welcome to the program. tonight we take a look at the president's new proposals for environmental protection, and we begin with the head of the environmental protection agency gina mccarthy. >> people need to know there's hopefulness before they'll admit there's a problem. if you give them a problem where there's t no solution, they stand still because they're too afraid of it. we have been doing that 25 or 30 years. we now actually have solutions and we're actually being hit with the problem now. >> rose: we continue looking at environmental protection with coralcoral davenport of the "new york times" and steven mufson of the "the washington post." >> yesterday, in the east room his message had sweeping

rhetoric. he wants these moments to be recorded in the history books. >> rose: we conclude our look at the environmental protection plan offered by the president with roger martella, former general council with the e.p.a. in the administration of president george w. bush. >> the clean power plan announced is a fundamental reregulation of the energy sector. it's effectively the healthcare law for the energy sector but without congress passing the law. so there is other tools available in the clean air act, but if we want to have comprehensive climate control, if there's a policy the president wants to promote about comprehensive climate change controls they'll need the tools. >> rose: finally, robert jordan, former u.s. ambassador to saui arabia under george w. bush, his book is called "desert diplomat." >> after 9/11, it became apparent 15 over the 19 hijackers were saudis, with we had to determine if they were friend or foe. we didn't know how deep the

resentments against the u.s. went, we didn't know how organized al quaida was within the kingdom and it became my job to find that out. when i arrived a number of the senior saudi royals were in denial that these 15 hijackers were saudis. i paid an initial courtesy call on then the governor of riyadh prince salman who is now the king. he said it had to have been the israelis, the saudis would never do this, so this had to be a mossad plot. >> rose: the president's environmental plan and former connection to the ambassador to the saudi arabia when we continue. >> rose: additional funding provided by:

>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: president obama announced monday the final version of sweeping legislation to cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector. the clean power plan imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide from power plants. it is the signature piece of the president's domestic policy. >> you know, over the past six and a half years, we take on some of the toughest challenges of our time from rebuilding our economy after a devastating recession to ending our wars in iraq and afghanistan and brig almost -- bringing almost all our troops home to strengthening our security through tough and principal diplomacy, but i am convinced that no challenge poses a

greater threat to our future and future generations than a change in climate. >> rose: joining me is gina mccarthy, she is head of the environmental protection agency which proposed the new regulations. i am very pleased to have her here at this table. welcome. >> it's great to be here charlie, thanks. >> rose: tell me what you know about what this means to this president because you do have the sense, as he looked at what he hoped to achieve becoming president, and as it winds down in the last quarter, that there were certain things that he wanted to make sure he got done. >> yeah. >> rose: this is not complete, yet. it's got a lot of opponents. >> we just finalized it. >> rose: but it's not complete in terms of opposition it will face. >> oh, that is for sure. >> rose: tell me how you think he feels, because he talks about the unimaginability of looking at what might be if we don't

act. >> i think we all know that the president is a thoughtful person and we've had conversations about it. in fact the day that he asked if i would become the next administrator at e.p.a., i asked him would he do something on climate, because that was the big unfinished business at this point, and he -- you know he has been eloquent in how he's spoken about climate. he talks ability his own two daughters, about the science he's seeing and puts it in a framing that's different than anyone else i have heard. prior to his getting up two, almost three years ago now, he talks about it as a moral responsibility and he means that. he is constantly looking at the science and worried about where the world is heading and, to him, it's just unconscionable that we wouldn't recognize the fact of climate and actually take action today, because he sees what it's already doing to the world we live in and what the future might look like if we

don't really act now. one of the most interesting things he said in the speech yesterday i think was the fact that we are the first generation to feel the effects of climate and the last generation to do something about it. >> rose: when why is it so difficult? why are there so many people opposed? whatever the numbers are. >> charlie i have been asking that question for a long time and i think what i've come to realize is when i first talking climate change, because i have been in the environmental field a long time, i'm mostly worried about public health, that's what i do. i was looking at the data in excess of 20 years ago, more than that, actually, 30 years ago, you know you started to get a sense of what was going on and the trend you were seeing. but back then, we were talking about projections of a problem with literally no solutions we could talk about, and, for people, that is just not going to work. you know people need to know

that there is hopefulness before they're even going to admit there is a problem. if you give them a problem where there's no solution, they pretend it doesn't happen or they stand still because they're too afraid of it. we have been doing that for 25 or 30 years. so i think what we see now, is we actually have solutions and we're actually being hit with the problem now. we could stand up and say that in 2012 we spent $120 billion that nobody budgeted for because of impacts of climate. we are getting hammered, already. >> rose: this is about power plants and power generation yes. >> rose: put it in the context of the entire effort by the administration. >> well, i think power plants is one piece. the president announced an entire climate action plan and that was a cross-administration effort and it started with the work he did on mobile sources on cars. that was another area where we had some real solutions to put on the table. we had highly-efficient cars electric cars that are being

