cy. then they will have the political support to sustain the veto. of course, this environment. but it is an interesting debate there are some amendments on their that the senate passed, it says that climate change. hopes and it might as house floor where he on that matter. the worst the democrat to support the bill. that will make the obama veto look a little bit worse. republicans are going to frame it as obstruction. that will dominate the house.

>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for coming out to our first public event of the year for the task force. let me thank the atlantic council and the plowshares fund for the generous support. we have been going on for four years and i must say that the news keeps getting better. some positive indications about the nuclear talks. but we are here to talk about the people to people aspects of the u.s. iran relationship which are maybe more important in some ways than the technicalities of how many centrifuges iran is allowed to have your want more interaction between the peoples of iran and the united states. i coordinate the iran task force here at the atlantic council. im delighted to have a speaker with us today, someone who has been involved with a run for many years to someone who has also just had their first visit

there. a former first term congressman from the second district of kansas, during his tenure he was a member of the house energy and commerce committee, which has broad jurisdiction over health care, energy, and environmental issues. he also served on the veterans affairs committee. he is currently a law firm partner and he advises clients who has matters pending before congress. but i think that form our perspective what is the most important thing about congressman slattery is that he has been part of something called an interfaith dialogue between the united states and iran. this is the dialogue coordinated by the peace research institute in norway and the catholic university of america. as i mentioned, jim has just

come back recently from his rate first visit to iran and i am going to ask him to come up and talk a bit about what the visit was like. as well as the prospects for a people to people relationship. congressman? thank you for coming. congressman's laterally -- congressman's laterally -- congressman slattery: i want to say that i admire the work to you have done. your recent book is one of my favorites and i appreciate your scholarship on that. a passion of mine is avoiding war with iran. armor: do you want to talk about how you got -- barbara: two you want to talk about -- do you

want to talk about what it was like to be in the heart of the country? >> over the last 10 years i had the opportunity to participate in regular dialogue with a rainy and's. we call it the abraham dialogue, it was composed of americans christians come muslims, and jews, representatives of the abraham it -- abrahamic faith. the fascinating part about it was that the participants coming from iran were approved by the supreme leader at the time. they were what i call second-tier people in iran. heads of the business community, members of the modulus, personal friends of the supreme leader and the president at the time. now many of the people that we

got acquainted with over those 10 years have moved into positions of key responsibilities in the government. i feel particularly important -- fortunate to have had the opportunity to build relationships with these people. one of the things i learned along the way was that the uranium's are deeply concerned with respect. the one thing they learned for his respect. -- year and four is respect. think about a texan and this notion of the west respecting them. if you want to engage a rainy and's and the shia muslims it is easy in conversation. you can preface anything you want to talk about with the phrase -- help me understand what the koran teaches about whatever it is you want to talk about, from nuclear weapons to sex, they will be happy to engage and talk about that.

i think it is a way of demonstrating respect to people of religious faith and many of the people that we had the opportunity to meet during this tenure. -- during these 10 years. even leaders in the political and academic realm, many of them are also people of deep faith. congressman slattery: -- [indiscernible] -- congressman slattery: -- barbara: these were primarily meetings in europe? barbara: ♪congressman slattery: that is true. one evening, we got a kick in -- you will get a kick out of this, i took some ayatollahs to the house of representatives. this was probably seven or eight years ago. i will never forget standing in the well of the house and the iranians were just captured by

the fact that there was an inscription about the speakers desk in the house that says in god we trust. and there is a relief of moses looking down on the house of representatives. for that matter, as being great -- engage the broader muslim world it is important to be respect of of religion and figure out how to communicate more effectively with them about the common things around islam, another conversation but i think it is an important part of this relationship that we tend to blow by. i think that because of my involvement over the last 10 years in this interfaith dialogue, my name may have come up on the radar screen in iran. i do know a number of the people there in the government now, but

i received this invitation to come and speak to this world conference, it was called, the world against violence and extremism. this was in december of last year. they told me -- i was the former member of congress or current member of congress invited to iran since 1979 to speak. i don't know if that is true or not, but that is what they told me. my topic that was given to me at the last minute was -- can religion be a force for peace in the middle east. the next question -- the answer to that question in my opinion was -- yes, it can be, but it can also be a problem, too. i was particularly pleased that the chief of staff and president there, all three of them spoke at this conference and all three of them were very clear and very strong and emphatic in their

condemnation of the violent acts of terrorism on the part of isis and other religious fanatical groups in the middle east committed in the name of islam. i wish that the western media would have done a better job of covering this conference. i thought that these statements were clear and strong, saying the things that so many of us in the united states would like to hear said by leaders in the islamic world. >> on a more personal note, what did it feel like? i clearly rumba the first time i went to iran in 1996, arriving in the middle of the night very jetlagged. i remember this gruff looking young man giving me a big smile

and being quite taken aback by that. i understand that you also had a fairly positive reception? >> it was interesting. my trip really started at the pakistani embassy here in washington, where the iranian intersection is. certainly i mind, i went into the meeting and the three people that interviewed me to get my visa, believe it or not two of them had degrees from kansas state university, ok? i used to represent kansas state and the university of kansas when i was in the congress. these guys started talking to me and one of them remembered me as the congressman from manhattan. manhattan, kansas. that's correct. he was talking to me about the fact that they got married in manhattan and his wonderful experience in manhattan, kansas.

fast forward to my first night in to iran. i went out to dinner with the assistant. guess where he went to school? he went to school at the university of kansas. he was telling me that he remembered me being his congressman while he was in school there. we had this wonderful conversation about the jayhawks and how they were doing in basketball this season. talk about a small world, it just sort of blows your mind. back to your point, i arrived at about 3:00 in the morning and i think that every light into iran was on. it felt like i was flying into los angeles. it may have been a thursday night. anyway, every light you could

imagine was on, not a cloud in the sky. spectacular views. we arrived and i should identify the doctor, sitting here in the front row, he was sort of my sherpa. he was my guide as we landed in tehran. one of the funny things that happened was we got off the plane and went to the passport control area. they were short on the ape -- vip folks that evening. we had to wait a little while. while we were waiting, i started chattering and chatting with the passport control folks. they were young men, as you might imagine. 3:00 in the morning. one of them who spoke pretty good english said -- i hope you guys can get this nuclear thing work out, we're looking forward

to meeting some american women. [laughter] i thought that this was, once again, a reminder that certain things are universal, i suppose. i responded by saying that if you keep in mind that if we do this there will probably be some handsome young american men here competing with you for the attention of some persian women too. they said -- i had not quite thought about that. anyway, we had a wonderful exchange their. he asked me if i wanted to go by the ayatollahs tune, shrine, mosque on the way to the hotel. what do you do after you land? it is on the way to the hotel. i found myself going through the ayatollahs -- ayatollah's memorial shrine mosque burial site. i thought -- well, why not?

