issue. and certainly it is the case that not being in political office does not mean you have to go radio silence on things you care about. the impact outside of political office and, not being in office or a candidate right now has been really freeing and i can say whatever the hell i want to say and no one is message-managing me. i can listen to my heart and the things that matter to me. that is what i am going to do. if that takes me back into the political candidate or office holder of arena, great. if not, i will try to fight in a way that is effective. >> i look forward to the

continued impact. thank you for sharing your story. >> we are live in washington d.c. carly fee iorina is speaking about micro-finance and helping entrepreneurs. this is live coverage.

>> we are going to get started. we have plenty of room and we look forward to the session. thank you for coming and a special thank you to carly fiorina:. i had the privilege of working with her on a number of occasions and you are in for a real treat. i just want to tell you this is a special evening. we have public events. we have a safety announcement. i am the responsible safety officer tonight. if you have an emergency, you will follow me. we have the exits and the stairway is in that corner. we will go down and outside to the beacon hotel.

we will be ok. if something happens, follow me. my sincere thanks to nina and ca rly. thank you for the sponsorship of this. this is a popular series for us and it shows the aemotion about bringing all of the gene pool into play to help the country. think about how many problems we would solve if we tapped the full gene pool talent. this is a mission for the world. we are glad that we can start it here and we have this impressive program. thank you for inventing it. thanks. [applause]

>> i want to thank the doctor. this is our fourth event of the series that we sponsored with fortune. since it kicked off we have welcomed three impressive women involved in government. the tradition continues with our first business speaker. carly fiorina:. she shatter the glass ceiling when she was appointed the ceo of hewlett-packard. today, in a number of different roles that she has she lends her voice and influence to building a network of women and ending the cycle of poverty. i am proud to say that more than half of the workforce is made up of women.

in financial services, there are not enough women. she is a symbol of a woman who has achieved the highest levels of power in mail-dominated business. this highlights the amazing talent that women bring to government and the community. this gives us an opportunity to highlight those talents. today asis one month after international women's day. throughout the month of march, the city posted 200 events for clients and the community. today is a natural culmination of what i would say is not so much international women's day. it is international women's month. it is a testament to the series that we culminate the month of march -- the beginning of april

-- it is a month. the city is a proud sponsor and i want to welcome all of you. thank you. [applause] kathleen: i direct the program here and the smart power initiative. i am here to impart social media information. make sure you are following us on twitter. our twitter account shows the power of expanding the gene pool through great programming we put through the twitter feed relating to great things women are doing in international business and affairs. check out our series on itunes. it has done well and we invite you to join the conversations on

the podcast series. carly fiorina: is here to discuss topics relating to world affairs, foreign policy, international business, microfinance. there are no end to the issues she will cover with nina. sheet is part of the largest microfinance lender in the world. she is part of a philanthropy organization and most of you know her as the former chairman of hewlett-packard. she may also be a candidate for office at some point. we many hear about that at some point. our moderator is nina. she is the chair of the international women's summit. thanks for joining us.

nina, over to you. nina: thank you for the kind remarks. it is such an honor to have carly fiorina: here. you have been here and other capacities. i guess you all probably know about her 90% summit, as in, 90% chance she will run for president. it is an incredible opportunity to get to know carly better and drilled down on foreign policy. there have been a lot of attention towards domestic issues in the last couple of weeks. foreign policy and the role of international business is

something we want to hear from you on. thank you for being here. i want to start with a "get to know ya." your mother was an abstract artist and your father was a judge. talk about two different minds. how did that produce you? carly fiorina: you would have to ask them. my father was a law professor at the university of texas. my mother was a stay-at-home mom and a talented artist who kept her light hidden under a bushel for most of her life. she went on and got her masters late in life. my parents had so much to do with who i am and what i believe. they met during world war ii in texas.

my mother was the secretary to the c.o. she had ran away from home because her father did not think she should go to college. she met my dad. i learnt important things from both my mother and father. my mother told me, when i was about eight years old and sundry school -- in sunday school that what you are is god's gift to you and what you make of yourself is your gift to god. that was a challenge and a promise. my father was a conservative of great integrity. i would sit and watch the news with him. he would yell at the television, you know? he would get wrapped up in

politics. he was one of these people who when he went on to the federal bench on the ninth circuit court of appeals, he got along with everyone, though not everyone agreed with him. you can have strong core principles and find common ground. he says, your integrity and reputation are the most important. don't ever sell them. nina: you ended up at the pinnacle of the business community. you were the first woman to run a fortune 50 company. you took a circuitous route. why? nina:carly fiorina: security us --

circuitous is a nice way of saying it. what that meant was i was all dressed up and nowhere to go. so, i went to law school. my dad thought it would be great if i followed in his footsteps. i adored him. i hated law school. i hated it. i think it was judge learnerd hand that put me over the edge. i thought the emphasis on precedent wasn't very interesting and i quit. i did not make it through the first semester. of imagine what my resume reads. i had to earn a living. i had to do full-time what i had

done part time to put myself through stanford. it was an expensive school and i had to work. i was a secretary and a kelly girl. i was a temporary office personnel. i did all kinds of things. i went back to work as a secretary for a nine-person real estate firm. i had no idea what i was going to do with my life. i was grateful to be hanging around. nina: you got an mba. carly fiorina: i did. nina: you started at at&t. carly fiorina: 1980. would that i were that young. it was a lesson in that stayed with me from the nine-person real estate firm. the men who worked there said

that they had been watching me and thought i could do more than type and file. they put me on a path to consider business. nothing in my background would have caused me to think about a career in business. what i remember it was, the trajectory of my life changed because two men took a chance on me. they took a chance on me. everybody needs somebody to take a chance on them, at least once in their life. my very first job, when i finally got the mba it was right here in washington dc. -- washington, d.c. i was hired as an entry level salesperson. my job was -- i was kind of a

sales training person. my job was to sell telephone systems to government agencies. that is what i learned that, at the end of a fiscal year, every government agency spends every last dime, no matter what. and, it continues. to jump forward -- nina: to jump forward, 1999, you are chosen to lead hewlett-packard. did someone take a chance on you? carly fiorina: all of us do something for the first time and that was the first time i was a ceo. nina: there was a lot of attention. carly fiorina: in retrospect, it sounds foolish for me to say that i was unprepared for how much attention there was.

i had spent my career moving up. i learned, over time, that i would run into problems. if there was a problem, i ran to it. i found it interesting. if there was a problem, there were people who knew how to fix it. they had never been asked. their potential had not been tapped. i would find people with potential who had not been tapped and focus on how to solve problems and capture opportunities. when you run into problems and you solve them, people pay attention. i worked my way up. i never thought about myself as a "woman in business." even though the majority of meetings i was in were only men i would routinely find women in organizations whose p

otential was being ignored and give them a chance. when i arrived, i thought people will would ask me about me being the first outsider to ever lead this storied technology company or that questions would be about not being an engineer. or, maybe the questions would be "how do you grow the company." it was known as the grey lady of silicon valley. the questions that were asked were "you are a woman." it caught me off guard.

