just because it's so big and powerful and costly corrupt but because it is failing to serve the citizens who pay for it. nowhere is this more clear than in the example of the veterans administration. technology can do amazing things today. i happen to be chairman of opportunity international the largest micro- finance company in the world. i can send a $150 loan to the desperately poor woman but if you are a veteran and have served our nation you have to spend months filling out paperwork and many more months waiting for some bureaucrat to check the paperwork to make sure you aren't already the benefits that you have thought concern for them and then

you have to wait while some other bureaucrat decides where you can get an appointment. and this is been going on for a long time. i come from a world of technology. if you're still going through major systems upgrade for 20 years, you have failed. the the scandal of the veterans administration in arizona broke what happened? the political process responded. they passed a bipartisan bill that said there going to let the administrator fire the top 400 senior executives if they are doing their job. not that that's a bad idea that really? that's the best we can do? and we have not heard a lot about the va for quite a while. now we have bureaucrats arguing about whether 40 miles is as the crow flies with the contracts. the veterans administration is a stain on our nations on

and it is an example of why we must reimagine government let me take a moment. how many of of you are here has veterans? would you please stand up thank you for your service. speaking of leadership nowhere his leadership missing more than the. the world is more dangerous and tragic place where america is not in america is not for quite some time. you heard me say this before i have traveled hundreds of thousands of miles around the globe but i no flying

is an activity not an accomplishment. [applause] i have met vladimir, and anyone who sat across the table from heaven knows his ambitions will be thwarted. i remember sitting in that yahoo!'s office five years ago a private meeting. you know what he wanted to talk about? the dangers it represents. do business. i've done business with the chinese and understand they are engaging in cyber warfare, stealing intellectual property. i chair of the advisory board of the central intelligence agency and no we confront many dangerous enemies but there are many things our allies have asked us to do that we are not doing. hillary must not be

president of the united states. [applause] i was asked this morning on fox news with a woman's hormones prevented her from serving in the oval office. not that we have seen examples ever of a man's judgment being funded by hormones. [laughter] including in the oval office [applause] hillary clinton cannot be president of the united states but not because she's a woman. because she does not have a track record of the because she likes the candor and transparency necessary to leadership because she will

pursue a set of policies that crush possibilities and the potential of this great nation. [applause] all our problems are solved. all solved. all of our wounds are self-inflicted. we have everything we need because all we need is citizenship and leadership. we rightly celebrate our founding fathers, as we should remind you that two of the most powerful symbols of our blessed and beautiful nation for women lady the end of it justice. the delivery stands. she is copyrighted. resolute. she holds her she holds her torch like a beacon of hope in the world. lady justice holds a sort

because she's a a fighter. she is a warrior for the values and principles that have made this nation great. she holds a scale and the other hand with that she says all of us are equal in the eyes of god. god. so all of us must be equal in the eyes of the law. powerful like. she wears a blindfold. [applause] she wears a blindfold. i think with that she says to us it does not matter who you are. does not where you come from what you like or what your circumstance. here every american's life is to find the possibility with liberty and justice for

all. and so let us rise together to meet our challenges. this is together and understood the promise of this the greatest nation the world is ever known. god bless you and may god continue to bless the great nation of the united states of america. [applause] >> thank you thank you so much. i think we have time for a few questions. he is making his way through

>> my name is doctor pam grill. i work for velcro industries we produce and manufacture in new hampshire. >> yes. >> my question is this. you had a high-pressure company. you faced corporate threats to internal and external. i believe that positions you uniquely to make the decisions that need to be made for political office. >> thank you. i do think that the next occupant of the oval office is to understand how the economy works how the world works and is in a car bureaucracy and how they work and how you changed.

i think they need to understand executive decision. executive decision making is making tough: a tough time with high-stakes which you are prepared to be held accountable. you don't study that the briefing book. new line that over a lifetime of experience. iran is interesting challenge to my grave threat to the world. the negotiated plenty of deals. for certain cardinals that apply to every situation. world number one no what your goals are and do not accept a deal until you have achieved. the president laid out very clear goals. we have failed to achieve a single one. not a single one of 19,000

centrifuges will go away. whereas karen agreed they would ship for some material out this it never mind. mole number two, call number two, be prepared to walk away from the table. [applause] we have never walked despite the fact that that line after deadline after deadline is passed. despite the despite the fact that the iranians have never agreed to unfettered inspections of the final is did not celebrate victory to have the do you want some of the president takes to the rose garden and celebrates a framework agreement want to the irradiance conclude? his probably committed to us we we will spend the next two months making a bad deal even worse. if it were me i would stop

talking immediately come put all of the sanctions on could unilaterally command we can do quite a bit. i would not talk to them again until they agree to full, unfettered inspection of every single nuclear facility the half. >> high. >> i met you before. ever since i want to tell you your inspiration. >> thank you. >> following the mouth the mic. >> thank you for being here. as a young woman college student people on my campus blindly follow hillary clinton.

