the media. the other keys that is difficult for the media is that these are really tough issues to understand. one of the things we had talked about doing in new hampshire and iowa, some of the states where we are doing public education efforts, is we have budget exercises that basically say let's take the budget, take your physical goal, and how will you get there? we do it with candidates, citizens. our plan is to run those with a bunch of people in the media so that when you go to new hampshire or iola or the

candidates go to state where they are trying to run campaigns, the media has gone through the exercise finding out that it is not foreign aid that will fix this. if you are not going to be able to tax billionaires and fix the problem. they have gone through the exercise, reaching an overall framework that they can ask smarter questions. i think there is a part of the media that has become opinion journalism. but that is a different area. this is very technical. it is very difficult. that is why we say read the cbo reports. do there are ways to interesting education that can help focusing on the candidate. >> you do have to educate them. newspapers have gone downhill and do not have the influence. >> i would just add that if you follow the cromnibus, which

everyone was reading about, you read about the whole thing, and you still do not know what was in it. the little interesting stories, the funny stories, but there is nowhere that you gone say the they just passed a $1.1 trillion budget. what is in this? no one who has been following the best news coverage actually knows because the sensationalist journalism does not lead to the? >> i'm sure that both of you -- both of you had the same experience of being called by a reporter about a bill like that. you have all sorts of witty things you want is anna what it means for the big picture. and the question is always, what is the worst thing you can point out? find something really absurd and tell me about that. it happens all the time. what mile was saying, i think that what i have been trying to convince a tv network or somebody to do is

film one of these budget exercises. i think it would make a fascinating tv program. because you have real people making real choices. and they do not talk about this in wonky terms. they actually talk about what it means to be a family. i have seen this happen so often. peoples around the tables at a time -- townhall meeting or rotary club. and they start relating to items in the budget and how it affects their family. with clever programming, you could get some of the filming something like this, and it would make the budget and those choices that we need to make much more real for people. people who are interested in doing this, call the congress coalition.

call the campaign to fix the debt or go on the website for the committee for a responsible federal budget. we have a simulator where you can go through the exercise. >> and contact the vice president. [laughter] >> of course. there are people that will, and run these exercises in your community with members of congress. it is a great educational tool with the media. bob will have the network, and film. >> we are going to get one more question. if there are no more questions, we have answer them all. thank you for coming. we are out of your. [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] >> next, david cameron appears before the british liaison committee. then an interview with jeb bush of florida. dallas woodhouse talks about his documentary, woodhouse divided.

obama administration homeland security and counterterrorism advisor lisa monaco and former george w. bush administration homeland security advisor ran townsend are part of a national security discussion hosted by the atlantic. see that live at 4:30 eastern on c-span. ? federal reserve chair janet yellen hold a federal open market committee meeting. see it at 2:30 p.m. eastern on c-span two. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. 9:30, saidght at rogan discussing politics and at theith liz winstead harvard institute of politics. sunday at 8:00 on q&a, author

and townhall author katie pavo lich as what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals. on c-span2 saturday night at esiewiczilliam der argues that top university are missing the mark. and students should have a goal in life beyond material. book tv visits west lafayette, indiana to interview city authors and tour literary site. c-span3, atan tv on 6 p.m. eastern on civil war, damien shields talks about the life of patrick clayburgh and his role in the confederate army during the battle of franklin. 4:00 on real america, a 1974 investigative piece by san francisco on the history of police brutality in

oakland. find our complete schedule at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. e-mail us at comments at c-span.org. r send us a tweet at c-span #comments. cameronay, david condemned the violent attacks in australia and pakistan. his comments came as he appeared before the british liaison committee to take questions on the u.k. climate change priorities and combating extremism. the prime minister meets with of themmittee made up chairs of the house of commons committees three times a years. this is 90 minutes. >> welcome, prime minister.

we have two things to ask you about. the first is climate change. the second is radicalization. before we start, i think it might be right after the events of yesterday -- >> i was going to give you time at the end, but my like to do it now. >> i would just like to pay tribute to those murdered in australia. and today's outrage in pakistan. i'm sure everyone in this house and committee will have their thoughts with the families of the ones who perished. in australia, there are tales of bravery and sacrifice that are being told about what happened in that cafe. that is what we would expect from that remarkable country. what has happened in pakistan simply devised believe -- defies belief. it is a dark day for humanity when something like this happens on the scale.

there is no police system in the world that can justify this sort of appalling act. what this shows is the worldwide by thethat is posed velocity of extremist islamic terrorism. it has nothing to do with islam, a religion of. this is a perversion. we have to realize the scale of what we face in this country and around the world. we must use everything we have in our power to defeated. that means combating terrorism, defeating isil. to the freedoms that we hold the values of freedom and democracy. be thehat this will struggle of our generation. we will have to show every bit of resilience that we showed facing similar problems and challenges in the past. i am sure the committee would agree. >> very much so.

