ld reduce the barriers beyond your longshore -- >> yeah, that is exactly right you have to do both. you have to reduce, close the floodgates so there has been a lot of work done in that area to divert people from the criminal justice system at the arrest stage, the conviction stage the incarceration stage. i come from california. there is a proposition that passed with a ton of bipartisan support to basically reduce about six felonies down to misdemeanors mostly drug crimes. but and various various property crimes. and that has the effect of reducing the prison population 100,000 people. . .

at the application stage you don't have to report your criminal record anymore, you remove the question but employers can ask about it later in the hiring process. the whole challenge this is not specific to folks with records, it's specific to a lot of people who are unemployed, getting your foot in the door is a huge problem. there are online tracking applications, makes it almost impossible to establish who you are as a person as opposed to your record or you are unemployed for year, whatever it is. what's the duty is been the box it breaks through that and you have the chance to demonstrate you are as an individual beyond your criminal record. we have 14 states that have enacted these fair chance hiring

reforms, over 100 cities and counties but about 60 f. and it's a just and the past two years. so there's a lot of movement in that area. >> you might not get the job if you have become a record or conviction, but at least you can't get thrown out of the initial screening. >> exactly exactly. >> so valerie talked about what we look back on the is the golden era of the mid-to-late '90s. and it's interesting, you go back and look at the newspaper coverage especially in the late 90s and you notice a couple things. the unemployment rate was getting quite low, down in the low 4%. people who were disabled who have a disability often times some of those people workers as though they were unemployed. what happened in the late 90s is that firms were desperate to find people. i friend of a friend says i have

someone who got a bad back but they could probably do this job. the employer says that's a great idea, let's give them a call see if we can recruit them. a lot of people have been disabled and apparently permanently disabled suddenly they were not totally disabled. they're coming back into the workforce. and likewise people were coming out of prison, people with felony convictions and again if you just can "wall street journal" has an article i think in 99 or 2000 exactly about this. employment agencies started going not to the high-security prisons but to the low minimum security prisons asking do you have any inmates are going to be released in the next couple of months that we could interview now? we have come look at "the wall street journal," i'm not kidding you. >> it must be true. [laughter]

>> one of the other colleagues pointed to the story a few months ago. there anything these people. what we're seeing today and we've seen in the last two years that maurice is highlighting, of course these others suggest totally underscore and agree with you on, but i also said as and bernanke said earlier this morning, there's a demand-side anti-supply-side your if the demand is strong and firms really need to hire more workers because they got a lot of demand for the products then people to who used to be considered unemployable suddenly become employable. that's also part of it. >> so ben bernanke, made a nice distinction between the potential growth path of economy how fast can we safely grow that's largely out of control of the federal reserve, and then there's the question can the fed's job is to get us as close to the path of possible. he made the case even more strong and you did that the unemployment rate, the standard rate, is misleading and that we

need to look at a lot more measures. you said that's more true now than it used to be. so why is that? how do you look at, how do you decide how much there is how safest? >> it's very difficult and part of the problem so for example the participation rate has fallen a lot. people either working or looking for work hezbollah law. it's an overstatement to say all of that encyclical at all has to do with the weak economy. a lot of it has to do with trends in work patterns common in aging come in retirement patterns, in people's schooling choices, whole variety of things. so to say that all of that is due to the great recession is wrong, but on the other hand some of it may be and figuring out exactly how much is very difficult. likewise andy showed our time work, a big increase in part-time work. i have dug up some of that

reflects underemployment, -- i have no doubt. there's also changes in the way the firms organize their workforce and, you know, and the way people interact with the labor department at home production et cetera. all i'm saying is there's been a lot of ongoing changes in women's role in the workforce, et cetera, that just make it even harder than usual to figure out how much further before you get to valerie's, you know destination. and that's a practical problem for the fed to because they do have a dual mandate and they want to figure out you know how far can they go before they reach a point where further the easing policy would be to de-stabilizing, and that's a tough -- >> do you think andy overstates -- >> i think it's an empirical

question. he does interesting work, andy has done interesting work on previous papers and this one. one of the questions is how much is this lack is defined by andy, how much of it does it affect wages? if you think that slack is real slack in some sense then a large amount of it ought to cause wages to be slack as well. andy's evidence is state-by-state there does seem to be some relationship between how much of this type of broader measure of slack there is any given state and what wage behavior is. others have some -- have found somewhat different results but that's the analysis yesterday to try to assess what's going on. that's why there's been a lot of attention to wages and the fact that wage growth has been quite weak, all else equal everything else is never equal but all else equal would suggest that there's still some pluck slack in the labor market.

>> can you summarize what you did in the paper on the state stepped? >> i want to say again, valery has some of the same evidence that, we were relieved that her findings actually were very consistent with what we found. >> you know, again you can take a look at both of the papers to bear on this question. i agree with what ben bernanke said, it's not trivial. but when you say this is by the way not andy's estimate. for the labor enforcement we're taking the current 2015 so the 7.5 is an unemployment rate that i should is just using the cbo's current -- >> summarized the state-by-state stuff. >> the state level evidence is that unemployment does if unemployment is elevated any given state in a given year that that dampens wage pressures. very much like valerie -- is

also the case that if part-time underemployed is elevated in at a given state in a given year that that also dampens very significantly. and if you look at the state-by-state participation rate, particularly in the earlier work we looked up prime age in this paper, it's all of those, all working age adults but also affects. as ben bernanke said, these two seem to be forms of slack. it's not just the on the public right of people who are completely unemployed, and complete out of work and searching for a job. it's people who are partly employed. by definition they are employable because they have a job they are showing up to work every day but just 20 hours we can they really want a 40 hour a week job. >> is getting $2 destination mean your wife has to get a job? >> no. >> okay, fine. that was a joke last night. >> two points.

what is just what we're getting, all talking that because i took some of andy's work and some early work he had done with atom, and i did the following exercise which i thought was a good way to explain these dynamics, that we been talking about regarding wages which are a critical missing piece of the recovery and when you look at the populations gallery is concerned about. we're all concerned about by the valerie wrote about. i think, i think if you tried to predict on this flat path of nominal wage growth which is stuck at 2% now for five years if you try to predict the using the unemployment rate you will get a prediction, trying to forecast where wages are going so you run a model and to stop at 2007 or 2009 and to forecast, you will find african shows

wages should be growing now a couple of percent faster than they are. you say what's wrong with my forecast? it's used to work but it doesn't work anymore. it is over predicting. then you put in the labor force participation rate. that's simple. this is national stuff. you don't have to get to be more sophisticated state level. your forecast tracks the wage trends really tightly your that tells you that there's something about these folks got out of the labor force that are a constraint on wage growth, and it i think underscores this point about how much slack as left. second point related very quickly, we are not going to reach a disadvantaged minorities minorities, the long-term unemployed, people with criminal records simply by getting to unemployment and then moving off of it. we need to get to unemployed, chock-full of unemployed and stay there for these effects to

really bear out. >> jerrod, you're not suggesting that all of the decline in labor force participation is reversible by running expansion in monetary fiscal policy? >> wewe no -- >> there's an aging of the baby boomers. some is probably her sister and demographic, and some is recoverable if we get stronger, and the argument this was about how much -- >> exactly. none of us are making the assumption, assumption, putting andy that it was a three-point gap. were our argument three-point. i will say the following. i've looked at all all the decompositions and right now they may be a point and a half is recoverable. >> andy, let me ask you about the remarks ben bernanke made earlier. i'm sure i'm oversimplifying but part of what he was saying is

that there's a limit to what the fed can do because it only controls monetary policy in the united states, and to the extent to which the chinese choose to runrun a current account surplus or these days the germans choose to run a current accounts surplus other than pounding the table in basel and that she 20 meetings, the fed can't do much. do you agree with that? >> this is a complex discussion but i would say that ben bernanke himself were adamant that the fed should do what it can. that monetary policy is not a panacea and that there are situations in which monetary policy is doing everything he can and that still may not be enough to lease quickly but -- quickly to back to full employment. i think i was the first of all, again the analysis that we have done, and i stand behind it in many cases i'm the first person

to say we are really uncertain about this a not quite sure how to read it, i would stand behind his descendent we think that there's still a lot of labor market slack and nominal wage inflation has been pretty darned flat at 2% and the likely summers we think would be premature to start normalizing policy or tightening policy right now. we also see very significant downside risk to the u.s. economy. i think some of them are from abroad but frankly this morning the personal consumption expenditure data came out very weak and people are starting to talk now that gp was a total output of this economy, this quarter may drop may be negative. we will see. some of that may be whether but, of course, we've heard that story before in previous years and i would like to see an economy that is resilient enough that we could have a few winter storms and the economy doesn't come to a halt speak can i just add? the one area where i disagree a