it was pretty obvious i was a westerner. i found it interesting. i had no hostile reactions from anyone. we went to the tomb of the imam we quietly took pictures and left. no problem at all. the following morning was a plenary session. >> i want to open the floor to questions. dr., i remember many efforts

that were made to try to have american concepts in iran, but it never quite happened. there were members of the iranian parliament, as i recall and i believe it was 2000 and i do not remember if they got in washington. >> thank you for putting this wonderful meeting together. before i answer that jim, talk about the importance of this dialogue. you talk about the people who participated from the iranian side. on the american side there have been many atrocities from the leaders.

here, you know how dedicated our political leaders are. that was the key point to bring these people. to talk about that, it was breaking bread, making friendship and connection, the human being was the person who had respect. it has been one of the trips of change for iran. and that is a problem. that is how we were able to go to iran. not as an official guest, but

those who came here, it happened but not just because of this phase. the imf meetings in whatever from the parliament goes on, but some of them have been part of the dialogue. since they are friends with each other -- >> some members have been -- >> of course, yes of course. every six months they, as a part of the delegation from parliament. barbara: -- congressman slattery: one of the sad

realities that we are dealing with right now in these negotiations is that very few members of the administration and the government, congress or the executive branch, have any personal relationships with iranians. this is why it's a tragedy. like eisenhower i believe that -- i believe in people to people diplomacy and the building friendships. when surprises come, you have friendships and relationships that give you a basis to start a conversation from. >> are there any plans now to try to get this kind of conflict -- contract -- contact? as has been pointed out, there is opposition in both hotties to the nuclear agreement. it would seem incredibly valuable. congressman slattery: i would love to see it. barbara: is there anything happening on -- congressman slattery: i will do

everything i can to encourage it , and i for one believe that one of the great problems we have to overcome right now is ignorance. it is amazing to me when i have conversations with members of congress just how little they know about iran. by the same token, there is a great misunderstanding on the part of iranians he positions of leadership about the united dates. what can we do to break down the walls of ignorance and suspicion is of enormous value. we operate under the chatham rules. i cannot attribute specific remarks to specific members, but i can tell you that i met with high-ranking members and i can tell you that they had several important points to make. number one, they are all deeply concerned about what affect the congressional elections will

have on the president's capacity to implement anything. that was of deep concern to them. they were troubled by the prospect of perhaps the iranians putting their best deal on the table only to have it rejected by the u.s. congress or rejected in the united states. this would be a political disaster for them. they need assurances. they want to be confident that it can be approved and implemented by the obama administration and will not be scuttled by the congress. the other thing that took away from the conversations especially with members of the modulus -- keep in mind, those are populated by a more conservative element in the government perhaps, but they made it very clear to me that they are determined that iran will preserve its rights under the mpt.

specifically the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. barbara: someone argue that there is not such a right in the mpt. congressman slattery: well, they certainly perceive that they have that right within it, and i am mindful of that dispute. there is a very intense desire on the part of the marshall list especially, that iran be able to retain some enrichment capability. i also detected a great flexibility on the a part of the arabians with respect to what i call the technical enrichment questions. the level and quantity of enrichment, the number of centrifuges, i believe that all of these issues are negotiable and directly tied to the issue of whether and when the u.s. is prepared to lift sanctions. the quicker we lift sanctions the more forthcoming the arabians will be in all

probability with respect to the technical nuclear issues. barbara: i think that that is a great introduction. let me open it up to you. please wait for the microphone say your name, ask a question, please. >> thank you very much. i'm with the west asia council. my question has to do with your view of the role of american institutions, civic and educational institutions universities, and generally the american people and their role in leading the charge in establishing these people to people contact as opposed to always waiting for either government to be the one who leads the way and opens the path or if they are using civic activism in this arena along religious and other civic

institutions, could it be the bridge builder needed right now? thank you. congressman slattery: i support all kinds of bridge building efforts, whether they are academic religious faith-based, anything that we can do to encourage the dialogue between the u.s. and iran is beneficial for both sides. we should not be afraid to learn. so, i favor that kind of dialogue. i must tell you that i think that both sides are equally guilty of trying to prevent that kind of discussion and dialogue and we have to think about that and address that and i would like to see the administration be more forthcoming and helpful in terms of expediting those kinds of exchanges and i would like to see the iranian government admitting more americans to tehran. our greatest enemy in this process may well be ignorance. this is 2015.

with all of this communication capability we need to get to know each other better. what will surprise you? what did you least expect? , 60% of the students in the university are female. a unique phenomenon. especially in the world of islam . one of my iranian friends shared with me that they are troubled by what they will do and the other thing that was amazing to me it was like the worst rush-hour traffic it seems like

all day. the other thing that i observed is that every third or fourth car was driven by a woman. compared to the situation in saudi arabia, it is a whole different world. i found this in the streets. i was in baghdad several years ago to observe the elections in the sunni precincts and areas of baghdad. and then i realized my full cup there were wrong and we may not observe the voting places there and i would not have lasted five been scouring -- i don't

believe, but for for and on the -- little bizarre, i detected no anger towards me as an obvious westerner. i felt straight -- and we went to the bizarre >> out of the desertion. quick css -- yes, absolutely. >> here in the front row. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> talk about how your contacts with american partners, britain,

germany, some others, how different do they see these cases and how do they approach each country? >> without and he envisions thinks of the u.s. as being the dominant player in the urine for the clue -- four approved relationships. i have left conversations behind with a firm belief that the government really wants to get this right with the united states. they want an agreement on the new year weston. i believe they also see this as a sort of threshold decision.

i think they believe that there is opportunity for moving on quickly to some of the regional issues. the iranians, sort of all of them would puzzle over the fact that the united states was so reluctant to engage iran in dealing with isis. they were also very forthcoming in talking about, for example, has below. they believed that if we could figure out each other other's concerns about the nuclear questions in a way that is respective of and recognizes the concerns for israel, there is no reason why this conversation cannot be quickly expanded to address other regional questions. all of them. imagine that relationship with iran and what it might mean for the middle east. that is what we should be

thinking about. iran is a country of 80 million people. 85% literacy rate. some of the richest energy reserves in the world. arguably the top two or three largest energy reserves in both oil and natural gas in the world . a strategically in the middle east will look so different for all of the allies in the region if we could figure out how to get this right. >> you have touched on israel. obviously there are many including the prime minister or people who are concerned that they in use their original ramones to publish an anti-islamic jihad so, how would

you answer that? >> i can understand that concern. we must be mindful of the reality, with israel -- when it comes to the nuclear and other questions there is no margin for error and as americans i don't think we can get our head around that reality the. but having said that, i strongly believe that we have a historic moment right now. and they want to do a deal with the united states that will result in the lifting over the. of time sanctions. i believe they are prepared to give us virtually unlimited

access to their facilities to address our concerns about their compliance. i think that that is the best way for us to achieve one of our most important objectives, prevent the florida -- prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. specifically stopping iran from obtaining a weapon that will surely lead to an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the middle east, which is a disaster for everyone, that is in no one's interest. i agree with general dempsey that they are smart, sophisticated people that do not think they are rational. i reject that.