produced, so we put together a rule that reduced carbon emissions from vehicles, and the automobile industry began to soar. they were selling cars people wanted to buy. that was a good one. we did it with heavy-duty vehicles, that worked out well. we're doing a second ranted of heavy-duty vehicles we're looking at hydrofloro carbons depleting the ozone substances and we move to other solutions. as time moves on the united states ino violates, new products come out, we have solutions. that's the difference of today than before. people weren't seeing or feeling the impacts and they didn't know there were solutions. the reason why we can move forward in the power sector is because the electricity industry is transforming, already. we're not making it look at renewables today. it is happening because the

market is demanding it. people want them. there is a transition from really heavy carbon polluting fossil to natural gas which is much cleaner, and now we're seeing the growth and renewables that, between last year when we proposed this rule and yesterday when we finalized it, it is beginning to take off. >> rose: but the president, as i understand what he has said, wants to say to the world, this is our model. >> yeah. >> rose: we're not just preaching. >> yep. >> rose: and we realize you were at a different point in your own economic evolution, but this is what we have to do and we can't urge anybody else to do it without doing it ourselves, and here's our program. >> that's right. he put really three parts to his climate action plan. the first one mitt mitigation, which is what we're talking about. the second is adaptation and the third was international global solution. so basically, he said the one thing we know for sure is that we will never have a global

solution on climate change unless the united states takes action domestically and shows a sense of seriousness because we are the second largest polluter -- carbon polluter in the world, the largest world economies need to step up, and, so when he actually proposed this carbon pollution plan from our power industry last year the rest of the world did notice. we had china stepping up and doing a joint announcement with china for the first time got away from the carbon intensity goals and said, we're going to get serious, we're going to cap, and we're also going to look at renewables. then you have brazil come in just a short time ago. we've had good conversations with india. so we know that the united states had to do it -- >> rose: with these other economies. >> right. >> rose: you see mitch mcconnell, saying over my dead body you're trying to kill my

economy, kill the jobs of the people who elected me. >> i do feel for the coal industry in terms of the jobs that it has and the people that rely open those jobs and the communities there, but the truth of the matter is since the '80s, a lot of those industries have been losing jobs significantly. we are not in the '80s anymore. it is many years later. we actually have to work with those communities to figure out how in a changing world they transition themselves. that's why the president put together a proposal called the power plus proposal to really start investing in those communities rather than letting the fear of those communities drive an entire energy and envionmental world. there is no question they will need help burks that's happening anyways and has been for years. >> rose: also raises question like people from the president of harvard, raises constitutional questions about

this violation of the state's tenth amendment rights. what do you say to larry? >> well, i'm not a lawyer and, certainly, even if i were i wouldn't argue with the man. that question -- i mean we've operated on cooperative federalism for the entire time of e.p.a. this is a total partnership between states and the e.p.a. >> rose: and give them the opportunity to fashion their own plan? >> that's right. we're setting a standard which is what everybody in the world has been telling e.p.a. to do. you set the standard, we do the plan, we'll get there. that's exactly what this is. >> rose: and, so, what is the goal in terms of 2032? >> actually, 2030 is the goal. >> rose: and you will change what? >> we're actually going to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 32% below 2005. >> rose: that's doable.

yes, it is. and that's a result of all the analysis we've done. it wasn't the goal. it was the fin liner when we did the rule. that's where it comes out. the goal for us at e.p.a. is to look at how we really capture the best system these units can achieve, and they all have to achieve it, and then we count up those reductions. we don't do it reductions-back we do it bottom-up, and this is what we came up with and i think this is a significant reduction but it's an indication the energy world is changing, and so we're riding that wave and we're pushing it along and making sure it continues to happen. >> rose: what do you say to the states that say no to the clean power? >> i think they will be few. i think most of the states want to do their own thing and customize their own plan. >> rose: they're calling it federalism. >> we're told them, you can do this in a way that's suitable to you. i don't care look at energy

efficiency, switches to natural gas, renewables, do what makes sense for your own economies and your own region so you can work with other states. if they choose not to e.p.a. will do a plan. we will do that for them. we also propose what that might look like yesterday so that states would understand what the choices are. it's not that we'll punish them when they come in, it will still be viable and reasonable and affordable for them to do it but why not do it on your own, you have been asking for it forever and states really want to lead. we've developed gate relationships with the states during our outreach and i believe they'll step up. >> rose: marco rubio, running for president, said if you're a single mom in tampa, florida, and your electric bill goes up $30 a month that's catastrophic. if you're a single mom in tam parks florida, will your bill go up? >> no, it won't, not anywhere near $30. this is one of the most insidious arguments i'm seeing. it's the most vulnerable