little bit with ben gets to the question that i think you're asking a second ago, david which is about what we could and should do to push back against imbalanced trade. right now one of the things that is a drag on our economy is, in fact, a very strong dollar and it is shading according to goldman sachs researchers something like perhaps the half a point off a gdp growth in the next quarter. that's not huge and is also not a result of currency manipulation. it has to do with a bunch of other fundamentals relatively growth rates, different things that are reserved doing. and i agree with your point, ben, to try to put a currency chapter in the cpp could undermine the deal although i still advocate for trying and trying hard, perhaps we can do in the cpp, the we need to do something more outside of it and quiet diplomacy. but one thing i disagree with is

that it's hard for even non-economist to distinction between central bank policies that is the metadata and central policy that is currency management or manipulation. i think the extent to which other large current account surplus and your buying large amounts of reserve currency is very much an indicator to the imf and that is indicated in place for a long time, and i'm told that they actually work well. they just don't have any teeth to enforce any actions against it. i don't know if you want to respond. >> i think most economists can make that distinction, but are you going to say for example, countries are not allowed to keep reserves of? >> not at all. i think there should be rules about how i think with the rules would say and do say is that it's the amount of reserve you accumulate. so if you what one motivation

for a cumulative foreign reserves is to cover your debt. when your debts are in currencies other than your own. so you ought to be to accumulate some multiple of your debt am making that multiple of one. when you get it to come you're probably outside of a probably outside of a range but it is those kinds of rules. >> you may be right and i have a deeply investigated this but you are already now not talking about 01. particularly are going to be adjuvants that is not necessary to distinguish different motivations for reserving accumulation, for example. >> i just think you know, i think in principle it's a good idea. i just worry that it'll kill the deal as you said and it's harder than you might think to make that distinction cleanly in a legal document. >> do you think japan is engaging in unfair practices now? are they engaging in -- >> i don't think their currency is misaligned right now. >> i didn't mean to slight moors

empower. either one of you want to make a point or criticize and elevenths and? let's turn to the audience. i hope you follow the spirit you showed with the gerrit, make your -- jared. make your questions crisp. tele- cor. >> i would love to speak to us or you're spending some. >> in comments friday, janet young said she thought the timing of the market to push forward and push back up to 2% and is probably going to be appropriate to start the tightening later this year. she also said she know it wants to see wage growth. if osha makes the decision. i was particularly curious what you think explains that vision. i would love for professor bernanke to answer this question question.

>> i don't speak for the federal reserve, i'm sorry. >> nor do i. >> i think i could agree with ben bernanke what he said earlier that these are complex judgments look at a lot of different data and different models and different analytical tools. i do want to make the sound trivial. what jerry yellin explained that there had been growth for reasons that was talked about in the first session this morning. that are totally out of the that's controlled by the way. technology grows and facebook all the sorts of things. and so that means that we don't know for sure what, along the idea of a balanced growth path we don't know for sure what nominal wage growth will be along that path. and so that means there could be circumstances in which inflation period comes back up to the fed's target of 2% and

wage inflation still is where it is and then that would point to this sort of structural and regulatory and other kinds of policy the way to improve the systems itself. it's not a monetary policy issue at that point. my own concerned what you think is essentially what jared said is that there still is a labor market slack to date and so it's not a coincidence, forget about wage inflation for a moment, just inflation, consumer price inflation has been running at around 1.5% for several years now. the fed has been persistently following short of the 2% goal. as i said earlier and ben bernanke emphasize this for many years, price stability and economic stability are complementary, generally complementary. so if we're missing the inflation goal on the downside persistently may be a sign that in fact, there still a lot of labor market slack and it may be to wait to get up to to present it to have a pickup in domino

inflation and the only way we're going to get that is to maintain accommodative policies longer than we might have thought. >> i just -- i met the center for popular democracy. i just want to follow up on alexander's point. it seems to me like one of the question is what are the trade-offs? we didn't talk at all about whether or not the 2% inflation target is appropriate goal. it seems to me as though if you are trying to hit 2% and you're scared of overshooting a then you get left off much sooner than if you're willing to tolerate higher inflation, particularly been under inflation for the last seven years. i wonder is in with my with any research that suggests that 3% or 4% inflation has human costs, that it would be negative? is there any reason to think we could be well anchored at 4% in a stable growing robust economy? because otherwise the traders are unclear.

you've got -- >> ben bernanke, can you without speaking for the fed, but when you were there why did you go for 2%? isn't symmetrical? if you had it to do it again would you take a higher target? >> so there is research and most of it gave sort of 2% which is kind of international standard. it is symmetrical. it's not a ceiling but it's symmetrical target and so therefore, under shooting, overshooting should be more or less in balance. i think, you know this is a complicated question. not only the question of what is the cost of our inflation but what is the benefit, does it help you, how much does it help you? these are issues that economists need to do more work on because that's not a whole lot of series work on this question. i would just say the following, which is that when i was there we did talk about alternative simply for example, nominal gdp targets and things of that sort. there's two questions.

one is what would you choose if you are starting from scratch? and the other is what are the costs and complexities of switching regimes in the middle of a deep recession or financial crisis? i would just say that deciding not to switch is not the same thing as making if a judgment output would be the best remark okay? we established the framework and it was based on what we knew at the time, and there is a history which is that inflation has been around 2% and expectations are anchored around 2% so changing it is a very complex process. so given all that we decided not to make changes. i think a lot more work needs to be done. i'm thinking about higher targets and what are the benefits and costs of that. but that's again, you have to take into account not just, but what is the cost of making a

change. >> there's a paper in your packet by an economist who has written some pieces for our project, and in the paper he exclusively argues that it would be a very useful to go above 2% inflation, specifically for the kind of intuition that i think you're getting at that the fed should allow not just a cemetery -- asymmetry but above 2% in order to get the unemployment rate down. paul has also written and you alluded to this in your question, and i think it is coveted that i agree with a lot of what ben just said, that if you can anchor it, you can anchored three or you could anchored 4 but that doesn't say much about cost and i think countries but was we don't know enough about that. >> there's a woman over there. wait for the mic. >> pam harris council on education in ward five. my question is if valerie

wilson. as a small housing provider, more and more of our workers are hispanic workers, and i'm sure some of them are undocumented hispanic workers. and has greatly impacted the employment of african-americans in the city come in washington in the restaurant business in the construction business. how is that factored into your report? how will that impact the overall employment of african-americans once america embraces making these undocumented workers citizens? >> that's a good question. there's a lot of directions i could go on that one. first, i would say that that's an issue that has been raised for some time, whether or not increased immigration has resulted in displacement of african-american workers. i think the point that you make is salient because you're talking about your community and your city. i think nationally we don't tend to see that as much but in certain communities in certain

areas where there's more localized label market, i know there are those tensions and that challenge. on the other side of that however, the existence of a large number of undocumented workers serves to suppress wages over all. because there are people who can be hired at a potentially exploitable because their employers can hold over the head that they can deport them or report them, or whatever. that depresses wages for everyone. there's sort of two sides to the issue. but we make it to a level of unemployment that's closer to full employment, andy give the example of going and looking for workers. when there's a demand for workers, then more people will be employed. the challenges we face now is why we see this sort of display for at the local level is that there still a lot of slack in the labor market. the are a number of things. legalizing workers helps, will be effective in helping to raise

workers' wages for everyone because they are no longer an exploitable workforce. at the same time, we need full employment so that we are able to bring unemployment down over all. >> you've been very persistent. i hope you have a short question. can you wait for the mic. telecine you are. >> in your comments -- >> can you tell us who you are? >> give us your name. >> my name is leonard. in your comments you said that the fed would work better -- [inaudible] if it had better physical health. well, physical health is also tax policy and in the last 85 years we've had three major disruption in our economy, the great depression, the 1981-82 recession, the deep recession which i call the first great

recession, and then the second grade recession into those and eight. but there's a similarity between all three of those that is we have some major tax reductions both in capital gains and the highest rate went down also. and what i'm trying to say is in the economy starts out good when we lower the tax rate things like that. we have good response to it but then we leave those in they are enacted in a recession but we leave those in until the economy actually eats up too much. would it be better for you, for the fed, and your job if we reduced the stimuli in the income tax first before you had to raise -- >> thank you.

