the exemption process, we are working on making that work faster. mike: you've made progress in that area, people close to airports and keep it low. tell us what is now possible. secretary foxx: >> two things. one, the exemption process i just outlined. the second is that we published a notice of proposed rulemaking for small uas vehicles. these are vehicles under a certain weight that fly under a certain height. and we are trying to lay the foundation out of therefore these vehicles to be more widely used in commercial systems and frankly, most of the extensions that are not being requested probably will not be necessary once that role becomes final. mike: amazon is among the companies that has expressed a lot of frustration. what would you say to them? secretary foxx: look, i know

that our at the 18th of in a conversation with amazon here kind of there's a of utter frustration at the among some of the industry that we are not moving as quickly as some other countries are, but the countervailing point is our first mission is safety, and we do the most complex airspace in the world. to we're trying to move as good as possible but if our there are ideas out there that are manageable for us to act on, we want to read in want to read and. i would just say send them to me. mike: is it going to be possible for us to get packages by drone? secretary foxx: i think eventually it will become absolutely. that's coming. mike: >> and what sort of time horizon do you imagine? secretary foxx: i don't want to put a 00:12:09 time horizon on it, but what i will say is we're working to shore ourselves that we have a good safety regime in place for the commercial use of these

unmanned aircraft, which is one of the outcomes is one that you just described is people being able to receive deliveries from these. mike: and what else, you think, you're a visionary, as you think about how these unmanned vehicles or drones could affect the economy over the long term like what you imagine eventually happen? what difference could they make? secretary foxx: it's interesting. there's a connection between the beyond traffic study we just did 30 outlook at the transportation system, and this was one of the topics that came up. i do not know what the business case will be seeking to use the how cost effective it will be versus using a more conventional system. those questions will be decided in the future. it is a interesting and dynamic future. mike: your skepticism, what is the drawback? secretary foxx: i think it really will create an entirely

different distribution system and not unlike, for example, 3-d printing which will also provide folks with the ability to develop products in one place and have those products produced in a different place with a shorter delivery time around them. i think that you could see a similar dynamic with the unmanned aircraft systems but a lot of this stuff is sorting itself out and it will take time. mike: you spend some time with eric schmidt, what was that like? secretary foxx: we went out to roll out the survey and i find that it's an important event.

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

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

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

mike: one of the potential benefits -- secretary foxx: i like your words better though. [laughter] mike: one of the potential benefits is the time that could be captured. so, you have driven. what is it like and what kind of time like what sort of time might make it back from this technology? secretary foxx: so a couple things. one, with both the self technology you have the 00:18:09 ability to platoon meaning they can run closer together without a fear of collision. the other thing that's interesting -- a crash, yes. [laughter] secretary foxx: the other thing that is very interesting about this that eric schmidt shared with me, the one thing about the

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

in some cases that provide some of the rules of the road so to speak. there's also some interesting questions about liability when an accident does occur in a situation when there's an autonomous vehichle. those type of questions are still the ones that need to get sorted out. mike: what are the insurance implications and questions at this moment? secretary foxx: that brings me to -- if you and i are driving different cars and you 00:20:11 crash into mine, because that is the only way that it would have been -- [laughter] it's very clear who the operator is and if you didn't agree to

pay my bill, we might find ourselves in court and i would know who i was going up against. if the car is controlling the action, then is it you, is that the manufacturer, who is going to stand in the place of being liable? so those are the type of issues that i think are still standing out there, and they will get it figured out. mike: and do you also find government impediments as we do with drones, or are there also things that someone -- in the citizen's mind what would we change about the government to purchase these questions? secretary foxx: i tell my folks in the department all the time you know, we play a vital role in providing a safety regime for any form of transportation. mike: list all the different ones you do.

secretary foxx: we do maritime, carriers like trucks and buses cars, planes, the list goes on and on. we do trains, transit systems. i think i got them all. but anyway -- mike: we'll get a tweet if you don't. secretary foxx: i'm sure that i will find out. but anyway, we do these things. we set up safety regimes and that is the fundamental job of the department of transportation. so, we take that very seriously. at the same time, the rate of change in technology is happening so quickly, much faster than it did even 15 years ago, that we've also got to adapt as we try to regulate those technologies and provide the rules of the road so to speak for the manufacturers building into these technologies and we have to move faster. and so, that is a cultural change that we are having to make in the department and we are getting there and frankly,

what helps us is reps. so these issues around drones, issues around the autonomous vehicle to vehicle technology, the industry is pushing us to respond to changes in the technology it helps us to become more adaptive. mike: that's plain talking. secretary foxx: keep going and i might be real plain-talking. mike: what cultural changes would you say that you've made it to the department and where do you have to move the ball before you are done? secretary foxx: i think we have things. first of all, placing a greater focus on efficiency than the department. mike: and what is an example of

how you did that? secretary foxx: we have a big project, $5 billion with about three or four years of permitting that would have happened on the normal course but we got it done in about 18 months and that is an example of an outlier in some respects because we focused on it. we tried to create a system where every day a project gets that kind of attention to move forward because that saves money so that's one our focus on the study giving the country a bigger picture in the future it's been helpful i think pushing for the transportation bill in both the financing programs and policy and also it's been in some cases disrupted but in a good way helping people think differently about the system. we need to continue to make

progress on the next trend and aviation system that is so critical to the future. i also want to see us make a lot more progress on the public-private partnerships. and i want to continue working with our team to raise the bar on safety in every respect we can. mike: within your building, what have you changed? what is something that you as a former mayor of charlotte came into the federal government and said why do we do this and now we don't? secretary foxx: there's a lot of stuff like that. i will give you one example. when i was the mayor of charlotte, there was something called mpo's with often planning organization. you know what those are, right