the attention that was paid to me because i was a woman never abated. nina: you had asked for mende's run -- a tremendous run and were abruptly fired. there was an earnings slump. in your book, you talk about sexism in some way. the way you work for -- were proortrayed. nina: it is -- carly fiorina: it is true that, when you are trying to change the order of things -- and that is what leadership is about. leadership is about unlocking potential in others, like the men did for me. and, it is about changing the order of things for the better.

when you change the order of things, you are taking on established orders, the status quo. you will make enemies. it is the nature of leadership. in the course of my time, we accomplished really extraordinary things. we took the company from $44 billion to $88 billion. we went to 9% growth. we went from not being counted in the top 25 innovators to tripling our innovation to 11 patents a day. we went from being behind to leading. we grew a company by innovating. we of course, created jobs.

you cannot create jobs, unless you are growing. if you are not leaving and -- leading you are lagging. some of the moves we made were controversial. we acquired compaq. it was the most complex integration in technology history. we did that at -- in the middle of the biggest technology recession in 25 years and it was against conventional wisdom. in 2001, they thought the era that would follow would be the one that preceded the bust. the one that preceded it was the pure-play era.

we said, no, the teacher belongs to diversified technology companies that will consolidate the industry. not just in scope and scale in innovative capacity. i was fired because we had board members who were leaking confidential information. you cannot do that. i said, either this stops or i go. there was a board room tussle that was over in 10 days. i could have prevented leaving by casting a vote as the chairman of the board. i did not. i thought it was important that the board worked through the conduct that was becoming of the board. a lot of board members were

fired with tom waltz -- with tumult. it was best for the company that all of this came out. nina: did the way things ended -- will the way things ended her you? -- hurt you? carly fiorina: what is good about business is that there are facts. there are numbers. sometimes, i think that politics is a fact-free zone. i think that is what people are sick of in politics. people are sick of no factass. i think they are sick of no results. i think they are sick of vitriol. somehow, the order of things never really changes. nina: our time is limited.

you did a senate race against barbara boxer. obviously, lost. you faced breast cancer. you had that battle. talk about the lessons from that. carly fiorina: the senate run yes, i lost the general election. we had a 3-way primary and i came from behind and won with 57% of the vote. i understand what it takes to unify a party. of course, i lost. i gained more republican democratic, and independent votes than virtually anyone running in the nation that year. that is how big california is. that taught me that, if you talk

to people in terms they understand about the problems they actually face and you are authentic about what you believe and how you would approach problems you can unify and reach beyond a party. that is why i love to campaign. it is helpful for a president. nina: what do you love? carly fiorina: i find people fascinating. when you are campaigning for yourself or others -- i have spent a lot of time campaigning for others and helping others win. you meet all kinds of people in all kinds of places. they have fears concerns, hopes. i am struck by -- i will digress for a moment and tell a story on

associated -- unassociated with politics. i was in a homeless women's shelter. this is a women's shelter that rotates between a catholic church and a jewish synagogue every other night, which says wonderful things about the community. i am speaking to a woman who is a guest. they call them guests, as they should. she says, "you are somebody." i said i am carly fiorina:. she said, all these politicians ofup here, they are talking in their language and they are not connected to us down here.

what they do impacts those of us down here. that is as concise of a definition of the disconnect that people feel between their lives in the political process that i have ever heard. so, you know, you run into people like that. here is a woman in difficult circumstances. yet, she was not hopeless. she was hopeful. she was concerned. she was worried, of course. she was hopeful because people were giving her a helping hand and taking a chance on her. when you take a chance on someone, you are saying to someone, "you have value." you can live a life of dignity and purpose. in the end that is the highest

calling. nina: you are an advocate of the free market globally and in the united states. pope francis says the free market is creating economies of exclusion and inequality. carly fiorina: we have less and less free market and more and more crony capitalism. that is what happens when big government gets more complicated and only big business can thrive. big business uses the government to advance their position. we have this going on all over the world. the only way to level the playing field is to lessen the power and complexity of big government and big business. nina: how do you do that

internationally? carly fiorina: i cannot speak for what other countries are doing. we can do something here. if you look at dodd-frank whatever you think, the results have been fannie mae and freddie mac, a big source of the financial crisis, continue without any reform. 10 banks to big to fail have become five. their position is stronger, not weaker. the risk is arguably stronger. the regulatory agencies that were supposed to be overseeing the financial system have not been reformed. we just added a new one. 3000 community banks have gone

out of business. what happens with complicated and complex government is the big, the powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected thrive. the small get crushed. that is what happens. it matters when we are destroying community tanks because they are places that lend a helping hand to family-owned businesses and small businesses which are still the engine of economic growth in this country. my husband started as a tow truck driver. that is how many americans start. when we crush small businesses and create a system where only the big and powerful can make it we have economic growth at

2% and not 4%. we have stagnant wages and not there are soon many people -- our market is less and less free. ms. easton: when you talk about the powerless bringing home the $2 trillion of big companies abroad. something else that might help them is the role of technology. technology is displacing jobs. how would you tackle this kind of problems to help income growth at home? ms. fiorina: both of those things, you are absolutely right, and i would address both of those things, but i will start by saying we cannot estimate -- underestimate the historic role that family

businesses, small businesses start up businesses, play in the economy. we were really proud of a let -- of who it -- of hewlett-packard. they innovated at a much faster rate because they companies tend to be big bureaucracies. small companies tend to be willing to take risks. if you want innovation, you want to tolerate mistake making. small and new businesses create 2/3 of the new jobs in this country, employing half the people. if you go to any community anywhere in the country, you will see small and family-owned businesses giving up, and it is of huge consequence. we are now for the first time in u.s. history -- think about this -- here is a fact -- for the first time in u.s. history we

are now destroying more businesses and we are creating. that is a terrible problem that impacts everybody. so now, to your point, yes why do these big corporations not bring their cash home? because it will be taxed at exorbitant rates. we should of course have a competitive tax rate in this country for everybody. we do not. in the 21st century come any job can go anywhere, money can go anywhere, ideas, people can go anywhere, so we have to compete for it every job. we have to be the country that is the best place in the world to build a new business. we have to be the country that is the best in the world to do business, and we are not if our tax rates are uncompetitive. so we have to lower the rate but we have to vastly simplify the tax code. it is not enough to keep tweaking it and changing it and