>> that's a fishbowl where, or a punch bowl away. >> well, it's difficult to make you know, find some change in the tax code which is a big obligated thing. -- complicated thing. paying attention to the overall thrust of fiscal policy including the spending side, and i want to say in addition it needs to be symmetrical when the economy is booming, then you need to pull back fiscal. i agree with it. but i think generally people think that the spending side is more flexible politically and operationally, and perhaps more effective. but i agree that fiscal policy needs to have as many objectives, mr. nichols but one of them should be to try to mitigate both recessions and overshooting. >> can i give you the last word? you as a discipline in your presentation, and tell us briefly how you see the politics

of better fiscal policy so that we don't all leave your incredibly depressed the? >> sure. good question. i take some above is called the recent agenda, and i devote the last chapter to think about how we'll ever get to politics were anyone will want to do the thing i just wrote about for 150 pages? it seems like a worthy thing to undertake. and i take a lot of solace and encouragement from the fact that these issues around this fundamental disconnect between overall growth and broadly shared prosperity is a very very much a bipartisan concern right now. there's an article i just read today or yesterday in the times documenting of course it was mitt romney a few weeks ago with concerns about the income inequality and sinking poverty rates and middle-class, jeb bush margarita, paul ryan are

all talking about this. you can go to a cynical place an argument it's just politics, and ensure there's something to that, but i think there's an underlying demand for every connection agenda, and our job which i know we tried to at the center day in and day out and i think we're all trying to do, you as well, david is to separate the wheat from the shaft? was an agenda that work to reconnect with one that is just an ineffective agenda that at the end of it sticks onwards income inequality and poverty? i think going forward especially with java election coming there's going to be a lot of argumentation, discussion about this and it's up to us to talk about an agenda and articulate with the kinds of results we are hearing today what will really work and what won't. >> with that, please join me in thanking all the panelists. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> former fed chairman ben

bernanke at the center on budget and policy priorities are wrapping up an event. if you missed any of this it will be available shortly to give any time online at c-span.org. and we have more like programming coming your way shortly. transportation secretary anthony foxx will be joined by epa chief gina mccarthy as they sit down for an interview with politico. that's due to start it a little less than 50 minutes at 11:45 a.m. eastern right here on c-span2. later on if the discussion on combating terrorism at the potomac institute for policy studies hosts. that's live at 2 p.m. eastern on c-span. some congressional news for you. house speaker john boehner traveling in jordan. you see him here meeting with singh abdulla from a statement issued -- king abdullah.

king abdullah hosted a delegation for a luncheon. lawmakers also met with u.s. ambassador alice wells, jordan's foreign minister as well as senior embassy officials discussions focused on teenager trends in the region, the violence caused by iran's allies and proxies and the spreading of the terrorist threat. that is from a statement from speaker boehner's office. the delegation accompanying speaker to the middle east is made up of senior republican lawmakers. the nuclear talks with iran were a topic on this morning's "washington journal." to take us to 11:45 a.m. and the start of secretary foxx at administrative mccarthy here's a look at the ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran from today's "washington journal." >> we are joined now by lara jakes, editor of foreign policy

who's been helping to track what's going on with the iranian nuclear negotiations. she joins us now less than 40 hours before the march 31 deadline that's been set for the parties to agree to a framework plan. first can you discuss that deadline? if it's set in at this point? >> guest: depends on how you define set in stone. also it's important that i think this is getting lost on a lot of people, this march 31 deadline was something that was self-imposed but all of the negotiators and it isn't for a final deal. the final bill is supposed to be made by june 30. this was for deadline basically to set a framework a blueprint if you will for how the negotiations will proceed from this point. it's been noted that the idea behind the framework deadline was that this was the agreement in principle and the technical details would be worked out afterwards. in the lead up time to june 30. so many of the issues in this negotiation our technical.

it may not be as important, although domestically in the united states the reason why this deadline is important is because congress is itching to reimpose sanctions on iran. if this deadline isn't met, many in congress will say these are bad faith negotiations, this is a bad faith partner, and we should go ahead with sanctions. >> host: in your the one of the biggest hurdles? i know it's still a bit of a fluid situation leading up to tomorrow at midnight but what do you see a is going to be the toughest potential dealbreaker? >> guest: most of this has come down to and again this is very technical the amount of enriched uranium that iran is allowed to have. many of the talks had been about reducing the number of a piece of technology that are called centrifuges. these are things that produce enriched uranium. many of the negotiations have focused on reducing the number of centrifuges, and in the last

couple of hours, even in the last day, there have been a lot of talk of what to do with the enriched uranium that iran already has. they have been producing for years, and iran has been saying we are not not going or they are now saying we not going to ship that uranium out. the world powers want iran to ship out, ship it to russia, make it, turn it into some kind of liquid or chemical substance that will no longer be used for weapons grade material. iran says no we want to keep it here and we can dilute it. right now the world powers are saying, well maybe that could happen but maybe not. so again start to be really technical on this but that's one of the main issues. the other thing issue comes down to inspections. iran, for years, has been accused of hiding a lot of its enrichment program and -- in underground facility and other facilities that international inspectors have not been allowed

into. the deal if one is struck would require very open inspections for the world to get into some of these plants is exactly what iran is doing. >> host: consequences of failure if a deal isn't reached by midnight tomorrow. who has more to lose the united states or iran? >> well, i mean, it's an interesting point. i was talking to a very senior european diplomat a couple of weeks ago. he said that he did not believe that this march 31 deadline needed in principle it would be nice if it was done by then but it goes on for a week or two maybe not such a big cubic let's not get hung up on march 31 sense after all the overall deadline will be june 30. it's more important in the united states for that deadline to be met because it has a couple of things. won't come as i mentioned, it would maybe put a hold on congress to reinstate some of these sanctions that congress

wants to either ramp up or at least reinstate sanctions that have been frozen at this point. it also would send a very strong signal to some of the other allies in the mideast israel saudi arabia who are worried and say that iran is not a good faith negotiating partner. if this deadline falls through that gives that argument more power. i think also to drive this home and give this more sweet, the reason why this is important is this to be a very historic process for the united states, for the entire west actually, and iran which has had very limited diplomacy and negotiations going back generations as we know. what the obama administration wants to do is say, hey we can reach this agreement, if we can reach this agreement then we can open up diplomacy to summon other parts with iran whether it's business or education or just normalized relations. >> host: give our viewers want to join the conversation if your

questions or comments for lara jakes, foreign policy phone number -- one more question for you. yemen and what's happening in yemen also very fluid situation. how is the is that change the equation around these negotiations? >> guest: the negotiators say and it said this on many topics, we heard this with syria and also with iraq as well, i guess we may be having discussions about these issues on the sidelines, but we are not focusing on yemen right now. we really want to focus on a nuclear negotiations. we don't want anything else to derail that. i think he would be naïve to believe that since this is such a big deal in the mideast that this doesn't come up as a topic. what the state department has said is that this is just a very

brief sideline discussion, and to not take away from the main event. >> host: lara jakes is with a foreign policy. spent 12 years with the associate press, served a year as the apg in the bureau in baghdad come has extensive experience in the region here to add your questions and take your comments on the iranian nuclear negotiations leading up to that midnight tuesday deadline. john is the first from st. paul, minnesota, line for republicans. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i would like to ask the guest what she thinks israel will do in the event that a so-called agreement is reached and if israel does strike him will it be effective? what will be the reaction in the united states particularly him on this administration if israel strikes? thank you. >> guest: thanks. obviously, israeli prime

minister angela netanyahu has made it very clear he does not want to see a deal. he told his cabinet yesterday that what is being talked about is even worse than what he had expected. he has as i think many americans know he was your been talking to congress just a couple of weeks ago saying cannot let the obama administration strike a deal with irancome any day will be a bad deal. regarding your question about whether israel will strike that's very hard to predict either the administration had been concerned about this some years ago. and when i was sitting in baghdad, it was almost a perennial rumor that israel was going to strike at some point. of course, people in baghdad were very concerned about that because those would be the arms flying straight over the airspace in baghdad to get to iran. i don't want to predict and whether israel would want to strike. i think i can say with full

certainty that the world community would engage with israel and do everything it could to prevent some kind of nuclear war or any kind of strike. but it's hard for me to sit here and predict what the prime minister might you. >> host: refreshed us on the united states and with the united states has said about potential strikes if, or any sort of military action if the deal falls through. >> guest: right. i'm not really sure how that might go. the united states is awfully engage in the middle east right now, even as the obama administration said it doesn't want to boots on the ground. if this deal falls through i think more of what we would see is just very wrapped up sanctions. we have tournament when these sanctions were in place the u.n. first impose a belief in 2006 the united states followed several years later, the toughest sanctions came in 2012 when the united states and the eu imposed very, very harsh sanctions. it really cratered the economy

in tehran and its environment. it's pretty much what help president rouhani gain his post and iran in 2013. that's what helped them win election. he told people that he understood that the economy was hurting very bad and he would do everything he could to try and reach an agreement with the west to be used some of these sex. so i think more of what we would see is just very very harsh sanctions, again on tehran and. >> host: what are the sanctions? what sectors does the united states and the world community target to put the pressure on iran? >> guest: most of it is oil that has traditionally been oil. iran sells a lot of its oil to india, russia. i believe to china as well. those are the markets. oil prices have been dropping some maybe that is not as harsh as it has been in the past for iran but also the gold markets have been hit. the financial sectors have been hit, the banking markets have been it.