? mike: yeah. secretary foxx: well, they are kind of a local transportation decision-making entity. there are five in the entire part of the area. we were not able to make decisions at the local level based on how the economy works we are making them on how political line works. it's not that you can have this happen. how do we create an environment where we encourage or help the decision-making become more sensible in terms of who is at the table, and so we are working through the process of helping the mpo's think more regionally and the grow america act has some that will become even more effective. mike: i'm going to come to my colleague under deputy transportation editor question. first to go from one end of the

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

servicing budgets on a year-to-year basis area that's what we did in charlotte. and then they had a separate program to build a new infrastructure using capital dollars. and the one thing i would say is the less that we are investing at the federal level, the more pressure that is going to put on the states and local governments to choose in the resurfacing. so the more uncertainty you will see the state and local governments spending less and less and less which is going to mean more piles. >> so you are headed tomorrow towards detroit and then pittsburgh and austin. if i come to one of those events, is that what you're going to say? secretary foxx: yes. i'm going to tell people the truth. the truth of the matter is the under investing that we have been doing is starting to show cracks and they are revealed in potholes and that's just the reality of it. so i am not going to sugarcoat this issue because i think the more we sugarcoat it and dance

around the facts, the less likely we are to get an answer. so it is a small sign. mike: i will bring in my colleague the deputy 00:28:58 transportation. secretary foxx: hi, kathy. >> [inaudible] my question would be at what point would the administration be ready --[indiscernible]

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

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

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

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

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

moving, it needs to be moving safely. and we have had frankly 00:34:37 pipeline explosions come and so we have to be focused on all of those modalities to ensure that it's moving as safely as possible. mike: so do we need more pipelines? again, the way that our department works is we are not the ones that come up with these ideas. we are simply charged with making sure that they are moving safely. mike: you have a twitter question at politico what sustainability have you made as the secretary? secretary foxx: towards sustainability, today in fact we are moving over to omb for a proposed rule on heavy and medium sized trucks that is designed to reduce emissions in those that are working with the epa but that is

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

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

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

the sense of being resilient. i'm using myself as an example of this, when you have had life experiences that are challenging, it makes you tough in a different kind of way. it's not like mean talking, it's like results like i'm going to figure it out. mike: so, what he's like sitting around a table with? secretary foxx: he's great. it depends if there is an issue-based or if we are just sitting around the table. mike: what's that like? secretary foxx: he can talk about any number of things. you know, he's very interested in what's going on in the culture of the country, 00:39:21

what's going on -- mike: you're talking about music? secretary foxx: music and basketball ncaa. but i think that he is very in touch with the culture of the country as much as he is on issues. mike: you're into my brothers keeper program. some people describe this as potentially the longest lasting thing the president will do. why is that program so important to you? secretary foxx: it is a program that is designed to help young men of color to achieve their ambitions. we have far too many men of

color that turn out the to finding and get lost in the shuffle and the opportunity and plan and program to try to reclaim them and help them get onto the path of success. i was born to a single mother and no way on earth in 1971 with somebody who said that is the future secretary of transportation. statistically, that was just absolutely astronomical. but it takes a lot of people. my mom, my grandparents, my neighbors, my church, my teachers. a lot of people putting their hands out and helping you achieve success. and i think when i see a young person who's struggling, not because they are not capable but because they think that success is not for them, that is a problem, that is a national problem because we need every man, woman, child to carry the future of the country forward, and i think the president recognizes that that is a weakness in our country right now and it is a place that should be for us. mike: what role does display on your work? secretary foxx: a whole lot.

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

incredible experience. mike: help a brother out. [laughter] secretary foxx: man you're going to make me walk. you're a faith healer. let me help a brother out. you've got to have a good team around you. the convention, it really takes off. hundreds of people working on the convention and it starts with one or two. assembling a strong team and making sure that you are doing everything you can tell me the applications you ever made to and making sure -- to dnc and

making sure it is good. mike: you have 2 kids. what was it like, what did you enjoy? secretary foxx: it was a lot of fun. we made s'mores. i had four. hillary had four. she's the 10-year-old. samara had two, zachary had one. that is because zachary wanted to burn his marshmallow. anyway, we had a great time. it was great fun. mike: what else did you do out there? secretary foxx: kids were looking to do the zip line. it was too cold. we will do a rain check on that. which walked around a lot. i was still hobbled with this. so i didn't get to do a lot of activities. shot baskets with my son and

daughter. taught them how to do a lay-up that will serve them well in life. mike: last question as we say good-bye, i can't let you go without getting a barbecue recommendation? secretary foxx: from d.c.? mike: sure. or anywhere. secretary foxx: you got to go -- mike: what is the best meal you had on the bus trip. got austin coming up. mike: yeah. i tell you what i was done in mississippi and jackson and the congressman to which will place. i never had tamales before. i didn't think i would have tamales in mississippi but i had tamalies in sis min. they were pretty good. >> more from politico.

epa administrator gina mccarthy and this 30 minute. mike: really appreciate it. you are fully mobile. gina: yes, no crutches. mike: one of the biggest hopes for president obama's second term is climate, it is potentially one of the history book items. what is your biggest, most optimistic hope for what will happen in the next year and a half? gina: we're going to deliver on his climate action plan. my hope and my expectation really my full expectation is that he has outlined an 00:46:27 ambitious but compelling argument on why we need to take

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

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

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

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

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

authority under this section of the act to withhold highway funds. he is getting confused under state implementation plan under air ambient standards and this section which is the clean power act this plan is operates under. state implementation plan is very different, does not hold the same consequences this is standard compliance system. where we set the standards. the states implement and then the sources are responsible to achieve the emission reduction targets in here. mike: what is your plan b on climate if your plans are held up by appeals court? gina: at this point in time, or do you mean after we 00:52:08 finalize it? mike: start with this point in time. gina: there is a couple of things going on. well, many, many things going on but there are some legal challenges now which we feel are, not particularly of significance because we haven't finalized the rule. when we finalize it we expect it will be legally challenged. likely it could go to the