communities, the low income communities we're acting for. they're the most damaged in a changing climate. we see it over and over again. there is no way we'll fashion a plan that's going to hurt the very people we're trying to help. this plan does a couple of things it provides clean air for our kids and carbon pollution reductions. we are talking about a net gain in 2030 every year of about $45 billion savings because the energy world always costs money, the energy world in 2030 with this plan will cost less and save lives. >> rose: according to senator rubio you're saying it's not true? >> no, and the cost to consumers by 2030 will actually be an $85 a year savings because the world we're looking at the cheaper, easier. the first year of compliance, it is going to be about a gallon of milk about $3.

by 2025, that's going down to $1. then the savings accrue. so there is no way we're actually imposing an unaffordable plan on the very people we're trying to save. >> rose: what about a carbon tax? >> yeah. >> rose: i know oil executives who believe in a carbon tax. >> yeah, i do, too. i mean, the president has always told congress they're free to take action on this. in fact, we would help them if they want to do it. it's just, you know, the president had to use the authority his administration had and the clean air act isn't the tax policy, it's a lunges -- it's a pollution reduction strategy. is the price very high, no. >> rose: when you see the coalition of governors, they see the stakes high as well. what do you think their definition of their interest is. >> well, i think understand the

folks worried about the coal industry, but i think there are solutions to that. i think we can work with folks in the way we always had when the economy shifts and things change, because that's really what this is all about. but i think, for the most part we have just failed to engauge the broader stakeholder community, the people who really need to speak for themselves and we have been doing that. this rule did not come from people sitting in a room anything big thoughts. we've spent two years of engagement on this unlike anything we've ever done. 4.3 million comments came in on this rule. our response to comments will be 50,000 pages. so we've heard it all, charlie but what we've done is reached out to other communities. you know, when people realize this is not just about polar bears, though we love them this is about their own kid, whether they can breathe, this is about asthma they begin to get engaged and they are engaged

now. that's what get us over the finish line. >> rose: you get it from both sides. jim hansen wrote an argument that said previous model for climate change are too conservative and the sea level rise of several meters might swallow our coast in this century. is that alarmist or is it saying we bet gert real? >> the only thing i can say sit frustrates me just as much when people say you haven't solved the problem when you put something out. the president never said he would solve it. he said he's going to get moving, take real action domestically, do it in a way that's reasonable and achievable so people can see action doesn't hurt. >> rose: and if you reach all goals by 2030, you will say what? >> i think we'll say that it's been successful, but only if we've already achieved a global solution, because i think we cannot wait till 2030 for the solution to happen. >> rose: what do you think

will happen in paris? >> well, i think it bodes well the conversations we've already had, and we think that the global community will begin to embrace this. do i think they'll get an agreement over the finish line? i have no idea. i'll leave it up to my international folks and secretary kerry, my good friend. but i do think this will change the dynamic, and you can only do what you can do and i think this is it and he's doing it. >> rose: thank you for coming. pleasure to have you. >> thank you. >> rose: gina mccarthy, administrator of the environmental protection agency. back in a moment, we'll hear more voices on this very important issue. stay with us. >> rose: we continue our look at climate change and the president's proposals from washington carly fiorina of the "new york times" and from the "the washington post," steven mufson. i am pleased to have them here. it is clearly a circumstance in

which a lot of people are gearing for some battle or not. we see the organizations coming together and probably already have been together but tell me how you see what the president is doing. is it simply cementing what he has done or is it more than that steven? >> a little both. above all he wants to cement a deal in paris on climate change. it helps us as the united states meet the target of cutting emissions by 26% to 28%. that's the goal we're trying to get other countries to commit to in various different ways. that's one reason why they moved from the initial rules last year to this year they didn't want to weaken the targets. >> rose: karl, do you think these targets are reachable? >> what's interesting is the electric utilities which are fundamentally the entities that are going to have to change what they do do say these targets are reachable. the overall target of the

president's regulations is a cut in emissions from existing power plants 32% from 2005 levels by 2030. electric utilities said pretty consistently they probably can meet these regulations. they do anticipate that it could be sort of a struggle on the path to get there. there may be some questions about reliability, keeping the lights on along the way, but they do anticipate that ultimately that goal is reachable, is within the realm of capability for electric utilities. >> and both of you have written i think, and basically mentioning again paris and what's happening to paris. part of this is an effort to sell developing nations on a, u.s. leadership and, b, creating a plan to reach goals? >> yes. not just developing nations, but every nation. the objective of the paris accord, which is set to be forged in december, is that