i've heard people say they will vote for her because she's a woman cannot name a single accomplishment that she has. how will you reach out to college students and told them that tell them that you are the choice and how it cannot be present. >> wouldn't it be good if we gave a choice? by the way maybe you can help educate some of those people that there is a choice. one of the reasons i think a lot of young people would have disengaged from the typical process is because they think it has nothing to do with them. them. of course it has everything to do with because the policies that politicians pursue impact everyone and in particular the lives of people your age because you

are the ones who are going to take on unbelief that deficit and a bureaucracy that truly has forgotten who is there to serve. yet people i have talked to and women i have talked to and it's interesting to note that women and 53% of the building public public majority. but a lot of women disengagement process. we found out over here last year because they don't like ourselves. they think it seems hopeless. arguing back and forth forth, soundbites for nothing seems to change. this is nothing i can do. i'll tell you a story that crystallizes it perfectly.

it isn't that people don't care that they think they don't count. we have to make sure everyone understands that they do count. i was in a woman's shelter in new york city, and association for the cherries only speaking to a homeless we will visit those politicians, those politicians, their up there in the world talking about language. they don't know anything about estonia. the only trouble is, all the things they are doing when none of us. that is as good as a description of the disconnection of citizens for the political class as i heard. one of the things i promise to do is engage citizens in the political process. we have so many exciting ways to do it. technology gives us an incredibly powerful tool to reimagine government and to reengage citizens in the process of the. new line a funny example? how many people both for

american idol and really? how many? i no i know some of you in this room do. well, why can't we use that tool that is the american people directly a set of questions. do you think think it's okay somewhere in the federal do watch pornography all they entered exactly the same pay, pension, and benefits for someone trying to do a good job? that would put political pressure on the system. you know what i would do? asked 1025 -year-old veterans will put them in a room and say you tell me how you want to be served. we end up with (and how to serve the heroes of this nation don't make anything that bureaucrats have done for the past ten years which is like what it is columbia.

>> what would you do for the farmers? it seems like an attractive problem. secondly, there are some institutions one of them in manchester, new hampshire, absolutely wonderful. my husband goes for his health care. they are fantastic. maybe they could do some best practice sharing. >> wouldn't that be nice? hold it up as an example. of the people should do the same thing. great example. repeat the 1st part of your question.

farmers. my husband and i moved back home to virginia. we know longer live there. we take a moment to explain the tragedy of california. it is an example of politicians decided that there ideology trumps someone else's life and livelihood. california has suffered from doubt -- droughts for centuries. if you knew you were going to have a drought you might think about taking advantage of the rain is falling. the population of california has doubled in the last 40 years. and yet liberal environmental policies have intervened and prevented california from building a single the water reservoir or conveyance system.

imagine your population doubles and you do nothing to save water. then to add insult to injury a bunch of liberal environmentalists say the resulting fish and something called the delta and we think were going to protect it. were going to start managing water you have. so what we have today in good times and bad, rain falls with terrible droughts 70 percent of the rain that falls close out see. and in the central valley have seen the devastation of 40% unemployment, 40 percent unemployment, acres upon acres upon acres orchards it feels destroyed the most productive agricultural farmland by politicians and policies. the answer to this is the

californians figured out how to solve this problem. in the late 90s the past a bipartisan bill in california that balanced -- balances so often the art of leadership that balanced growth considerations, economic considerations, job considerations the necessity to protect our environment. it had bipartisan support. washington dc said no. we will manage order for you. over and over and over i have learned problems there are always people who understand how to solve them that they need to be asked and never the people from 3,000 miles away. [applause] >> this will last question.

>> intrigued with your campaign remarks especially your professional background, business acumen. i we will i we will ask you to put on a business and for 2nd. i like what i see so far. give us a business case for how you compare and contrast >> while. talk about a softball last question. first with say how lucky we are that we have such a broad field of so many qualified people. that's wonderful. [applause] and i think because we have such a broad field of this is going to be in many ways a process of elimination. i am different from anyone

in every respect. i have a completely different experience set. i'm not a career politician. while there are many public servants who are fine politicians the truth is politics is only one experience. i have many others. i have a different perspective because of those experiences. i, problem solving differently from have a different voice. and i look a little different. so i think if you believe as i believe that ours was not intended to be a government covered by a professional political class ours was intended to be a citizen government by for and of the people. [applause]

sometimes people who have been inside a system for soul cannot see it for what it is. i cannot see what is truly broken. i cannot see what can be done to change the system and the change the order of things for the better. i promise you this. i understand that leadership is not about position or title of perks. highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential and others and to change the order of things for the better. thank you. book tv. [applause] ♪

>> coming up tomorrow the senate foreign relations subcommittee will hear testimony from state department inspector general >> considered modern for her time and was outspoken about her views on slavery and women's rights. one of the most prolific

writers should provide a unique window into colonial america. abigail adams sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span original series. first ladies examining the public and private lives. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv. as a compliment c-span both 1st ladies, presidential historians the lives of 45 iconic american women creating an illuminating entertaining and inspiring read available as an e-book through your favorite bookstore, books. >> we were which are now for more than to the white house coverage.

here's. here's is a discussion on the field of 2016 candidates this was about ten. >> thank you. it's great to be back. to say. so more intense. this is crazy. i would've loved to have been here last night. i was -- red sox season-ticket holder. a report this morning that the state of red sox nation is good. new line 1st place, and it's about time. this is been a great week, and exciting week especially if you have a talk show talking about politics.