making it better, but never simple it cannot because the big companies can deal with egg,, kate -- with big commentated tax codes. the little guys cannot. as a ceo i hired accountants and lawyers to do with this complexity. yes, we should change the tax code so that money comes home. we can incent companies to help startups get going, but if we do not signify the tax code, if all we do is worry about the rate, we will not make enough progress in terms of leveling the playing field for the small and powerless against the big and powerful. technology is an unbelievable tool for innovation. it is interesting because it is technology that small startups are trying to use to gain competitive advantage. all of you know about uber or about -- but think about it --

what are the competitors trying to do? big companies are getting together with regulators and government entities to try and make their entrance into the marketplace harder. why? because their entrance into the marketplace disadvantages the big, established players. that is the kind of disruption we wanted our economy. government should not be used to crush opposition, and that is actually what is happening in our economy now. ms. easton: social security is at the top of the headlines, the iranian agreement. the president argued this is our best bet for keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of tehran. what is your response to that? ms. fiorina: my own view is we should have stopped talking to

iran after the first six-month deadline passed. the reason i say that is because we have been sending signals to iran and to everyone else in the world that bad behavior will be rewarded. why do i say that? think about iran's behavior over decades. iran has had a strategy 2-d stabilize the middle east through their proxies. iran has had a strategy to gain a nuclear weapon. iran has had a strategy to stonewall every inspection regime that has been put in place. and iran has had a stare of the g to stonewall -- has had a strategy to stonewall ever negotiating effort. we're rewarding that behavior. i also think that tactically, from negotiating point of view it is a huge error for the

president of the united states to declare victory in a rose garden ceremony when only a framework agreement has then decided, because what that signals is that this president is now committed publicly to getting the deal done here it so my prediction is that what the iranians will do on the other side is spending the next two months trying to get a better deal. that is what happens in negotiations. i have never negotiated an iranian nuclear deal, but i have negotiated big deals. your having to be -- you have to be willing to walk away from the table, and you cannot get so committed publicly that it does not really matter what deal you get. and i am afraid that is what is happening. finally, i would say there are people at the negotiating table with us whose side i am not sure

they are on. so russia -- russia is not on our side in this negotiation. russia has a very k33n national interest in building up their nuclear industry. and the way they do that is to become the supplier and partner of choice to iran, and they are well on their way to doing it. by the we should have stopped talking and longtime ago. i think we should have pushed back on some of their behavior but if we are going to go forward with this new deal now, then i believe we must insist on inspections first and compliance first before sanctions are lifted. because once sanctions are lifted, there will be no snap.that you cannot snap back when six different parties are on the table. you cannot snap back when industries rush in.

i think inspection first verification first, and then perhaps -- ms. easton: what about the process of engaging a foe in the first place? we've heard about the obama doctrine where he said we engage, but we preserve all our options and capabilities. what is the theory in the doctrine on foes like iran? ms. fiorina: i think before we engage with anyone, we have to be consistent about rewarding good behavior and recognizing bad behavior. and my fear is that we are sending exactly the opposite set of signals. so i mentioned rewarding bad behavior -- i think it is indisputable that we are rewarding bad behavior. no matter what they are radians are doing, that they are engaged

in a bloody civil war in yemen, no matter what the proxies do throughout the region, nothing changes in our posture towards them. that sends a signal to every other adversary we have. on the flip side, we are not standing with our allies and rewarding good behavior. so, example -- when the kurds the most capable fighting force in the region, -- when the kurds stepped forward and fought against isis, and we refuse to harm them as they have requested for over a year and a half, what signal are we sending? the signal we are sending is it does not really pay to be our friend. when the jordanian king, whom i have known for many years, but when king abdullah flies that to

jordan and probably beheads -- not beheads -- probably executes two convicted terrorists in retaliation for the burning alive of a jordanian pilot and then begins cbombing, nes just left washington where he was asking for bombs and materiel to reinforce him, and we do not provide it, which we still have not, what signal are we sending? when the president of egypt, not a perfect character, by any means, but when the president of egypt takes action in retaliation for the heading of -- beheading of 21 coptic cushions and goes to curry and speaks to the -- to cairo and speaks to the imams about the cancer that is sitting in the hearts of islam and responds bravely as well into all of what

is going on in the region, and we say we neither condone his actions, what signal are we sending? we have our allies in the baltic states in ukraine who are asking us to do very specific things that would be helpful and we are doing none of them. and so the signal we send is it is a tough game to be america's friend. and the signal also is if you behave badly, there are no consequences there are only rewards. and that has huge consequences for this nation, and i think the world is a very dangerous and tragic place when we are not leading. ms. easton: you know a lot of world leaders, putin among them. explain to us about your meeting with him. ms. fiorina: i met putin at an apec meeting, and putin is a very formidable, very

interesting man. first of all, he is highly intelligent, highly educated, very cosmopolitan, quite charming. if he was here he would be charming and entertaining. he actually has a very good sense of humor. he is formidable. he is also a man who is focused on power. not even ideology. power. economic power, political power territorial power. and he believes it is his mission to restore the historic power of the russian empire. so if that is who you are facing off against it does not take a lot to understand that someone like that will not be stopped unless he senses real strength and resolve and purpose on the other side.

and so again, we have the ukrainians asking for help, we have the baltic states asking for help, and we are not providing much help. so i doubt that vladimir putin will stop. there's no reason for him to stop. he actually is achieving his objectives. ms. easton: so you met him once -- ms. fiorina: yes, we had a rather lengthy meeting and i had done business in russia for some time. and i would say that he is a man who has effectively concentrated so much power in his person, it is really stunning. ms. easton: what about the chinese leadership? you have spent time with them as well. ms. fiorina: i have been doing business with in china for a couple of decades now, and the chinese are motivated first and

foremost by what they perceive to be in their nation's economic self-interest. their economic-self interest requires them to grow at a certain rate, to lift a certain number of people out of poverty, because they have figured out that political peasce and social peace requires a certain standard of living. that is the bargain they have made with the chinese people. we will crush freedoms, and in return you will have a reasonable standard of living. that's a bargain is fraying at the edges in very real ways for it because they are molded -- in real ways. they do not care what we think about their human rights record. they really do not care. and so however objectionable we may find their human rights

record, we are wasting our breath. they actually did not care when we say we think they are manipulating their currency. they think we are manipulating our country. i would agree with them. qe1, eqe2, qe3 has had the effect of manipulating our currency. so we have to talk to them if we want to change their behavior. the only thing that changes their behavior is begin to have an impact on their calculation about their economic self-interest. in this regard, we have leverage where we can use it. we are their largest market. virtually all of their industry has been built one way or another through collaboration with american companies. so there are real conversations we must have with them about the systematic pilfering our our

intellectual property and we are not really having a. ms. easton: what would you do? would you stand up to them on that? ms. fiorina: what i would duke first, yes, i think the wto is in some ways a useful body. but i would remind the chinese that it is the american business community that helped the chinese enter the wto. i would gather a set of american business leaders who also are are very concerned about what is happening to their intellectual property, and i would form a united front between the policies that the u.s. government pursues and a set of american businesses. i think that would have an impact. i would change the nature of the topics about which we speak to the chinese, and i would ensure that there are real consequences to some of their behavior.