i think they are our rational. they told me things like -- jim, do you think we are crazy? don't you understand that we know that you could unload one half of one of your tracking on our country and the level with bounds? do you think we're crazy? do you think that we don't understand that if we ever militarily struck israel it would result in an almost immediate violation of our country? they share this kind of thoughts with me. now, i just share them with you, for whatever they're worth, but i don't believe that the iranians are irrational. i believe that they will act in their own self-interest. i believe that they understand the nuclear weapon does not enhance the national security, the bottom line.

you have got a spotlight out there with the supreme leader saying it is against islam to have weapons of mass destruction. they point to the iran-iraq war and when the rainy and when the iranians were being gassed they did not respond. one of the side notes is that the doctor who is responsible the chairman of the wave conference that i spoke at, he was a victim of being gassed in the war. he has shared with me personally that he worries about what affect this is going to have with his children. is it going to genetically passed to his children. he has also shared with me that he has forgiven the united states and does not hold us directly responsible, but that he believes we were acquiescent. that we were not helpful in terms of preventing saddam from using the gas it was used against the iranians.

whatever that's worth. >> greg? the mic. >> thank you very much for this presentation. i wanted to follow-up on what you were just talking about. iranian views on nuclear weapons. did you get a sense of differentiation? i would get a sense that the commander would have a different view from the man on the street. the second part, since there is a religious component in your dialogue, how do you explain to them the christian view about the morality of nuclear weapons? >> let me take this in reverse order. first of all, i believe that there are differences of opinion within iran.

clearly there are people there who do not want to see an approach from the united states. and one is not currently benefiting from the economic sanctions. life is good for those making money on the sanctions and they like the status quo, so they would be opposed. and then you have another group that are the defenders of the revolution, i would call it, the people that truly believe in the islamic resolute -- revolution. they see this with the united states as a threat to the rot -- to the revolution. they believe it means greater western influence and that crowd is also opposed to rapprochement.

you have those forces working against the agreement in iran, with others, clearly. the challenge, of course, is how do we move beyond that and take advantage of that growing group? who truly want a better relationship with the united states. the team that is in charge right now, the quick observation that would make is that all of the people i visited with have all indicated to me that they believe the supreme leader is supportive of these negotiations. i will be a skeptic as to whether this is going. i think that the united states and their ultimate objective is reaching the united states and in the back of his mind he is

thinking the united states really wants to see and i believe that he has reluctantly agreed to permit them to proceed with these negotiations. and the other thing about kristen and the bottom line is that we, that all of our traditions and teachings, we all have the right to self-defense. that is maybe the common ground. barbara: you mentioned the supreme leader, who made some interesting remarks yesterday, once a -- once again expressing support for negotiations on the other side.

obama says that no deal is better than a bad deal. he also said and strongly implied that the deal that is now being negotiated is a deal that he could set. there is some disagreement in the expert community about how to interpret his remark. but some have called it less hostile to the united states than recently, suggesting he is preparing the ground for the acceptance of some sort of agreement that would require concessions on the part of the iranian government. >> i thought it was really interesting that he made the point of talking about the middle ground with both sides making concessions. further indication that the supreme leader is blessing these negotiations and is optimistic that maybe something can be achieved.

the other side of this is what happens if we fail? it is one thing to come in and condemn these negotiations and be critical of them. i think it was president truman that once observed that any jack askin shakedown a barn, it takes a carpenter to build one. barbara: are you saying but i think you're saying? [laughter] congressman slattery: no, ignore that remark, mr. prime minister. my point is that it is easy to be critical, easy to be critical. it is hard to negotiate these kinds of deals. hard to build trust. the failure to complete an agreement right now, the failure to improve this relationship

with iran has dangerous consequences for the united states and iran. some people have asked me -- why in the world are you involved invite you care? the reason i care deeply about this is because it is all about my kids and grandkids, i suppose. as we look out, what do we see on the horizon? this is an enormous economic challenge to this country and middle-class americans. there are 1.3 billion muslims in the world but what i knows this, country boy kansas common sense.

we cannot, as a country, confront the economic challenges that are surely on the horizon from asia right now. while getting sucked into a prolonged war in the world of islam, where does this war and? for goodness sakes, if we think that we are a rich enough country to engage in more and more wars without taking on the economic challenges of asia, we are fools. we will look like britain, 1947. that is why it is so important for us to prevent more wars in the world of islam. i think that one of the most important things that we can do is engage the world of islam. one of the things that i shared

one of the things i have thought about and shared is that when we approach the world of islam faithful muslims are directed, commanded, taught to follow the teachings of all the prophets. all of the profits. including jesus. in the world of christian dem are we not supposed we following jesus as well? whether we see him as savior or profit, if we are supposed to follow the teachings of jesus is a not a space here for conversation? why can we not have that conversation? i believe that we -- if we engaged the world of islam where they are, with religion being a big part of their life, just as it is in kansas, by the way, ok

i think there could be a very interesting conversation. it takes me back to the point about the need for more dialogue , that opportunity exists in should be pursued. barbara: i want to recognize jim moody, whose brilliant idea it was to invite senator -- congressman slattery come up. i am sorry that you did not hear the earlier conversation, but he has been as good as predicted. the lady here had a question. >> i have been talking to immigrants to the u.s. who still go back to visit. i spoke to a lady and said they wanted to be able to travel to disney world.

i went to leningrad during the court -- during the cold war and they wanted to see the magazines. there is just so much about this issue, who is really speaking out? speaking out for the moderates? congressman slattery: in iran? barbara: how about the general population? they did a poll in 1999 asking what percentage wanted normal diplomatic relationships with united states, they put the pollster imprisoned and they had radically change their views over the years from the time of the revolution. what do you experience within the border of passport control?

congressman slattery: let me strike a balance. the team around run honey -- will honey --rohani -- rohani , if we fail we are likely to see the return of a much more hard-line government in iran. i don't want to leave the impression that the forces in iran opposed to the united states that do not want to give up any of the nuclear enrichment capabilities, who is left to their own devices would probably develop a nuclear weapon, that

is probably the reality in iran. the challenge diplomatically is to power -- empower those who see it is a foolish course and that the wiser course is to engage with united states and find some solutions to this nuclear question and then move on quickly to address those regional issues. in my conversations over 10 years, many of them will tell me that when it comes to the palestinian israeli issue that if we got this deal on nuclear question it would reduce hopefully, the anxiety and legitimate fear that many in

israel have about the prospect of a nuclear iran. i think that that would make it easier for us to have these conversations about the south of lebanon and hamas. we should not be afraid to have those discussions and conversations. i think that the first point is to get this nuclear deal done in a way that is the best way available. the best reasonable way available to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. if we enter into an agreement with iran, and by the way pretty much everyone agrees or have complied with the agreement entered into in 2013, they have eliminated those on the 20% level in the program.

any suggestion that these negotiations have been to the u.s. and the west at an advantage is dead wrong. we have to acknowledgment it has been frozen in place. if we can continue that indefinitely, that is progress. that is moving us toward a situation where iran does not have a nuclear weapon. further observed that since sanctions went into place, we have patted ourselves on the back and think it is working well, but what is the bottom line? sanctions went into place and there are about 200 centrifuges spinning, by their own admission today, there are about 20,000 online in iran. do concessions work? you tell me.

