i don't give my husband advice, she was saying because she doesn't need it. is there a man or woman alive who does not need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> as we consider our conversation on first ladies, a talk about how first ladies have helped to shape american history. that monday night, on c-span. >> next, our leafy arena at the national press club in washington dc where she spoke about entrepreneurship. she also gave her perspective ,n tax code reform, immigration and federal regulation. her remarks are a little less than one hour.

please visit the press /institute. i would like to welcome our speakers today and those of you in our audience. our head table includes the guest speaker and working journalists who our club members. if you hear applause in our audience, members of the general public are also attending. it is not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio

audiences. you can follow the action today on twitter. after an hour guest speaker concludes, we will have a question and answer period. i will ask as many questions as time permits. it is time to introduce our head table guests. please stand briefly as your name is announced. from your right, the retired u.s. navy captain. lynn cooper, founder and chief social officer socially ahead. christopher chambers, a professor of media studies at georgetown university. the president and ceo of good360. the national press club vice- president and an adjunct professor at george washington university and the former ap bureau chief in tokyo, new delhi, and london. speaking over our speaker, the washington bureau chief for bankrate.com and the member that

organized today's event. a free-lance journalist covering business and technology and the chairwoman of the freelance committee. and the president of the wharton club of washington, d.c., and a member who assisted in making today's luncheon happen. [applause] our guest today enjoyed a fascinating and successful career involving technology, politics, and most recently as you will hear, philanthropy. as many of our members know, one of our priorities this year is to celebrate women's roles in our society. i am particularly pleased our guest today, carly fiorina,

agreed to participate. born in austin, texas, her own career began as a secretary working in a small business. what a journey she has had since then. as chairman and chief executive officer of hewlett-packard from 1999 until 2005, she was the first woman to lead a fortune 20 company for six years she was named "fortune" magazine's most powerful woman in business. it was during her tenure as a created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer. after her departure, they failed to capitalize on the move to mobile products. politics has also been central to her work in recent years having played key roles in the republican presidential campaigns of both john mccain and mitt romney. she ran unsuccessfully in a bid to unseat democratic senator barbara boxer in california, but

she was triumphant in the biggest battle of her life as a survivor of breast cancer. during a recent interview when asked if she might run again for office, she replied, "never say never." she received her bachelor's degree from stanford. she dropped out of law school but made up for that by getting an m.b.a. from the university of maryland as well as a master of science in management from m.i.t. since we're here at the national press club, we should mention our guest is a best-selling author with her memoir. she was also a contributor to fox business. what has she been up to lately? she is now the chairman of good360. it is based nearby in alexandria, virginia, it was founded three decades ago assisting firms to donate obsolete or seasonal items to thousands of charitable organizations. these include clothing, books, toys, office and school

supplies, computers, among other things. we will hear more about network today. please help me welcome to the national press club carly fiorina. [applause] >> thank you and good afternoon. it is great to be with all of you. i was recently asked what i thought an entrepreneur was. a member of the press corps said, what is an innovator? i had to think for a moment. my answer was an entrepreneur and innovator is someone who can envision a different future. an entrepreneur is someone who dreams big. and works long hours.

an entrepreneur is someone who sees possibilities. by seizing those possibilities, they create possibilities for others. because it is almost a fourth of july, i thought on the way here about what makes this country great, what is so special about this country. as you heard in the introduction, i began my career as a young adult as a secretary. i graduated from stanford university with a degree in medieval history and philosophy in the middle of a recession. which meant i was all dressed up and nowhere to go. like so many in my situation, i decided to go to law school. the only thing as i hated law

school. i quit after a single semester. in order to make a living, and went back to doing what i was doing in college to help pay my bills. i was a heck of a typist. i went back to work as a secretary. i typed, i filed, answer the phones for a little nine-person company. i have traveled all over the world. it is true, still, to this day, that is only in the united states of america that a young woman typing and filing for a nine-person firm can soon -- it only took 20 something years -- become the ceo of one of the largest companies on earth. that is only possible in the united states of america. [applause] it is possible here not because