the committee endorses what you just said. that theo appropriate second part of our session will be about how we tackle radicalization in our own country and around the world. this committee shares your scale of the murder which has taken place in pakistan. withe are all too familiar the hostage event in city. our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by these events. change,now to climate mr. yeo. >> another issue for our generation, relating to the issue of climate the ability, which has been the precondition for the success of the human species in the last few hundred years. by accepting in 2011 and by confirming last summer the fourth carbon budget, i itsonally believe that

and is the can -- biggest change in vision in reducing greenhouse gas omissions. it will fall to the next parliament and the prime minister of the day, who i assume is going to be you, to make a decision about the fifth carbon budget covering the 2028 to 2032. another recent success was getting the eu to agree to a challenging target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40%. by 2030. and also sensibly avoiding adding unnecessary tribunals. do you agree that, if we are going to continue playing a leading role in achieving those targets, the fifth carbon budget will have to continue along the same path? and will you be able to resist

the siren call which comes from across the global spectrum to slow down progress towards the carbon rising the economy? it doesn't in a very short term. the claim to be the best government ever is based on the fact that you have this climate change legislation that we put in place and followed. as a result, you have seen further reductions in carbon emissions. you have seen a aggressive targets for the future. you have seen the first new .uclear plant for a generation we doubled our capacity of renewable electricity over the last four years. there are good things being done. but to answer your question, i hope we can continue with his budgeting process. the only note of caution i would add is that we have to make a decision in 2016. my only hesitation would be that

i want to see carbon reduced at the lowest cost. we need to know whether the new technologies we are being told about -- carbon capture, which is absolutely crucial, we have put a lot of money into carbon capture and storage experiments. but we have not yet gotten a workable system. before we commit to the next stage, we need to know more about whether gas can play a role in the d carbonized electricity system. until we know more about carbon capture, there is a bit of a "yes, but." technologiese new address the demand in a new way. is it possible to get electricity, to switch off consumption on short notice for a financial reward?

widely. been adopted we will you make sure we are in the lead in europe in and-effective technology cheap ways of cutting greenhouse gas and missions? >> the electricity market used to be power stations, electricity generated to homes and businesses. available on-demand. of aw have the potential two-way system. a smart grid. a smart grid and electricity meters that are at people's homes. it is the opportunity for businesses and public services to be able to effectively reduce demand without any effect on services they provide and be financially rewarded for that. so we are committed to that. i am saying that the difficulty

is the technology is changing so fast that what you think is the best way of doing it today is going to be replaced by , a smart piece of software, that could perhaps do this automatically. so the technology is moving very fast. >> moving onto emissions trading, the eu system has not driven a high enough carbon price to influence investment decisions immediately. asy of us do not see this the most effective way to get good value for money and investment. hasooks as though china reached a solution by proposing a national scheme of emissions trading two years from now. which opens up the possibility of linking the system. would you continue to make sure that britain leads the pressure for reforming the eu system so

we can deal with this problem which has arisen? , do you recognize an opportunity now that we are towards potentially will become a large revenue stream, and under the current guidelines, that is designed to get back into investment. that, itemainder of could be used to cut taxes since it is businesses that will pay. and ultimately the customers of those businesses. that money could be recycled in the form of lower direct taxes on businesses and individuals. >> the question on should we continue to lead this reform of the emission trading system, absolutely. not only is it essential for europe to meet its climate change goals, if we do not see

-- couldnt in europe, have the problem in britain. there's a difference between a carbon price fall and the carbon pricing europe. our businesses -- it would not cut emissions. companies might group from into somewhere else in europe. this is both right for europe and britain. try and stop is this leakage of permits, the inappropriate use of ernest that has helped drive the price down. on the issue of what we do with revenues, obviously, we have a large deficit. that would be the primary use of these sorts of resources. but i agree with the thinking want to be, wee should be a pro-business government. where there are potential costs for business from reducing carbon emission, the more we can help businesses by reducing taxes, we should. emissions standards

in this country are consistent with a vacuum say levels. do you think we can promote our solutions? the same applies to carbon budgeting not yet adopted in other countries. do you think there is an opportunity for us to market these concepts invented in britain or implement here to other countries? >> i think we can. my understanding is that there are other countries who have quite accurately copied our legislation. denmark has a similar situation. i think the only amendment i want to see is that the idea of the climate change act, carbon budgeting, planning for the future, giving industry and energy investors a long-term

rise is all fantastic. the only thing we can rewind and do over again, the thing i would change, is do not want to many other specific. targets we want to reduce carbon at the lowest cost. additional targets can get in the way of that. for the 2030es packages we push for aggressively. but let's not have national targets on renewable energy efficiency as has happened in the past. so cut carbon at the lowest cost. we have a good system, but it is something we can recommend to others. your --e just say with stay with europe? it would be helpful to know what conversations are going on today anderms of the new package

the circular economy? did our government support those proposals? we support the directive that sets out the pollution allowed in the atmosphere. always supported sensible regulation on reducing waste and making better use of resources. i think part of what your question comes from is the potential for with drawing. but i may want to look more closely at what is being proposed and come back to you. we try to support sensible measures where pollution is crossing boundaries. but we not want to see excessive regulation. >> i think the issue is that the decision is being made as we speak.