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

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

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

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

everything has to be looked at i think in a way that continues to advance our interests in moving towards a low economy, low carbon future. including opportunities to take and seize to make sure we're moving in a direction that keeps jobs to make us more competitive. mike: we thank all of you sticking with us. tweet us your questions. my colleague erica has a question for the administrator. erica: hi, administrator. the epa climate rules for power plants are a pretty huge part of what the u.s. is going to u.n. climate negotiations with. mike touched on this before but i like to circle back on whether or not you guys are talking about what to do if appeals court holds up your power plant rule before you issue a final rule? you know, is there some other thing that you can take to paris? gina: i, we certainly don't expect that to happen, erica. so i don't need a plan b if i'm solid in my plan a. we know how to do regulation under clean air act. we've been doing it for 40 plus years.

i know what's happened in the 1990 amendments. i know what we're supposed to do and we're going to deliver on that. the good news that everything that the president is looking at in terms of a u.s. commitment he has the authority to do. and in fact, epa has the obligation to do this as the supreme court has told us. and so we just need to make sure we're following the law and we should be all set. we know that already there is a change in the international discussion. we can take advantage of that. people know that the domestically we're moving forward. they know we've done a great joint agreement with china. if two biggest polluters and two biggest greenhouse gas polluters get together and two biggest economies, we'll be ok to moving into paris and we should have momentum behind our backs. erica: speaking of rules secretary foxx mentioned that you guys sent over to omb the heavy-duty truck rule. can you tell us about what to

expect there? gina: yeah. well, first of all we've already dune one heavy-duty rule. and that got us i think the ball rolling. i think you can expect to see this rule, the same as we did on light duty vehicles, looking to send a longer-term market signal for the kind of innovation and progression in technology we're looking for. i think most of us think that light duty vehicles are the big ticket item. if you look now, heavy-duty vehicles are huge emitters of greenhouse gases. providing efficiency in the heavy-duty vehicle sector will not only drive significant reductions but it is also going to be tremendous for commercial benefit because it will lower the cost of consumer goods that are all transported through trucks. so i can't give you any details as you know. i'm looking forward to this being, having expedited review to get it out to folks. it will be a terrific rule. we worked really strongly with the industry in all aspects. the only last thing i would

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

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

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

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

mike: couple questions you may have heard us ask secretary foxx that 01:03:41 i will ask you. you're a young person coming from boston to washington. what is your advice how to succeed? gina: i think i probably give the same advice i would, even just starting out which is make sure that you work really hard. that you that the pace is very fast. that you have an ability to make decisions, to the extent that you can. and you take a little risk in terms of always wanting to get the next job to be one that you're not exactly sure you can manage well but it will expand your horizons. mike: as you come up in the federal government, what is the mistake you see people making? gina: that is a really good question. one of the things i like to focus on is, i like getting things done. i like getting things over the finish line. mike: i can tell. gina: i think, i think people underestimate that at every level of government higher you get more there are hurdles, the more it

is difficult. the more the bureaucracy can begin to take over and get in the way of the intent that you're looking for. and you need to have a, you need to be dogged. as much as possible so that you don't let those bureaucratic hurdles get in the way of real progress. nor let perfection get in the way of real progress. mike: not everybody gets as many emails as my colleague danielle lipman in the front row but everyone in the this room gets too many emails. what do you do to manage the incoming? gina: one of the good things is shift your position. then your email gets changed. [laughter] gina: but unfortunately i still track my old email as 01:05:19 well. but, you have to have a team of people working on it with you. but, i do the best i can to limit my response to emails to the ones where i really need to get fully briefed on. and i make sure that my team works. i mean part of the challenge of management is not to intervene in everything going on in the agency and to be very focused.

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

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

and i think, the president's done a wonderful job at articulating challenge of climate change in a moral context, in a way that will engage the faith community. that is why i went to the vatican, was to, make sure that the vatican knew the united states of america was taking action. that our president had made this a moral commitment. we wanted to work with them to make sure this was a message of urgency and also one of tremendous hope. mike: what was the coolest thing you saw, the coolest moment at the vatican? gina: i had so many. i actually was privileged to go into what they call the room of tears. which is where the cardinal, who is chosen to be pope, goes from the sistine chapel to have a quiet moment before they actually -- not an oath of office.

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

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

that is the headquarters of dunkin' donuts. my mom would get me up at about 3:30 a.m. and we would prepare food and what of the lovely things was making the doughnuts. it is not a pretty picture to make doughnuts. it sort of made me realize that they can be wonderful but somebody else should eat them rather than me. host: so what do you get there? mccarthy: coffee. host: i can't let you go without reminding you that there is always last year. mccarthy: we were last to first

and now we will have to do it again. i won't make any specific predictions because i am still reeling from my march madness choices. not very good. host: anybody left in the final four? mccarthy: no. host: what is president obama like when you are just around a table? mccarthy: he is incredibly engaging. he is funny. he is more wonky than i thought he would be. he sort of understands the details. he is very personal and he is really great to talk to. host: what have you learned from him? mccarthy: i think washington is the most challenging place in my

career to not things take personal -- to not take things personally. for my entire career, i have managed to keep my home life very separate from my work life. even in massachusetts, i don't think my husband knew anything that i was doing other than going to work and being there too long. but now, everybody knows it. it is a challenge to separate. but he manages to do it. he gives a smile on his face and gives progress moving forward. not whether or not he won or lost the last time. host: and when you fly home you take southwest? mccarthy: i do, it is cheaper. host: in your guilty pleasure is?

mccarthy: that was an open-ended question, i wasn't entering it. i love cooking shows. i don't know why frankly. " barefoot contestant -- "barefoot contessa." it is straightforward. i can make the recipes at home and actually come out well. host: what else have you learned from cooking shows? mccarthy: preparation. one thing i learned that i didn't know before is that you should get all the stuff out before you need to use it. and if you follow a recipe it actually comes out good.