i am so special. it is possible here because this place is so special. it is so special because it was founded on a radical idea, an idea it was radical in 1776, but it is still radical to this day. the idea is every human being has potential, that everyone has the right to fulfill their potential. it does not matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or what your last name is. actually, all that matters is where you want to go. all that matters is that you have potential. all that matters is how you envision your own future. that was a radical idea. it is a radical idea still. it is inextricably linked with

the power of entrepreneurship. entrepreneurship is the single greatest lever for fulfilling human potential and for lifting people out of poverty that the world has ever known. it is the genius of this country that we coupled political liberty with the opportunity to build your own future, to imagine your own future, to create something you have a stake in so that you and your family are better off. entrepreneurialism and innovation is a uniquely american gift. it is the secret sauce that makes this a special place.

it is true because so many americans got their start exactly the way i did. i started out in a little nine- person firm. an entrepreneur and his partner started the firm because they wanted to imagine a different future for themselves, for their families, for their community. one day while i was typing and filing at my desk after six months of working there, those two partners came to me and said we have been watching you. we think you can do more than tight and file. do you want to learn about what we do? do you want to find out something about the world of business? because they took a chance on me, because they saw possibilities in me i had not considered, i was able to envision a different future for myself. that happens in america every day in communities all across this great nation. wave after wave of immigrants have gotten their start as

entrepreneurs. you do not have to be steve jobs to be an entrepreneur. if you want to open a taqueria, you are an entrepreneur. you are creating a better future for yourself, your family, and by extension, your community. wave after wave of immigrants got their start there. if you look at the statistics, you will see that women-owned small businesses, african american owned small businesses, have been historically the fastest-growing segments in our economy. in this great country where we are defined by our potential, it is entrepreneurialism it lifts people up. while it may be uniquely american and while it may be our country genius to have provided

the opportunity to start your own business and imagine your own future to more people than at any time or place in human history, innovation and entrepreneurialism and is a fundamentally human thing. i know this from my work with the one woman foundation, the one woman initiative i found in six years ago. through my work today with opportunity international, these are organizations that give a very small amount of credit to women in desperate circumstances. what we know, what we have found, is if you give someone a chance with just a little bit of money, if you give someone a chance to build a better life for themselves and their families by building a business which they can own a stake in, progress happens. people lift themselves from poverty.

entrepreneurialism is a human drive. but it is in this country where it has seen its fullest flowering. here we are on july 1, 2013. what is the state of entrepreneurialism and innovation in this country? i think the data is a bit alarming. i think entrepreneurialism is in trouble in this country. allow me to give you a couple of statistics. there are more small and new businesses failing and fewer starting at this time than at any time in the last 40 years. there are fewer small and new businesses starting and more failing than in any time in the last 40 years.

this depressed state of entrepreneurialism is why i believe the economy is under performing. it is why the economy grows at 2%. it is why our unemployment rate is stuck at an unacceptably high six-point-something percent. if you look at the data, you know new and small businesses create 2/3 of new jobs in this country and employ half of the people. if you have fewer small businesses starting, if you have more small businesses failing, you have an economy that is under-performing and fewer people with the possibility of that first job, in my case, or perhaps a first or second chance.

there was recently a survey published in "the washington post." in that survey, 70% of small businesses said they felt the government was hostile to their efforts. not neutral. hostile. if you ask people why, if you get answers like, it is just too hard. it is too complicated. i do not know how many of you saw the front page article in "the wall street journal" describing what is now known as a risk averse culture in the united states. the article quoted many statistics. fundamentally what it said is this is a place where people used to take pride in taking

that risk and now we are reluctant to do so. if you go through the data, you find people are saying the risk of failure is getting too high and the reward for success is becoming too low. it is a bipartisan comment to recognize our tax code is now tens of thousands of pages and it is way too complicated for any entrepreneur to wade through. it is a bipartisan comment to recognize our regulatory environment has become so complex. there are thousands of regulations written into law every year but rarely if ever is a regulation ever repealed. the consequence is a geologic sediment of complexity. this complexity of regulation and taxation is literally, in my view and represented by the

data, is literally choking the entrepreneurial life out of our economy. this is of grave concern or should be to everyone, from liberal to libertarian and everyone in between. i recently had the great pleasure to moderate a panel discussion at the clinton global initiative among three very impressive female entrepreneurs. as one of them noted, she said kids in school learn how to the employees. they do not learn how to be entrepreneurs. i thought it was a telling comment. how does washington work?