>> thank you. leander bernstein, sputnik international. i want to get your feedback on how you view what is happening in congress right now with the threat of sanctions. it is pretty fluid and how you view that with the new threat of sanctions possibly derailing the nuclear negotiations. if you could comment, is it normal for the president to negotiate what is effectively an arms-control deal without effectively bringing it to the congress to be ratified? congressman slattery: you ask some very important questions. number one i encourage my friends in the congress to avoid

supporting additional sanctions of this time. i think it is counterproductive and i do not think it will accomplish anything. i assume that the best of the congress is that they are troubled by the fact that these negotiations are extending indefinitely. it is a bit like budget negotiations in the congress. everyone holds out until a last minute in order to get the best deal they possibly can. that is sort of the art of negotiation. i think we have to be patient. as i said earlier, the clock is ticking on both sides of the table. president obama's time in office is limited. then you have the situation

where they have to have some success here and be able to demonstrate to their constituents in iran that an improved relationship with the united states will yield benefits to iran. if they are not able to show that their popularity collapses as well. when i was in iran i kept hearing that we had a window of opportunity that would not stay open indefinitely. i think that it is time for us and hopefully by the end of march we can have the framework of an agreement. barbara: he said he did not want to to frame agreement. congressman slattery: the devil will always be in the details on something like this and the bottom line is we need something precise with as much detail as we can possibly have.

negotiated by the end of march, but by then i think it is urgent for both sides. you know, the iranians, they asked me and i heard this in several different places. can the united states really do a deal that is opposed by the government in israel? they were constantly asking me about the influence they have with the u.s. congress and how you deal with that. those questions are on the minds of iranians. they are very sophisticated, well-informed observers of the american political process. as americans, we have to make darn sure that we do not miss a historic opportunity to significantly improve this

relationship with iran. the last point in your question was -- >> barbara: why is this not being treated as a treaty? congressman slattery: i believe that the president and the administration would be well advised to engage almost daily in communication with key members of the united states and bring senators into this process as much as possible. i think that there are some senators on both sides of the political aisle that understand the urgency of the moment we are in and i believe that with secretary kerry and others being personally involved on a regular basis, we should be able to build bipartisan support for some kind of a reasonable agreement. this should not be prejudged.

this is very troubling to me when i read mr. netanyahu's statement from yesterday. there isn't a deal yet. yet he is saying he will do everything he can to prevent the deal from being approved. let's wait until we can see the deal and then we talk about what the options are. that is the thing i think we should keep in front of us. what are the options? you may think the deal has some risk involved and it will, but if you don't do the deal, depending on what it is, then what is the risk? where is the least risk, you might say? >> [inaudible] congressman slattery: pardon me? >> [inaudible] congressman slattery: ideally

you would want to see congress have a debate, like we did with other arms-control agreements. that would be the best for both countries. but by the same token if we are going to get into a celebration god for bid where domestic politics overwhelms the facts of the case and we are playing politics with this issue, that would be a horrible tragedy. ideally i would like to see the congress involved. as a practical political matter that may not be possible. barbara: this is also a multilateral agreement. >> good point. >> [inaudible] wanted to ask you about the

effect you are seeing on the invitations from congress. would you attend? what would you advise members to do? congressman slattery: you are really going to get me in trouble, aren't you? [laughter] bottom line, this was about domestic politics. barbara: his or ours? congressman slattery: both. i would tell you that i think that netanyahu's appearance before the house of representatives is a mistake and i say this as a supporter of israel. i don't want to see the u.s. being criticized at what they are doing, by politicizing this

important relationship at a historic moment. i am afraid that it is not going to be beneficial for israel, is not going to be beneficial for the united states. it was a bad choice in a bad decision. as someone who thirst for information, i may well attend the speech. but i may not, i may read about it. i believe that his coming here at this time is showing disrespect to the office of the president. i think about president truman. how would president truman react to something like this? i was out at the truman library last friday. i went over and asked the archivist to pull out the

documents with communications between mozambique and truman. i had a wonderful time out there reading those documents. the last time that something like this happened historically it may have been the republican congress who invited macarthur to speak after he had been fired by the commander-in-chief for insubordination. think about that. president truman, doing the right thing, supported by general marshall. we had a great speech, but it was a wrong time for a great speech and wrong place for a great speech. barbara: i think that we have

time for one more question, very quick, in the back, very quick. >> thank you very much p -- very much. i am glad that you had a chance to visit iran. have you had a chance to speak with other members of congress who have visited with iran? congressman slattery: it is not for me to invite them. but i would love to see members of congress, current members of congress. i would love to see iranian officials coming to washington to speak here. let me throw out a crazy idea if we are going to have netanyahu, and speak to a joint session of congress, has members of congress would like to have

the minister testified before the congress and have an opportunity to add questions. why not? barbara: i think he has enough problems with his own. [laughter] congressman slattery: invited to testify before the congress, the foreign relations committee, to talk about this stuff. why are we afraid of information? why are we afraid to talk to people and learn from them? that puzzles me. barbara: we are really pleased that you had time to come by today. congressman slattery: very pleased. barbara: thank you all for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> president obama says he has differences with benjamin netanyahu and iran and the need for more sanctions. he held a meeting with chancellor merkel. he defended his decision not to meet with benjamin netanyahu during his washington visit which comes shortly before israel prime minister visits. here's what he had to say. >> we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, if she was two weeks away from an election, she probably would not have received an invitation to

the white house, and i suspect she would not have asked for one. [laughter] so some of this has to do with how we do business. i think it is important for us to maintain these protocols because the u.s.-israeli relationship is not about -- this isn't a relationship founded on an finance ti the labor party and the democratic party or the lichud and republican party this is the u.s.-israeli relationship which extends beyond parties and has to do with that unbreakable bond we feel and our commitment to israel's security and the shared

values that we have. the way to preserve that is to make sure that it doesn't get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. whether that is accurate or not that is a potential per -- perception and that's something we have to guard against. the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran. i have been very clear, and angela agrees with me, and david cameron agrees with me, and the others who are members of the negotiation agree that it does not make sense to sour the association -- negotiations a month or two before they are to be completed. it should be played out. if we can get a deal, we should embrace that. if we can't get a deal, we will have to make a set of decisions.

as i said to congress, i'll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran. but what's the rush? unless your view is that it's not possible and it shouldn't even be tested. that i cannot agree with because as president of the united states i'm looking at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution, and those options are narrow. from the perspectives of u.s. interests, and i believe from the perspectives of israel's interests, although i cannot speak to that they are very real differences. there are differences substantively but that is separate from the issue of prime minister benjamin netanyahu coming to washington.