and over time you can figure out how to wing it. host: i would like to thank everyone who joins us on tv. i want to thank my politico colleagues and all of you for coming out. and thank you administrator mccarthy for a great conversation. [applause] >> chicago mayor rahm emanuel will debate challenger jesus garcia. mayor emanuel is trying to win a second term after failing to win a majority of the vote in february. we will have live coverage tomorrow night at 8:00 p.m. >> this weekend, the c-span cities tour has partnered with cox communications to learn about the history and literary

life of tall suck, oklahoma. -- of tulsa, oklahoma. >> we are very proud to have his work back in oklahoma where we think it belongs. he was an advocate for people who are disenfranchised. for those people who were migrant workers from oklahoma, kansas, and texas during the dustbowl era who found themselves literally starving. he found this fast difference between those who were the halves and the have-nots -- the have's and have-nots. we have a listening station that features 46 of his songs in his own voice. that is what makes the recordings that he didn't make so significant. ♪ >> this land is your land,

this land is my land. >> that is sunday afternoon at 2:00 on american history tv. >> up next, a conversation on iran's nuclear program. this is 45 minutes. r website, c-span.org. we are joined now i lara jakes, editor of "foreign policy," who has been tracking the iranian nuclear negotiations. she joins us now just 48 hours before the march 31 deadline that has been sent to agree on a framework plan. can you discuss that deadline. has it been set in stone? guest: it depends on how you define sandstone. the marseille first of my was self-imposed by on

negotiators. it is not for a final deal. the final deal is mostly made by june 30. this was for a deadline basically to set a framework, a blueprint if you will, for how the negotiations will proceed from this point. it has been noted that the idea behind the framework deadline is that this is the vehement -- agreement in principle, and they details will be worked out afterwards. so many of the details are technical. it may not be as important although here domestically, in the united states, the reason why this deadline is important is because congress is itching to be imposed sanctions on iran. if this deadline is not met, many in congress will say, these are bad faith negotiations, this is a bad faith partner and we should go ahead with the sections. host: in your view, what are the biggest hurdles? i noticed though a fluid situation leading up to tomorrow

at midnight, but what you see will be the toughest potential dealbreaker? guest: most of this has come down to -- again, this gives very technical -- the amounts of rich uranium that iran is allowed to have. many of the talks have been about reducing the number of a piece of technology called centrifuges. these are things that produced enriched uranium. mmany of the negotiations have been focused on reducing the amount of the divisions. in the last hours, even in the last day, there have been talks as to what to do with the enriched uranium that iran already has, and has been producing for years. they are now saying that they will not ship that uranium out. the world powers one iran to ship that out, ship it to russia, and turn it into some kind of liquid or chemical substance that will no longer be

used for weapons grade material. iran says, no, we want to keep it here, we can diluted. the world powers are saying maybe but maybe not. again, sorry to be really technical, but that is one of the main issues. the other main issue comes down to inspections. iran, for years, has been accused of hiding a lot of its enrichment program in underground facilities and facilities that international inspectors haven't been allowed into. the deal, if struck, would require very open inspections for the world to get into these plants and see what iran is doing. host: consequences of failure if a deal is in reached by tomorrow . who has more to lose, and the united states or iran? guest: it is an adjusting point. i was talking to a very senior european diplomat a few weeks ago and he said that this

march 31 deadline wasn't needed -- and principle, it would be nice if it were met, and let's not get hung up on march 31. overall, the deadline is june 30. it is more important here in the united states for the deadline to be met. it does a couple of things. one, as i mentioned, it would maybe put a hold on congress to reinstate some of the sanctions. congress wants to ramp up or at least reinstate sections that had been frozen at this point. it also would send a very strong signal to some of the other allies in the mideast, israel, saudi arabia, who are worried and say that iran is not a good faith negotiating partner. if this deadline falls through i give the argument more hour. also, to drive us home, the reason why this is important is because it could be a very

historic process for the united states, for the entire west, and iran, which has had very limited diplomacy going back generations. what the obama and administration wants to do is say, we can reach this agreement -- if we cann reaches agreement, we can open up diplomacy with other parts of iran, whether it be business or education, normalized relations. host: if you have questions or comments for lara jakes of "foreign policy," the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independence, (202) 745-8002 you can -- start calling in now. yemen and the situation there. how is that changing the equation around negotiations? guest: negotiators say, and they have said this on many topics --

we heard is with syria and iraq as well -- saying, yes, we may be having discussions about these issues on the sidelines, but we are not focusing on yemen right now. we really want to focus on nuclear negotiations. we don't want anything else to derail that. i think it would be naive to believe that since this is such a big deal in the mideast that this doesn't come up as a topic. what the state department has said is that this is a very brief sideline discussion, and to not take away from the main event. host: lara jakes is with "foreign policy," and spent 12 years with "associated press," has extensive experience in the region. here to take your questions. john is a first from st. paul, minnesota. line for republicans. caller: good morning.

i like to ask the guest what she thinks is real will do in the event that a so-called agreement is reached, and if israel strikes, will it be effective? what would be the reaction in the united states, particularly with this administration if israel strikes? thank you. guest: thanks. obviously, israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu has made a very clear that he does not want to see a deal. he told his cabinet yesterday that what is being talked about is even worse than what he expected. he, as i think any of americans know, was in washington talking to congress just a couple of weeks ago saying, do not let the obama administration strike a deal with iran. any deal would be a bad deal. regarding your question about whether israel will strike, that

is very hard to predict. i know that the administration had been concerned about this several years ago. when i was sitting in baghdad, was almost a perennial rumor that israel was at some point. of course, people in baghdad were concerned about that because those would be arms flying straight over baghdad to get to iran. i don't want to predict on whether or not israel would want to strike. i think i can say with full third seed that the world community would engage with israel and do everything it could to prevent a nuclear war. it is hard for me to say here predict what the prime minister might do. host: refresh is on the united states has set on potential strikes if any sort of -- or any sort of military action if a deal falls through. guest: imax we not really sure

how that would go. the united states is awfully engaged in the middle east right now. the obama admits to should says they doesn't want to have boots on the ground. if the deal falls through, i think more what we would see is very ramped up sanctions. we have to remember, when the stations went in place, the u.n. first imposed, i think in 2006, the united states followed later. the toughest sanctions came in 2012 when the united states and the eu imposed tough sanctions. a really cratered the economy and iran. it's pretty much what health president rouhani gain -- helped president rouhani gain his election. he understood that the economy was hurting very badly and he would do everything he could to reach an agreement with the west to ease some of these sanctions. i think more of what we would see is very very harsh sanctions, again on tehran. host: what are the sanctions?