i grew up in big business, really big business. i would say it is accurate to describe washington has a place that works well if you are big. if you are a big business, it works really well. you can hire legions of attorneys and accountants and lobbyists. in fact, all of that complexity helps a big business a lot of times. if you are a big trade association, if you represent lots of votes, whether you are a union or a company, washington works well for you because you have the resources and time to wade through the complexity and let us to sometimes manipulate the complicated environment to advantage you and your members. if you are a politician, it is to your advantage as well because now your job becomes to represent people and help them navigate through this thicket of complexity.

but washington does not work well if you are an innovator and entrepreneur who is so busy trying to build your future for yourself, for your family, and for your community that you do not have the time or resources to navigate your way through this thicket. the data says too many are just giving up. i will never forget a luncheon i had in denver. i was talking to a group of small-business owners. i was encouraging them to get more involved in the political process. it was a bipartisan group. one of them finally said to me what was patently obvious. he said we are too busy. we do not have time to figure it out. of course an innovator and small business owner does not have time. they're literally spending all of their time trying to make it work.

have you ever heard the story of the frog in the boiling water? if you throw a frog into a pot of boiling water, he will jump out to save himself. but if you put a frog in a pot of water and slowly turn it up to a boil, the frog will boil to death. it happens so gradually that he does not realize until it is too late. i worry that we are gradually year after year creating an environment that is similarly choking the life out of this entrepreneurial economy, little by little, regulation upon regulation. let's talk about the nature of bureaucracies because bureaucracies matter in washington.

we're full of them. because the big companies and big associations and big labor unions that do well in washington are also big bureaucracies. bureaucracies, by their nature whether political or business, what characterizes a bureaucracy? it is a rules based tradition- bound institution that seeks to preserve itself and that over time rewards playing by the rules rather than judgment and initiative. these are not pejorative comments i am making. these are factual comments. bureaucracies are rules-based organizations. it is an organization that rewards playing by the rules. it is an organization that celebrates playing by the rules

more than disruptive innovation. we have lots of bureaucracies. over time what happens in bureaucracies whether they are business or politics, is they become inward looking, insulated. playing by the rules inside becomes more important than serving customers or constituents outside. this contributes to an environment where people not only lose faith in the institutions which have become bureaucracies, but conclude those bureaucracies are hostile. entrepreneurs give people a chance. entrepreneurs gave me my first chance. in some cases, they give people a second and third chance and a fourth chance. entrepreneurs are not just about

for-profit businesses. my whole life i have been animated by the opportunity to helpful full potential in myself and others. it is why i am so proud to be associated with an organization like good360 which recognizes civic society also helps lift people out of poverty and helps them fulfill their potential. rather than just have waste go into landfills, we work with good hearted and smart minded businesses with excess inventory and make sure that inventory gets to people in need. the charities, instead of worrying about whether they're members or their needy constituents have diapers for that week, they can instead worry about helping those women. i am proud to be associated with the national center for entrepreneurship and innovation,

a group of like-minded people who believe is vital that we restore entrepreneurship as a shared an enduring value in america. it is why i am proud to be engaged in micro finance here and around the world to help give people a chance to lift themselves and their families left, poverty.in the few minute what do we do so we do not boil the frog to death? what do we do so instead of choking the life out of the economy and a special place we unlock the potential of all of those frustrated entrepreneurs and innovators? i think there are four basic policy prescriptions. well i have been critical of washington, there are small glimmers of hope. first we need tax reform. not just lowering rates,