every single country in the world will put forth a plan to cut its own carbon emissions. until now the united states really didn't have any kind of policy in place. with the announcement of the final regulation, the announcement that the united states is not just proposing not just putting out a draft or idea, but actually enacting and moving forward with pretty aggressive regulations, the hope of the president is to get an example and get, again, not developing nations but all major economies to do something similar. >> rose: steven, is there enough here to persuade them to do something similar? >> well, i think so. the president's been going about this in a fairly methodical way. necessary china last year, got china to commit for the first time to put a ceiling on carbon emissions by 2030. these, of course were some things china was thinking about doing anyway, but it still helped set up all the pins for

paris. then he moved on to india, got a huge commitment in india for renewable power even though india wasn't ready to commit to a certain percentage cut in its emissions. if they actually follow through with the commitment to build vast amounts of renewable energy sources, they will be in the ballpark and made significant strides. and then the president's recent talks with brazil where she agreed to decrease emissions in the rain forest which creates carbon dioxide. some of the countries that have been most difficult to bring to the table. he's going to keep doing this in the next six months, i think. >> rose: is this, in both of your summits, having been in washington and covering the president, one of effort of how he sees in the last two years to make sure that he finishes work

on things he considers to be legacy-appropriate? he seems to be aware of what most people will look to when they measure his promises in 2008 and liz his legacy in 2016. >> charlie, the president absolutely sees this as a legty issue. if you look at the speech that he gave yesterday in the east room, he used the word "legacy." the speech he gave had very sweeping rhetoric. he wants this to be -- he wants these moments to be recorded in the history books. he came into the second term really setting the stage, trying to set this up as a legacy issue. it was a major part of his second inaugural address. so he sees this as something where he's following through on initial campaign commitments that he made but headsee this as -- but he does see this as a cornerstone of his legacy that will play out over the coming

decade. the big question is will it stand up to legal challenges. >> rose: most of them republican challenges or democrat and republican. >> we have a lot of republican. the whole effort is led in large part by senate majority leader mitch mcconnell who is encouraging this disagreement with the rules. president obama was accused of sucking the lifeblood out of the kentucky of economy and less than 1% in kentucky work in logging and mining industries. in addition, the way this plan works is e.p.a. sets certain targets, but then gives states the flexibility to try to reach those targets in any way that seems most suitable for them. so if the state refuses to come up with its own plan that's going to result in the federal government coming in with its

own plan. so, in the strange way, by resisting the federal government on the whole question of its authority, these states may lose the opportunity to fashion a plan that might be more suitable in their view than something e.p.a. would do. >> rose: but as soon as you point that out, i look at what republican candidates for the presidency are saying, jeb bush for example, who opposes the legislation, said the rule runs over state governments will throw countless people out of work and increases everyone's energy prices. i mean, there is the argument. >> well, you know, that is the argument but one of the interesting things about all this charlie, is that technology may make all these questions a lot easier. to some extent, you know solar -- the cost of solar energy is plummeting fast the cost of storage is going down. one to have the things e.p.a. has done with the revised final rules is they delayed

implementation for two years ago and the two years gives everyone a bit more time to get on better technology paths. so, you know, in the end this might not be quite as hard as it looks and a lot of the big utilities, while on the one hand they're paying -- nodding toward some of the republican efforts to stop the plan but, at the same time, they're busy trying to figure out how they're going to meet these targets. some of them say it's doable. i've even seen a couple who said the plan is actually more modest than what they're already planning to do. it's an important dynamic, i think, going forward. >> rose: you're already getting to see the editorials, i think, in your papers saying they didn't go far enough, they should have gone further. but this will clearly be a battleground in the 2016 presidential contest, will it not, coral? >> this absolutely will similar to the way that we saw the

healthcare law become a major issue in the 2010 midterm. as soon as that law was passed, it sort of set up kind of a concrete policy platform that candidates had to acknowledge. they had to sort of say, you know, if elected, i would support the healthcare law or if elected, you know i would work to undo it. that's the same thing the climate change regulations set up. that's why i talk to political strategists who say this is the first serious climate change policy in the united states history. now that it's actually in place the candidates are going to have -- you know this immediately projects it into the 2016 campaign in a way that we probably have never seen climate change in a campaign before because it's not a fight over whether it's real or kind of broad proposals over what to do about it it's are you going to