it is whole to know what that does -- decision is on a national level. if i can move on about the issue of energy subsidy, we signed up for subsidies for fossil fuels. eu is a to new emission cuts target. prospect of ahe u.n. climate bill next year in paris. you square theow fact that the government told my that such a october climate deal, which limits can makere increase the majority of our carbon reserves wonderful -- vulnerable.

encouraging oil extraction? >> there are two things in there. one is this issue of subsidies and carbon subsidies. we do not subsidize carbon in this country. we encourage other countries to get rid of will subsidies. i do not think it is quite right for us to say that we do not want those subsidies in place. sometimes people say the fact that we have a lower fat rate on that is a subsidy. i do not accept that. of that being a valuable and vital industry for the u.k., i believe that hydrocarbons have a role to play in the international energy system. i hope carbon storage is going to come about.

for many years to come, it may be that gas will play a role in our electricity supply. i think those people say that's decarbonize regardless, i that is a difficult position to take. you would have to have highly and subsidizels nuclear. that could lead to expensive villages the bills. i do not want to see that. that is why i do not commit to arbonization until we know about carbon capture and storage. the north sea oil money is valuable for our country, and for and capture technology the future will enable gas to play a part in the electricity industry. >> we should be setting an

example by not using tax encourage >> -- i think>> we should use tax measures to do what is what i would argue is economically and environmentally sensible. it makes sense to get as much oil as possible out of an oil field is possible. it makes sense that we encourage the industry to decommission oil and gas platforms in an environmentally. the tax measures are useful in making sure we achieve those goals. if the argument is you should not do anything to help oil recovery in the north sea, i do not accept that. i think i would be a bad idea. >> let's turn to nuclear and renewables. i think there's going to be a subsidy as far as nuclear's concern because of market failure. that newd you accept nuclear is being subsidized by the government?

>> i do not accept that. what we are doing is trying to .ake sure matthew stanback and asked what youaim of all this is -- have to stand back and ask what the aim of all this is. we have to secure energy economy.and power our that means not being too reliant on anyone fuel or anyone part of the world. that means investing in renewable industries as they come forward and maintaining a role for gas. that is the policy approach to achieve our green targets and keep our economy safe and secure. as part of that, i think it is right to have the regeneration of the british nuclear industry. gas, did not have oil and

we really would be in difficulty because we would have renewable energy. and importantly, the sun does not shine enough in this country to make that work. subsidy is coming from the fact that we are giving a guaranteed price per kilowatt hour into the future. it is a subsidy through the price offered to the nuclear power station in practice. that subsidy is actually lower than what we offer to offshore wind. i do not accept we are treating nuclear family compared to renewables. it is about 150 per kilowatt hour. nuclear is around the 19 point. sorry to interrupt you, but

you cannot ask for a new their power station in a couple of years. it is an enormous project. hope that it will have a 25 or 30 year life. but it is the contradiction in the report that interesting -- interest me. submitted a wind farm application is regionally as june 2013. i wonder what you were doing to make sure you have a joint up -- approach to these apartments. i take full responsibility for what we are saying about withre wind, which, as other renewable technologies,

there was a subsidy in the early days to give the nascent industry a chance of success. 10% ofheaded for around our energy to come from offshore wind. that is enough as part of a balanced energy supply. the planning system already had planning permission. that would get us past 10%. right now, i think that is enough for the reasons of balancing our supply. so we should take away the subsidy, put it properly in the planning system and let them decide if they want to see anymore. >> but they are not deciding. it is decided by the secretary of state. but fracking, i'm not quite sure where the government is subsidizing fracking. it is not new technology, is it? there are other forms superior. >> i do not accept that.

we are not subsidizing fracking with guaranteed payment per kilowatt hour. today, there are unconventional gas wells in britain. but the shale reserves have potential to provide gas in this country. maybe for 30 years. is a nascent industry. we are not giving it a subsidy, saying effectively, that there should be a tax raise on this industry. encouraging it to get going and move towards local communities. the well is doug, that is 100,000 pounds. 1% of the revenues can go to the local communities, as much as 10 million pounds for a well. will think the members welcome that, if this happened 100% of the,

business rates would be retained by local authorities. this could be one million or 2 million pounds. it means that the community benefits from the development of the resource. i think that is very important if we are going to see this industry development -- develop. i would not argue those are unfair subsidies. this industry is going to have to make a profit in order to succeed. way you tax the new industry is different than an existing industry. minister, in the annual report for 2013 and 2014, the greenbank despite -- describe its work is a key part of the environmental study. i do not think anyone would dispute that.

it goes on to say that the current projected level of investment in the u.k.'s green economy was less than half the room hire great -- the required rate. since the december report, which shows that the one billion pounds that the green investments and was expected to loans,ailable in new only 200 million had been taken out. you start out from the position of only investing in half the required rate. and on the projections of march, we are way down. only 20%. of that rate. what do you think you can do to improve that? >> there are two questions here. one is, or we attracting enough investment to our energy reedit time we need massive investment.