although that is important since our tax rates are now the highest in the world. but radical simplification. tax reform has bipartisan support. i am heartened by the efforts senator orrin hatch and max baucus, two good friends of mine and two good men who are starting with the fundamental notion that they will wipe out every loophole and reduction in the tax code. for years i have been saying the only way to do this is to lower every rate and close every loophole. because let's face it, the loopholes mostly benefit those that are big. maybe there are a few that would you would let come back in. what they understand is if you say they all go, the burden of proof is on those who must argue to put them back in. we not only need lower tax rates, we need radical simplification of the tax code

so an entrepreneur does not look at it and say i cannot possibly understand 26,000 pages and give up before they start. tax reform. we need immigration reform. we desperately need immigration reform. criminals aside the who are coming in where the people who have broken our laws or the human traffickers, why is it that people come to this country? because they envision a better

life for themselves and their families. because they are desperate to imagine and create a different future than they have. i hope we are at a moment where bi-partisan immigration reform is possible and where we recognize our legal immigration system is so fundamentally broken the we're hurting ourselves as a nation. this has to be the place forever and for always where hard- working people all around the world say that is where i want to go. that is where i want to dream my dream and build something different for my future. third i think we need zero based budgeting. i know there is a lot of talk in washington about a balanced budget amendment. i think that is less useful than saying we are going to ask every bureaucracy in the united states government to literally justify every dollar they spend. that is what we do in business. i know as a business person whether you are talking about a small start up or a huge fortune 20 company, this is true. if you give an organization more money year after year, their performance will

deteriorate. it will not improve. because people lose the ability to prioritize. they lose the discipline to justify why they are spending money. they lose the incentive to explain clearly that they are trying to spend each and every dollar wisely and well. zero based budgeting where congress has the opportunity to ask for justification for every dollar and the transparency that comes along with that. it does not matter whether you are a liberal, libertarian, or somewhere in between, we would be shocked at what we're spending money on. said, doubt what i just that more money does not mean better performance, think about what is going on in the veterans administration.

it is not because people are ill meaning. it is just because the way in bureaucracy works, works against performance sometimes. the veterans administration has increased 45% in the last five years. we would applaud that. yet the waiting time for veterans to receive disabilities has gone from 260 days in 2008 to 400 something days in 2013. ergo more money is not better performance. zero based budgeting. finally, i would create a task force of small-business owners and entrepreneurs. somehow we have to keep their businesses going in the meantime. their job would be to look at each and every regulation on the books today. each and everyone. they would make recommendations about which to kill, which to modify. atguess is we could do with

least 50% to regulations and we have today. it is not the regulation is not important. it is important sometimes. but literally no one knows how many we have, when literally which ones contradict others, when literally confined no one in the city who can say i know all of these regulations make sense -- because how is it regulations get put together? somebody finds a problem. they say a i need to fix that problem. that particular problem may need fixing. that regulation may make sense. when you add it up with everything over time, pretty soon together none of it makes sense. we need a full-scale regulatory review. those policy prescriptions i do not think are partisan. you may or may not believe they

are possible. as we approach the fourth of july, i would close by saying this. this is a unique nation in the course of human history. it is a unique nation in the course of human history because of that radical idea that everyone has potential, that everyone deserves the right to fulfill their potential, that everyone deserves a chance and maybe a second, third, and fourth chance. the thing that makes that radical idea come to life, in addition to political liberties and protections, is entrepreneurialism, the ability to imagine a future and then to build that future. we have so many problems in this world and in this country. one in six people live in poverty today. we have so many opportunities to compete and win. human capacity is limitless.

but human potential is too rarely fulfilled. on this fourth of july, what i am hoping is that in addition the great founding fathers who had the genius to imagine this place, in addition to the veterans who have died and fallen and fought to preserve this place, that we will celebrate the entrepreneurs and innovators who made this place. thank you so very much. [applause] >> thank you. you get to stay appear and

answer questions. we have a lot from the audience. immigrationbout reform, calling for something to be done. do you support the comprehensive immigration reform package the senate passed last week? >> the short answer is yes. i think it must be comprehensive. things there are some the house can and should and hopefully will do before it passes something also in a bipartisan way. i totally understand why people want someone other than the federal government to say yes, the border is secure.