just more so and obviously the weapons sectors have been hit. i'm not sure that would ever be lifted. i'm not sure that exporting weapons is something that the west is ready to let tehran do. so it has been elected as a very harsh on the economy. >> host: monkey writes in, with or without a deal war in the middle east to be out of the question will not be in our national security interest. bob is up next calling from minnesota our line for independents. good morning. >> caller: good morning. i've got a statement and a question. my statement is this let's say that the deal falls through and israel or the united states decides to bomb iran. i heard that would set the iranian nuclear program back five years. my problem with that idea is unless you kill everybody in iran that has any idea of how to build a nuclear weapon they are

going to build a bomb. they want to build it. it's going to get built. bombing them is just going to set them back. if we do bomb them we do bump nuclear installations, are we going to cause more fukushima's? that would be my question. >> host: bob saying that it's inevitable that iran would eventually get a bomb anyway regardless of any sort of military action. would you agree? >> guest: again very hard for me to predict what cindy sabrina leaders had in iran. i think it's important to note just in the sake of fairness that iran has said repeatedly it doesn't want to build a nuclear weapon. they said all they want is the exact same treatment under the nonproliferation treaty that other signatories have. they say that other partners in the mideast have nuclear weapons not partners but other players in the mideast have nuclear weapons and they need this for their own self

protection. whether they will go ahead and build a bomb i think you're right in saying that iran has moved ahead with its nuclear program and despite saying that it will not, it has not there's an underground uranium enrichment bunker that is blocked inspectors in the past that was built without the west knowing about it, so the west is very suspicious of iran's motives. i think exactly for that reason but begin very hard to predict -- >> we are very excited about the conversation we are going to have today. inside the cabinet, a doubleheader. we are going to start with the transportation secretary, anthony foxx we just made news this morning and will make a little bit more news out here and after that as the second half of the doubleheader will be a day night doubleheader will be hearing from the epa administrator gina mccarthy. so thank you all for coming out

to thanks to the museum for this amazing space, studio. i would like to thank the bank clerk for this partnership. they make these conversations possible both here and on the road. for the launch today, the "playbook breakfast" often we have a playbook snack with newt gingrich at one of the conventions and playbook cocktails. bank of america's been a great partner on this for many years and so we are very excited about having them on in 2015. and now we welcome the transportation secretary anthony foxx. [applause] >> mr. sankar to, you are milking that crutch stick sympathy, applause, considerate however you want. i had a little surgery. i've been 43 years old --

>> young man. >> i guess. my knees just need a little repair worker is unlike the transportation system, a little short-term pain but long-term gain right? >> what did you don't? >> i had a little arthroscopic surgery. >> here i am dr. phil today. >> i can hobble on it but i use the crutch because people feel more sorry for me. >> you have played your one of two people in the world was played basketball with president obama. what's that like? >> great. he's got a really, unit from his jump shot is very methodical very, very much like him as a person. and we didn't actually get the chance to compete. we were shooting baskets, and i continue to try to urge him to get out on the court with me but i don't know. we will see if that happens before it's over. >> from what we hear he shows no

particular mercy. >> know. not at all. i'm sure he would love to play me now. >> mr. secretary, this point you made news on political -- politico transportation, 2.0. this is moving from a previous incarnation of four years to six years and the amount is bigger. when? >> well look the transportation system in this country is in a huge a ditch a puddle if you will. the country has been under investing interest petitioned for a long time. and effect over the last six years we had 32 short-term measures, and we feel very strongly that the country needs to have it forward to substantial -- pivot financing into transportation funding and in transportation and also give enough certainty over longer-term, six years so we can actually get something done out on the street.

we have april america act. we put out today. it's a big bill, designed to solve some of our big problems in transportation but we are very excited about it spent you said earlier that the transportation system is like a merry-go-round to you put a quarter ended and he goes around again. that's how we been treated it but you say we need a different approach. >> yeah, frankly since 1956 and the interstate highway system was established, the way we allocate money has basically been the same. the way that we have policy around the system is basically the same. and the way we pay for it has basically been the same. and we really need you rethink all three of those things. and grow america introduces some new ideas, a new way to pay for infrastructure, new way to deliver infrastructure, still substantially highway based in $317 billion of the 478 billion is going into highways. only increase transit america by

76%, 115 billion over six years to recognize with a growing come -- country. our transit systems are an escape valve for some of the traffic that's going to cause congestion in the future. >> you talk about how we're having the wrong conversation in washington what is so hard to move anything. how do you move that into you and i feel like? >> that's the question, it's a question that has vexed sectors of transportation for before me. but it don't think you can do it without having an affirmative plan which grow america act is the antidote that you can do it without engaging both sides of the aisle in trying to get to yes and has only been to over the last several most to also added a lot of work with the public in helping to raise the visibility of this issue. i've been a two bus tours from one in the midwest and the southwestern and one in the southeast just this past few weeks. and we are going to continue sounding the alarm alarm built to

americans because they are the ones stuck in traffic the ones driving over the potholes, paying for poor suspension system that are getting beaten up by the puddle to the folks out there paying for it so they can actually pay less by having a bill that gives us a lot more for the dollar. >> as you've traveled the country on the bus tour like what's the most convincing point you can make to a normal person? what do you say to a normal person on one of your of her stops that makes them say, i did it? >> i think the biggest thing that people react to is in a project gets done. and so when we do these ribbon cuttings on projects that are actually getting done, i think when people see it, they say gosh, we need to be doing more of that. i think that's probably the biggest thing. when you go and see as i've seen in like nashville, tennessee a bridge that is crumbling concrete falling from it it makes people feel kind of power, frankly. we need to make sure people know that we have crumbling infrastructure. but in those two cases we can

get projects done we need to use those opportunities to remind people we need to be doing more of that. >> there's tons of stories about how much trouble our bridges in it's a staple for local papers. we see something like we did in minneapolis-st. paul for like -- does there need to be a real attach the before there's real action? >> you mean like a bridge collapse in minneapolis? we've had catastrophes and it's unfortunate that we've had to have catastrophes but and every time something happens people say, well we've got to fix this, we've got to do something different. i think frankly the american public has to demand action in washington. and i think we are doing a pretty good job i hope we can continue to pound the pavement by connecting folks to the realization that if washington doesn't fix this, it is going to roll downhill. states aqueduct less money fewer projects happen, local governments will have fewer projects, less happening of the congestion will increase. the potholes will increase.

>> in transportation they include a reality check which had the bill would be a good talking point for fox. it's unlikely to receive serious consideration on the hill if last year is any indication. why do with? >> again i think you can't solve this problem without an affirmative statement of what a solution would look like. and, frankly, when i first came into the department in july 2013 people kept saying you all haven't on the bill so you're not really series. we have a bill and it's right up there and it is paid for and we have a great way to do that. i just think we need to get out of this box of rooting against ourselves as a country. every time we have a conversation about solving the highway trust fund or getting more money associate's question of like candy come together? can they figure this out? it's almost as if we're trying to find reasons to not figure

this out the answer to the question is frankly a political one but it's one that will not be successful if you don't have folks actually pushing the affirmative case and pushing for solution so that's what i'm doing. >> thank you for joining us and if you have questions, please tweet us your questions at hashtag political lunch and i have the up on your on the twitter machine. we will ask the secretary. you are a young former mayor, a younger member of the cabinet, someone who is trying to take transportation in a new direction, and a place that you got a lot of frustration is in how things are licensed, regulated. >> we are continue to work as a department to both manage and provide a foundation for this unmanned aircraft system industry to take root in the u.s. it's a particular challenge for

us in the trendy because we have some of the most complex airspace in the world. we have one of the republic of the most advanced aviation system in the entire world. and so integrating these new autonomous not autonomous but remote controlled vehicles into the airspace is a child but it's one we are taking on and we're taking it on very methodically, and we will get there. >> there was a headline on political protest protester to assist faa takes hits for drone privacy and permitting. were you surprised when you got under the hood and discovered what it took to get an experiment like this permitted a? >> look it's far better today than it was even two years ago in the since when have the ability to move through an exemption process, actually commercial use so-called drones are not allowed in the u.s. unless you receive an exemption.