there is no doubt, i chaired the advisory board of the central intelligence agency for several years, there is no doubt that the chinese are engaged in very deliberate cyber warfare, what everyone to call it, against both government and is this in this country. there is no doubt they are doing that. ms. easton: so i am going to open this up to questions in about five minutes, so get them ready. i wanted to drill down deeper on your views about the use of force. and let's look backward before we look forwards. the iraq war knowing what we know now, would you have authorized that? ms. fiorina: of course not, and we i think, even if we assumed now, looking back, ok, they had weapons of mass destruction, i think we miss managed -- mismanaged that conflicts, and

we have mismanaged going in and mismanaged going out. i think the use of force as well as american leadership on the world stage requires both clear-eyed realism and moral clarity, and what i mean by clear-eyed realism, let's take afghanistan, which in some ways was a clear case. we had a major terrorist attack launched plotted, and planned from there. clearly, there had to be a response, a forceful response. that was realistic. it was totally unrealistic to decide that the mission we need to be engaged in was to build a central government where none had existed for 2000 years. that was completely unrealistic. so we were imposing a model of political governance on a nation

in which that model would never take root. and so i think force is always a last resort and when it is used it must be used for a very limited purpose. but there is a time. ms. easton: syria, containing isis, and so forth -- are you favor american troops there? ms. fiorina: one of the things i think i honestly, this administration has done is continuing to present the american people with a false choice. in the voice choice is this -- it are we go to war or there is nothing we can do. and i think syria is an example of where that false choice has been offered over and over again. there are things we could of done in syria. he could have provided more help to the rebels when there were moderate rebels there. we could have joined together more effectively with turkey instead of fighting against the

things that turkey wanted to do. we did not of that. and what you have now -- i think here again a fosters is being offered. no i think sending american troops boots on the ground into syria at this moment would be counterproductive. on the other hand, we have a whole bunch of allies in the region asking us to do things and we're not doing any of them. we are not working effectively with turks, with kurds with rebels, we are not working effectively with the jordanians or the saudis. we are not working effectively with any of our allies. to say the only thing we can do is go off to war is not true. there are are a whole set of things we have asked to do by people who share our interests and we're not doing that. ms. easton: ok, questions. please identify yourself and keep your questions very short and it must and in a question

mark. back there, yes. >> 2018, you are -- excuse me, january 2018 -- ms. easton: january 2017. >> what are the first decisions and priorities you would make? ms. fiorina: the first decision i would make is to begin to unddo a whole set of complexities that have been built up, and let's just start with the web of dependence that we have woven around people's lives. we have woven a web of dependence around people's lives. and we make it virtually impossible for people to disentangle themselves from that

web. all of the incentives are to settle in to that web instead of to move forward in your life. so i would start to undo and disentangle a whole set of of complexities around dependence, and i would start to disentangle a whole set of programs that crush the family-owned and the small businesses. i'm doing things is hard, but i think using technology -- i'm doing things is hard, but i did using technology, we could get those things done. secondly, i would begin the push for two important levers that can help us reimagine government and hold it more accountable to serve all citizens, and those two things would be this -- zero-based budgeting. let us know where our money is

actually being spent. we do not have a clue. and every year, is around the rate of increase, because remember that fiscal year i talked about? that is been going on for 40 years under republicans and democrats because we never look at the whole budget. and transparency over time will lead to accountability. a zero-based budget. the other one, pay for performance. you have lived with the sonority system in the federal government forever. it is a bad system, because it means that literally you can watch pornography all day long or you can be working hard to do a good job and you get paid exactly the same way and earn the same pay and the same benefits. that is not fair. it is not right. and people outside this town find it outrageous. ms. easton: ok, other questions?

>> thank you. about the web of dependence, you adequately described a moment ago, you would like to disentangle the country or the people who are dependent after you are president. what about before? what is the message that can be conveyed to the people who are dependent and that you would like them to be this entangled but you still want their votes. how do you modify from dependence to opportunity? what is the message? ms. easton: good question. ms. fiorina: everyone has god-given gifts. everyone has potential. most people have far more than they realize. is not a message. it is a fact. and i have seen it play out in my life over and over and over again.

when you give people a chance to find their gifts and use their potential, the vast majority of people will take that chance. is a human instinct -- it is a human instinct to live a life of human purposes and dignity and meaning. it is what all human beings want. when you look at summit in the us and say you have potential, and highest calling of leadership is to unlock potential in others. that's help everyone in this country live a life of -- let's help everyone in this country live a life of me. this has to be a nation where every american feels possibilities in their lives because they have possibilities, they have potential. and the weight of bad government, policy, and politics is crushing it for too many

people. ms. easton: when you look at the global economy and the national security landscape, what worries you the most on both of those? what scares you? ms. fiorina: i think what scares me is what motivates the two potentially jump in to this race. i think we are at a very pivotal point. i think there comes a point where a system is so baked in that you cannot reverse it. i think we are coming to that point. government getting bigger and bigger and more and more complicated and more and more powerful and more and more crushing has been baked into this system for 40 years. and unless we decide to take a different path to leech for a

different result -- to reach for a different result, there will come a point where we cannot change it. then he give you a practical example. in the next few years, there are a bunch of baby boomers who are going to retire from their jobs in the federal government. it is a window of opportunity. we either decide we are not replacing those people and reimagining government to be smaller and more accountable and more responsive and less oppressive or we replace them all, and then we are stuck for a really long time. with regard to the world i think it is the same thing. i worry that we are getting to a point where without american leadership the world will look very different. the world will look very different if our allies in the middle east become weaker and our adversary in the middle east, which is iran and its

proxies, become very much stronger. the world will look very different if vladimir putin continues on his march for power. our nation will look very different if we do not get more family-owned and small as this is growing again. our nation will look different if we are not tapping the talents and the possibilities of every american. and so i think we have a limited time to change the order of things for the better. i truly do. ms. easton: we have time for a couple more questions. sir? >> thank you very much. in africa, for example, in east africa -- is in civil war right now for almost a year. the gunman in -- has committed genocide.

now, we also had a killing in kenya. what would you do if you will be elected? ms. fiorina: i'm not sure i understood did all your questions. i am sorry, but i think you are asking, we are talking about the civil war in sudan and you're also talking about kenya. ms. easton: the attack in kenya is that -- ms. fiorina: so the attack in kenya is a demonstration of the growing nature of the terrorist threat that we face. and there is a religious message at the core of this threat. we need to be sharing

intelligence with all of those who would work with us to fight this terrorist threat. i think there is no question that when people are not sure of where we stand and who we stand with, it makes those who want to stand up and fight bravely less eager to do so. and so, again, we cannot send troops into everywhere, but what we can do is help those who are trying to help us in this fight. we can be deliberate about our willingness to stand with those who are willing to fight those who would harm us and others.