what sectors does the united states and the world community target to put pressure on iran? guest: most of it is oil and has traditionally been oil. iran sells its oil to india, russia, i believe china as well. oil prices have been dropping. maybe that is not as hard as it has been in the past for iran. also, the gold market has been hit. the financial sector has been hit. the banking market has been hit. more so, -- obviously, the weapons sector has been hit. i'm not sure that would ever be lifted. i'm not sure that exporting weapons is something that the west is ready to lead iran do. -- let iran do. like i said, it has been very harsh on the economy. host: bob is up next calling in from minnesota.

line for independents. caller: i've a statement question. my statement is this. let's say that a deal falls through and israel or united states decides to bomb iran. i heard that that would said the nuclear program back five years. my problem with the idea is unless you kill everybody in iran that has an idea of how to build a nuclear weapon, they will build a bomb. they want to build it. it will get built. bombing is just going to set them back. if we do bomb them, we are going to cause fukushimas. that would be my question. host: saying that it is inevitable that iran would get a bomb anyway, regardless of any sort of military action. would you agree? guest: i again, very hard for

me to predict what is in the supreme leader's head and iran. i think it is important to know in the sake of fairness that iran has said repeatedly that it does not want to build a nuclear weapon. they say that all they want is the exact same treatment under the nonproliferation treaty the other signatories have. they say thou their partners in the middle east have nuclear weapons -- action, not partners but players have weapons and they need is for their own self protection. whether they will go ahead and build a bomb, i think you are right in saying that iran has moved ahead with its nuclear program. despite saying that it has not there is an underground enrichment lon broker that has blocked inspectors in the past and was those without the west knowing about it.

the west is racist this is about iran's motive here. very hard to predict whether or not iran would move forward with the bomb. i would also know that many nuclear experts say that it has been 20 years since iran has been suspected of producing uranium, and it still has not been able to produce a nuclear warhead, so what are not they would be able to soon is hard to predict. host: there has been secular shasta when congress would sign off on the deal. what is the relationship between president rouhani, the supreme leader, and who gets the last deal their? guest: the supreme leader gets a final decision. rouhani, the president of iran, came in on -- seen as the west as a much more moderate player and farme far more willing to move.

this is going to come down to the supreme leader and what the supreme leader once in says. the supreme leader has been very vocal on twitter. the last few days, he basically said -- i have is written down somewhere, i want to remind myself -- all stations must be lifted immediately after a deal is struck. host: and gone just to a gradual lifting. guest: the p5 plus one has said this will be phased out over five to 10 years. as a practical know, it is very hard to list some of these sanctions. to wave a magic wand and have them all different disappear is probably not realistic. host: we are talking with lara

jakes of "foreign policy." we showed you a "for policy" piece earlier this morning. she is here for the next half hour or so. rob is in new jersey. line for democrats. caller: hello? host: you are on the "washington journal," bob. , we will put you on hold i go to kelly and georgia. line for republicans. caller: yes sir, thank you for taking my call. i just want to make a few quick comments. if i'm not mistaken, the gentleman that you just mentioned, the supreme leader, and didn't he also say this weekend, death to america. it is in france wanting to pull out of the deal? i also find it very funny that president obama took his message to the iran people instead of bringing it to congress, and

also delivering a message to us, the american people. he delivered one to iran. i also find it very odd that everyone keeps saying that iran cannot deliver a missile to us however, iran is doing business in venezuela. has anyone ever heard of intercontinental ballistic missiles? yes, iran can deliver a missile to us. host: a lot to go through. if you want to take as many of those as you like. guest: sure. on the comment of death to america, i didn't catch that. i can't be honest that he didn't. this is a refrain that you hear often across the middle east. it wouldn't surprise me. he has been very critical of israel and netanyahu often

points out that he says death to israel, it wouldn't surprise me if he said death to america. on france wanting to pull out i don't think france wants to pull out. i think they have some concerns as to the rate of inspections that would happen if the deal goes through. those are also concerns that netanyahu, an ally of france, has also raised. i think that's what the issue really is, not necessarily that france wants to pull out. i think of any of the p5 partners pull out, the deal is over. host: on the p5 plus one, who is considered a hardliner on this deal? are some considered more willing to go easier on iran than others, or is the p5 plus one of one mind? guest: i believe -- i've attended the negotiations. i won't say i sat in on the meetings. i attended them in baghdad, in geneva.

i believe it is fair to say that the p5 is united. it is well-known that russia and china may be a little more sympathetic to iran particularly china on the issue of oil china needs a lot of middle east oil and if they can get a cheap from iran, they would like to do that. i believe that the p5 is pretty united. it seems to me that the united states is really leading the negotiations, and has been for some time. i don't think anyone is more thoughts than not. there may be some partners that have other interests and are hoping to broker something with iran, but i think everyone wants a deal at this point. host: i didn't want to cut off

your point, kelly talking about president obama taking the message to the iranian people. guest: i think we need to put this in context as well. i'm thinking of the message she is referring to is president obama wishing the people of iran a happy new year. it's a version holiday -- a persian holiday, basically new year. i don't think there's any secret in washington as to how present obama feels about these negotiations. i know that you had on a little while ago eight comment by josh earnest, the white house press secretary, who was on a sunday show, and he delivered the president's message pretty loud and clear as well. host: let's go to rubin from pennsylvania. line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call.