it was said in the paper a number of top democrats will not be attending prime minister benjamin netanyahu's speech. some are staying away from the speech which they see as an attack on president obama. speaker boehner said he is angry they invited him to attend without clearing it with the white house. those skipping the speech will be blumenauer, butterfield clyburn, grijalva, gutierrez. earlier today bernie sanders spoke about the issue of benjamin netanyahu speaking to congress. >> i'd like to weigh in on the speech that prime minister benjamin netanyahu is speaking to congress -- can you weigh in

on the speech by benjamin netanyahu? >> it is not a good thing. >> are you thinking of not going? >> i'm not thinking of not going, i'm not going. i may watch it on tv, but i'm not going. >> how many of your colleagues do you think are going to do that? do you have any sense? >> you are sounding like the immediate -- media, you want me to speculate. >> i am the media. [laughter] >> israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu plans to address concerns about new collar -- nuclear capabilities

of iran. you can see the entire news conference tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> tonight on "the communicators" gigi sohn. >> the chairman has said we are not going to rate regulate. i don't know who the next f.c.c. chairman is. the next chairman may try to throw out this whole regime and do something more free market oriented or less regulatory. i don't really buy the "next chairman" argument. the rules are only as good as the guy or the gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. so we have to do our best to set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers, preserve an open internet, which has been the greatest driver of economic development, free speech and innovation this world has ever known. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on

"the communicators" on c-span2. >> governor bobby jindal told a group of reporters today that he is in favor of arming the ukraine people with weapons. he spoke at a christian science monitor breakfast. this is about an hour.

>> good morning. thank you for coming. he was our guest most recently in 2004. i'm glad he's come back. he graduated from brown university at age 20 with degrees in biology and technology and studied as a rhodes scholar and turned down acceptances to harvard medical school and law. he became head of louisiana's

13,000 department of health and hospitals. at 27 he became executive director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. then came a two-year tour as president of the louisiana system, which lead to president bush nominating him as assistant secretary of health and human services. 6 the first indian american elected to the house. the youngest in the nation at that time, and it was re-elected with 66% of the vote in october 2013. the governor and his wife are the parents of three young children. thus ends the biographical portion of the program. as always, we're on the record here. please no live blogging and tweeting. this will give us time to listen to what our guest says. to help you resist the selfy urge -- selfie urge, we will email pictures. we will start by offering our depeft an opportunity to make opening comments. the floor is yours. >> thank you all for allowing me to come back and speak to you again. it is a changing sign of the times. we talked about selfies.

at the hotel gym this morning, there was a sign saying no pictures of any kind taken, and there was an exception, "only selfies." we have released papers on how we can become more energy independent. our foreign policy, investing in defense, as well as on repealing and replacing obama care and a more conservative approach to health care. today i am here with our fourth paper talking about k through 12 education reform. there are many reasons we should be concerned about the status of education. another report over the weekend talking about if america were to close the gap of where we are today in canada over the next several years we could add trillions trillions of dollars to our economy. there is a report from stanford university talking about the fact that if we had better

teachers in our classrooms, a more effective teacher can improve the average earning of that student by thousands of dollars. better teachers can do things like not only increase average earnings but also reduce teenage pregnancy rates and increase the odds those children will go on to college. there are many many reasons. i won't belabor this. there are many reasons why america lags behind other countries on national comparisons. there was a time when our education system was the envy of the world, just as there was a time when making model t's was the envy of the world. just as other sectors of our economy has adapted and changed so too has our educational system changed. it no longer makes sense to use a top-down, one-size-fits all

approach. i also make the argument, it is not just economic reasons we should care about education. there is a lot of talk about what this can do for our economy. as a self-governing public, it is essential we teach the next generation to be informed citizens. that is the ability to make decisions when they vote for the rest of us. there is a moral imperative why we should care about the quality of education being offered in our country. we offer three main themes of how do we improve education in america. it is fashionable to say we have quality education in america. it sounds good and we all like to believe the circumstances of your birth don't influence your education. the problem is, it is not true. if you are wealthy, you are likely to move to neighborhoods

with great schools or have the ability to save the dollars you need to send your kids to private school. it is disproportionate to low income families that are trapped in failing schools that don't have the opportunity to get a greater education. that is absolutely critical that the circumstances of your birth don't influence your education. one of the biggest obstacles of changing that is the democratic party. they like to say they are for educational opportunities.

the reality is they are stopping children from getting access to a great education. i would argue this is largely because they have been bought and paid for by teachers unions. they have been opposed to basic concepts like school choice. we don't argue there is one silver bullet. our point is that every child is different, so let's allow the parents to make the best decisions for their sons and daughters. they know the needs of their children best. i know there is fierce resistance to this idea. we had, for example, the union leader in louisiana that said parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. i find this offensive and the exact opposite of the approach that we need if we are going to change education. the second thing is the quality of the teaching. we need to change how we put great teachers in classrooms. lower barriers to entry, higher barriers to retention. we need to move away from these union dominated of paying, hiring, and firing that are rewarding teachers based on how

long they are breathing rather than how well they are doing. i don't repeat the data of what a great teacher can do to improve lives. there are great things we can do to improve, reward and encourage the best teachers and keep them in our children's classrooms. third and finally, we need to take power away from the federal government. we need to restore these decision making authorities to the local and state governments. there are a variety of ways we can do that. we talk about, for example, the current debate of no child left behind. we talk about block granting to make sure dollars benefit students instead of buildings bricks, and mortar programs. in moving power away from the federal government, that's the debate today about common core. it makes no sense to me we would

have a block to testing and standards. it makes no sense to me that folks in d.c. know better than parents, teachers, and local leaders. in the beginning when people were opposed to common core, it was fashionable to dismiss them as crazy, conservative right wing. then it was the teachers. and now there is a third group, the parents. the more people are being exposed to the way math is being taught or this idea that for the first time the federal government would be making curriculum decisions that should be made at the local level, i think the more people are exposed to common core, and more and more people are demanding it be taken out of the classrooms, the more the federal government stop trying to force common core down the throats of local teachers, local parents and students. to me it is not just repealing from common core it is guarding

against this next generation of federal take-over and content. i think many people that advocate for common core think if you are against common core you are against standards. i think that's ridiculous. you can be against common core, less government, empowering teachers. this is what we need to do to improve education in our country. it is important to have a citizenry able to make those decisions. i'll talk about the new orleans experience the louisiana experience. i know my time is up, so i will leave that for the questions, but if we don't get to that material, i would encourage you to look through the report. there are several statistics and studies showing the benefits of choice and what it can do to improve the quality of a child's education. with that i'll stop. >> i'm going to do one and two. then we will go to jonathan

easly, suveragee paig -- susan paige and betsy rockstein. >> isn't it ironic that you are discussing education given the way you cut education in louisiana. as you know, there are two tough pieces by "politico" and "the new york times." " one thing they mentioned is that your cuts have been the deepest of any state over the past eight years on a per student basis. they say there are 1,000 fewer full-time faculty members. is there an irony about ramping up education when you are cutting it. >> sure. funding has gone up to $3.6 billion this year.