enact these regulations and see them through or are you going to work to undo them one or the other, and that makes it a much more concrete policy issue than a broad, sweeping ideological issue. >> and, charlie i would add one more thing, which is if you think about the electoral politics of this issue, what are some of the key swing states? last time, we had wildfires in colorado just before the election, we had a huge storm hit new jersey, and florida is constantly being busted by different climate issues, so not only is this important in a national sense, but it's also important in a lot of key swing states. >> rose: thank you very much steven. thank you coral. >> thank you. great to be with you. >> rose: stay with us. >> rose: we continue with rogerroger martella former general council for the u.s. environmental protection agency. you know about policy decisions

how do you rank this as a significant act by a president? >> it's the legacy about by the president. it's the most important environmental decision he's going to make during his eight years, probably the most important energy decision at the national level for the country and the generation, and one of the top three to five climate change decisions in the whole planet. >> rose: that's saying a lot. let's leave the legacy thing aside. clearly he's operating on number fronts in terms of leg sivment but in terms of the impact itself, what makes it what you just characterized? >> the impact is more symbolic in terms of the message the president is trying to send to the rest of the world to have show he believes the united states can take significant action on climate change. there are some legal debate about that which i imagine we'll talk about in terms of actual impact on greenhouse gases on climate change the actual impact been de minimis because

anything we do in the united states will not have an impact on greenhouse emissions or climate change so the action is one of a symbolic one. i think he's doing this as an effort to show leadership to the world. >> rose: but will the world be listening and will it have an impact in terms of what they decide to do in anticipation of going to paris? >> i think a lot of the other nations will be in alignment in terms of looking at the united states. i think the industrialized world will be looking at this as some precedent and looking at their own countries to see whether there is elements of this they can replicate. the challenge will come from the developing world. the driver of the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from around the world is copping from the developing world -- china indonesia brazil -- and they're going to say, this isn't so fair to say about us, you've had a chance to grow your economy without worrying about greenhouse gas emissions. that's where the fundamental

dispute will be coming from. >> rose: the united states says what to china when they make that argument? >> the united states seems to recognize, the president seems to recognize that developing nations should be treated differently than the industrialized world, and the question is though, to what extent. if china is now the leading emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, should they really get a free pass for the next 15 years to continue to grow their emissions? the reality is they have a lot of economic resources to be addressing emissions, so there is a fair amount of criticism on the president back at home that if the u.s. is taking action unilaterally which will actually impact our economy negatively is it fair to let china to continue to grow its emissions through 2030. >> rose: you mentioned earlier the legal challenges. what will they be and what will determine their success? >> i think we can boil the legal challenges down to two issues. one was the substantive issue of

climate change and second is the legal press tinl of what e.p.a. is doing. the courts have given us direction since 2008 from the supreme court on what the courts think about climate change. so what i think about it, what you think about it from the court's perspective is irrelevant and the courts have been pretty consistent with saying they think climate change is very important. my guess is the courts by and large support as a policy measure addressing greenhouse gases and climate change. the courts on the other side are there to serve as a check on the exertion of that authority and that's where i think the president's power plan goes too far. it goes beyond the authority the courts have recognized and beyond anything e.p.a. has done the past 45 years under the clean air act and is basically a new law without congress giving e.p.a. the law and e.p.a. relying on a very specific provision that's only been used five times in the history of the clean air act to engage in what

we have as the most important policy. to despite climate change they'll find the precedent goes too far. >> rose: but they're used it five times. >> the provision has been used five times but things like regulating existing landfills and emissions that come off landfills -- i'd like to share an example to distill what's going to be the core legal issue the court will address. i brought a couple of props. if this is our coal fire power plant, for the last 45 years the clean air act has been around, you have to look specifically at the technology you can apply at the power plant a. that's noncontroversial. the challenge the president and gina mccarthy has is from this coal fire power plant, they say we can only get a 2 to 4% reduction in greenhouse gases. we want to get to 30%. how do we go from 2% to 4% to

30%? what they say is we're going to look beyond this coal fire power plant and look at this solar facility or a natural gas facility and we're going to force this coal fire power plant to reduce its production and instead build new wind and solar facilities to compensate for that. now, you can debate whether that's good or bad policy but the challenge is that is totally inconsistent with the clean air act, e.p.a. press sent and many court decisions. so that will be the core issue the courts will face and if they were to endorse that here the precedent of unfettered regulation in the future of how e.p.a. could apply this approach to other industrial sectors. >> rose: assume the court rules as you suggest it might, what would be the next step for those in favor of doing something? >> there is lots of things that can be done under the clean air act to aired greenhouse gases.