we can be clear about the nature of the threat that we face and stand with those who are brave enough to name the threats we face. and i think we can be active as a nation in building economies all throughout the world including in africa. you know, one of the projects that i was engaged in here at csis was about global development. and there is no question that it is in our interest that economies all around the world develop and that people have a stake in the global economy. and one of the conclusions without going too far into this, but one of the conclusions that this project, which i had the pleasure to cochair, into was that private companies are now responsible for over 3/4 of

the development efforts going on in africa and elsewhere around the world, and there is a real opportunity for government efforts and private-sector experts to be more aligned -- efforts to be more aligned. africa as you know is a place where the chinese are investing hugely to their governments and businesses, and we are perceived as withdrawing withdrawing in terms of our support for allies and friends and withdrawing in terms of our investment for economic element as well. ms. easton: carly, as we end i want as good question about leadership, because you experienced it on so many levels. you thought about it globally on so many levels. and part of this program is geared toward aspiring leaders women, but young men too. what would be your best advice to aspiring leaders based on your experience? ms. fiorina: first, i would say

know what leadership is and know what it is not. and people get very confused about leadership. i said several minutes ago that leadership is not about position and power. i used to think was. when i was a secretary, i thought whoever had the biggest office was a leader. if you big office, the big parking space, the big-budget, you were a leader. and i think a lot of people think that. they think title and position and power equals leadership. and a have nothing to do with it. there are plenty of people with big offices who do not lead. i think leadership is different from management. management is about doing the best you can within the existing system. there are a lot of people in business were managers, in philanthropy who are managers, a lot of people in politics who are managers. they do the best they can within the existing system. leaders do not accept what is broken just because it has been that way for a really long time. so understand that leadership is

about changing the order of things for the better, it is about changing things, it is about particularly unlocking potential in others, because that is how you solve problems. is how you change the order of things. human potential is the only limitless resource you have, but it is limitless. when you apply human potential to solve problems, really honestly, everything is possible. i have never encountered a problem that could not be made better by unlocking human potential and focusing it on common goals and worthy purpose. so when we leave potential on the table, because we do not give people a chance to use it, when we leave potential on the table because we just ignore women or minorities are people who are different, then we are not going to solve all of our problems and we are not going to tap all of our opportunities. so understand what leadership is come and understand one other

thing which i know for my own experience, leaders are made they are not born. leaders are made. leaders are made to the crucible of challenges, challenges that are professional or challenges that are personal. you asked me about cancer a moment ago, and i forgot to answer you but all of us are formed not just by the good times, but by the bad times. i learned a lot battling cancer. most particularly, i learned life and success are not measured in time, by title. life is measured in love and moments of grace and positive contribution truly. and i learned when our younger daughter died battling the demons of addiction that the only thing we really control are our own choices. which comes back to leadership.

i think actually fundamentally leadership is a choice. it is a choice to make a positive difference. it is a choice to unlock potential in others. it is a choice to have the courage to say i am not going to accept this just because it has been this way all along. i am going to choose to change the order of things for the better. so many people do not choose leadership not because they are not capable of it, but because there is a price to be paid for leadership. you make enemies. you disrupt things. not everybody likes what you are doing. you take arrows in the back. everybody can and it is a joy to see people choose to lead. ms. easton: carly, i met you at csis when you are providing remarkable leadership on global development issues and incorporating the private sector, so it is a delight to talk to you today as you take that leadership gene you have

and are taking it to new heights. thank you so much for taking the time to be with us. ms. fiorina: thank you. [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] >> during this month, c-span is pleased to present the winning entries in the student can documentary competition. students were asked to create their documentaries based on the theme "the three branches and you."

these individuals are one of our second prize winners. the documentary focus on the undocumented youth. >> 70,000 children, alone afraid searching for hope, with no one to turn to. escaping from lives of trauma and hoping to find a place to call home. >> [indiscernible] >> carlos is one of the 70,000.

he immigrated from honduras. he now lives in takoma park, maryland, with his foster parents. >> the office of refugee resettlement and local programs for undocumented refugee minors are working to find housing for these youth across the nation. but there are thousands more to come, and the orr does not have enough resources. carlos is one of the lucky ones. without government funding, the programs that put him where he is could now clog up or even shut down. the house of representatives must be willing to allocate enough funds to these programs to keep them running.

these programs are what nurture the demographic to shape the future of the american economy. the urm program consists of local programs nationwide that work to find refugee minors homes and futures in america. the program that found carlos a home is called lutheran social services, or lss. we met with the clinical supervisor. >> we train the families to work with the kids, and also try case management. we basically do that, but it is a specialized program for unaccompanied individuals from other countries. all those services that a traditional kid in foster care would get, but knowing that there are a lot of cultural differences and things like that, the idea is that they are getting prepared for when they age out of the foster care system that they are ready to live when they turn 21. >> recently, through an

executive order by president obama and a new budget passed in the house, funds are being allocated to stem the flow of immigrants to the country, and over 5 million immigrants will be able to gain citizenship. large sums of money are now being used to support a large number of child immigrants coming into the u.s. >> all that money to support those kids comes out of the same pool, the office of refugee resettlement. the concern was, rather than adding funding, they would take money away from other programs such as refugee resettlement, to support youth programs. what we would hope for is not that they would be taking money away, but rather adding money to meet the need. >> success in the american workforce and the american education system can be

extremely difficult for urm's or programs such as lutheran social services. >> the value is that they are providing all of the necessary social services that these children and youth need. >> bill ecenbarger is part of a program that works with refugee children. bill: they have been oftentimes abused, sometimes trafficked. lutheran services check with them periodically and they work on life skills, learning to cook and clean on their own, and take care of themselves, basically. they help get them job training. they often help put them in the right educational program. a lot of these youth and they are 15, 16, 17 years old, and they have very little formal education. >> many americans believe the u.s. government should not be helping any immigrants in any way. they believe that immigrants will steal american jobs and

increase crime. secretary of labor of the united states thomas perez was able to explain why immigrants are so important to a prosperous economy. secretary perez: immigrants have helped build america. immigrants are more likely to have a college degree than native-born immigrants. something like one in four workers in the health care field is an immigrant. immigrants from the beginning of time have been a robust part of our nation's economy. what we see in other countries who do not have the immigration patterns that we have -- countries like japan -- they are confronting a workforce crisis because they are not replenishing the workforce. and one thing that immigrants do as well is contribute to the social security trust fund. that is our system, and it relies for its success on a robust cadre of workers, and immigrants provide that labor.