on the other hand, i think we're pouring enough resources border based on the senate bill that it should be quite easy for a governor to say my border is secure. i hope people will recognize that reform by its nature always requires compromise. i hope people on both sides of the aisle and in both chambers will not get too hung up on taking credit for anything but will instead conclude that as the chinese proverb says, success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. to embrace the fact that what we have today is the worst of all outcomes. we have to have reform. >> on tax reform, we know the housing market is still recovering from the crisis our economy has been in for a number of years.

you talked about eliminating all of the tax credits and starting from scratch. that would include the mortgage deduction. how would that keep the economy from going into another housing crisis? >> the nature of that question is a perfect illustration of why i say we should start with a blank state and why i think they have a right. of course there is a justification for virtually every deduction. acan stand here and make wonderful case for the home mortgage deduction or i could say mostly that deduction is most useful for people who have not just one home but two homes. but the point is that through a process of starting with a blank slate, now the burden of proof is on who can muster the political will to put a

loophole back in. maybe there will be enough political will to preserve the home mortgage deduction that it will be preserved. that would be ok with me. but my bet is that 80% plus of the deductions and loopholes and complications in our tax code will not be defended or preserved. if we could get rid of 80%, that would be huge progress in my mind. it is the process that matters because it will cause a different outcome than saying let's have the political process to debate who loses their deduction. that is a political free-for- all that will not end in the right outcome. >> the question asks if entrepreneurship is linked with innovation. israel has a stifling bureaucracy but lots of innovation. what is your take on that? >> i think it is an interesting question. i think in part, the question illustrates the link between democracy and innovation. i believe this is a link.

political liberty is linked to economic liberty. one of the reasons china, as an example, has difficulty with innovation is because the innovation threatens the political institutions. one of the reasons singapore now struggles with the innovation is the coast their society, while there is much about it that i deeply admire, it is by their own admission a society that has celebrated conformity. innovation is not conformity. innovation is disruptive. it is by its nature revolutionary sometimes. disruptive revolutionary ideas generally do not have been in a politically constrained environment. if they do, they are threatening in a politically constrained environment. that is why to me, the genius this place that they are two sides of the same point although both are a fundamental human yearning. >> there has been much reported recently regarding the government handling of personal

data belonging to americans and others. president obama said he is trying to balance national security against privacy. how well do you think the administration is doing? haved individuals confidence their best interests are being well guarded? >> let me take it out of the context of president obama and his administration and generalize my answer because it is what i believe. remember the old saying,

absolute power corrupts absolutely? to me, the question raised by the nsa and irs is, how is it we should hold these vast, complex, opaque institutions accountable. how is it that effective oversight is possible? how can we possibly know that if a few people with vast power, whether it is the federal reserve chairman or the head of the nsa, how can we know they are always competent, well meaning? the point is i think we need a fundamental re-examination, i would hope on a bipartisan

basis, prompted by these events at nsa and irs. we need a fundamental re- examination of how we conduct effective oversight. how do we hold these institutions accountable? thatps in the course of fundamental re-examination we will conclude sometimes there is too much power invested in too few people and sometimes bureaucracies have become so large that they are unmanageable and we need to do something different. those are the profound questions i hope will be raised by these twin events this summer in washington.