this has been in the d.c. circuit. the options are more modest than what the president is trying to do. the clean power plan is a fundamental regulation of the energy sector, effectively the healthcare law for the energy sector but without congress passing the law enforcement other tools are label in the lean air act but if we want comprehensive climate change control, if there is a policy the president wants to promote about comprehensive climate change controls, it's going to take congress to give it the tools. that's the fundamental problem, congress has not developed specific tools to address greenhouse gases. that's where the burden is. >> rose: knowing all the parties and arguments in essence, what divide those opposed and those in favor? >> i think those in favor recognize that they -- it's a concern about addressing greenhouse gases for future generations and the notion that action need to be taken now to

aired greenhouse gases at the moment. in terms of those opposed, we hear a lot and the people who make a lot of headlines are people who are opposed to climate change and opposed to greenhouse gas controls but i think that's an oversimplification of the issue. most to have the companies i know and work with they take what we call their greenhouse gas footprint very seriously and they're using a lot of technologies and measures to be conscious of and address the greenhouse gas constantly making improvements. the concern goes to the notion of not addressing climate change and greenhouse gases but doing so in a way that's unfettered from the law and also puts the united states at an economic disadvantage compared to nations like china that will have no controls, when at the end of the day we're not going to have any meaningful improvement to greenhouse gases, any meaningful improvement to climate change until we have coordinated action all across the world. >> rose: but do you believe that most of the people even who

may quarrel or oppose the president believe that the threat of global warming is real and that something has to be done whether their methods and means are similar to the president or not? because i've talked to lots of people who share that with me. they understand the consequences of global warming and realize it's a real danger. they may debate manmade or not in terms of the extent of manmade and greenhouse emissions and all of that, but they do think that -- they recognize the argument as being legitimate that we have to do something. >> and i think if you were to look at it and i don't know the statistics, but if you looked at the fortune 100 or 500 companies or, you know, the large industrialized companies and you look at their web sites and their policies and were to survey them, i think what you will find is the majority of companies, perhaps the high majority of companies all take accountability for greenhouse gas emissions.

they monitor it they put into place programs and policies all around the world to address and improve the scope of greenhouse gases. so, to me, that is what i look at, the tell-tale sign of how industry how corporate america is addressing greenhouse gases the notion that most of the companies i know and most of the companies i work with all do support taking accountability for it to the extent we currently can with available technology and available legal regimes and so on. >> rose: roger martella, thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you very much. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: robert jordan is here, he was former u.s. ambassador to saui arabia under george w. bush from 2001 to 2003. he started his post just after the 9/11 attacks a critical time for u.s.-saudi relations. he looks back on that experiments in a new book called "desert diplomat." i am pleased to have robert jordan to the table for the

first time. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: let me go back to the relationship with the saudis at that time and take us back to 9/11. we realize a majority of the people involved in the hijackings in 9/11 and the terrible tragedy of that day were saudis. >> yeah. >> rose: help us understand and that there is a period of the commission report, 23 pages we have never seen. >> right. after the attacks of 9/11 became apparent 15 of the 189 hijackers were saudis. we had to determine if the saudis were friend or foe. we didn't know how deep these resentments against the u.s. went we didn't know how organized al quaida was within the kingdom and it became my job to help h find that out. when i arrived, a number of the senior saudi royals were in denial that these 15 hijackers were saudis. i paid an initial courtesy on call of then the governor of

riyadh, prince salman who is now the king. he said it had to have been the israelis, the saudis would never do this, so this had to be a mossad plot. then went on to see the minister of interior prince nief and he had the same story. they had never been pressed on the world stage to explain themselves and this was the only narrative they could come up with at the time. i then spent a good deal of time with prince feisal the foreign minister and he got it. he totally understood they had a serious extremism problem in their midst, had to do something about it and they had an education system that was broken and very dangerous. so that led to a lot a lot of efforts. turning to the 9/11 commission report and the 22 pages there were redacted ostensibly, these

22 pages concerned saudi support for the attacks of 9/11. when i learned about this report, i said i need to see those 22 pages, and i was told by the c.i.a. that i didn't have the need to know and couldn't see them. i said, well, you know, if you don't really want an armed out -- an ambassador out here send me home, i want to go home. but if you do, i need to see the 22 pages. so they sent a guy out with a briefcase sat me down to a table, laid out the 22 pages for me to read. i read them. he took them back and off he went. when i was writing the book, i had a description in there of my judgments of the 22 pages. they still hadn't been declassified but i made points in the book which the c.i.a. also redacted and took out of my book, so all i have been able to say in the book is i think the