we have actually not cut k through 12 education. it has gone up on a per student basis as well. we have increased teacher salaries as well. the total higher education budget including means of total finance is actually a little bit slightly higher than when i took office. it hasn't increased as much as k-12 education. that is true. the reality is this. just like other states during the great recession we faced an issue of what to do with declining revenue. we also cut income taxes. the largest income tax. we made the decision. as a result our budget is 9 pill bill smaller than when i took office. we have 31,000 fewer state employees than we have had in decades. we also have the strongest credit rating we have seen in decades. more importantly, our private sector economy is stronger than

it has been in a generation. for example, since i've been governor our job growth is three times the national average. our economic deproth is two times the national average. right now you have literally $60 billion in private sector firms coming into the state for jobs. we have made a decision to cut spending but also to grow our private sector economy. when you talk about higher education respectively, we have seen retention rates at l.s.u. highest graduation rates we have ever seep. we have also seen some very good things happening. we increased higher education funding by $100 million. an over $40 million investment in the w.i.s.e. fund. we made a conscious decision to cut spending, cut taxes, grow the private sector economy. >> "the national journal" talked to jeb bush after a speech in detroit. one of the topics was education.

the governor said "13,174 government run school systems is not the appropriate model of governans for this incredibly diverse group of kids that comprise the next generation of americans." i know you don't want the government controlling curriculum. do you think there is need for consistency in academic expectations and standards if the united states wants to compete with other nations like china? >> yes. and this is an important topic that has come up quite a bit. in my plan i talk about the fact that the penned lump -- pendulum has swung too far that will now instead of just the test you have the test, the pretest and the test pre-pretest. you see a crowding out of social studies, music and art and other subjects in our classroom. let's remember and understand, though this testing arose for a very legitimate reason.

there is legitimate concern that you had many poor students and others that were getting left behind and weren't getting access to a good education. we were also seeing kids being promoted without mastering a year of material. i think the pendulum has swung too far the other way. we still say, look, when there are private tax dollars involved, we do say, yeah, we understand the need for annual testing so there is transparancy so parents can make meaningful choices so you can have accountability. two things should be changed. one, we call it a benchmark. there are ways you can compare a variety of tests so if a student is taking one test you can see how that student does compared to other states and even other countries. many private schools are acustomed to using other norm tests instead of assuming

everyone has to use the same test. secondly we also call for more aggressive wavers and flex -- waivers, especially for schools that are performing well. for example, if they want to use a.p. tests or other measures to show students are learning instead of this one-size-fits-all approach for testing. i think there needs to be accountability but i call for trusting parents. we call for letter grades. in our state we give letter grades in the schools a through f. right now some of the accountability is so complicated people don't understand how their child is doing. with a through f standards it makes it easier for parents to

know how their child is doing. so more accountability and not a one-size-fits-all approach. >> my question is, if a republican presidential candidate supports common core, should conservatives view that as a disqualifier for them seeking the presidential nomination? >> i think it will be a good debate to have. i don't think -- if republican voters want to vote for a candidate that supports common core, i suspect they will have that option. i also suspect if they want to vote for someone against common core, they will have that option. i think this is a good debate in the federal election. do we want to see more federal involvement in our classrooms? you will see that in the debate over common core and in no child left behind. title 1 and other interventions how should that funding be

delivered? we talk about a backpack model where the dollars intended to benefit students, including students with special education needs but all students, follows the child into the classroom. because of seniority based staffing how differently kids with special needs are taught. all of which are factors that are supposed to result in more funding don't always get those dollars. to go back to common core, i think it will be healthy for the party and the country if voters get to vote for candidates they want, not against, and they have a diversity of combruth. i think this is important. what is the proper role of the federal government? do we trust the bureaucrats in d.c. or parents and local teachers to make these decisions? i come down on the side of local teachers, local parents. not thinking it is better to have a group of bureaucrats in d.c. making these decisions for

us. >> this is a two-part question. do you think jeb bush is electable in the republican primary? and then my second question, i'm wondering if you think the united states should arm the ukraineans -- ukranians. >> the great thing about america is no one decides the election but the voters. it is not up to the experts or political consultants or fund raisers to decide who gets to run. if jeb bush were decide to become a candidate i'm sure he would be happy to make the case for his views for the electorate whether common core or other issues. if i were to run, one of the issues i would look at would be

not only this issue of common core. i'm all for the repeal of getting it out of our classrooms, but also making sure there is not another intrusion from the federal government into our classrooms. not only geding rid of common core, but giving block grants to the states. when we did school choice, we did president choice. the federal government under president obama tried to stop us. in our state 90% of the children are lower income. so i think whether someone is electable or not is up to the voters, not anyone in this room or anywhere else in d.c. what is the role of the federal government? i think that's a good debate to have. i trust parents. as for the ukraine i am glad to see president obama and angela

merkel are meeting today. i know there are people that favor the united states providing arms and more assistance for our allies in the ukranian government. i am for that. i think president putin needs to change the way he looks at ukraine. we know he went to crimea in part because he didn't fear real repercussions -- repercussions. i think he felt the white house would lead from behind. i think it is good the german and french leaders are talking about tougher sanctions. what i worry about is even if they are successful in coming up with a new agreement with russia, with the sepratists, the reality is the last agreements have not been respected by russia or the separatists. so i think anything we can do to

change the internal calculus is a good thing. that can be increased assistance to the ukranian government. i think we should work with our allies but i also think we should arm the ukranian government. it is long past time to do that. they are our allies. they are committed to strong relationships with the west, with europe. they are a democracy. they are a country that wants its territorial lines to be respected. i see no reason we should not arm them or work with them. at the same time i think it is good our european allies are talking about sanctions. i think it is a good idea that the president is talking to the german chancellor today. the reason i am for providing the arms is that i think we need

to change the calculation in russia. the problem today is our allies don't consistently trust us. when you look at putin's decision to go to crimea, i would argue this goes back to 2009. this president unilaterally withdrew the -- this president and then secretary clinton famously tried to reset with russia in terms of resetting that relationship that obviously didn't work. i think what putin read in all of that was weakness. what he saw from those moves is he neither feared no respected the leadership in the united states. a-- as a result, i think he felt it was a good move for him to go into crimea. and now you see further incursion in the violence in eastern ukraine. i think part of the way we can

provide assist -- the first way is to provide assistance to ukraine and also angsts. -- sanctions. >> there is a debate in the republican party if the primary process makes it more difficult for republicans to win the election. jeb bush said he has to be prepared to lose the primary to win the general. do you see a tension between winning the nomination and winning the election? >> no, i think there is a concern. there is this ideal belief that if we could have fewer debates, if we can have a gentler process, that would be good for the party and good for the nominee. well, you know what?