[applause] >> on cyber security, when he was still defense secretary, leon panetta warned the nation of was facing the possibility of week-old a cyber pearl harbor. he said they could put our transportation system and financial networks at risk. is that true? if so, why have we not done a better job to protect against the threat since it probably involves a partnership between government and industry? >> i think it is true. i served for a time as the chair of the external advisory board at the cia and on the defense business board. i have top clearances. there is no question the chinese invest heavily in kinds of things in this country from business to industry. there is no question cyber

espionage has been a tool of the chinese and others for some time. there is no question it is the new front, the new face of 21st century economics as well as political conflict. i agree with the questioner solving any one of these problems requires private- public partnership, cooperation between the private and public sector. i think there has been a fair amount of this. i am also encouraged by the fact that there is a huge community of entrepreneurs in the northern virginia area who the cyberd on security threat and from whom we

might see some terrific inventions that will keep us ahead of the threat. ae first step to solving problem is to speak publicly. i am encouraged we are saying publicly that we have a problem. china is part of the problem. by the way, whatever you think of the nsa program, there is no equivalent between what the chinese are doing in this country and a round of world and the nsa program. let us not allow anyone in this country or around the world to say the u.s. are doing it too. it is not equivalent. >> a young person in our audience asks how you have combined passions in the for- profit and nonprofit world. thoseuld you suggest

beginning their careers balance both? >> one thing i find so encouraging is the number of young people going into what are known today as social enterprises better not exactly for-profit or not-for-profit but are something in between. they are investment opportunities focused on achieving success and doing good. the truth is there are too many businesses that missed the opportunity to do good while they're doing well. there are all kinds of opportunities in business to do while up the same time doing well. it is true of the corporate

partners we have at good360. investmentsies of when i was at h-p focused on building communities, doing good in the community, but we got something out of that in better employees, better partners, better customers. businesses can do well and do good. it is likewise true there are some philanthropies and charities animated by passion but not sufficiently disciplined about how they run their operations. if you are trying to do good in a community with donor money, you need to be thinking hard about spending every single dollar wisely and well. the discipline that comes from

business is incredibly helpful in philanthropy and the heart of philanthropy is helpful in business. to a young person i would say my life is not exactly the right road map. my parents were exceedingly concerned when i dropped out of law school. they were concerned again when i went back to work as a secretary. they were near panic stricken when i quit that job and went italy to teach english. here is what i would say if you are a young person. do not worry too much about what your first job is. work hard at every job. there is no substitute for hard work. the person who is most likely to get promoted wherever you are working is the person who is doing a really good job at the job they have. find where your heart is. what excites you? what do you have fun that? what is your passion? because you are not going to be good at something that does not get you going in the morning. [applause] >> as far as your next career

move, you were asked on television whether you might run for elective office again. your answer was to never say never. you noted there is a new opportunity because you live in virginia. we are at the national press club where we like to make news. tell us if you have any interest in trying to get in for elected office. >> sorry, i will not make news today. but i do believe to never say never. i have a wonderful opportunity in my life. theentioned in

introduction, and a cancer survivor. we lost a daughter in the last several years. i know how fortunate i have been in my life and how blessed our family has been. i know how short life can be. for me now is about how i make the biggest contribution i can in the thing that gets me going in the morning, which is to unlock human potential, help people on what their potential. for me, that is about being associated with not for profits that helped to do that. can i help to restore the entrepreneurial spirit in this country? can i help women to realize their potential? women are the most underutilized potential in the world. can i help to develop leadership capacity with the organizations i work with? i have always believed when opportunity knocks, you need to answer the door, never say never. [applause] >> that leads into the next question. cheryl sandberg's book and advice has generated controversy this year, perhaps

more than she anticipated. what is your take on what she had to say? >> cheryl sandberg is a good friend of mine. good for her that she has decided to spend her time, talent, and money to help inspire other women. there are some things i disagree with her on however. one thing mentioned in my introduction, i was the number one powerful woman in business for six years in a row. it was a great honor, but every year i would say to the editors and publishers, why are you

doing this? why are you rank ordering women 1 to 50? if you want to celebrate women, good. but why are you ranking us? business is not like the golf or tennis ladder. this is not sports. in the game of life and business, it is better when everybody gets to play. the thing where i disagree with her is i think it is about women and men. but let's talk about women for a moment, fulfilling their potential. sometimes it is true women become risk averse. they do not want to take a chance on the job they have never done. i know when i took various jobs, people would always say to me do not take that job. it is too risky. you might fail. what i found out is when you go into a job that is messed up, if you fix it, people notice. it is true sometimes women are risk averse. on the other hand, some women do not have the opportunity to