we have investment in renewables, investment in nuclear industry. investment in the north sea to recover as much of can. we need a smaller grid. meters. on that question, i would argue that there has been an enormous investment under this government jury at more in the previous two. but i regularly get around in meetingthat the the other day. is there any other country in the world that has as long-term and open any of them are you to invest in? they basically said, if you are an energy investor and want to get involved in providing energy, this is a great place to invest. i think on that front, we are doing well. it 3.8 billion of seed capital. it has not spent that money yet.

i think it is off to a good start. but i think it is the right start. it should be a seat invest. the bearing in money from the private sector. that can change, but it has not run out of money. >> it has not run out of money. the problem is, they cannot seem to what you think can be done to improve the? >> is early days, but i think billion. 1.6 of 3.8 one pound for the private sector from every pound it's spent. it is wellent organized and well lead. well-capitalized. there are plenty of opportunities. go look and answer your questions to see if there are any particular problems. i get not just from energy companies but from overseas investors, banks,

financial institutions, are hugely positive about investing in britain. in terms of offshore wind, it is the biggest market in the world. princes is something the system we established. would on the surface, it appear that one third has rejected lending capacity. there is a blockage somewhere. wegiven that we have set wanted to stop borrowing as we see the deficit situation he's, the fact that they spent 1.6 of the seed capital, i do not since there is a problem. but i will look and see if there's a better answer to what was. >> pursue that a bit further. actually premature to advocate increasing the capacity of the bank to lend by allowing

marketorrow on the open or invest as a conventional bank does. but if we are to reach the unless wesome stage, are going to put more money in, that is going to be necessary. at the moment, borrowing powers would not be given until the public-sector debt has fallen. the proposal or time estimated when this would become operable has been postponed. accord ifconsider an it became appropriate to do so in order to reach those targets? >> i will look at it, but i do not think it is necessary. if it's been one third of the capital and keeps doing that every year for the next three years, by the time we get to the running awe will be small surplus.

it will be a happy case as they should miraculously come together. under the conservative plans -- i think it is a mistake to think what is required is another lending in tuition. there are plenty of lending institutions out there. --hink you should check treat investment banks is the first investor. then there are plenty of pension funds desperate to invest in energy. , people can see how much money there is out there to support renewable investment. if you build a renewable energy enterprise, because of the way the renewable obligations work, you know what you're going to get in terms of returns for the coming year. >> we need to move on. >> i welcome your knowledge on

productivity and the tax system interacting. given the fall of oil, it might have an interesting effect. >> an interesting point. fund, theclimate cause of climate change, the has been heavy on the developing world. you have been a champion of the developing framework? hud c climate change is part of the framework? we must worry about the post 2015 goals in -- that they do not get too complicated or diffuse. i think we have done a good job factsing to narrow down

about people, prosperity, climate. trying to be part of it. will not tackle global poverty unless we tackle climate change hand-in-hand. context, do you see at tatian as having a greater business? is there any particular u.k. interest? the poorest countries having the least ability to , shouldto the target slightly more developing countries be able to -- >> i think we should be looking at both adaptation and litigation. , for instance,es feeling the effects of climate change already. where adaptation may be more helpful to them. but we should do both.

arethe poorest countries those with the least capacity to do anything. they need the most help. you help the poorest people wherever they are. i would tend to favor the poorest people in the poorest countries because they do not have the capacity in those countries to take action. whereas developing countries can access finance and do more things for their people. but you should not rule out using these funds to help other countries. so i think we should try to get the maximum value for money but we madethis. good and generous officers of -- offers of support. i cannot give you a percentage. i think it should depend on where the greatest return can be found. but the fund would benefit

predominantly poor countries in your view? >> in my view, yes. with eight spending, i think we should focus on the states least capable of helping themselves. that traditionally means the poorest states. the climate fund is supposed to be providing additional funding in addition to a. said the green climate fund would count towards opva. >> i do not really accept that. we have a budget. we have said that some of that can be used for climate. we have set aside money in our international climate fund for that. some of that money is going to the green climate fund.

you can argue whether that is new money or not. but it is money that was not in the green climate and and is now. i would argue under our umbrella, that is -- but that is not true of all the partners for some of the eu in particular. so what is to stop the money from the climate fund to be used in turkey rather than schools in somalia? >> you are arguing whether we spend eight money better than the eu. we include what we spend bilaterally and what the eu spends. things like the donations to the world food program and others. obviously, any fund would give money to, we should work as hard as we can to make sure it does

not waste money and is spent in the right way. i think the contribution to the green climate fund is indicative of the. >> but could we use it more effectively if we challenged other countries to match what we are doing? because the targets of the green fund has been reduced to 10 billion. the u.k. has pledged 12% of the. doesn't that make it easier for other countries to sit back? wouldn't it be better for us to work with other countries to say will you match us? >> i was criticized for holding back on the green climate fund because i wanted to do exactly that. inent to the conference september and said i would try and deliver an eu deal on climate change and carbon reductions.

i want to see the color of other people's money before i put our in.y and -- i think sometimes it is the right decision to lead, other times you want to hold back. sometimes -- and we have done this, we say we will put in this much money but only if it is matched. so every pound you get is effectively worth two pounds. methods bute those never have a soft touch. but the eue that, describes the discussions of g 20 in brisbane, and we know that the australian government is in denial about climate change. so do you think australia is doing enough? i think they are doing more.