hillary announced on sunday. i think it's pretty interesting issue decided to announce that she was running by e-mail. i don't know that i would've done. think about it. why do that? it's like alex rodriguez decided he that business cards in the shape of a syringe. you could do it but why? and then marco rubio he announces monday and that was exciting. this is going this is going to be more intense than fsu versus florida. five years ago tearing up. he said i love him so much.

this week casey had interviewed jeff in new hampshire. what you think about marco? i love marco, that he went off to cry. so be fine but what are race for those of you who were not here last year quickly the background. from northwest florida, also known as the redneck riviera we have a thousand things were. 1994. i was the 1st republican elected since 1872. and they hung the last republican is to washington.

i wasn't supposed to win. that'll the film is used again in general had a. he said that's great, but i'm voting for the world. the found out something interesting you didn't need your dad spoke to win. you just needed a picture of your.oakland and i have it. if worked for me pretty well i figured out over time what it took to win is a 30 -year-old with no money, no name id, no connections. it seems to me the biggest challenge is figuring out how to win the white house in.

we have lost five of the last six elections the popular vote. is nothing close and we have to many people that are just happy to winning about losing the war feeling good about themselves because they rented it" the most riches glorious. you know what bill belichick doesn't coach the patriots to feel good about himself. ted williams was an sop. he cared about winning. larry bird was so boring and tough whitney that you would swear this was not a basketball player in that that he was primary voter new hampshire.

magic tried to be his friend for 25 years and larry bird wasn't interested is only cared about was winning. it's simple this difference between winning and losing weight stopped. it just comes down to the accounting votes, getting your people out. this is a simple concept and i we will support them. i went to the university of alabama. all tied.. all tied. they may not be good at math we don't have to be. every year every year really have to cancel number one. [applause] i don't need any of that talk back there. whoever is for the buckeyes you can leave. come on.

morning comes to the importance of the selection the most important election our life. i heard that 20 times in my lifetime. this year if you're a republican and if you are conservative and care about who controls the supreme court and you can who runs care who runs the lower courts in the care about as the bureaucracies if you care about the 2nd amendment under the second amendment means of the second amendment says, if you care about life issues ..

>> >> that to find a way. is it he did despite the troubles he never lost his faith in god. with the lessons it taught me he never stopped voting republican. he always believed that free markets gave him the best chance to get back to work was so scornful of a politician who promised a of

a new government program for that he could be working in a place where he lost his job at lockheed. but this is something that is the generational challenge that our candidates have to tap into. the rich getting richer the power are getting poorer though working class is were be hived to a big to fail is getting bigger we have to stop preaching passivism tousing goal moms to the biggest bang some wall street. crony capitalism does not work but this year with the

republican party is running against a think it will work well for republicans if we let hillary and bill take care of their friends on wall street than we were about the other 99 percent we can win. [applause] one other thing we have got to do what you around the field of candidates that conservatism in free enterprise and supply is as much to an 18 year-old in south central lhasa angeles as a hedge fund manager in greenwich connecticut. in fact but margaret

thatcher believed the shopkeeper's daughter is what we believe matters more but does us broker with although lawyers and accountants. if you believe that then you can reconnect with middle-class and working-class americans. with your help with said new hampshire primary voter we can win and reclaim the american dream. i'd think it will have them. those are the state -- from the mistakes of the past. so with that we have a very distinguished panel to talk about media and starting

with stephen hays. [applause] , . from "the weekly standard" band-aid prominent conservative magazine. a prominent network. alex is an entrepreneur ended pfizer founded the independent journal review. great to see you. and finally editorial of the union leader.

good to see you. bachelor number one. [laughter] you are interviewing rand paul and he starts and would you do on the campaign? to figure out from 2016? i was joking. the you could say that about a lot of guys.

but after they were paid during it is important to ask the candidates what day think the al from what they said in the past. tim russert was a master compared to what they said in the past. make them explain it. that is important for rand paul and in the -- anthony kennedy and also hillary clinton as she ever is interfered people could ask. there is an interesting article from a fran devilry clinton do gave rand interview in which he vagaries' speculated to be

supportive of the air rand deal. and i was greedy in that article that is why we are used to? to speculate of a friend what he thinks hillary clinton invite believe of the most important issue of our day? >> we talk about it on our show actually ahead with the year but there is a meeting that she has to attend. [laughter] i am joking but there is a great contrast from what clinton is doing it. with other journalists to say that as well and cruz

trustee waits in the clouds and jeb bush all over the place when you have one that puts himself out there? you one into authentic candidates. that are willing to take tough questions. even though you might showers someone respect them at the end of the day. clinton this week with her visit to iowa was interesting to watch with that media and we had the interesting take on an interesting story a student wanted to meet with hillary and she tried her best to

get within 5 feet but the closest was 100 yards ana a photo. the students were actually locked in. campaign coverage is different because people one and authenticity. and ordinary eye when sitting around like dunder mifflin. just like those average every dave were screened before they could set the table. going back to foreign policy.

but you still have syria going over the cliff cliff, iraq, iran nuclear deal, i could go on and on. this your baby an exception but to focus on foreign policy. >> but to focus on foreign policy for people to be commander in chief. but we have more questions about it now. but 50 years ago but then

benghazi and all the other stuff. and to be prepared you don't have to be a sitting senator to know about for a policy. go do your homework. if you are commander in chief is that senators when you are governor and then they say you are a senator you don't know how to run anything.

and then to do get to washington. said to have injuries from mosquitos and then going to the library of congress with a basic entry-level book. that is abraham lincoln. for what has prepared. >> and i said this on the air but i personally believe

the is disastrous electing a president that just got to this attitude decided to use as a political fast lane and we have paid of day international stage for that. do you have some of those same concerns? >> asking about them relevant experience i'm not disqualify there first terms senators delicate what they

have done before. rand paul was a successful ophthalmologist you rand a business that is experience. >> but not so much with foreign policy. >> trooper. and then to figure out. >> to coveted with knowledge. to know as well as anybody joe biden had said ted of experience on foreign policy for i will leave that there. [laughter] so that does it necessarily produce success.