democracy is messy. i know they may not like the fact that we have a number of qualified candidates, and by the way i'm partial to governors who have actually run something as opposed to our current president. i don't think we can afford more on-the-job training. i think it is better to have voters make the chice. it is better to have an open and honest debate. by the way a tougher nominating process didn't seem to help then senator obama when he was running against senator clinton. there were people back then on the democratic side saying she should have dropped out or suspended her campaign early yemplet i think the reality is the president of the united states is an extremely important job. we want these candidates to have the policy, depth, expertise, character to do what is a very, very difficult yet a very important job. so i think in a republican -- in

the upcoming republican primary i hope there is a fierce and open contest of ideas. i would encourage those that get in on the democratic side to avoid the ad homymym attacks. the reality is i think republicans are concerned about the direction of our country. they are looking for big change, the restoration of the american dream. i also think, we can't just be the party of "no." we have to be the party of solutions. some of those ringing their hands about the nominating process, what they really mean is we just need less conservative voters less conservative candidates. i think that's nonsense. i think the reality is, america doesn't need two liberal parties. there is nothing wrong with having a principled candidate that shows the american people

he can solve problems and help our country move forward. i think a lot of those folks complaining about the process are really concerned that they really want to repeal obama care and really wants to get rid of obama care. i am glad it is not the donars, the political class, i'm glad the voters get to decide. >> last week there was a content of a blogger that was releasing a portrait of you that makes you look white. how do you feel about that? >> you mean i'm not white? i'm shocked with this whole revelation. i think the reality ways -- i

think the left is obsessed with race. i think the dumbest thing we can do is judge people by the color of their skin. i think that the left is devoid of ideas, and this is unfortunately what they have resorted to -- name calling dividing people by the color of their skin. this is nonsense. we are all americans. one of the great aspects of our country is that we've been a melting pot. it shouldn't matter whether you came here five minutes ago or 100 years ago it doesn't matter. we're all americans. i'm not naive. i know any society comprised of

falliable human beings is going to be imperfect. but my point is this. dividing people by the color of their skin is one of the dumbest ways to divide people. i know there have been comments. there was something on msnbc that made a silly comment about me and race as well after i gave a speech in london. it's all nonsense. i think it is -- if people don't like what i said in london, let's talk about the idea. looking at people by the color of their skin is silly. it is one of the dumbest ways to debate people i've ever heard of. >> you didn't answer my question about your steve of staff. do you agree the blogger was race-baiting by releasing the portrait of you. >> i have no idea. i didn't read the tweets. i have a state to run, i have a day job, i have three kids at home that i help my wife to raise. the whole idea is silly.

the painting in question is owned by a constituent. it will go back to this constituent. i don't think i've met the artist. the bottom line is that dividing people by their race is silly. if it helps you, you are more than welcome to put in any article that you write that i'm not white. it really doesn't bother me. >> the last time i saw you was in charlotte after the 2012 election you made a pronouncement that the republicans need to start -- stop this stupid -- >> i said about nine other in my top 10 list, but that's the one people seem to remember. my son was so concerned that we say a bad word on tv. we teach our kids they are not supposed to say those words put

money in the jar. i finally put a limit on it because it kept showing up on tv. i think we have to be more interested in policy based solutions. it is not enough just to criticize the president, not enough just to say no. i think we still have more work to be done. it is not enough to say we want to repeal obama care, we have to talk about how we want to replace it. it is not enough for me to say i'm critical of this president's approach of trying to block the d.c. scholarship program or our scholarship program or wisconsin's under a different attack but rather to say, how do we actually improve education ? i am against common core, but how to we encourage competition and quality. when it comes to energy, it is not enough to say we need to drill more, but there are other things we need to do to harness

energy at home. when it comes to foreign policy, it is not enough to criticize this president in terms of staying behind israel or stopping isis, we need real ideas of how to do that. i think there is more work to be done. i would like to see more of our candidates give serious thought to their policies or positions. people ask me all the time whether i'm thinking of running for president. i'm certainly thinking about it. but i'm also thinking of how this country should respond to the major policies in education. we have talked about hysteric. i would hope anyone, republican or democrat, would also give serious thought to these challenges our country faces. i think we are making progress. i think we have work to do. i think the important thing is we give serious thought to the problems facing our country

whether it is $18 trillion debt, obama care. it is more than bumper stickers, it is offering detailed ideas and conservative ideas. we don't have to be weaker versions of the other party. we can be consistent to our own principles that help the middle class know their children and grandchildren can enjoy the american tream. >> you were talking about your interest in running for president, thinking about is it and being partial to a governor as a nominee. since most governors say they want to do for the country what they do for the state, why would taking a state which had a billion dollar surplus to a projected deficit qualify you to run for president? >> i think it is a little more complicated than saying

governor's will do for their country what they did for the state. i think it is talking about their view of where they want to go -- the country to go. if you talk about ronald reagan, they have made real priorities as opposed to just giving good speeches, as our current president. if people want to look at my record talk about the fiscal track record. we have actually reduced the size of the state budget $9 billion, 26% over fewer state government employers. we balance our budgeted every year without raising taxes. i think that's something we need in washington, d.c. secondly the private sector economy. the economy has grown twice as fast as the national economy. our job growth three times the national job growth.

our private sector job creation. we have had 51 months in a row of year over year job creation in our state. we have an incredibly strong job sector economy where every business friendly ranking publication has done. we have gone to our highest ever ranking since i've taken office. there are other metrics showing our private sector has done well. third, you look at state education reform. 90% of our kids are in charter schools. we have doubled reading and nath in the last few years. when you look at the kids in the last few years going to a failing school it was over 65 a% before katrina and now it is 4% record high graduation rates in our k through 12 as well as higher ed. we took our charity system and done public-private partnerships going all the way back to huey long. it used to take 10 days to get a

prescription in baton rouge, it now takes 10 minutes. we have babies going home from the nicu with full wait. we avoided thousands of babies having to spend time in the nicu, which is great for those babies, those families and the taxpayers. ethics reform is actually number one in the country. across the board you see a state that was when i took office after katrina, a state with a stagnant economy inequality in educational opportunities, 25% of people moving out of the state rather than moving in. today we have more people living in louisiana than ever before, more people working there than ever before, seven years in a row of people moving into the state as opposed to leaving the state. i think we have made big changes. most importantly though, we took on generational challenges, and i think folks in d.c. are looking for leaders that will be

honest with them, even if it looks like they will be attacked by the media and the left, they are looking for states to make big changes. i would argue this country is headed in the wrong direction right now. foreign policy, economic policy, and a number of other areas. and that's the short answer of my talking about lieu lieu. >> putting on your statesman's hat, if you could, tell us what one achievement changed barack obama's, you, bobby jindal, appreciate. >> there have been changes in education i do support. i this administration and artie duncan and president obama both have been supportive of charter

schools. i think they have been supportive in changing the way of how we reward and hire teachers. i think they have been supportive of accountability. there have been times they have gone against what the teachers have wanted. what i would argue with is they haven't gone far enough. they do deserve credit for being in favor of charter schools, they deserve credit for new approaches to feacher hiring and firing. my biggest complaint about their approach to education is they don't go far enough. they will fine with charter schools, but they aren't really fine with full school choice. we have done a lot of things in louisiana. we lifted the cap on charter schools for people that have been successful in charter schools, to lessen the contract, and also closed down ineffective charter schools. but that's not enough.