>> i do notice a lot of the youth that come through the urm program are highly motivated and they want to be a part of society. they want to work hard. they want to attain the american dream. and often are able to give back to society in a lot of useful ways. >> those who oppose the assimilation of immigrants claim that immigrants are un-american. but there is nothing more american. when one describes the american dream, there is no dream closer to that than the dreams of the children who come across our borders. the urm programs are essential to the success of the demographic that is most essential. if these programs whose their funding, young people will not be able to grow into being intruding members that america needs. announcer: to learn more about

the competition and watch the videos, go to c-span.org and click on studentcam. tell us about the issues that students address. >> starting tonight, new members of congress. we begin with steve russell of oklahoma. he talked about his career in the army, life in congress, and his childhood. representative russell: i nearly died several times from birth. i had the opposite blood type of my mother, the rh type was different, and she had it a couple of miscarriages prior to be. i nearly died at birth. so she has always told me i was her little fighter. that does something to a child that you are not going to quit, you're going to persevere and stay with something until you get it done. and then survived a doubt of --

a bout of appendicitis. my appendix actually ruptured, and it was six or seven hours before i had any legal attention to deal with that. did not know what was, felt that are after it ruptured, and then peritonitis that income was in intensive care for weeks two major surgeries, and my folks thought they were going to lose me. >> you did not know it had wruptured? representative russell: no, i went outside and played. it was a saturday. by that night, i was doubled over in pain. i remember asking my mother during that time, i asked her am i going to die? she was honest with me, and she says, we do not know. but we are praying and we believe you're going to make it. >> freshman congressman steve russell tonight on c-span at 9:00 p.m. eastern.

and c-span brings you a different freshman profile each night this week at 9:00 p.m. eastern. at 9:30 p.m. eastern tonight the eighth biennial national conference of independence from new york city. speakers discuss how the political system is biased toward the two major parties and changes that could be made to help independent candidates. tomorrow on c-span, rand paul announcing his presidential campaign. he will be the second campaign to officially join the 2016 race. that is live from louisville kentucky, at noon eastern. and on tomorrow morning's "washington journal," conversation on the long-term unemployed. the 2.6 million americans who have been out of work over six months. our guest is nancy cook. and a preview of campaign fund raising for the 2016 presidential cycle.

and we will look at the rolling stone story, which the magazine retracted earlier today about an alleged sexual assault at the university of virginia. we'll talk with an individual from the american press institute. live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. and right now, a conversation from this morning. host: good morning. we just finished up a conversation with a former state department official for iran. as you see it from a congressional point of view, what is your take on the initial framework? guest: i was very surprised that the framework was as comprehensive as it was. i think we got everything we hoped for and more. my great hope is that, as the

president has asked for, that there be a congressional debate, but that congress does not prove to be a stumbling block in an agreement that has been worked out with the p5 plus one and iran. as the president has said, this is the best chance we've had in a long time to go forward, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. host: you served formally as an ambassador to switzerland in -- and liechtenstein. in looking at this relationship between the u.s. and iran, where do things stand now? guest: i am optimistic. in 2009, the two big missions were bank secrecy. the other was to get the swiss government to heed the enhanced sanctions. switzerland was at risk of being

the hole of the donut in europe, the place iran would go to trade oil. the argument was there was some way we have to bring iran to the table. when we finally bring them to the table and we get a framework agreement, this is a great step forward. we are where ahead of where we were just two years ago. host: the issue of iran will land first and foremost next week on the senate side. i want to play you some of the comments from senator bob corker, the chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, and his concern over the deal expressed on fox news sunday yesterday. [video clip] >> one of the proposals being floated as a nonbinding vote by congress. you could disapprove the deal, but then the president could still go ahead and suspend sanctions. is that acceptable? senator corker: no, it's not. i think the bill we have laid

out that had strong bipartisan support, chairman menendez, who has stepped down, as we know but chuck schumer supports this, tim kaine supports this. there is strong bipartisan support for a binding vote in congress. look, the president needs to sell this to the american people, and congress needs to be involved in this way. mr. wallace: let me after the second question. the white house is that the president would veto the kind of legislation you are proposing. if you does, you don't need 51 votes or even 60 votes. you need 67 votes, which means 13 democrats to override his veto. do you have 67 votes? senator corker: i don't know if we have 67 votes or not, but we have got 64 or 65 that we are

aware of today if that were the case. i talked to a number of democrats over the weekend and i think there are many more that are considering this. look, i think the american people want the united states senate to go through this deal. they understand this is one of the most important geopolitical agreements that will take place during this decade. this is an appropriate place to be. if the president feels like this is something that is good for the nation, surely you can sell this to the united states senate and the house. host: congressman don beyer, your thoughts on the chairman's view of the senate's role in this iranian deal. guest: i think senator corker is right that the congress does need to be involved. i think the congress does have a responsibly, which he is trying to fulfill, to sell this to the american people.

but is also important to remember that the same president that imposed the sanctions -- he is also right that the same power that gave the president the right to impose the sanctions gave him the right to listen. host: to join the conversation with our best, the numbers are on the screen. let's go to calls. mike is in monroe, georgia independents line. your first up. go ahead. caller: hey, guys, how are you doing this morning? host: fine, thank you. caller: congressman, going above your pay grade and talking to us below your pay grade, how do you answer about the inspection process, given the last iaea president of it openly admitted that they lied about saddam hussein's stuff even after they were in and kicked out, in and kicked out?

how are we supposed to believe an independent agency that we have no representation in is goign to be truthful to what they say? and i would appreciate a very honest answer. thank you. guest: we do actually have quite a bit of representation in the iaea. we have an american ambassador there. we have a significant mission in austria they're located. the advisors have to come together for an independent audit. most importantly, we have been able to inspect all of their facilities. as the president said in this current framework, we will be able to inspect the uranium from the mine through the process to where it's stored. that is a lot of inspection. host: going to the experience of the iraqi weapons specters, any concern that there will be

things that will be missed? guest: there is obvious concern, but we have to continue to work on it. we have gone 20 years without any inspections in iran. now we will have unprecedented access. that is a huge step forward. host: rhode island, independent line. caller: sir, i cannot disagree with you more. i was in the military, and you scare me to death. first of all, we right now have found out about underground bunkers that they are processing plutonium in that we had no knowledge of, and i can guarantee our inspectors will have no access to. that is number one. number two, if you are wrong how many children in the military do you have that you

are willing to sacrifice to fight these people in the event that they come and bomb us? and number three, why are you so against israel that you give them no say in this matter? our president refused to talk to him. why? guest: thank you for your question about the military and sacrifices our military have made. we have already been involved in quite a few wars in the middle east. iraq one, iraq two, and now in syria. i think one of the major policy goals now is to avoid getting into another major war. as the presently laid out clearly, it's not just avoiding