take a risk. they are single mothers trying to raise a couple of kids. they do not get to take a risk. they have to think about other things. sometimes men are not willing to take the risk by hiring someone who is different from them or listening to a different point of view. i think feminism is when every woman and any woman has the opportunity, tools, and chance to live the life she chooses. not every woman will choose to become a ceo. some women decide to give back to their communities in ways that are unheralded and yet have a huge difference. feminism is when every woman has the opportunity and tools and chance to live the life she chooses whether or not men would approve or make the same choice. [applause] >> there may be more women ceo's, but technology and boards are still

dominated by men, mostly white men. do you think this will change in the next 10 years? why or why not? >> it is an interesting dichotomy when you look at american business today. when i became the ceo of hewlett-packard, i was the only woman running a fortune 50 company. the press attention, scrutiny, and criticism were unbelievable and not anticipated by me. today ibm is run by a woman. hewlett-packard is run by a woman. yahoo! is run by a woman.

byox and pepsi are run women. the list goes on. it is wonderful. and yet less than 20% of board members are women or people of color. that statistic has not moved in 10 plus years. it is true technology is still dominated by men. it is true the financial sector is still dominated by men. it is funny because on one hand progress and on the other not so much. i think the reason is because we're coming up against it. it is no longer that there are not qualified people in the pipeline. i think now we're coming up against what it really is. what it really is, is people have to take a risk. they have to take a risk on someone they do not know. ony have to take a risk someone who thinks differently than they do. they have to take a risk on someone who will challenge them. they have to be prepared to

have an environment that is sometimes uncomfortable. i think diversity is a business imperative. it is not a nice to do anymore. many people think it is about being inclusive and doing the right thing. yes, but more fundamentally it is a business imperative. it is a competitiveness imperative. i have sat around lots of tables where decisions were made. with all kinds of people. if you have a group of people that is mostly a like, they think alike, look alike, probably have known each other for a while, you will make a decision, but it will not be as good a decision as one that is made by a group of people that are different from each other and challenged each other. that decision making processg t,

there is going to be some conflicts, but you will end up at a better place because you will consider more alternatives. this is china's great vulnerability going forward. they all think alike. at least those in power. i hope it will get better in 10 years. getlieve it will not truly better until people understand this is not about a nice to do. this is about we have to do it. we have to do it to perform at our best as a nation and as companies. [applause] >> we are almost out of time. before asking the last question, a couple of to takeping matters

care of. i would like to remind you of our next luncheon speaker. that will be the president and ceo of duke energy on august 8. i would like to present our guest with the traditional national press club coffee mug. [applause] for the last question, let's go back to your speech. you have worn a lot of hats during your life so far. you have seen regulations from many different angles. if you could choose only one federal regulation to rescind, what would it be? >> only one? [laughter] it is probably cheating to say that is the wrong question. it is not the one that is the problem. it is the hundreds of thousands that are the problem.

i do not know how to answer that question. if i had to wave a magic wand, here is what i would wish for. i would wish our elected representatives would come to this city every day and instead of thinking about all the people they think about who have offices in town, they would come to work every day and think, what am i going to do today to help unleash an unlocked entrepreneurial potential? what one regulation should i get rid of? i cannot think of one but they know what they are. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. thank you to our audience. i like to thank the national press club staff for organizing today's event. you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you look like a copy of today's program, check out the website at press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. [applause] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> that was the former hewlett- packard ceo, carly fiorina. if you miss any of her remarks or you want to see other events, go online to our video library .t c-span.org later this afternoon we will show a debate between nuking rich and the former greek prime minister. they participated in the with hindrance

or contributions to make -- economic quality. >> five years from now i think we are still going to be looking at a world dominated by traditional executives. forle have been waiting years to see the pay tv package blowhard. it is starting to happen. change ine of the the business model or technology, but the accumulating rates. over 10 years it will be a large audience that programmers and the entertainment industry will have to address answer. >> we are trying to set up an opportunity. to decide the channel share or