so we are moving to accelerate the exemption process and we are working overtime to make the process work faster. >> you've made progress in that area, people close to airports and keep it low. tell us what is now possible. >> two things. one, the exemption process i just outlined. the second is that we published a notice of proposed rulemaking for small uas vehicles. these are vehicles under a certain weight that fly under a certain height. and we are trying to lay the foundation out of therefore these vehicles to be more widely used in commercial systems and frankly, most of the extensions that are not being requested probably will not be necessary once that role becomes final. >> amazon is among the companies that has expressed a lot of frustration. what would you say to them a? >> look, i know that our at the 18th of in a conversation with amazon here kind of there's a of utter frustration at the among some of the industry that we are

not moving as quickly as some other countries are but the countervailing point is our first mission is safety and we do the most complex airspace in the world. to we're trying to move as good as possible but if our there are ideas out there that are manageable for us to act on we want to read in want to read and. i would just say send them to meet. >> is it going to be possible for us to get packages by drone? >> i think eventually it will become absolutely. that's coming. >> and what sort of time horizon do you imagine? >> i don't want to put a time horizon on it but what i will say is we're working to shore ourselves that we have a good safety regime in place for the commercial use of these unmanned aircraft, which is one of the outcomes is one that you just described is people being able to receive deliveries from these. >> and what else you think you're a visionary as you think about how these unmanned vehicles or drones could affect

the economy over the long term come like what you imagine eventually happen? what difference could they make? >> it's interesting. there's a connection between the beyond traffic study we just did 30 outlook at the transportation system, and this was one of the topics that came up. ..

different distribution system not unlike for example three d. printing which will also provide folks with the ability to develop products in one place and have those products produced in a different place with a shorter delivery time around them. i think that you could see a similar dynamic with the unmanned aircraft systems but a lot of this stuff is sorting itself out and it will take time. >> you spend some time with eric schmidt, what was that like? >> we went out to roll out the survey and i find that it's an important event. we actually took one of the autonomous vehicles google is working on in the way to this

event, and it's interesting because there are two things happening in the space to use as an example. there is a school of thought that says you need vehicles to talk to each other and there's sort of a connected vehicle discussion we were involved in trying to help that along. and then there is the autonomous vehicle discussion which is where they do not necessarily talk to each other that they have such a capability they are able to see the environment around them just like you and i were to answer those vehicles really don't necessarily talk to another car that they see it and they can avoid it so there's interesting dynamics and technology. >> and what school of thought? >> we have to be agnostic as a department. >> they are using the autonomous model. but i think as a department we have to just be supportive of

all of these different technologies because it's connected to those technologies is a very bright future for job creation in those areas and so we want those jobs and opportunity to be in the u.s. and to be at the forefront. >> when you are at the innovator of the a new technology like these technologies are you have the opportunity to build the manufacturing systems around them and so i see a very bright future for the u.s. when it comes to these innovations because i think once we captured the space, we are going to be able to roll that out to the rest of the world and create an export opportunity. >> so, everything has trade-offs if the system were to take off watch for the potential cost -- who have the jobs because of the

technology? >> i don't know. i think i was having a conversation with a friend of mine over the weekend who was trying to decide whether to buy his kid car. he was deciding between that and one of these accounts. and i don't know what these trade-offs mean for the future. but i do know is that the more we start to see these innovations happen in the marketplace, they will have disruptive impacts. and i think all of the market players well addressed to them but it's going to take time for them to sort out. >> so we would call them so self driving. >> [inaudible] [laughter]

one of the potential benefits -- >> i like your words better though. [laughter] >> one of the potential benefits is the time that could be captured. so, you have driven. what is it like and what kind of time like what sort of time might make it back from this technology? >> so a couple things. one, with both the self technology you have the ability to platoon meaning they can run closer together without a fear of collision. the other thing that's interesting -- a crash, yes. [laughter] the other thing that is very interesting about this that eric schmidt shared with me, the one thing about the self driving

cars, and an example as well as those vehicles actually follow the rules of the road. unlike most human beings. so if you're driving behind or in front of one of those vehicles, you might be surprised because they are actually following the rules. and wouldn't it be nice if we had all the cars on the road following the rules? from my vantage point, there is a lot of safety benefits that could arise as a result of that >> from your hands on experience, what else is still in perfect about this technology? >> there's a lot of foundational stuff that we will still need to figure out. for example, there is the need for infrastructure that communicates with some of the vehicles particularly the connected vehicles. there is also i think the need

for the state level legislation in some cases that provide some of the rules of the road so to speak. there's also some interesting questions about liability when an accident does occur in a situation those type of questions are still the ones that need to get sorted out. >> what are the insurance implications and questions at this moment? >> that brings me to -- if you and i are driving different cars and you crash into mine, because that is the only way that it would have been -- [laughter] it's very clear who the operator is coming in for a physical person and so, you know, if you

didn't agree to pay my bill we might find ourselves in court and i would know who i was going up against. if the car is controlling the action, then is it you is that the manufacturer who is going to stand in the place of being liable? so those are the type of issues that i think are still standing out there, and they will get it figured out. >> and do you also find government impediments as we do with drones, or are there also things that someone -- in the citizens mind what would we change about the government to purchase these questions? and >> i tell my folks in the department all the time, you know, we play a vital role in providing a safety regime for any form of transportation.

list all the different ones you do. >> we do maritime, carriers like trucks and buses, cars planes the list goes on and on. we do trains transit systems. i think i got them all. but anyway -- >> i'm sure that i will find out. but anyway, we do these things. we set up safety regimes and that is the fundamental job of the department of transportation. so, we take that very seriously. at the same time, the rate of change in technology is happening so quickly much faster than it did even 15 years ago, that we've also got to adapt as we try to regulate those technologies and provide the rules of the road so to speak for the manufacturers building into these technologies and we have to move faster. and so that is a cultural

change that we are having to make in the department and we are getting there and frankly, what helps us is the rest. so these issues around groans, issues around the autonomous vehicle to vehicle technology the industry is pushing us to respond to changes in the technology it helps us to become more adaptive. >> what cultural changes would you say that you've made it to the department and where do you have to move the ball before you are done? >> i think we have done several things. first of all, placing a greater focus on efficiency than the department. >> and what is an example of how you did that? the >> we have a big project $5 billion with about three or four years of permitting that would have happened on the

normal course but we got it done in about 18 months and that is an example of an outlier in some respects because we focused on it. we tried to create a system where every day a project gets that kind of attention to move forward because that saves money so that's one our focus on the study giving the country a bigger picture in the future it's been helpful i think pushing for the transportation bill in both the financing programs and policy and also it's been in some cases disrupted but in a good way helping people think differently about the system. we need to continue meek in progress on the next trend and aviation system that is so

critical to the future. i also want to see us make a lot more progress on the public-private partnerships. and i want to continue working with our team to raise the bar on safety in every respect we can. >> what is something that you as a former mayor of charlotte came into the federal government and said why do we do this and now we don't? the >> there's a lot of stuff like that. i will give you one example. when i was the mayor of charlotte there was something called the match with often planning organization. you know what those are, right clicks well, they are kind of a local transportation

decision-making entity. there are five in the entire part of the area. we were not able to make decisions at the local level based on how the economy works we are pasting them on how it works. it's not that you can have this happen. how do we create an environment where we encourage or help the decision-making become more sensible in terms of who is at the table, and so we are working through the process of helping the npo think more regionally and the grow america act has some that will become even more effective. >> i'm going to come to my colleague under deputy transportation editor question.

first to go from one end of the technology spectrum talking about some of the exciting possibilities of technology in the country in and at the other end when you were on the road you often get asked about potholes. >> i do. >> what you say, call the mayor? >> actually the reality is this is a problem that i think is a national problem. when you have to have things like potholes in the washington, d.c. area, you've got a problem. whether it is here it's here or the midwest or any other part of the country, those are systems that are falling apart. a lot of state and local governments fund they are servicing budgets on a year-to-year basis area that's

what we did in charlotte. and then they had a separate program to build a new infrastructure using capital dollars. and the one thing i would say is the list that we are investing at the federal level, the more pressure that is going to put on the states and local governments to choose in the resurfacing. so the more uncertainty you will see the state and local governments spending less and less and less which is going to mean more piles. >> so you are headed tomorrow towards detroit and then pittsburgh and austin. if one of those events is that what you're going to say? >> yes. i'm going to tell people the truth. the truth of the matter is the under investing that we have been doing is starting to show cracks and they are revealed in potholes and that's just the reality of it.