war. iran without the steel could move very quickly and then force us into a war posture. this is the single best option to avoid american loss of life avoid having to use american or israeli military. and there is enormous difference of opinion within israel. netanyahu is the prime minister, but not the only voice. i think what we are trying to do is make israel as secure as possible. no american president has done as much to strengthen israeli security at this one house. host: let's go to the calls. joe, democrat line. hi, joe, you're on the air. caller: good morning. usually when i call i say this is joe from the bronx, new york, a staunch democrat. what i want to say to you in reference to the topic we are discussing right now, when i

speak to the people from main street, and those are the people i believe in, the people from main street, what they are saying is you got to understand, and i want to try to talk to the republicans. you are the smart party. people know that. the thing that the republicans are trying to do -- and you know that from the aca -- this president, they don't want him to go down in history for having done things that presidents for 80 years have tried to do, make history. the only thing the democrats wanted to do was raise income, and they killed that. and now they are trying to oppose everything that is good

for this country. host: joe, we will let you go there and get your thoughts. he mentioned main street. have you heard much from your constituents in virginia? guest: not a lot yet over the weekend. but i do know anything that makes our economy more secure is good for business will affect our future. i don't think there is a smart party. i enjoy being in congress, because there are a lot of smart people in both parties there. but i think humility has to come along with our so-called intelligence as we try to figure out what is going to be best for america and for the world. host: some look ahead to the debate that may be ahead on capitol hill, "the wall street journal" has a headline, "political battle ramps up over

iran." and the hill as well. in the house side representative of new york and ted deutsch of florida said they welcome discussion on the framework but harbor deep doubts that the iranians can be trusted to make good of their commitments. who do you want to hear from to further strengthen your belief in this deal or belief in the president on this deal? congressman beyer: i'm a member of the u.s. house so looking at elliot engel from new york and ed royce the chair of the house foreign relations committee. they sent a strong letter to the president about this deal and i think it fulfills what they asked for in that letter. what i really hope bill, is this does not become a democrat versus republican piece.

as the president i think he said with his interview yesterday, because netanyahu has concerns about the deal doesn't mean he should be aligning for the senate republicans and because we like the deal doesn't mean it should be a democrat thing either. hopefully it's americans coming together. as they used to say political wars end at the water's edge. host: why do you think that's not so much anymore is this congressman beyer: i don't really more because we have seen unprecedented support from israel from democratic and republicans alike and i haven't seen any wavering. there are many people upset with the continued settlements. but as an american people and both parties together deeply believe in our responsibility to help secure israel's future. host: next up republican line edward, hello.

caller: good morning and thank for taking my call. i just have a quick question. i wondered if anyone has taken any poll on what's going on with the decision that was made as far as the agreement. and then also i notice the iranian people was happy when their prime minister or whoever this guy is, he brought the message back to them. and also why the saudis and the egyptians and the jordanians how they feel about the agreement. do they feel they're gonna have to get nuclear weapons also?

so i would like to know those are the questions i would like to know. host: a lot on the table there. congressman beyer: thanks, edward. to the point of the iranians celebrating this framework deal, i'm sure that it's very true that they have been -- their economy has been destroyed by the sanctions that we have placed on them. their growth rate, the devaluation of their currency they've been a mess. that's why they elected a moderate was they were looking for a way out of thes sanctions. despite the rhetoric there, someone described it beautiful as we let them keep the buildings and let them take all the furniture. they've gone from 20 sent tra tpaoupblgs to 5,000 and taken away almost all the enriched aou rainian from 10,000 to 300 grams

and their ability to do plutonium has gone away. they have some -- the buildings are there but there is no ability to move out. by the way netanyahu has been saying since 1992 that iran was only a year or two from making away and now it's 2015. now we have made it 15 years away before they can do it. on the saudis and the egyptians some of this is tied of sunni verses shiite. perhaps there could be peace and reconciliation might be threatening to them. host: don beyer is our guest and he's a freshman congressman from virginia. we're talking about the iran and the reaction to the nuclear agreement, the framework that was announced last week. on another issue though, the "washington post" notes that you are set to replace chris as the

finance chair and that's from the "washington post" role call. they wonder can democrats win the house in 2016? you're taking over for chris val hullens. what is the biggest challenge for you to get quality candidates and take back the house in 2016? congressman beyer: i think you answered the question it's finding quality candidates. we need 30 seats. we're 188 which is the fewest since harry truman was president. we had a tough year in 2010 and lost 65 seats and this last year after the ebola and isis beheadings was terrible. only one in three americans showed up to vote that day. we need to get great candidates. our presidential year is a better year for democrats so we expect some improvement and i would love us to get to 30, but

if we can get to 18, 20 or 22 is a big step. host: is your game plan any different from what congressman had laid out? congressman beyer: i'm on the fundraising side. so with lots of transparency and trying to really stick by the spirit and the letter of all the ideas, i don't like the citizens united decision at all and we want to try to raise enough money to fund the candidates that are on the edge and there will only be only 60 or 70 of them to have a chance to win. some seats are safe for the republicans and safe for the democrats. we'll be focusing on those guys where we have a chance. host: let's get back to calls in california. joseph on the independent line in visalia, california. caller: good morning, everybody. i just want to remind everybody that israel got its nuclear weapons with their allied south

africa when they were apartheid regime. they were fascist, outright and that was israel's closest ally. me beg a black american i don't believe israel should have any nuclear weapons. i think they should get rid of their nuclear weapons. congressman beyer: one of the interesting things to come out of the last conference on the non proliferation treaty which iran has signed and israel has not signed is that we work toward a nuclear free middle east. this is in the right direction. i don't know if they have them or not, but certainly it is a worthy goal there be no nuclear weapons in the middle east. host: james, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. i totally agree with that guy that just talked about israel

not having nuclear weapons either, and mr. netanyahu he came over and he lied to the american people and he also lied to his own people when he said he was against the two-party state right before he got elected and switched back and said, well now i'm for the two-party state. i think the american people and especially the religious right here in america should understand that without the united states netanyahu wouldn't have a bed to sit on much less to sleep in in israel right now because we're the guys -- i don't think you're ever gonna get religious right to agree with anything the democrats or obama has really tried to do

with iran any kind of agreement. they'll just disagree over religious principals. in my mind as someone that likes to think about things it's relevant. we do have a talking point. we did finally get him to the table. the israelis are extremely jealous of that and as far as them negotiating they can't even negotiate with the palestinians. so, we have every right to be over there to talk to iran and those people, they have a right celebrate because they're finally getting some of that stuff off their back that they've been carrying around now for about 20 years. and i'd be celebrating too that i finally get food in. host: that's james from oklahoma. congressman beyer: thank you,