>> even the governor of jeb bush. so over the last four years to be front and center. and for what impact the national coverage has specifically on you guys and new hampshire voters? and to be hammered by "the new york times".

and then the "new york times" matches those realities on the ground. not only a a counter reaction but that general resentment of the national media coverage of politics to help a candidate to get hammered on the national level. >> first of all, very few people in new hampshire's read "the new york times". [laughter] [applause] reading your newspaper over andover again. but did new jersey you read it but and do talk about the

reporters for of manhattan and it shapes on the front page. >> we get reuters and it absolutely helps. because candidates come here and of the boaters can decide for themselves i am from the big state that washington and new hampshire have in the answer is obviously no because the only interactions you will get our through the filter of the meeting ended new

hampshire you don't have to. >> and you are exactly right is an airport hangars and a woman asks jeb bush a question that lot of people ask is this say coronation on the republican side? we don't want a republican in name only. i thought he handled it pretty well. but it did terms of "the new york times" of a left-leaning paper hillary

clinton calls them every day americans is hard to know which journalist touche trust some of the very best reporters in the world some of the most hawkish right for "the new york times" and unless you follow this stage today it is hard to make heads or tails. >> there really are knocking down the walls. cbs and abc and "the new york times" and "the wall street journal". >> for friends and family

and relatives and people want to share that that changes the balance of power so we can pick issues would is relevant you will share that's that changes our campaigns are covered for ever. >> should other newspapers be skeptical but with the donors with the smart money because they are losers. but does he work on either

curve? and bush would never be here now did you get a feeling if his name wasn't bush she would be in a stronger position? >> people take the name and associate were wolcott -- walker does not practice it is of blakeslee. >> that may not be accurate but it is a unique challenge.

>> from your reporting growing up with jeb bush as governor is he the most conservative? >> key is the most conservative bush. but people in florida are shocked as i gave of speech to was a think tank and talking to the attendees as a moderate but i think it is fair to say space his record in office that is his record.

period. >> time end time again to talk about florida or vouchers that the is not for victory it is for vouchers i didn't know what he was talking about. they went after him. it is almost serve real. from the "miami herald" to be a right-wing lunatics but there is always say but for immigration. but it isn't just that with the common cold or immigration but to see them talk like i did yesterday

morning. he is clearly the most passionate but he is energizing and enthusiastic that puts people at the conservative pro. >> yesterday there was no question. >> i didn't see it yesterday but is there that attitude that they need to teach my party to lead the conservatives? >> but i think bush whether intentional or not you have to separate. he has never done anything he just finished then

reappeared. people say this is amazing. but in the intervening years he comes across someone's whose attitude is i.m. the adults in the room for. i am the experience governor. then i say much more eloquently. that i will be the adult her whether he intends that or not. that is the impression. because you are the only person out there and under 40, who are the young workers nappers? is a candidate out there

just waiting for more traffic? >> yes. rand paul is doing a good job with the additional space and has done a lot to use visuals even with the more controversial statements. and you dial the back. >> i figure there is a lot of old people here. >> faq for being here.

>> how much more time to read have? fifty-eight minutes? of the time in the world. i will be here all day for pearl some talk about different candidates but you come up your and you are declared dead by the national media you never know if they can hit a curveball. >> then it is interesting looking knacker's christie's performance yesterday to say

i will give him a second look if the media declares somebody did that is my signal to pay more attention >> is in 2007 i came to new hampshire race john mccain with four or five days and you have to be careful and not to extrapolate too much but it was very clarity had enthusiasm and i thought if this guy is dead that might not be a bad place to be. so i think he will get a second look and conservatives will the support cruz christie and likely to appeal more to

moderates and independents but to turn it into something more than that. but he is saying rand paul could win the nomination? >> of course, . of the new hampshire primary you don't look have pulled numbers. rand paul has an interesting message with the bill of

rights but as you know a lot of them will go with rand paul. not all of them but he is not his dad and has a different message in the think there is an opportunity to talk to people. when you have this open and of the primary. >> and then to say please don't insult anybody. the primary is still wide open i have not even brought up scott walker but let's

face it this candidate is so much stronger than eight years ago. but if you look bad jeb bush or marco rubio or ted cruz source scott walker. those gifted politician and said it speaks to scott walker. what are the biggest challenges? to be declared the cannonades it is amazing to see the depth and diversity

with that one candidate but with scott walker he is smart politically with the $1 sweatshirt at wal-mart was great to set himself up i'm sorry. calls for pro -- it just doesn't matter. it makes me sad for the intergenerational. the lead. >> they definitely appeals to younger voters. what about scott walker? of a great shortstop but he is double a with the big leagues you will get knocked

around and not ready for prime time. has he shown that? has seashell netted his early performance? >> i am from wisconsin i know him pretty well. [laughter] he was busting out after his speech expecting he would be a first year candidate. and then but catapulted him up but he would tell you he was surprised. then after a couple of weeks of tough media reporting some of it was not some was self induced. can he sustain that rhythm?