so i am not going to sugarcoat this issue because i think the more we sugarcoat it and dance around the facts are less likely we are to get an answer. so it is a small sign. >> i will bring in my colleague the deputy transportation. >> [inaudible] >> my question would be at what point would the administration

[inaudible] >> incorporate the question for people watching. >> let me rephrase the question. after the administration's wonderful act -- [laughter] and we find such a wide acceptance. what happens after that in terms of being able to sustain the system going forward. and i think the first of all we've always been very clear that we are willing to listen to any ideas that emerge in congress that even if they are different about my ideas on how to solve the problem we want to engage congress in their work and the most important point where i started out is if you look back even over the last six years after 32 short-term

measures and i can tell you because in part of those years i was a mayor it paralyzes our system because when you are a local or state leader, you are looking at big projects that cost a lot of money and will take a lot of years and a lot of smaller projects that have cost less money and will take a shorter period of time. when you start constraining the system to three-month the sanctity of code extensions and one-month extensions it starts to paralyze the system and of the big things don't get done. with a country that is growing by 70 million people we just can't afford any more. so, i would say look instead of arguing against ourselves let's get this bill passed. let's get the funding source in play and get six years of certainty under our belt. if we can do better than that, let's have a conversation about solving that problem.

>> don't you agree that we would be right back here having the same conversation? >> i think if you grow america is passed him of the three components of the increased funding, the accelerating projects by making the permitting system boot faster and public-private partnership focused i think there will be more public confidence in the system and i think that confidence will give congress more confidence. so, i think that if we continue to have the same system we have and the same funding that we have had, then i think people will continue having the same conversation but you've got to do something different now. you have to put it through growth and to a system that delivers projects hopefully faster and put it to a system that incorporates more private funding so that we can give more done. and that goes back to what we said earlier. when they see the product happening and going down

knocked up and not up and they see the potholes going away they will have more confidence and feel better for the congress to take on a bigger deal later. >> this is a question from a colleague on the expert. as you are working on the new federal how far will you go and how much will you need for the state's? >> it is sort of an autonomic because we have a pending rule that is being reviewed by a lot right now. but i will say what i said in several months and that is that we have to have a competence of approach. there's been an awful lot of focus on the standards but not as much like focus on something like speed, emergency response, any number of variables that need to be taken into account. i feel like the approach that we have tried to take all a long

has been and all of the above approach and i think that is the right one for the country. >> to push this to the top of the agenda, this is one of those issues when you took the job you probably didn't realize what would be on your desk. >> i was four months in and even though the incident occurred in canada we feel the same tens of sadness when an event like that happens as our canadian counterparts. this is an issue that we are very serious and very focused and very intent on giving the country a very comprehensive solution. >> are there safety concerns that have come up argue for more pipelines to carry oil maybe even keystone? >> i am agnostic on the modality. what i have to worry myself with this however this stuff is moving it needs to be moving

safely. and we have had frankly pipeline explosions come and so we have to be focused on all of those modalities to ensure that it's moving as safely as possible. >> so do we need more pipelines? again, the way that our department works is we are not the ones that come up with these ideas. we are simply charged with making sure that they are moving safely do you have a twitter question at politico what sustainability have you made as the secretary? >> towards sustainability today in fact we are moving over to omb for a proposed rule on heavy and medium sized trucks that is

designed to reduce emissions in those that are working with the epa but that is a pretty big deal. >> something everybody in the room has in common is e-mail. what is your secret for managing your inbox? [laughter] >> well. i try to look people in the eye a lot more and have conversations. if i can't do that i use the phone. if i can't use the phone i might shoot an e-mail saying let's talk. so that's my way. >> what device do you have on you? >> i don't have one right now. it's a useful tool but it's also one that you have to be careful with. >> a young person coming to washington what advice would you give to them about getting

ahead? >> in washington or just in life? >> let's start in life. >> i think to get ahead, you have to really focus on being committed and whatever it is that you're doing because that is always the first level. and then i think you have to start looking at examples of people who inspire you. >> who is that for you? >> coming up from charlotte the first african-american mayor of charlotte. when i was a teenager he was such a big role model. and going on in coming on in life, so many more that i've come to know and i still have role models out there. i actually got a chance to have lunch with colin powell the other day.

so there's a lot of people out there that frankly, the president is a great american too. >> what is president obama like behind the scenes? >> he's great. he's personable he cares about the details of issues, he is very focused on what we can actually deliver in other words results, and he sees a country that we are becoming. that's the most exciting thing about working in the administration is that he doesn't see the country as static, he sees the possibilities and he's focused on achieving those. >> what makes him different from -- she's accomplished and has the biggest job in the world. how did he get there and what is different about him that made him such a success? >> he's tough in the sense of

being resilient. i'm using myself as an example of this, when you have had life experiences that are challenging it makes you tough in a different kind of way it's not like me talking, it's like results like i'm going to figure it out. >> so what would you like to throw on the table? >> he's great. it depends if there is an issue-based or if we are just sitting around the table. >> what's that like >> he can talk about any number of things. you know, he's very interested in what's going on in the culture of the country, what's going on -- >> are spinnaker you're talking about music? >> music and basketball committee ncaa.

but i think that he is very in touch with the culture of the country as much as he is on issues. >> into my brothers keeper program some people describe this as potentially the longest lasting thing the president will do. why is that program so important to you? >> it is a program that is designed to help young men of color to achieve their ambitions. we have far too many men of color that turn out the to finding and get lost in the shuffle and the opportunity and plan and program to try to reclaim them and help them get onto the path of success. i was warned of a single mother and no way on earth in 1971 with somebody who said that is the

future secretary of transportation. statistically that was just absolutely astronomical. but it takes a lot of people. my mom, my grandparents, my neighbors, my church, my teachers. a lot of people putting their hands out and helping you achieve success. and i think when i see a young person who's struggling not because they are not capable but because they think that success is not for them, that is a problem, that is a national problem because crinkly we need every man woman, child to carry the future of the country forward, and i think the president recognizes that that is a weakness in our country right now and it is a place that should be for us. >> what role does display on your work? >> a whole lot. you know, i have faith that we will get a transportation bill.

[laughter] >> that seriously i think that nothing is by accident. the fact that i'm here and/or here to challenge the country has also are not an accident and it is not inevitable that we will continue having the same challenges going forward. so it helps me stay recently recently had an also helps the kind of keep going but my faith is a big part of how i go through life. >> you joined us for a public breakfast when you were the mayor of charlotte. to take on the democratic exemption what advice do you have to the philadelphia mayor ahead of this convention?

>> it is an incredible experience. >> help a brother out. [laughter] faith and work. i tell you what. [laughter] ..

>> it was a lot of fun out there. we made smoors. let's see. i had four. hillary had four. she's the 10-year-old. samara had two zachary had one. that is because zachary wanted to burn his marshmallow. anyway, we had a great time. it was great fun. >> what else did you do out there? >> kids were looking to do the zip line. it was too cold. we will do a rain check on that. which walked around a lot. i was still horribled with this so i didn't get to do a lot of activities. shot baskets with my son and daughter. taught them how to do a lay-up, that will serve them well in life. >> last question as we say good-bye, i can't let you go

without getting a barbecue recommendation? >> from d.c.? >> sure. or anywhere. >> you got to go -- >> what is the best meal you had on the bus trip. got austin coming up. >> yeah. i tell you what. i was down in mississippi in jackson and the let's see congressman thompson took me to a place. i never had tamales before. i didn't think i would have tamales in mississippi but i had tamalies in sis min. they were pretty good. i can see it. can't visualize it. go to jackson and have tamales. >> secretary, great conversation. thanks very much. >> appreciate it, mike. >> wish you recovery. >> thank you. [applause] >> thank you mr. secretary.

for those who want to ask questions -- now we're honored to welcome as a second guest the administrator of the epa environmental protection agency, gina mccarthy. administrator. thank you so much for coming out. we appreciate it. [applause] >> you're fully mobile? >> yes. no crutches. no nothing. >> madam secretary one of the biggest hopes for president obama's second term is a big accomplishment on climate. potentially one of the history book items for him. what's your biggest most optimistic hope for what will happen in the next year-and-a-half? >> we're going to deliver on his climate action plan. my hope and my expectation really my full expectation is that he has outlined an ambitious but compelling argument on why we need to take action now. his leadership has been amazing.

i have a clear path forward. we're going to move ahead to develop those plans and those rules that are going to underpin his success in in taking strong action and generating international action as well. >> you have one of the real hot seats in the administration. clean power plan. tell us about the people who love it and people who hate it. >> the people who, i think most people recognize clearly the majority of people in the u.s. recognize that we have to take action on climate. and they're looking for a u.s. leadership on this. including the business community. and so i think we know we all have to move toward as low carbon future. so i think the challenge we have is make sure we do it in reasonable and effective way. that we get the ball rolling. and i think most people recognize that we should do it. there are always going to be folks arguing whether we should do it or how we design it but frankly i'm hearing a lot more about how we design it than whether we should do it. >> and you look at some of the comments that come in to you an

encounters you had on the road, this can get personal. what do you do to try to turn down the heat, if you will, on this issue? >> i've been in government 35 years f i haven't figured out how to separate personal from business i wouldn't have made it to where i am. i certainly will not let it become personal at this point. there is no question i believe like the president hasn't kate ad moral responsibility to act on this but i also have, you know, i have to follow the laws that i have. and i have to apply the data as i see it and use science as my guide. i'm going to keep my head down and treat this as should be, a normal business rule that epa does under the clean air act. we can i think i feel very comfortable that i will have to defend it and i will be able to. i will defend it under the law under the science and we'll have a great opportunity to really deliver on the president's legacy here. >> why is there so much passion behind this? why is this such a hot issue?