22 pages should be declassified. i've had discussions with former senator bob graham ability this -- >> rose: he's the most prominent person who believes -- >> let's see we have different interpretations of what's in the 2 pages, but he and i both agree they should be classified and even the saudis have said this. >> rose: he was on the senate intelligence committee. >> the chairman at the time of the committee. >> rose: he believes what? at least he said he believes it provides some evidence that the saudis were responsible for funding 9/11. i completely disagree with that. >> rose: because he was funding osama bin laden? >> well, he talked about some efforts in the u.s. to provide funding to certain operatives of the saudi embassy within the u.s. and his version is that this proves something about the attacks of 9/11. it's certainly well established that the saudis, for many years were funding osama bin laden and

the jihadis in afghanistan as we were. the americans were 50/50 with the saudis in fighting the soviets in afghanistan. >> rose: and that's what osama bin laden was doing. >> exactly, and he was sort of bcontracted for some of that. >> rose: but having read the 22 pages did it change your mind about anything? >> no. i was already convinced through my other sources and through the investigations we had done through the preceding 18 months and there was no saudi government official and no senior saudi royal who played any role in financing either 9/11 or al quaida, that we knew of. we knew there were saudi charities that were financing al quaida cell meetings. we knew there were all sort of issues. >> rose: funnel money from various foundations to jihadis. >> exactly. but there's a report that has been released and declassified recently and that's the report of the c.i.a. inspector general dealing with american negligence

or cuppability in allowing the attacks to occur on 9/11 and that report says incidentally, they have found no evidence of saudi -- senior saudi royal support for the attacks of 9/11. >> rose: at the same time they also talk about the influence of jihadiism. >> certainly. that's an area that continues to be a problem around the world. the dawa the religious extremism, is still a very serious concern and a matter of national security for the united states. >> rose: are you surprised the saudis have now said that they are in favor of the u.s. nuclear deal? >> they have said they're in favor of a deal. i think you need to parse their language were carefully. they're in fraifer of a nuclear free middle east, a an agreement that limits iran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon. they have not said they're in

favor of a 24-day delay in allowing inspections in or in favor of the enforcement mechanism or breakout capacity they will end up with. >> rose: but obviously you can pick out things you don't like about a deal but at the end of the day you have to say i'm in favor of the deal that's on the table. >> sure. >> rose: are you saying from your knowledge they're against the deal on the table? >> i think they have the same reservation most of us do and my suspicion is they have come to the conclusion there is no better deal out there. >> rose: which leads you to what? >> they're resigned to it. they want to be able to say i told you so, at the same time they have enormous concern, i think, not so much about the nuclear threat from iran but about the economic threat that iran is going to present once the $150 billion in frozen funds is released. iran has enormous human capital. they have developed a non-oil economy. they will be able to complete circles around many of the monarchies of the middle east

once their economy is freed from these sanctions. so this is something that i think these gulf monarchies are very concerned about. >> rose: we all know about the conflict between the sunni saudi government and the shia iranian government for influence in the region and we also know how much influence the riernian government has with hezbollah in lebanon, hamas on gaza strip and yemen as well. >> sure. >> rose: so we know they have -- and in syria, as well too, and damascus as well. so we know they have influence. it's a fight for influence, it seems to me. >> big part of it. no question about it. political influence, religious influence, religious prestige but there is also an economic factor we need to add to the equation. >> rose: how does that play itself out? >> well, i think it presents enormous economic challenges to the saudis. the foreign direct investment sitting on the sidelines right now is lined up to come into iran, not saudi arabia. the european investors, the european companies are chomping at the bit to come in. i think there are probably a lot

of american companies looking the same way. it gives iran -- >> rose: just to interrupt, is one of the reasons why the president said you know, we can't put these sanctions back together because those people who had joined the sanctions had some sacrifice for themselves because they believed some pressure on the iranians was necessary to bring them to the table. >> sure, and i think he's right about that. i don't think our coalition, the p5+1 was going to hold together much longer in terms of endorsing these sanctions, and i also don't think we'll be able to snap sanctions back. >> rose: so the snapback won't work? >> no, it's a fantasy. >> rose: where do you come down at the end of the day on the deal that's going to be voted on? >> i hate the deal, but it's the best we'll get. >> rose: therefore? we have to accept it move on and do the best we can. we have to keep people's feet to the fire on inspections and

monitor and galvanize our allies so if there is a violation it's treated as a serious violation and at least some kind of sanction regime can be reimposed but i'm not optimistic about that side of it. >> rose: there is no doubt that in the iranians do after ten or 12 years and because of whatever research that has been uninhictd will be able to -- uninhibited will be able to move toward a nuclear weapon? the president raised objections as to why he doesn't think that's necessarily true in his discussion but the convention is the saudis will move to get their own weapon and the pakistanis. >> there are problems with that point of view. the turkish prince said the saudis want whatever deal the iranians get but that's more rhetoric than reality. the saudis we know have already