it is a sovereign country. it has to make its own decisions. there has been a big debate in australia about carbon taxes. but my sense is that they recognize they do not want to be the black marker. nor should they. i believe they will do more. we should recognize europe is doing its bit. we have done what is necessary for europe to show leadership and help secure -- >> america used to be the black marker. but australia is the black marker at the moment. >> i do not think they want to be. and i think they will feel pressure to do more. we should try to encourage them to do it in their own way rather than say at some preordained

root they have to follow. america has managed to cut carbon emissions by burning less coal. a slightly unexpected bonus. but the president has made some interesting commitments on private change being delivered through executive motions rather than through try to get a global deal. every country has its own pressures and politics. get to the right conclusion. --many of my constituents energy is used at a high level. we are trying to persuade the public -- these are difficult messages to communicate. announced shale

in my constituency. the exportation will generate futures for those high-value jobs. there are protesters opposing the shale development. the community that need those energy crises to come down. agreehe prime minister that the science isn't finished until it is communicated? >> definitely. time say iot of value the work that scientists did. there are myths that we need to get over.

nuclear power is unstable. these are myths we need to confront. , the scientists -- >> we need a constant message. a consistent message also from government and climate change. the government has a clear policy. be a green government. there are steps that we have taken to push this deal in europe. sometimesthere are disagreements within the coalition's. think the public -- some new

necessary wouldn't be . we don't need more of these subsidized onshore. if they could make their case, they will make their case. we hot safer electricity prices as a result. enough is enough. that to -- role.k to the to take a stronger, independent role in with the science does say. on issues like climate change, it becomes likely that the government comes out with a consistent -- and science is

overwhelmingly in one direction -- >> i agree. i think the fact that scientists in each department is a strong things. i would urge them to speak robustly to ministers. point out scientific risk and opportunity. there's also a prosperity agenda. we want science to be booming in britain. have got that sort of role to play. we have had things that have happened about which i don't think that had significant roles. early warning systems. feeds into the different

agendas of some of the media. have had some problems being presented. but more so than in the case of climate change. easy for a so journalist to simply fall back. creating, it justifies a kind of false balance. you wouldn't do it and party politics. >> i don't think we should be prying into that. >> i want the government to take a consistent line based on

evidence. >> yes. >> prime minister, i'm concerned. hydraulics with shale gas. when you put an end to the self-monitoring through current regulations of fracking companies -- >> sorry? >> i'll give an example. they went through a tremor. they carried on fracking. should we not be looking to cautionary principle to eliminate environmental difficulties? any groundwater? goodthink we have got a regime of faith. >> any self monitoring by fracking anywhere?

system to light ensure it is minimized. in operatinglt shutdown. it is good we are having a debate about fracking. sometimes we look at the e-mails we get from constituents. sometimes there's a level of concern. to what needself to be done, i think we could encourage the media to bust some of these myths. self shouldn't rely on reporting? we should have environment agency going in and conducting these tests? >> we have a traffic light

system is what we have. >> that was put in place. is the'm worried about self monitoring. the varmint agency has had a reduction in that capacity. can you give us a commitment? monitoring of a new fracking? should.'t see why it everything i heard about this is there is an enormous amount of regulatory hurdles. without licensing processes. -- you have got licensing processes. i think in the end this debate

and only be won or lost be donean see this can with our environmental problems -- without environmental problems. it is not just benefits for our industry. the maybe some environmental benefits. gas in our homes. cooking and heating. gas has been produced here. that is good for the environment. >> an awful lot of trust. you said so yourself. when i show them if economics would impact the report.

particularly as it relates to the social impact on housing. and very happy to look at that. , this does happen, but companies lose the permit it day get shut down. -- they get shut down. they do spot checks. believe this is an industry that is in danger. >> in terms of -- >> i went to visit. onshore.hore -- 14 andconventional oil, gas,

recovery. conventional. it would be a mile underground? before.as tested this it does not say if they would have to be consulted. any expectations? or is this in obligation. compellingt some evidence. consulted. is i was surprised when i read this.

>> but if the water company is not consulted, this no knowing and water to be .tored 20 miles away by pipes ds.had massive fin are all sorts of dangers. it is too late. they consult early on. any of the actions which you are describing, these would likely be illegal. >> i think we're "to be clear. if shale gas could be recovered safely in an environmentally protected way, we should do it.

i find green groups are anti-shell gas for the simple reason it is gas. they cannot bear the thought. there opposing it with a religiosity, which i think is frankly wrong. the practical people we could recover gas in a safeway, let's do it. if we can't, we can't. >> prime minister, you were published. >> i haven't seen it. >> i'll give you my copy. reductions on 12 pages. here you are asking a lot of points. has the full and

for mental impact assessment. all these things are published. >> redacted. >> that is the way our system works. other]g over each can you tell me if there is not a danger we might overpromise the number of local jobs he created? we want to make sure we don't raise expectations and disappoint. >> you are right. i don't think anyone could be certain what would happen. the way these estimates have come by -- you know what has happened in america.