>> well, i hate to tell you it is not as hot outside of washington d.c. as it is in washington d.c. we have to look at what issues are people care about across the united states so that -- >> west virginia, kentucky it is pretty hot. >> it can be hot. but there are folks in kentucky working really hard with us to figure out what kind of action we need to take. so i think it there is a lot more surety now among the general public and there is a lot more concern we're already seeing the impacts associated with climate. i don't think any of the individuals that we're working with want to see those impacts get larger because we have failed to take, to address these issues in a way that not only is going to be, ambitious but, it really has to turn this challenge into an opportunity. one of the reasons why i think there is great hope that this momentum will continue beyond this administration is because the technologies of the future

are now the technologies that people are investing in today. i've been around long enough to know when you bring up a problem with no solution people don't like the problem to be articulated and defined but we have solution us now that will help us grow the economy and bring jobs. in fact that is what is happening today. i have every confidence we'll be able to move the ball forward but that momentum will continue because it will be part of the economic fabric that will keep us competitive. >> these technologies of future, what is the most cutting-edge? >> i don't know if it is the most cutting-edge because that implies it is not quite around yet but solar has done amazing. i think there is nobody i think that anticipated that it would make the kind of progress that it has made. under this administration, we're seeing basically solar move tenfold and we've seen wind move threefold. and think what we're seeing in solar now there is more job

growth in the solar industry than in any other sector of the u.s. economist. it's remarkable and i think there are other cutting-edge examples of new technologies that are going to be budding. i think the challenge mike, though to recognize we're moving away from incremental to wanting to send a long-term market signal that is where investment should go. i think we're seeing investment in the power sector move towards renewables towards a lot of efficiency programs. but we have to keep the momentum and send a longer term signal which is what the president's intent is and what epa will deliver in our clean power plant. >> college from my "politico" colleague erica who we'll hear from in a bit. leader mcconnell's budget was to keep epa from with holding highway funds that don't comply with climate rule. does epa have legal authority. >> we don't have legal authority under this section of the act to withhold highway funds. he is getting confused under

state implementation plan under air ambient standards and this section which is the clean power act this plan is operates under. state implementation plan is very different, does not hold the same consequences this is standard compliance system. where we set the standards. the states implement and then the sources are responsible to achieve the emission reduction targets in here. >> what is your plan b on climate if your plans are held up by appeals court? >> at this point in time, or do you mean after we finalize it? >> start with this point in time. >> there is a couple of things going on. well many, many things going on but there are some legal challenges now which we feel are, not particularly of significance because we haven't finalized the rule. when we finalize it we expect it will be legally challenged. likely it could go to the supreme court. that is why we make sure we do it way we're supposed to do,

follow the law, see what data says and do it the way that it will be as legal it will be legally followed. we're looking forward to that. i don't think there will be opportunities for folks to have a significant challenge because we've been doing the clean air act really long time. we've been having some pretty good success. the supreme court addressed the issue of carbon pollution three times already. so we want to make sure we get a fourth win under our belt. >> clean water regs any easier in. >> no, frankly it is not. well, you know, they're both challenging. in a very different way. but i think the challenge with the carbon pollution rules is that it has become a political controversy within washington d.c. which sometimes stopses us short really getting at the substantive issues. so we're having to deal with those issues. frankly on the clean water rule

the fact that water is very personal. water is important to every community. that is why we're doing it. so that we can make sure we're protecting drinking water supplies folks rely on and resources that we all rely on but we have to do it in a way where we have strong consultation with the states and recognize that there will be folks out of the gate that will be very concerned about whether any changes made and some don't even want clarity we're looking for but the general public do. the people i work for do and think we're going to deliver this rule in ale rye solid way that takes cognizance of the concerns raised and makes changes we need and both of them are challenging but we can do both and we will. >> and going back to your time in massachusetts, you know what it's like to be in the courts but sometimes you must feel like you're the solicitor general? >> no. he has his problems, i have mine. >> what is it like to have

constant litigation be like, huge part of your job? >> well it is challenging when you go to remortgage a house i know that for sure. >> because you're named -- >> like, they think i'm a serial something or other because i do this so often. just epa is under scrutiny no matter what we do. if we put a science assessment out, it has to be top-notch. it has to be peer reviewed, in fact triple peer-reviewed. we do the job we need to do. it keeps you on your toes. it allows us to become more cutting-edge about the work we do and help us advance the science in many ways but it just means we have to be prepared for the inevitable lawsuits. it gives us lots of practice. so we get better with time. >> two minutes i will bring in my colleague erica martin son first a keystone question. secretary wrote to epa with omissions and recent

conconclusions low oil prices mean the construction of the pipeline would increased to increased oil sands production, striking charge. what is your response. >> i have great respect for the ambassador but he should just relook at the comment letter that we put in. you know as much as he may have thought it was a conclusion, it was simply, normal way in which epa comments which is take a look at analysis that you know pin the supplemental. i ask and make sure people are looking at changes in oil prices what that means. to make the simple factual observation that the extraction of tar sands is more intensive from a ghb emission standpoint than other fuels. people just have to look at it. but we didn't conclude anything. we're not concluder. we're the commenter. >> would the keystone pipeline be a disaster for the climate. >> no i don't think that any one issue is disaster for the climate, nor do i think there is any one solution to the climate

change challenge we have. everything has to be looked at i think in a way that continues to advance our interests in moving towards a low economy low carbon future. including opportunities to take and seize to make sure we're moving in a direction that keeps jobs to make us more competitive. >> we thank all of you sticking with us. tweet us your questions. my colleague erica has a question for the administrator. >> hi, administrator. the epa climate rules for power plants are a pretty huge part of what the u.s. is going to u.n. climate negotiations with. mike touched on this before but i like to circle back on whether or not you guys are talking about what to do if appeals court holds up your power plant rule before you issue a final rule? you know is there some other thing that you can take to paris? >> i we certainly don't expect that to happen erica.

so i don't need a plan b if i'm solid in my plan a. we know how to do regulation under clean air act. we've been doing it for 40 plus years. i know what's happened in the 1990 amendments. i know what we're supposed to do and we're going to deliver on that. the good news that everything that the president is looking at in terms of a u.s. commitment he has the authority to do. and in fact, epa has the obligation to do this as the supreme court has told us. and so we just need to make sure we're following the law and we should be all set. we know that already there is a change in the international discussion. we can take advantage of that. people know that the domestically we're moving forward. they know we've done a great joint agreement with china. if two biggest polluters and two biggest greenhouse gas polluters get together and two biggest economies we'll be okay to moving into paris and we should have momentum behind our backs.