you have to go further on teacher certification reform, and you have aappeal common core where i have been most disappointed in them is their strong support for common core. i do think they deserve credit with their support for charter schools and some of the reforms they have done in teacher evaluations. another area i would like to praise the president and first lady in specific in, joe biden as well, one of the priorities i know they have made is to help returning troops, help veterans, transition into private sector jobs. they have led the effort. they called attention to the need to, for example reduce excessive state regulations that prevent veterans from transitioning to good paying jobs. in some instances, for example, arguing that -- a specific example -- someone in the military that's had experience driving larger vehicles, making it easier for them to get a c.d.l. when they come back home and become gainfully employed. i know that is something we

enacted in louisiana as a state law as well. that is something they have been implementing and i know that is something the president has talked about in the context of next year as well, not just for veterans but for others that face obstacles for veterans regaining employment. i am proud to say we have acted, but i know a lot of other states also have acted. they have done a good job encouraging sfates to act. i know every year they meet them, they will pass out scorecards, which states have enacted them, which haven't. i think that's a great idea. >> you talked about the role of the federal government as kind of the larger debate over common core. you are not attacking jeb bush directly, on the other hand you are kind of railing against common core supporters and the rationale behind that.

this kind of starts a larger conversation with this party is that common core a starting point for that larger debate? >> absolutely. i think a conversation that's been going on for a long time. common core is an excellent opportunity for us to review the role of the federal government in general. i think no child left behind review is a good time to do that. i was never a fan of no child left behind. now we have a chance to reverse. look at the outcome. since 1970, you look at federal spending on education. you look at national spending. it has gone up dramatically even as outcomes have gone largely flat. you look at nonclassroom employment it has also doubled even while the student population has only gone up 10%. we have seen a massive involvement of federal spending, a lot more hiring outside the classroom, and more flat

outcomes. i think the department of education's budget needs to be reduced, it needs to focus on civil rights, it needs to focus on deregulation, and then so many of its dollars need to be cut or block granted so it does not have the dollars to continue -- for example it should be conditioned race to the top funding or no child left behind waivers. part of the problem with this administration's approach to no child left behind is they have waived adoption of this president's education reform. that is an improper use of power over what should be local decisions. they are using the coersion of federal funding in states for incentives, and i think that's wrong. i think we will have a

conversation first with the republican party and then the states, to. do we trust parents? do we make the -- we hear union leaders saying they can't trust parents. i think that is wrong. i think the better idea is to trust parents. empower them with choice. they know the needs of their kids most. they are not one of many stake holders. the parents of the children are the reason we have an educational system, so absolutely, i think that common core will be one more reason for us to have this bigger debate or conversation about the proper role of the federal government. >> could common core be one of the benchmarks for whether you are for -- >> i think it is an important example of where folks stand not

only in common core, but also the role of federal government in education. i think voters will end up making that decision. i reject the idea that someone in d.c. gets to decide what qualifies or doesn't. that's why we have this messy long nominating process so voters get to kick the tires. i hope voters will get to vote for a candidate instead of against a candidate. voters have to prioritize what's important to them as opposed to what issues are secondary. i think limiting the role of federal government in education is very important. i think the bigger issue is the role of federal government in general. i gave a speech last week about common core. i made the point of, let's put this in the context of, we're in

a debate that some people think americans aren't smart enough to pick their own health care, they aren't smart enough to know when they have trank enough big gulps. there are some on the left that think people aren't smart enough to live their own lives and have their own freedoms. i think within that context, what is the role of government? i argue we should trust the american people is to make their own decisions and live their own lives. >> governor just a few weeks ago sitting where you are sitting, senator rubio was asked about governors as opposed to senators being federal candidates. >> i suspect he had a different answer. >> yes. he made an interesting point, sort of unique, is that his own foreign -- his take on foreign

policy would match any governor's. my question is who do you turn to for advice on foreign policy? >> i don't want to disrespect him. my -- i'm partial to a governor because of their executive branch experience. i think the most important approach to foreign policy, most important i have read widely over the years i have talked to former secretary rice, and i have read many of the writings of secretary kissinger and many others, and i don't want to point to one source, but my point is this. i think there has been a bipartisan consensus post cold war that a stronger america leads to a safer world. our enemies need to fear us, our friends need to trust us. we need to have the military

might to deter any threats to america and to our interests. that consensus seems to be fraying in recent years. you see that i would argue that we have made too deep cuts in the pentagon's budget. you go back to secretary gates' analysis. it was the last time within the department there was a bottom up approach of what the department really needed in terms of equipment, training, and resources. unfortunately this is becoming more partisan as opposed to a bipartisan consensus. i think that a return to that traditional foreign policy of strength of peace through strength of what we need as a country, it is a truism, but it is a cliche. the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. we are currently projecting to too many people less preparedness. the danger to america is we are facing more asymmetrical

threats. you see the potential of one day-lewis nukes. it is knees asymmetrical threats. that would argue for a stronger and more robust ability for us to defend ourselves against the multitude of actors. i have not seen that in recent year. we have a weak foreign policy that doesn't emphasize deterring our enemies. what worries me most -- i know we talked about ukraine and russia -- what worries me the most is what happens with iran. a nuclearized iran is not only a threat to israel it poses a threat to the free world make no mistake, a nuclear-armed iran doesn't stop with them.

we will have countries like egypt and turkey that will be able to obtain nuclear weapons. it will be hard to stop them, if we fail to stop the iranians. i assume we have agreements with pakistan. i don't know that for a fact. they have the ability to buy that technology if they agree to. i worry what message the iranian leadership is taking from america's response to putin from america's initial response to isis, to our failed and inconsistent process when we talk about a red line in syria and other hot spots around the world. when it comes to foreign policy, i did spend some time offering a detailed paper of where i think we ought to go. in addition to investing in our military is the need for us to remember the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it, and the best way to deter our enemies is to have the strength

not only to win but to dominate any enemy. one of the things i think the president said was right was his pivot to asia. i think he followed through on it. this idea that there are many countries in asia that are interested in working with america. some of those are traditional allies like japan. others have not been consistent allies. i think it is important that the apresident went there at an important moment. i think there are many countries in asia that want to work with america because of the rising influence of china. i think that is good for them and good for us. i think there is a bipartisan opportunity. when you look at the transatlantic opportunities. i think there is an opportunity for us to engage and strengthen our relationship with our allies. i think it is good the president talked about those trade deals ideas he could work through with

the -- the idea is, that could be good for us not only economically, but it can also help with our foreign relations as well. >> so you don't have >> i prefer to talk to a wide array of people and make my own decisions. >> [indiscernible] what factors are you still waiting at this point? -- what factors are you still waiting at this point -- weighin at this pointg? >> in terms of my timeline, it will be the next few months. as we were saying earlier i think everybody is thinking about this. who is the next president is not as important as what the next president does. we face serious challenges. this next election will be a serious election. this is a consequential election about the future direction of our country.