be examiningould what he could do for british jobs. british energy security. it. don't want to hear even if you could caption -- captured the carbon, where would you are in it? >> quite -- burn it? >> quite a surprise to me. the number of jobs depend on the not of gas that is recoverable. what can we do? how can you speak up process? up the process? >> make sure the number of permanent -- permits isn't too

numerous. chemicals, planning. all the rest of it. we need to make sure the industry has a skill-based that is required. we could do all these things. it is only when the first few costs are up and running you have got something to visit, see, and look at. it is at that point industry -- >> when do you think that will be? .ext year i think -- gas cutting out a year or two after that? >> energy markets will have an impact.

we hope it will start to grow quite rapidly. >> they seem enthusiastic. we have concerns about national parks. could you say anything about what circumstances might you -- exceptional circumstances. we haven't defied what those have been. a higher threshold to be cross. to -- i wasme back and talk toi saw neighbors and businesses there. this has been here 10, 20 years. we are very relaxed. industry will be

seen in a different light. on the worried until they see -- i think they will go on word until they see. >> sounds pretty much a challenge. toi should draw attention interest in shale gas or fracking. i was making a point. a report published almost four years ago. put the concern in context, those experienced in lancashire were not good enough on the surface.

shell gas could help set to do its dependence on imports. do you agree that one way to kickstart the process is exactly what you said. get a few pot people would see ople couldon -- pod pe see in operation. anyone who agreed to start or allow in the community, shell gas, it would get extra. that way you have a number of demonstrations -- operations often running. that might allow the larger scale. suggestions.o

we came up with hundred thousand pounds. when hundred percent potential potentials -- 100% business rate. good ideas. i'm happy to consider more i don't think the problem is local communities. i think the problem is people are worried and uncertain about it. it is when you've got community center happy with what has advantages there are . >> reducing the content you've referred to earlier. you set and chaired a task force. what has it been doing since

november? without reminding ourselves what this was all about. the government has a clear policy. i felt it was right to bring people together. every driving through part of endeavors? prisons, schools, universities. centers.ommunity we had a series of recommendations. many have input into force. of theould be meetings task force to see if there are more things we need to do or check up on. bring together ministers.

clear agenda. this is the work. will discuss it. we'll meet again. it is working like that. this is moderately successful. >> how much priority is this compared to the agenda the day you started? is it occupy more, less of your time? where is it in your list? >> i would say i have twin priorities. economics and national security. it falls in the national security element. go back. read one of my speeches.

i made a lot of speeches of the problems confronting the ideology. it is still very relevant today. this is a generational struggle. confronted and defeated -- it needs to be confronted and defeated and everything in between. regrettably on spending more time on it than i had hoped. the problem is serious. >> despite all the speeches -- how close aree -- we to that in our country?

threat we face definitely includes those sort , sometimesrting random attacks that could happen at any moment. seen the last few months there has been a serious of attempted have been and prevented -- series of plots that. ofnks to the brilliance security forces these have been prevented. thing understanding the terror networks coming out of pakistan, afghanistan, syria.

that is one thing. people who are self radicalized on the internet who suddenly do appalling things, that is much more difficult to prevent. >> look at the prevent agenda. there are still more people. what has gone wrong with the agenda? it has enabled us to engage with communities. policies featured on the prime minister. don't seem to be able to get the dna of the community to identify those and those undermining our way of life. to them? get that is the issue. >> it is. we have got to do everything.

i would argue that counterterrorism education has helped. practices have helped. a program to denver people away from terror -- a program to deter evil will way from terror. for not doing enough to to keep people from being seduced to a muslim approach. i agree with. we don't seem to be able to get that tipping point. what takes some who is a law-abiding young man who goes off? donelot of work is being in muslim communities and with social media. aus chilean social media --

powerful.edia is act is thatle --ple across all communities these extremists are using words and phrases from islam to justify what they do. andeed everyone to rise up say these people are not speaking in my name. people could feel like they are being targeted. we have got to drive these people out. that means confronting. sometimes people say of course we are against the extremist terrorists. but we also need to oppose the muslimsew that says all

are victims. 9/11 was a jewish plot. sometimes people except that. violence is wrong. we have to deal with that. >> iver present 50,000 muslims. -- i represent the 2000 muslims. this is a tiny minority of people. what do you say to a mother who police andlp the tells them what her son was doing and whose son is in jail for years and says i feel betrayed i the police? do you not think that kind of sentence sends the wrong message to parents as word as you and i would get our children suddenly reached that tipping point? how do we tell them they can

cooperate with the police? see their children again? .> i wasn't in the courtroom i don't know about this specific case. it is different when you hear about it or feed about it. you have to trust the justice system. that is what it is therefore. if you are saying should we ,eople are returning from syria should we tried to pull away from that side using persuasion ?s well as the harder end of course we should. they do that a lot. >> he said the message that goes out -- you see the message that goes out.