he has of a pretty strong message to say it was the 3.$2 billion annual deficit by employment difficult reforms sci-tech on the special interest but it worked. that is a good thing to say. >> we are not supposed to do this but we are. let's open it up to you to the last tenants and we will get an answer. anybody? said donald? spiritous will not make people happy this seven times he says things people find refreshing but i think

he is a conservative of convenience that he announces in and gets an. then the pressure is on you. if he gets event is apt to you in dash for dash share the same thing about the donald as chris christie. if he steps into the batter's box then i thank you are right. the risk that pressure and we shall see. i need that botha i. go backstage please. [laughter]

and then to ask a question? the questions about the electability factor and now he is yelling at me. i will translate. the hearts there is said they were important with likability period end of discussion barack obama does that seem likable even in this room as you would describe hillary clinton but thin to is think about that the electorate what matters tremendously one of the

problems they have is say could didn't of in some ways six integrated the exact critiques the obama campaign tried to put on him. but that famous exit poll results of the candidate who cares for voters like me and mitt romney loss dash 81 / 18 in the exit poll. >> if you have scott walker is more related also marco rubio. >> obviously we see

candidates year and it is wonderful but we have to do research on our own assuming your publications are at the top of the list but beyond that who should be searching out for accurate information in? there is a lot to sift through it takes your time if you want to commit yourself. >> i think one of the advantages is you have the candidates to come by. >> just give me a chance that the g.o.p. gets to know the candidates obviously everyone cannot do that but you have to you do your homework in terms of fallen

along with policies to understand the campaign likability factor is the most important thing and that becomes the entire focus. is interesting to see candidates, for word we ask questions of other reporters don't. but don't be afraid. because what drives you crazy eddie read the of left-wing papers that to the debt their profiles are

uneasy. picked the conservative publications that you like but don't be afraid to read the mainstream press there is a lot of viable information. they have access. some reporters you will not trust but others will say i don't read this paper and read for the pipeline if you can. said you are here because you're interested but maidu's the thing people are doing? to american and say but they

always make fun of technocrats because nixon would win 49 states and in you voted for him? ronald reagan in the election in 9880 was the shah and to have those electoral votes at one plant early what is going on out there? end by the way kids searched long and hard of mitt romney a hint there was but all of

the pre-existing believes we have to get blindsided. when i grew up highbred "the national review" but also "the new republic" you have to see with your other side is thinking even if it makes you mad. i tell my friends i by to every day one to read and one to bird in the backyard. let we have to be well read. we have to get out of the bubble are we will be

blindsided. >> that helped happened to bob dole and john mccain and mitt romney. and then sadly last month from indiana. many of us believe if we don't have a fighter we will go down again. i would like your with the panel thinks about ted cruz who is a fighter who knows the issues and can articulate stick my thanks for bringing him up. he is discounted by a lot of people even some conservatives because of the "wall street journal" editorial page from the government shutdown but he has raised over $30 million and has had a great launch he may lose but he will not

blow up dead people on the left are underestimating how right he is. >> and he benefits from the character depiction in because to come to an event like this people say i did not see it. he will certainly be a factor it is not a question he is despised by most members of both parties in congress in washington d.c.. i don't think that is the dash. [laughter] [applause] congress has the 16 percent approval rating that is the destructor we know we have seen over the past five decades and it has gotten us to hear our will break that up. it is a good argument.

>> also works in the republican primary may tried it the first eight years of this century and the big government republicanism is the disaster of a candidate will call out his own party like ted cruz will do to say these are the mistakes we have made it is not just enough to win but to the right thing budget says the message there of articulating. >> think of a candidate actos after the establishment. pickets and shoes to say the lake ability are things you

care look for that is why they're so happy you have ted cruz and bob legion ball and chris christie they have records of fighting in their state. we don't have time to list them all it is the embarrassment of riches so that amazing plays. >> appended is a delicate balance the auletta gentleman that will fight by a different rules but we know he is of fighter but does he have that element to get him over the top not just to hampshire but like the ohio or new york state?

>> i think he does that he articulates well and we have seen that on multiplications he did a good job and bring out there are so many candidates that find that it is easier than someone that is likable briefing he puts himself in a position where he could really go the distance with his likability factor. >> first of all, congratulate those here as we talk brought the need to take back the legislature congratulations on to ring adapter krispy 17 and jennifer says is proper your? that was great.

it was close. everybody a big hand. [applause] that gives us a great job you have a lot to be proud of. what he has done the independent journal review is really so important for conservatives to have somebody like alex doing what he is doing because it pulls in so much people and so much traffic. thank you very much. i appreciate it. thank you.