this is a medically want to direct every american. the iranians do not need icbm to get to the united states. that's something people have said. there are cargo inspectors, but they can detonate in the new york harbor and incinerate most of manhattan. the other point want to make is one of your previous callers touched on an ideology issue here. when we negotiate treaties with other countries, we do so with a light frame of mind. the iranian strike is close to being what the nazis were in the 1920's and 30's. we made agreements in the treaty of versailles. the germans simply violated it.

they ignored it. they ended up coming into the 1930's with europe's most powerful military when they were supposedly banned from having military equipment. host: this issue of trust coming up once again. guest: you've heard the term, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." i think what unites these is trying do is engage with as many people as possible to not provoke any more outrage. one person told me recently, you know, it would be terrible if the negotiations continued because if we are talking that we are not bombing. a frame of mind. that may be why some of these negotiations have been extended on for years. host: how makes engines have there been at this point to get to where we are today? guest: the original extension into thousand 13 -- in 2013,

nook iran basically agreed to freeze their program for slight easing alsatian. it has been extended for two or three times since 2013. again, the negotiations have been going on for years. they have been more intensified during the obama administration, i believe. the talks and concerns have been going on for about a decade. host: eight suites as we're talking, the u.s. is replaying the carter administration, hopefully we will get a reagan type leader in 2016. let's go to maryland. you are on withh lara jakes. caller: good morning. i'm iranian. i'm watching this as i watch the iraq war. those who were behind the iraq war definitely sinus in

congress and supporting congress and also the senate. lieberman and others, the group that push the president to occupy iraq. host: what's your question? caller: my question is this -- how long is the united states going to go into the same trap? why are you saying -- as you know, the supreme leader of iran cannot say anything wrong. the fact that the supreme leader

said we will not do this. he said the same thing. it is not the islamic thing to do. host: do you want to pick up some of that? guest: sure. as far as iran being a threat, i understand what you are saying. i suppose i would turn the question back on you on why is it that iran has not been fully honest in the past about its nuclear activities in terms of its production in some of the secret hiding places, in terms of how much enriched uranium it is producing. experts have pointed out the don't need to have 20,000 centrifuges if all you want to use the image uranium for it is medical isotopes and other purposes such as that. again, i think that the united states and the west wants to

build up diplomacy with iran. this is something that much of the west, if not all the west, wants to do. these are small s steps and they required shows of faith and trust. i think that both sides are very suspicious, and that's why it is taking so long and it has been such a hard walk to get to where we are today. host: robert is in dina, missouri. line for republicans. you are on with lara jakes. caller: good morning, sir, and thank you for taking my call. i met retired navy man. if it wasn't for mr. netanyahu getting back in the election to protect the 18 million jewish people, if it weren't for him -- and i don't understand. that is question one. russian to is i don't understand

why our president, the people in the united states voted him and not once but twice. he has done nothing. zip, zero for the jewish people. now, the jewish people, if they get a hold of this bomb -- a prime minister netanyahu had not gotten in and maybe got a hold of this bomb, they would have wiped israel off the face of the earth and then came after us. host: lara jakes, you want to pick that up and as you do, discuss where the obama administration is in its relationship now pose president -- post-president and yahoos reelection. guest: it's true that the

relationship has been tough. it's true that netanyahu and obama do not have the warm and fuzzy relationship that both of their predecessors have had between the united states and israel. it is also true that the united states continues to support israel in many ways and terms of aid, and specifically military aid. that is something that is really officials talk about constantly when they come to the united states. there's a lot of genuine support for the united states, and grateful this to washington for providing some of the support. host: we have about 10 minutes left with lara jakes of "foreign policy." for those unfamiliar with "foreign policy," do want to talk about a? guest: it is a great magazine. we are as the name implies, we

cover foreign policy. we do it in a sober way, but also in a way that breaks on the issues to what people need to know, what people want to know. it is a little more fun than you might get from other places where foreign policy can be very dry. it is fun, interesting. our latest magazine issue came out about three weeks ago, or so, and it was on nuclear issues, not physically on these talks but on nuclear issues in general. i incurred everybody to dig it up. i run a team of about 10 reporters and we try to cover the world from washington. host: if you want to follow along on twitter it is @fourpolicy. zachary is up next from virginia. caller: hello, my question is the following. i have a couple of points. if washington and tehran, and

other world powers reach a deal to occur things about iran, what is the chance that the gop controlling congress and senate would be able to undo this deal? recently the gop's overwhelming support for israel has not just been taking the position of having netanyahu is be before congress to basically say obama's plan is bad, don't do it, it has taken the form of vitriol towards iran. saying, they will come after us and talking about wiping israel off the map -- there are multiple translations for the quote that has become very confusing.

religious conservatives immediately look at it and say they want to wipe israel off the map. the gop support for israel, i really think it's bullish and overdone -- is foolish and overdone, and pleases religious sinus more than it helps world peace. guest: zachary clearly i think you are right into the issues and congress. i will speak to that. if this agreement does not go through, i believe you asked what will republicans in congress do. as speaker boehner and house majority leader mitch mcconnell has said, there will probably be new sanctions. speaker boehner said yesterday that if it deals not reach, there will be sanctions they quickly. some of the sanctions have been

used during the interim agreement to keep the negotiations ongoing. i suspect those would come back in full force. congress is considering new sanctions that the obama administration says would completely tank all hope of negotiations going forward. also, many in congress republicans and democrats, are looking for congress to have some authority over a final agreement. i.e. if a deal is struck, congress would be able to weigh in and say yes or no, we will accept this before the p5 does. that's what we will be seeing over the next few months if we get through this hump in the road of march 31. host: an individual on twitter following says, if we are negotiating in the middle east between nations, we really need to understand their perspective. who is perspective in the milley used you think americans