that.ay not want to do >> if you spent time with the police, they give you countless examples of people who have been pulled away. course we need to treat people in the right away. at the end of the day, we had to allow the police and the justice system to work. tackle those who are threatening. >> as far as schools are concerned, you talked about dark matter. it is much darker indeed. used as methods of finance for terrorist groups. they promise to do various things. so much moredoing

as far as internet is concerned? of up the equivalent international watch foundation? before it happens far too late. >> we are doing all of these things. stand back a bit. last week internet companies when it came to pictures of child abuse online took massive steps forward. you've got to stop allowing searches were revolting terms. that is impossible. contrary to free speech. what they have done is over 10,000 terms for searches. we need to encourage them to do that. they have bigger steps on the child abuse front than they have

on the terrorism front. the two are different, but similar. helping -- we do have organizations. we need to keep on doing that. we have gone a long way. there is more to do. ofis there evidence radicalization in schools? we know about problems. is that a worry to you? it is a worry. confined.ink it was ofhave had incidences schools and other parts of the country with had backing from

group's that have views on extremism that are inappropriate. we had to act on some cases. do we have all the necessary powers? towe can get everyone understand what it is we are fighting against, all public bodies have a duty to prevent radicalization and extremism. thing. a powerful it is everybody. schools. universities. sometimes they have gone relaxed about it. speech.free what is the problem? it is a problem. i think we're making progress.

[indiscernible] to what extent is degrading isil inroying iso-in -- iraq and syria? >> the problem is that extremist narrative. we saw that with al qaeda. al-shabab. -- isil. the difference is this is a terrorist body that has found a willing host. runs a state. has oil revenue. has money. land. we will not deal with the

narrative to we deal with isil. .t is a priority we had a meeting. .here is no short-term answer you have been to iraq yourself -- youltiyear strategy have been to iraq yourself. we need a multiyear strategy. it can be done. >> how do you make sure we don't end up saying this is the u.s. doing a great deal and we are a small part of the coalition but we won't take a big view. how do we make sure? >> a challenge the idea we're not doing much. bombing has been done of isil physicians be britain has taken

the second-biggest role after the united states -- bombing has been done of isil locations. britain has taken the second-biggest role after the united states. people of representing and has gritty forces that could keep the security and stability not allow terrorists to thrive. that is the strategy. it could take many years. what is it that britain could do? what are things we should be doing? what in terms of military resources could help? what in terms of political surge iraqie help to create an government? bookcan we do to help pressure on the syrian regime?

framework, we should approach this. we cannot do all of everything. should work out where does britain have some expertise? where your committee's work would be helpful. >> the situation of prisons. them.secute will be added to the problem of radicalization in prison? is it a real problem? that peoplevidence became radicalized in prison? >> i think the answer is yes. is there areing

several hundred people in prison who were not arrested or convicted of terrorist offenses. nonetheless they have been radicalized with extremists islamist narrator's. it is a problem. it is not being invented. you'd be wrong to say all over they are doing a terminal job -- terrible job. we need to work out which programs are working best. it is a problem. it is not surprising. effect in somean colleges and countries. this is what we are up against. it is regret full -- regretful. are we able to recruit those

who can challenge the narrative? it -- it the national needs a real challenge. >> yes, we are. there is a course which is educating resource who are new or inexperienced in the muslim faith. tackling the rhetoric. got the ministers with different results abilities. prisons, colleges. each one has -- it may not be there highest hired appeared in is making sure prisons -- they know they have got to report back to me on the action they take on this agenda.

the sunday times recently of a passport taken. not just is, but his entire family. is that we are going to do in the nature to stop people from returning to our country? that just those directly involved, but everyone in the family? know the details of this particular case. lookeverything i know, carefully at the advice given and what is proportional, legal, and right. carry that out. she has her responsibility. as i have mine. keep the country safe.

in this bill going to parliament, are you satisfied? are you satisfied for governments will say, ok. will keep them? i'm positive we will get agreement we need. what are we trying to give? we need to get our police services -- services the power necessary to keep them safe. sometimes it is at the border. on occasion it would be right to you can't come back until we are satisfied have in place the motions to keep you safe. that puts pressure on foreign

governments. they put pressure on us. there are quite a lot of them. what if they do the same to us? we do not want a particular citizen returning. are going to leave them? have aafraid we often situation where our prison is full of people. i believe in playing tough on the one. it is important we are robust on it to keep our country safe. search being the key to adjusting the root cause of extremism. are you confident that over the last four months we have put adequate resources into the

intelligence? the diplomats? to achieve that? to understand? questionasking this today. intelligence services are doing this. they're trying to establish themselves where they are most needed. focus on a big afghanistan and pakistan. they may need to readjust. there is good work been done. more needs to be done. ambassadors have a hard-working team in baghdad.