online book seller. >> next former iranian and u.s. officials outline iran nuclear agreement nugaucheegotiationnegotiations they discuss the status the deal and what a final agreement means for the united states and iran. this runs 90 minutes. >> good morning. i am steve hadly, chairman of the at the institute of peace and i am the chairman and we will get started with the intelligence we have received there is power

outages and all sorts of chaos that made it typical rush hour by we will pass that so people will join us as they're able. but we are glad that you are here. this is the fourth event in the forum of a series co-sponsored by eight washington think tanks the a centerpiece, woodrow wilson center, the rand corporation, arms control association, the center for new american security, us simses center and the partnership for a secure america. taiz in an unprecedented collaboration and special thanks to those that put this to care of their partner but to put together private the u.s. by 80

comprehensive web site with the subjects you can think of and by word jurors you to take a look to provide a copy on every seat if you don't have one you can get one in the back. we're delighted to hold these essentials to understand for a policy in the u.s. and iranian but the six major powers announce the framework of what could be a historic nuclear deal. the terms remain controversial and disputed and our goal today is to explore the challenges ahead for our will quickly introduced our panel you should have their full bio

at your seat to but i will introduce them briefly starting on my right. former member of the iranian parliament 2000 through 2004 and was arrested while demonstrating to some for equal rights between men and women june 2006 released 130 days later and moved to the united states in 2009 and is of a visiting fellow of virginia tech and human-rights and digital freedom etiquette. welcome. next we have a former congressman from 1983 through 1995. currently a partner and is the first former congressmen to visit iran since the revolution to.

>> up next is michael former senior director for the national security council through 2008 and currently a senior fellow at the washington institute. during his tenure at the warehouse the was responsible for coordinating security policy to the middle east including an emphasis on the nuclear rand regional activities in national security advisor i did whatever he told me to do. [laughter] we'll come. up next is a former congressman from california through 2013 and currently a senior advisor. as chairman of the house foreign affairs committee he

wasn't one of experts. so with that we will begin until maybe 1035 given the late start with the conversation among us up here and at that point you open to new questions please wait for a microphone and identify yourself and ask a question to any or all panelist. so let me begin as i've mentioned it in the opening so we have heard from the supreme leader about each the objectives he has of the

end they will have no access to military sites and other details which are not fully consistent so is my age of of a decision period -- the disarray but i will ask two questions how close are we to an agreement and how likely will reach get a final signed document by june 30th? . . for a member of the

parliament. i think we are very close to a histor historic moment and achievement in solving the big international crisis peacefully and diplomatically. i evan imagine i could see this such rate of progress. i remember two years ago, we sent a letter with former members of parliament two or three letters, president obama

and all of them, proposed it in january 7th 2013. we had a lot of difficulties to even initiative and talk about and convince people in washington, d.c. i remember that there would have been some colleagues and i sat in such a panel discussion to propose and convene spectics in washington to even know there.

this great administration is coming we said. but we just heard something from rumors that intentions are going on between talking and behind the scenes between the two administrations. the obama administration and the iran. at that time we have a lot of difficulties to even talk about that. but right now, i sat here and thank you for having me here again, you want to convince. we can finalize a comprehensive

deal. we are very optimistic and i hope the united states officially won't use this opportunity because i think the u.s. lost an opportunity in 2003 2003. and the access of evil i think it damaged the deal. i think this moment -- i hope you won't lose the opportunity and it could lead this bill could lead to iran and the region to a peace too piece and stability in the near future. >> howard how do you see it? what are the prospects of it getting done and getting done by

june 30th? >> i am a little more nervous about you are about the likelihood of the agreement being reached. seems clear to me this american administration wants to reach an agreement. i think there are some limitations beyond which it won't go but it wants to reach the agreement. the question raised more recently is does the supreme leader want to reach the agreement. he made statements among the recent days regarding the timing of sanctions relief regarding the security and military sights on which no inspectors can ever go he made other statements which look like he is thinking of a very different agreement than i think the p-5 could every sign. and then the question comes up why is he talking like this?

and the fact is he made statements like that before. he talked about a $190,000 centrifuges at one point. he talked about a large number of reactors and enrichment facilities. and in the end, the one area of the administration's relief parameters that they have not challenged is the reference to the number of centrifuges and facilities. they don't seem to be arguing about those assertians. in the end, i think a lot depends. we have heard for a long time and i believe that there is a tension inside iran between elements of the irgc and

the "hardliners" and the current president and foreign minister. we have always thought where does the supreme leader come down in that conflict and that to me will be a big part of answering the question of whether there is a likelihood of reaching an agreement by june 30th. >> let me ask you, if you want to comment, i think one of the questions we all have is how should we read the supreme leader's statements? do you have any advice for us on that one? and then i will turn it over to michael. >> i will say i don't agree with your comment about iran's situation. i think i have a lot of confidence mostly about the u.s. side. in iran we have an agreement between the supreme leader the administration, the parliament,

and the vast majority of this unprecedented, unt one very very important issue. i agree with that. how about congress and the many influence and pressure. and the new legislation, but still, it is really great.

it is more sustainable to implement a long term agreement. still we have lots of problems. i cannot serve what would predict the decision of congress after the final negotiations and agreement. >> this is a bill that was passed last week that gives the congress 30 days to consider a nuclear deal. the option of legislation at the end of that time and suspends any suspension of sanction during the period of that consideration. so there is no some agreement on the united states side for a process of consideration between the whitehouse and the congress.