>> speaking of rules secretary foxx mentioned that you guys sent over to omb the heavy-duty truck rule. >> yes. >> can you tell us about what to expect there? >> yeah. well, first of all we've already dune one heavy-duty rule. and that got us i think the ball rolling. i think you can expect to see this rule the same as we did on light duty vehicles, looking to send a longer-term market signal for the kind of innovation and progression in technology we're looking for. i think most of us think that light duty vehicles are the big ticket item. if you look now heavy-duty vehicles are huge emitters of greenhouse gases. providing efficiency in the heavy-duty vehicle sector will not only drive significant reductions but it is also going to be tremendous for commercial benefit because it willower the cost of consumer goods that are all transported through trucks. so i can't give you any details as you know. i'm looking forward to this being, having expedited review

to get it out to folks. it will be a terrific rule. we worked really strongly with the industry in all aspects. the only last thing i would mention we did pretty good on light duty vehicles so far. people might see the second year into the light duty vehicle requirements that we have extend out to 2025, we're ahead of the curve. the companies are doing better than we anticipated even though they thought it was really aggressive target. so if we can have the same kind of collaboration and same kind of payoff for consumers and same kind of success working with the industry we'll do great. >> what is something i, mike allen, resident of arlington virginia, can do to reduce my carbon footprint? >> you can buy one of the 30-mile per gallon vehicles on the road that have tripled since we started taking these rule-makings. we have three times as many on the road today. you can look at --

>> what, 30-mile per hour vehicle, what is one? >> lord, we have ford focus. it is not say one of my favorites. it is one. [laughter]. that was almost a big mistake. good thing i avoided that. [laughter] there is a whole lot of them. a whole lot of new ones which is it really very exciting. what is interesting the suv the suvs are actually fastest in terms of reducing their emissions. they are the fa@test in terms of getting better mile per gallon of any models. so it is pretty neat. the way we designed it was, you can look at any vehicle, you can have the kind of performance you want and continue to drive the fleet average down. so i'm pretty excited about that because people worry whether we're buying suvs again. they're all getting much more efficient than they used to be. look at energy efficiency opportunities. one of the things we're looking at in our clean power rule is to

basically explain to the utilities, and to states there is a wide variety of opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions other than look at utilities themselves. energy efficiency programs are fabulous. most states have them. they are actually game-changers and savers. yours does. >> what is an example of something i could do to be more energy efficient? >> give you a quick example. a lot of states are supporting by providing rebates when you buy energy efficient appliances. those can be specifically designed as usually targeted at what has that energy star label that little blue energy star label? if you buy one of those, you're saving money over a very short period of time. you begin to save every year. you can get a rebate in many many states. in some there are opportunities reimbursements or rebates or tax credits or incentives for renewables. which is also a significant opportunity moving forward. >> what is something you changed or given up in your life to

conserve energy? >> you know, i can't say that i have given up anything. i think part of the key to conservation is not, not putting your sweater on. it is actually figuring out you how to save energy costs than being chilly. we've gone way beyond that. i haven't had to sacrifice. i have leds anywhere because they're better. i was talking to the secretary mabis from the navy. he was explaining to me how much money the navy spends i'm sorry, save, going to headed -- led lights on carrier. when you want to change a light bulb on a carrier it ain't easy thing. when they last years instead of three months it saves. i haven't sacrificed but taken a advantage of it. >> my brother designs led diodes. have you heard of cree? >> no. >> you can tell me later.

they're available at home depot. [laughter]. couple questions you may have heard us ask secretary foxx that i will ask you. you're a young person coming from boston to washington. what is your advice how to succeed? >> i think i probably give the same advice i would, even just starting out which is make sure that you work really hard. that you that the pace is very fast. that you have an ability to make decisions, to the extent that you can. and you take a little risk in terms of always wanting to get the next job to be one that you're not exactly sure you can manage well but it will expand your horizons. >> have you come up in the federal government what is the mistake you see people making? >> that is a really good question. one of the things i like to focus on is, i like getting things done. i like getting things over the finish line. >> i can tell. >> i think, i think people underestimate that at every

level of government higher you get more there are hurdles, the more it is difficult. the more the bureaucracy can begin to take over and get in the way of the intent that you're looking for. and you need to have a you need to be dogged. as much as possible so that you don't let those bureaucratic hurdles get in the way of real progress. nor let perfection get in the way of real progress. >> not everybody gets as many emails as my colleague danielle lipman in the front row but everyone in the this room gets too many emails. what do you do to manage the incoming? >> one of the good things is shift your position. then your email gets changed. [laughter]. but unfortunately i still track my old email as well. but, you have to have a team of people working on it with you. but, i do the best i can to limit my response to emails to the ones where i really need to

get fully briefed on. and i make sure that my team works. i mean part of the challenge of management is not to intervene in everything going on in the agency and to be very focused. and i am a focused person. so, when i see something that i come in on email that is not one of my high priorities. i give it to one of my staff. i trust them to do it and i will track it. but i'm not doing my other folks jobs. i'm letting them do theirs. i have, mike, i have a great team. my management team is fabulous. my career staff knows exactly what they're doing. it doesn't mean that we don't have challenges like everybody else. but i couldn't be more proud of the people that work for that agency. and i don't feel like i need to micromanage anybody. >> you recently got back from the vatican. what role does faith play in your work? >> i actually think it is a big deal. me personally, my faith gets translated in a couple of ways. one is i actually love people. which is why, you know, i tripe

to recognize that i'm not taking it personally but i'm allowing another personal to have a different opinion. i'm respecting that. how they deliver it sometimes is a little difficult but it helps me to realize that everybody has a right to think differently because i think that's what faith brings to you. i'm not criticizing anybody else but i'm having my own beliefs and i think we all have our own idiosyncracies. in terms of my work, my substantive work and my choice of working for the environment, you know i think it was my understanding that the natural resources are a gift given to us. they need to be protected. and i always come from the human standpoint. so i love natural resources. in terms of their beauty and variety of species. i recognize that is actually how we live. that is part of our health. and if we don't protect it, we

are damaging you know our ability to continue as a species and to live healthy. i think my faith is a big part in just what i do for a living. and i think the president's done a wonderful job at articulating challenge of climate change in a moral context, in a way that will engage the faith community. that is why i went to the vatican, was to, make sure that the vatican knew the united states of america was taking action. that our president had made this a moral commitment. we wanted to work with them to make sure this was a message of urgency and also one of tremendous hope. >> what was the coolest thing you saw, the coolest moment at the vatican? >> i had so many. i actually was privileged to go into what they call the room of tears. which is where the cardinal, who is chosen to be pope goes from the sistine chapel to have a

quiet moment before they actually, not an oath of office. whatever they take the pledge. [laughter]. that is awful, isn't it? i should have listen ad little more carefully rather than look around in awe. >> maybe ordained. >> just amazing to be there. all of the vestments worn by popes are all kept there and you can see the kneel where the pope says prayers beforehand t was humbling moment and one that made me realize just how long a journey the catholic church has gone through. just how amazing and frightening it must be to take that challenge on. so it was just very cool. >> the other end of the spectrum of your life experiences you've been on "the daily show. >> i have been. that was really scary too. [laughter] >> what was that like? >> it was really fun. it actually turned out to be

really fun. i was told not to be funny. which for me, sort of feels like it cuts my right arm off in any serious situation i like, funny things come into my head and i try very hard at hearings not to let them come out of my mouth but other times i enjoy it. but it turned out to be a really fun opportunity. he is very funny and easy, hard not to engage with him in a humorous way. >> just to explain, people may be us he would, they give you that advice, they want the host to be funny right? >> exactly. if you're naturally funny it is okay. i think i'm pretty funny so. it was okay. >> now you go to dunkin' donuts but you don't eat doughnuts. >> that's the truth. >> tell us your routine. >> i love dunkin' donuts. i'm from massachusetts. that is the headquarters of dunkin' donuts. so i'm pretty obsessed with it. they should get away from styrofoam cups.

i will keep annoying them about that. but i have never been, when i was a little kid, my mother was a waitress. when i was about 13, she worked in a doughnut shop in town. and one of the gifts that keep on giving, she was training me about how to work. she would get me up at like 3:30 in the morning me and my sister. would go into the back room preparing all the food for the coffee shop. one of the lovely things was making the doughnuts. and it is not a pretty picture to make doughnuts. and it's sort of made me realize they can be wonderful but somebody else should eat them rather than me. they just were not, they kind of turn me off. >> so what do you get there? >> what do i get at dunkin? coffee. coffee. and just some coffee that buy there. >> we're about to get the hook here. but i can't let you go without reminding you of the red sox fans motto there is always last

year. what's your level of optimism as we head towards opening day a week from today? >> well, we were, last to first. now we're going to have to do it again. i think we can. i won't make any specific predictions because i'm still reeling from my march madness choices. not very good. >> who, do you have anybody left in your final four? >> no. [laughter]. which is probably makes it worse than not very good. >> something you would share with people in this room. what does president obama like when you're just around the table? >> he is incredibly engaging. he is funny. and he is more wonky than i ever thought he would be. he is sort of understands the substance of things going around which makes it challenging because i much prefer bosses who don't. [laughter]. just kidding. . .

he manages to too it. he manages to keep a smile on his face and keep focused on progress moving forward. not whether he won or lost o but on what he has left to do and he repines us this is the fourth quarter. >> when you head home to boston you taught southwest? >> i do. it's