zones goingt of lay iaisons going on. , securityersonnel services, the works. politics. i completely agree. where is our expertise? what are things we could add to a dominantly american effort. we can make a difference. in june, they reached ait had it

certain town. if it did, it would be disastrous. it has. what should be commended? they were pleading international .elp and help from the who would you accept that? that we have to look at whether who fits the purpose. >> totally agree. why was the world not faster in responding to ebola? it is not airborne. it is passed by touch. if you get hold of it quicker, you should snuff out the current of this disease much quicker. everyone needs to take their share of responsibility. team.d a standing

an expert to be flown in. the who does a great job. it does have some challenges. moving.t the fastest well.sn't function very douspect the right thing to is -- there's a number of countries to step up to the case. they are doing some very good work. it is taking longer than i would like. we have responded. with systems that

were not capable of withstanding the development of ebola? make sure there is a legacy of a stronger system. there are significant numbers. ensure that working we could help strengthen those systems? capacity to work in this environment. that.gree with all of it are some moments when we should be planning for it. the legacies to leave behind that would help sierra leone have a better

health care system. if you act quicker, he could deal with it faster. that is real learning. we are doing a great job. it was all happening. we have got to stay on top of this. the figures haven't yet shown reducing infection rates that we need to see. world movedthe faster? the risk has been known for many years. we love stories to run entry checks. we must close down flights. that is theity

battle ground where the problem is going to be i just. we had change the government handles scientific advice in emergencies. think there are lessons to be learned about the system? the scientific knowledge that we have, we should have been prepared and much more alert to this developing risk. look to prime minister gain and how we draw scientific information into the emergency wenning procedures so that are proactive and not reactive? >> i stand to be corrected. was -- ihink there

don't know how to put this. i think the world woke up to this. they handled these things. quick. wake up. what you need is this combination of lyrical action and scientific advice. it would be wrong to think all they do is meet and simply do what they say. what works? what doesn't work. but these things, you are not just dealing with science. you're dealing with sometimes problems of public reception.

understand the context. whether it was dealing with ebola or other scientific problems that we have had, we try to follow it to where we can. i reserve the right. how the public will react. how we communicate this. criticizing. the fact that the system doesn't proactively suck in information from expert groups of their world,isks around the has been known or sometime.

i think the issue is not something in the information. there isn't this to get out there. obama was one of the first politicians to spot this and address it. you cannot act too fast. >> saved by the bell. happy christmas to you. [laughter] >> brilliant. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy.

visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> on the next "washington the white house continued push for early childhood investigation -- education. in talking about jeb bush announcement that he is actively exploring a 2016 bit and what he needs to do to get through the republican i married. after that, david aaron's looks at the prevalence of dane -- brain tumors and brain cancer. he phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. >> here are some programs you will find this weekend. saturday, seth rogen discusses politics and humor. evening, author and townhall.com editor on what she

sees as the hypocrisy of liberals from the war on women rhetoric. tv, a top university is missing the mark in education. be creative. have a goal in life beyond the material. sunday morning, book tv mrs. lafayette indiana to interview several the cities offers -- authors. saturday at 6 p.m., the civil war. the historic talks not the life of irish-american soldier and his role -- talks about the life of an irish-american soldier and his role. on real america, and investigative piece is san ofncisco's tv on the history police brutality in neighboring

oakland. wind are complete schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. e-mail us. send us a tweet. joined the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. advisor administration and former george w. bush security advisor part of the national security discussion hosted by the atlantic. see that at or 30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this month is the 10th anniversary of our sunday primetime university. we're featuring encore presentation highlighting authors come historians, so makers, and leading policy

thinkers. interview on that september 11 compensation fund. the importance of african-american experience. robert novak on his 50 years of reporting. and the value of higher education. conservative commentators. compellingcade of conversations. >> jeb bush was interviewed earlier this month at the wall street journal ceo council. he talked about potential presidential run, immigration, and u.s.-china relations. this is 45 minute. >> you want me on the left? >> what does that mean?

[laughter] >> you are to their right. it's ok. you brought your coffee. you can get over caffeinated as we talk. that would be good. thank you for being with us. you will miss the cold wave by leaving just in time. thank you for being with us. i appreciate it. a lot of familiar faces in the room. get ready for this conversation. i read some speeches you have .een giving lately one of the significant developments is you became a grandfather for the third time. you are about to be a grandfather for the fourth time. congratulations. >> that was in my speech? it was in one. [laughter] people i covered the bush white house, they think i

mean your brother. bush. george h. w. plenty of room there for more children, grandchildren. could i point out my dad and first granddaughter? now three years old. trilingual more or less. her name is georgia helene out walker bush. [laughter] her nickname is 41. [laughter] georgia represents the new america that i know on the editorial side of the wall street journal they believe in and i'm passionate about this as well. the new america is that america that doesn't have hyphens. in america where your work and effort is your definition.

, politicalentity form of thing. she would be a canadian iraqi mexican texas american. a-hyphenated. texans are still americans, aren't they? >> >> barely. [laughter] were all born everywhere. that is the america that we should aspire to. not the one where we are dividing ourselves up to find out how we are different. the fact that you are from a different place or has got different origins is irrelevant. when juveniles out the form, she .ill say not applicable enough of family life.

>> in reading those >> in reading those speeches, i was struck by something you had said. you said, this nation is experiencing a crisis of opportunity. >> right. >> tell me what you meant by that. >> we are missing the opportunity to take advantage of our skill sets, of our strengths we focus on our weaknesses. we fight over those. there is massive gridlock, really unprecedented gridlock. yet, this is the most extraordinary country in the world. this country is so much better when you hear the director general of the imf talk about the places in the world. the united states should not be in any category remotely close to a problem country. we have everything necessary, abundant natural resources, the