there seems to be less agreement on what the substance should be. a bad agreement is worse than no agreement, but there seems to be no real agreement on what a bad agreement would look like. secretary of state baker in an opt-ed last friday suggested one of the steps we ought to do is get our own house in order and identify the three or four things that really make a reasonable agreement from this u.s. stand point and be clear about them in the same way someone would say the supreme leader would be clear about what he needs. is that a good course of action? >> when you ask the question is this a good deal or bad deal i think it is really two questions in a sense. the first is does the deal do what we need to do. is it valuable to our interest and advance the objects we set

out which in this case non-proliferation and the threat we see iran poses in the middle east. there is a second question as well. it is highlighted by the president. watt are the alternatives? a good delta what alternative course of action that would better advance our interest? and both of them are controversial. second of state baker, and his opt-ed in the wall street journal said what we have gotten is the right track, but it needs to be improved and here are three or four ways he would suggest not just improving but saying we have to insist on these things and get the other p-5 members to insist on them. that gets the first question. trying to make the deal more valuable. a better deal. i think all of this suggestions are the right suggestions in a sense of getting iran to sort of lay out for inspectors its past

weaponization work and the individuals involved in that getting to this question of military sites which can be nuclear sites as we have seen in the past as well as this question of sanctions, relief of sanctions and the so-called snap attack sanctions which may be a myth in a sense. but it is important we look at approaching the next period the substance of the bill and the alternatives, we need to focus on improving our own alternatives if there is no deal. we will get no deal even if we want one. it is important we look past the failure making sure we are positioneded if that happens. and worsening iran's alternatives. we are not the only party looking at this deal. if iran accepts their own faith

worse it might accept the keel. i think red lines can be useful in you should know the bottom line in egotiationnegotiations and what you are looking for. one way to read it is he is setting these red lines to get us to give more as you would in any negotiation in about anything. the red lines are incredible. you have to believe in them. there is an internal process you have to go through and i worry especially with american negotiators who are more transparent we don't believe if they are good bottom lines to have privately trying to project them publically will back fire like it did in syria. we should have bottom lines and figure out internally what they are and how to project them

tactfull- tactfully. this is the thesis. the deal isn't where it needs to be, but it is the right track we need the fix it. i worry the deal can't be fixed and the design of it deal is conceptually flawed in several ways. one way for example, even if we get the deal it will require any president, president obama and his successor, to be waving sanctions everything six months. it is unstable because anything can intervene in that. some of the hardest decisions are left for the future saving it for when the negotiators are not around anymore. second, we have not required iran to dismantle anything. its entire nuclear program is remaining in tact.

even if you have positive change in iran even if iran sort of changes the regional strategy and becomes friendlier to the united states, having that nuclear program in tact will ultimately be a negative for the security of the region. nuclear programs grow in groups or pairs as many know and i think even a different sort of iran with that very robust nuclear program, is perceived as a threat by neighbors and any future iranian government may have a hard time for reasons of national pride and absence the pressure of sanction. the other flaw we have separated from the nuclear and regional issues. there are instruments of power. it gets to the question of how will be deter iranian support for terrorism or iran's activity in the region following the deal

without the tools being available? it leads to less effective tools or less direct action leading to more complex action in the region. i worry secretary baker has good red lines but the deal as conceived can't be successful even if we reach it. >> jim what your view? from the u.s. standpoint what do we do to get our own house in order to proceed with the negotiation negotiations? >> in december i had an opportunity to visit with the key people in the government, leading clerics that are friends of the supreme leader, and every place i went, i heard one question and that was can president obama implement the deal? they really wanted to know this. and this was of course after our elections, after the fact that the senate was taken over by

republicans and of course the house continued to be in republican hands. so they were raising this question because they wanted me to understand that if we expected them to put their best offer on the table, they wanted to know that that best deal could be accepted and would not be scudled by our congress. i think we need to be mindful as these questions arise, it undermines our negotiators capacity to get the best deal at the table. that hasn't been focused on adequately. the iranians are fearful, those commit to a deal, and i believe they have bet their political future and careers on getting a deal with the united states. their worse nightmare is they go out on the limb so to speak and

put the best deal on the table they can get and have the united states congress scuttle the deal. that politically destroys them and may do more than that to them. i don't think we have as americans fully understood that dimension of what is going on in the negotiations. you know i am a kansas democrat. so kansas is the most republican state in the union probably. so optimism is hard wired into by dna. you know i think that we have this historic moment and the great tragedy would be our domestic political forces prevented us from really getting a historic break through in this relationship with iran. so all-americans really need to be in this debate. and we really need to be focused on some of the very tough details. as far as i am concerned,

verification is going to be the key in all of the dimensions of verification. ... >> or flipping it around.