understand the lease right now.co you have been there a while and reported there. guest: it is an interesting question. i would probably say i ran, just because it is hard for americans to get into iran. iran is a place i would absolutely love to go. it is one of the places i have not been able to go. journals are really welcomed without -- i would like to go in and do my own reporting. it is something i'm currently not able to do. i would suspect that iran is maybe a place that we don't have know-how on. frankly, from people i know, iranian friends, other people who had been say that there are beautiful parts of tehran and beautiful parts of iran abound

as well. it would be interesting to go in and see it and see if that is true. again, we go back to this issue of trust. we need to be able to see what iran is doing, not just on their nuclear site, but kind of on the culture and society. i personally think -- lara jakes as a person -- that it would be a big service to everyone if we all had more visibility on what we are doing in this world. if more iranians would want to have the united states and seawell regular day here in washington or missouri looks like, i can see how that would be a bad thing. host: lara jakes, deputy managing editor of "foreign policy." 12 years with "associated press," including in baghdad. charles, line for republicans. caller: good morning. lara, remember the agreement

that leading nations made with ukraine. that worked out fine. they are sitting on their own still. you wonder why israel once the agreement with iran. can you name me one agreement that iran has kept. thank you. guest: well, charles, you have me up against the wall. one agreement that they have kept. one may say the 2013 j poa -- i'm sorry, the joint plan of action. that is what has been the cause for iran freezing its nuclear program while these negotiations are ongoing for a temporary easy easing of some sanctions. host: as that is happening, does that mean the inspectors are currently in iran, doing the job

to see if that is taking place? or is this another area of trust? guest: the iea a -- the un's inspection arm -- has for years been going into iran and doing full inspections. one of the problems with the processes that iran has let iaea inspectors and and they say that they have not seen everything they were supposed to see, and that has foster distrust. like, they have continued inspections, yes. host: lida is in her banner illinois. caller: i really if you see what i'm hearing today. i understand now that it is a lie what america is doing and saying. i hope that people wake up and pay attention, and try to learn

as much as we can. i really think it's just trying to control and manage and take everything from everyone. you know, it's sad. it's really sad because we are tots and told a lie. host: are you saying that you don't think the united states is negotiating in good faith? caller: i think that obama is doing the right thing trying to negotiate, instead of always trying to fight and have war all the time. that's all we do. try to conquer. in my personal opinion, that's what we do. host: so, who are you concerned about on the american side when you say that the negotiations are billed on a lie? caller: i'm saying for the simple fact that we are always trying to do what we need to do

and say that everybody should stop having bonds, where as america, the i live in has all these things. it's sad. why are we always tried to direct what other countries need to do on their own soil. it's sad. we are still dealing with the same thing over and over. just conquering and tried to take over people's way of life. host: lara jakes, this might lead to a larger question on nonproliferation here. why so much focus on iran? why not the same level of concern and attention on a country like three a? guest: -- north korea? guest: i don't think the leader is willing to negotiate right now. we talk about reclusive nations and countries. north korea is even more reclusive than iran is at this point. we don't know what's going on there.

yes, that remains a big concern. i wouldn't be terribly surprised if that something that world powers might try to turn to after they deal with iran. this may be conjecture on my part, by suspect that if talks with iran fail, that may spell doom as well with north korea. if you can't get somebody does iran after years and years of negotiations, trying to open up talks with north korea may not work. host: what about the tension between pakistan and india? why not attention thereto lower the tension between two countries? guest: there have been talks with blue countries for a long time. both countries have strings of allies with the united states. the united states deals very regularly with both pakistan and india, world leaders travel back and forth between those countries.

the short answer is the united states government feels like they have a handle on what is happening in both pakistan and india and they can reach out to those capitals if they need to. that is really not the case here with iran. host: we have time for water to more calls. mary is in south carolina. my for republicans. -- line for republicans. guest: i have been to your beautiful town. i hope you are well. caller: what i want to say is that if president obama bypasses congress and goes to the u.n. to get this deal signed -- which i think is a very bad deal -- i hope that congress will impeach him. then i hope that at the same time congress will vote and kick the u.n. out of this country. i don't know one darn thing that they are doing for us and our country.

take the money that we pay these people every year -- what, one fourth of the money they have to spend? take that and rebuild our military which mr. obama has really downgraded to like world war ii levels when world war ii started. rebuild that. host: mary with some concerns about the united nations here. guest: i think it is important to note that the u.n. is already part of the process here. it's not like the united states can kick the u.n. out of it at this point. many of the sections that are in place currently are in fact u.n. sanctions and have been in place in 2006 -- nine years. it's not that the obama administration will ipass congress so much and go to the u.n. it's that the u.n. is already a party in the talks. there's really not anything that the united states or any of the other allies can do. germany, for example, is part of the talks and they are not part

of the p5 -- the five permanent members in the security council. the horse may be out of the barn. host: one more call from david. line for independents. caller: good morning. my problem here is that we have two bad actors. our administration has repeatedly lied to us over multiple issues over the past six or seven years. the other is the iranians to they are a bad actor, they are untrustworthy. if they get a nuclear weapon that is going to spark a nuclear arms race in the middle east. saudi arabia is not going to let iran sit on their border with a nuclear weapon. israel will strike. they have nuclear weapons. obama and the p5 plus one guys

need to realize they are going to spark a nuclear war spark world war iii. you cannot deal with and even person -- evil person via that is bent on taking over that area. they are in a proxy war in yemen, they are in iraq, they are in afghanistan. since we went to war with iraq, which was a mistake, iran is racing to fill the vacuum. they are fighting isis but they are doing it so they get power and not isis has power. host: david in marion kentucky. i will let you respond to him and some of his concerns about the potential for a nuclear arms race being sparked here. guest: sure. i personally think, and people i talk to believe, that the answer here is to try to have as few nuclear weapons as possible in this world than more nuclear weapons.