begun plans for 16 nuclear reactors for a civilian nuclear program. they have consulted with the south koreans, the french and russians and i think this will likely move forward. but whether they will try to weaponnize is a different issue. they do not have the domestic capability to do that. they don't have the engineers or the background. >> rose: what role should we play in the middle east? >> i think we have to have a lighter footprint than we've had. we've allowed ourselves to essentially be the outsource force for security of the gulf monarchies. they need to take more responsibility for their own neighborhood and i think to some degree they're trying to do that in fits and starts. at the same time, we have to recognize that we have a national interest in what goes on in the middle east even if we become energy independent. if oil goes to $200 a barrel and the europeans start having to pay that they can't buy our ample products and can't buy proctor and gamble products and american cars. their economies will be severely

crippled, even if we in america have all the oil we need. >> rose: wreath journal today u.s. set to defend new force in syria. >> yeah. >> rose: the argument in this piece goes on to say this may very well mean moving not only against i.s.i.s. but also against assad. >> yeah, and i think there is a chance of that. my guess is -- >> rose: it's dangerous. very dangerous, and i think our enthusiasm for going after assad directly now has abated somewhat and i think i.s.i.s. from our standpoint is a much more dangerous adversary. >> rose: that's true, but also it seems to some that in the beginning, it was all talk about assad -- he has to go, has to go -- and western europe and neighbors and saudi arabia and turkey were saying it. then as i.s.i.s. rose there began to be less talk. >> the current thinking is the role turkey plays in all this and their recent animation over

this has been welcome in many ways but also may be a subterfuge for them to go after the kurds on their border. >> rose: motivation. yes, and clearly they would like to be rid of assad and perhaps part of this three-dimensional chess game we're playing right now will involve what we can do to motivate turkey to play a constructive role, even if our ultimate aims are somewhat divergent. likewise, i think it has to do with how we deal with russia in all this. can remarginallize russia's influence? or is there a way we can work together if they truly are tired of assad, maybe there's a deal to be made. >> rose: there is some indication of that from the russians that might want to do that. what about this -- we just found out mullah omar has been dead for two years. >> mm-hmm. >> rose: we know the head and founder of the akani group has

been dead for a year. what does this say for american intelligence? >> i think it's actually pretty disturbing. we've had a number of intelligence failures. we don't have in assets on the ground. we've had a very difficult time in really all these middle east countries understanding what's going on. i can go back to the time we were getting ready to invade iraq and we needed to bring our fourth infantry division through turkey into northern iraq. the turkish parliament had a vote and by about three votes turned us down. we didn't see that coming. so i think, for years, we've had intelligence failures. in many ways, i think it masks to some degrees the successes in intelligence that we've also had that a lot of people don't know which may be a reflection of how imperfect a science it is and how difficult it is to have the resources you have to have. >> rose: back to saudi arabia

if you look at saudi arabia today, do we look at sing at king salman who is what 87. >> between 88, 87. >> rose: and has health issues as well some say. >> mm-hmm. >> rose: he appointed a new crown prince and the deputy crown prince is his son who is also the defense minister. >> yeah. >> rose: is this good that we'll see new leadership there at some point soon? >> i think it's good they're dropping to a younger generation of future leaders. the crown prince i know very well, he absolutely deserves to be crown prince and will be a successful king some day. i don't know the deputy crown prince who was 19 when i was ambassador. h he is reputed to be very decisive, very strong on organization and maybe he can bring some of those skills. but i think there is some consternation that you've got to keep an eye on the potential

nepotism that can go on in royal families. my guess this was not a unanimously endorsed shrek of this crown prince and if the -- endorsed selection of the crown prince, and if the war in yemen doesn't go well we'll have to keep an eye on that. >> rose: "desert diplomat," following 9/11. thank you. >> thank you. >> rose: for more about this and earlier episode, visit us online at pbs.org and charlierose.com captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: on tomorrow's pbs "newshour", coal mountain, a civil war love story, once

this is "nightly business report" with tyler mathisen and sue herera. >> missing the magic expectations were high for disney to deliver but it was something not found inside its earnings reports. baked apple, the world's most valuable company falls deeper into collection territory. what is behind apple's decline. >> no 401(k), no problem. there are other ways that you can save for retirement. all of that and more on "nightly business report" for tuesday, august 4th. good evening, everyone. we begin with news about disney. expectations for it is results were pretty high. but the dow component didn't deliver the magic for investors. earnings of $1.45