two or three things that are really required if an agreement is going to be reached.; howard let me start with you. >> i think the answer to that has changed. i can certainly understand why one could look at washington and think the administration's trying to do one thing that congress is instingtively and adamantly against what atrying to do. how do we count on an agreement with the administration? the equation changed tremendously in the context of this agreement that was worked out between senator corker and senator carden and the white house, because it turned everything around. one, the congress will not act on the agreement before there's an agreement.>8yv

secondly while the congress won't, there's no way in the world that congress will ever approve this group. the only way the agreement doesn't go into effect -- and by that i mean the president loses his ability to waive the sanctions he will need to waive to the american part of the deal is if two-thirds of both houses disapprove of the agreement and then vote to override the president's veto. so the debate has changed from not wanting to do any deal with iran particularly a deal that didn't dismantle their entire nuclear infrastructure. and michael is right about that. this deal doesn't do that. it changed from that debate to a debate about issues like is

this a good deal and, more than that, is it a good deal on the issue of giving significant comfort for a significant period of time that iran will not get a nuclear weapon. because michael raised other issues, which are very legitimate issues to raise. but i don't think iran's support for terrorism, iran's hegemonic tendency. the sanction evident that brought the international community together was about iran's nuclear program and if we try to bring in every issue into this we will lose the support of the international community. so i actually think we now are at is it a bad agreement in the context that michael asked? is this the least worst option?

and that will be the question that 34 senators if they think it is the least worst option, the deal goes into effect. divide one third into 435 congressmen, and the same equation. that's very much changed the balance of power here now, and so i think the parts i don't know about this agreement the level of verification the -- what is truth, just exactly what is going to be the centrifuges pulled out. what are the consequences when iran says no to a particular desire by the inspectors to go to a certain site? those things that hopefully will get filled out as part -- in the next two and a half months.

those will decide how the congress reacts. so i think it's a much less bleak situation than it was last december in terms of the talking with folks you talked to in tehran. >> i agree with you, howard, that the congressional action last week has fundamentally changed the equation here and i think that if iranians look at this -- the bottom line is, will the white house be able to hold one-third plus one in the house? and -- >> probably not for a bad agreement. >> probably not for a bad agreement. you're absolutely correct. i think the beside agreement ultimately will be defined by the issues of sheriff's. nobody trusts anybody in this deal and all the stuff about you can't trust the iranians they don't trust us we don't trust them. that's a given. let's quit talking about that. we have to have adequate verification procedures, and that is what i think the

congress is going to be looking at. when you look at the context of the agreement, perhaps michael and i would disagree -- i think given the status quo, compared to this outline as described by the state department, and i underline that because there's clearly a disparity between what the state department has outlined and what -- but begin the state department outline, compared to the status quo a number of centrifuges being dropped from 19,000 to 560 operational, a volume of low and rich uranium being dropped, and the other provisions in this, and the basically fundamentally changing the plutonium operation and fundmentally changing what is going on these are significant concessions made by

the other side and given the status quo issue think it's a major step forward. again, it all depends on verification. >> michael, let me go to you and put you on the spot a bit. is this deal as outlined in the state department fact sheet, the least bad outcome and if it isn't what is required to make it in your view the least bad outcome, and then i'll ask you to comment briefly on what you have heard. >> so my answer to the first one is no, i don't think it is the least bad outcome. i do worry that the deal as outlined in the u.s. fact sheet -- first of all, it's not a deal. there's clearly unresolved issues so it's hard to evaluate that because after the unresolved issues. i do think there are some big holes in what we have agreed to, and i think some of those are what secretary baker outlined. its critical that the wees we call possible military

dimensions will those be answered up front? i don't see how you can have a sufficient verification regime without those questions having been answered. it's not matter -- people say why do you need iran to confess? it's about the information not confession what are the sites they need to check the people they need to talk to, what progress has iran made to date? i don't need to verify without those means. there are other issues. the questions how are sanctions relieved and when its. it's important we main link in the event of iranian noncompliance but i think there will inevitably be questions about compliance. there's also this question about -- i don't think civilian nuclear sites and military sites, given the clear military nature of iran's past nuclear activities. so within the context of what has been outlined, think those things need to be addressed to

make this a deal worth supporting. worth making. then there's -- again, getting back to the question of alternatives. i think one thing we next here in our debate is that, again, it's not just about what are the united states' concerns. it's what are iran's alternatives. i think this raises the question of time because we could really afford to negotiate for another six months if we had to. it's great to set deadlines and diplomacy if you're quitted to the deadlines and their credible if i don't know if deadlines set at there is time are credible. we can negotiate for another six months. the iranians, -- i think we need bear in mind that iran's own alternatives are not fantastic, and so we need to, i think for the sake of having a sustainable deal, deal that actually survives past 21 months or 24 months, i think it's important that we get what we need here. will it then be a great deal?

it wouldn't be because of the conceptual flaws and i worry the deal would not survive then years of the initial period. but it probably at this stage of the game the best we can hope for. >> thank you. i want to go back to the issue of what happens if by june 30 we don't have an agreement. but let me ask you this. given your hopes for this agreement, as you expressed in your opening comments, and given what you have heard here, does it reassure you about some of the questions you had about the u.s. side? >> reassured me at first, say at this point, we have more -- much more problem in u.s. side. please accept this idea. than in iran. sometimes i'm joking with the -- especially when you have problems that congress have shut down the government. i was joking to some americans that saying that you don't have

supreme leader here. if you had supreme leader it's a bad idea don't do that but i'm just joking, but -- so now i'm just comparing the current two systems political system in iran. the current parliament don't have problems. they are already agreement and the supreme leader if the supreme leader decides something, especially this current government -- the parliament would approve it definitely and right now, they approve. the supreme leader has created a new term which was very very new for us at least in here also for you. the term is