that is what the negotiations are trying to do. they are trying to stop iran from getting any kind of nuclear bomb could it is worth noting, as john did a minute ago, that there are players in the world that have nuclear weapons, the united states being one of them, israel being another one of them. india and pakistan, too. these negotiations are really geared towards preventing others. i believe saudi arabia has discussed trying to develop their own nuclear weapons if iran has its nuclear weapons. that's right, we don't want to have more nuclear weapons in this world. i is and that is what everybody's -- i assume that is what everybody's mind is at the forefront as we go into the last 36 hours. host: good place to end on could

>> on the next "washington journal" we will have hillary mann leverett and marketable wits on -- and mark dubowitz. then a discussion on the mental health of pilots. "washington journal" is lied every morning here on c-span -- is live every weekday morning here on c-span. >> now, remarks from tennessee senator bob corker on u.s. foreign-policy challenges. senator corker chairs the foreign relations committee. he spoke at an event hosted by the national republican lawyers conference.

>> first be sure you are right then go ahead. i think that could be applied to bob corker. he does not act until he is convinced he is on the wright pat. -- on the right path. he lived out the american dream. he formed a construction company that became a multimillion dollar business operating in 18 states. he then became commissioner of finance for the state of tennessee where he astounded members of the legislature with his breck -- with his breathtaking candor and transparency.

apparently there easily astounded. or transparency and candor are a rare thing in finance. he was elected mayor of chattanooga he presided over an incredible revitalization of that city's urban core. then he was elected to the united states senate during the democratic wave election of 26 -- of 2006, he coming the sole member of the republican freshman class for that year. he was reelected last cycle with 65% of the vote in tennessee. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, bob corker . senator corker: thank you and

thank you for your longtime friendship and what you do on behalf of all of us. i am thrilled to be with all of you today. i think most of you know that i spent most of my life in business. even know you are republican attorneys i still get a little bit nervous. but i thank you for what you do on our behalf around the country and making sure that we have free and fair elections. i heard a little bit of the panel before i stepped to the podium and i enjoyed that. what i would like to do this morning is to make a few opening comments and then i would much rather hear from you relative to your questions on foreign-policy or whatever you want to talk about. how long am i supposed to be here? let me start by saying that i

came to the united states senate being a person who built shopping centers around the country, over time acquired rip -- acquired real estate. i was very involved cynically from a very young age -- very involved civically from a very young age. i was the mayor of my town. bill frist came down and recruited me to run for the seat he was occupying at the time. i have zero foreign-policy experience. i had done some recruiting on behalf of our state and city, where i went to japan or someplace like that working to try to lure jobs to our community. i was a business guy. i had spent almost no time in

life on history. since that time, i came on the foreign relations committee really just to broaden myself. i very quickly realized how important it was to our nation and to the world that the united states lead. and now, i think i've been to 64 countries, many of them over and over. many of you understand that in life you spend 80% of your time on problems and 20% of your time on the other things. so constantly i have been in the middle east and other places. i will tell you that without u.s. leadership, the world just isn't as good a place as it should be. it just isn't.

u.s. leadership doesn't mean necessarily being the world policeman but being the leader as we are and playing that role is very important. i will make a few comments about the last few years and my disappointment in that regard. for me, one of the most disappointing moments in my service on the foreign relations committee in the senate was during that timeframe at the end of august and the beginning of september 2013, when the president's redline had been crossed. and whether he should have senate or not -- should have said it or not, that was something that should have been backed. we had planned a 10 hour operation. a 10 hour military operation.

the senate foreign relations committee authorized it on a bipartisan basis. the president turned away from that effort, and i want to tell you, that was the worst moment that i've been here relative to our credibility. and our ability to demonstrate the leadership that i was referring to. it was a moment in time when the free syrian opposition had some momentum and had we gone ahead and conducted that "10-hour operation" we could have been -- could have enhanced that momentum and really pushed assad back. we have we could have shown that we were standing with them. instead what we showed, we showed that very quickly we were willing to jump into putin's lap, which is what we did.

i know that sounds very pejorative, but it's what we did. putin gave us an out relative to the chemical weapons and i think putin learned a great deal from that. remember, our ambassador ambassador ford in syria was cheering on this opposition in the beginning, cheering them on and in their time of need we were not there. later we were going to train and equip the free-syrian rebels send them trucks. we didn't do any of those things. we left them hanging. i've gotten to the point now seriously, i don't want to go back to the refugee camps in turkey or jordan because when i'm there i have to look people in the eye that i know we let down as a nation. again, i think putin learned from that and when it came to ukraine -- remember, ukraine is a place where back in 1994 having been part of the soviet

union had 1,240 nuclear warheads. we entered into an agreement with them that we would, you know, respect their territorial sovereignty. so did russia, so did u.k. with the budapest memorandum. they gave them up and do you think russia would have invaded ukraine today had they had 1,240 warheads? i don't think so. but we also cheered ukraine on. we were the ones that urged them to come west and here again in their time of need -- do you know today that we still do not provide ukraine -- with crimea being gone with russian soldiers clearly being on their territory. russian artillery and equipment. we still today do not provide them with operational intelligence. real-time intelligence about where russians are in their own country. we still today have been

unwilling, even though unanimously, the united states senate and the house, we passed a bill to provide them defensive legal support. we still today have been unwilling to do that. so you can understand why people in congress on both side of the aisle are very concerned about this negotiation with iran. very concerned about where we might be going. and on a bipartisan basis, i know there was some discussion about what congress can do prior to me coming to the podium. we've created a piece of legislation that basically says congress has the right to review the iranian deal prior to the congressionally mandated sanctions being lifted. since you're attorneys in the room and since you understand things like this in great detail, there are three sets of sanctions right now that we have against iran. there are the u.n. security council sanctions and i know we