james. john was on the show with phil just before i came on and john was one of the original hostages taken by the iranian embassy back in 1979 and he pointed out to me years ago when he was assistant secretary of state or deputy secretary, all those years when we had 10,000 nuclear weapons aimed at the soviet union we had console ats and discussions. finally to get some dialogue gives us the chance for peace the chance for reconciliation and so i think this is a good step forward. host: toni in kingston, pennsylvania, republican line for do not by bon by /* /* do not beyer. caller: my problem is all the anti-rhetoric against iran. correct me if i'm wrong isn't it true that all 16 security

agencies including the israelis agree that iran hasn't attempted to make a nuclear weapon? isn't this iran a country that has 'nt a/* hasn't attacked anybody in 112 years. state sponsor of terrorism. when you talk about terrorism, isn't it israel that seems to bond their numbers at will in response to these sky rockets attacks that kill tens of thousands of people. who is the terrorist here? hakem: tonie host: toni lots of questions there. congressman beyer: thanks for your perspective. there is lots of history here. when i was ambassador in switzerland -- switzerland represents us in iran ever since 1980 or '81 and the swiss am bad

tkor to tehran used to say as much as we distrust the iranians they distrust us and much of that going back to 1953 when we helped over throw their democrat kalical ly elected president. what my big problem with netanyahu when he came to speak to congress he said, no deal is better than a bad deal but didn't talk about what replaces it and the scary part without this deal and without this diplomatic framework there is no reason iran won't hurry to make a bomb is in which case that brings on military action from united states and probably from israel too. that will cause bloodshed and as he know from 1939 and 1914, once the first bullets fly you can't predict what's going to happen. host: were you in the house chamber during that meet something congressman beyer: i was. i spoke out against it and there was very bad political etiquette

and diplomacy but also out of the respect of the relationship i wanted to give the respect of listening to the argument. host: congress from northern sreupblg ini can't,virginia, wanted to ask you about the proposed budget that with you agreed to by the senate and house and the proposals front page of government executive magazine, a washington publication i'll stand in front of the bus. what's the news for federal workers in that budget? congressman beyer: it's just more bad news unfortunately. ever since it seems like ronald reagan won with the message of getting government off the backs of our people, we look at federal employees as the bad guys when they're actually the good guys. one of the most fascinating statistics since the early 1960's private sector workforce has grown by 145% and number of people grown by 66% and federal

employees by 9%. we're getting more and more work out of fewer and fewer people. and yet i know for three years out of the last five they got no raises at all. 1% last year and the president proposed 1.3% this year. that's probably won't fully hold up in the negotiated budget. so we're really trying to badge et it back on the backs of of federal employees who are the ones making -- help make our country so strong. we forget there are federal employees are the ones that protect us at the airports and fbi and border patrol so many good things that they do for us. host: bob on the independent line. caller: good morning. my first comment is for those who are nervous about israel's reaction to the possibility of iran having a bomb. we shouldn't forget that in 1963, we almost went to nuclear

war over a small island 90 miles off the coast of florida that had, we discovered, nuclear tipped missiles from the soviet union union. the deal was get them off the island entirely or we will strike you militarily. that with you aas a long time ago but a nation that felt threatened. so i understand israel's concern about this. my question is, how do we know with this deal that iran will do what it says it's going to do with drop dead boiler plate accuracy and no fooling around, total truth, how do we know they're going to do what they say they'll do?

hakem: khraoerpb /* khraoer , a tweet from robert who says, we had an ear agreement with north korea. host: why would this agreement be any different and can you please recite the proposed agreement guaranteeing unfettered inspections any time from anywhere and that's from sandy. congressman beyer: thank you bob and sandy. let's go back to the cuban missile crisis october 1962. the great challenge there what people forget we also had nuclear tipped missiles in turkey on the soviet border, and the trade off there soviets took their missiles out of cuba and we took ours out of turkey. and there was a tradeoff and the soviet union was feeling just as threatened by missiles as we were 90 miles away.

this is always the case. most people hope to get from 10,000 down to 600 and somehow we managed to do that with fears that the soviets would cheat. i'm sure they had fears we would cheat also. that's why we have so much inspections and i can't quote the framework agreement in front of me because as many pages long i haven't memorized it. but there is unprecedented inspection of iraq from aou rain yum from the mine. it's nothing like we have had before host: we have linked to the outline of that work, that framework that was released by the white house. you'll it on our website on c-span.org. this is mike on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i just like to point out that we

still have over 2.5 months to hammer out an agreement with iran and let's not get our hair on fire about this potential agreement. the other thing i'd like to say is that let's not forget that the real nuclear flash point or potential flash point is pakistan of the let's not forget they're the ones that sold equipment and know-how to korea. have a nice day. host: thank you, mike. congressman beyer: you're right i think many many foreign policy experts think that pakistan is far more problematic because they have so many nuclear weapons and sometimes insecure stability in terms of the leadership. there already is a muslim bomb, for example, so we have to be aware of that. what is also lost in the iran debate with israel too is that the principal of mutual assured

destruction is operative. do they think they could use a nuclear weapon without destroying the entire country. if israel does have nuclear weapons we have to think about the psychological and security impact it has on its many hostile neighbors. caller: why give them anything? we don't have to give them nothing. remember 1979, they're the first ones that started all this anti-american stuff and like you said, you're a government employee. i don't understand all you democrats, you just worry about every other country and don't worry about america. you're elected by americans. you get -- you said you're a

government employee. why don't you worry about americans. don't worry about russia and turkey and iran. worry about the american people. they have to give into us. leave the sanctions as they are. if you feel that they're doing right loosen them little by little and everything will work out. thank you. bye bye. congressman beyer: the sanctions have not slowed down iran's nuclear processes at all. right now they have 10,000 grams of enriched uranium and centrifuges. we want that to be 2 or 3 years and ultimately never and they assure they'll never have nuclear weapons. by watt ithe way it's not just iran. if iran builds a nuclear weapon then egypt and saudi arabia will

be forced to do it very soon. israel might have to do the same thing. you could get a whole new wave of nuclear arms race which we haven't had since the proliferation treaty. instability in the middle east tends to draw in american soldiers and american loss of life and huge american financial costs. host: couple of divergent views on the iranian deal. on twitter tweets -- michael says, on the other hand -- host: let's hear from richmond, virginia. james on the independence line. welcome. caller: thanks for c-span. glad to be on.

i have several things -- first off, i support the treaty 100%. i just wish we could get israel in on the deal. as far as these people say that we can't trust them, how can anybody trust us? i remember that we signed a treaty that we wouldn't torture and we torture. and we had about 150 house of representative people, i hope you weren't one of them, that goes over to israel on a fact-finding mission and only thing i ever found out that they found out is that one naked politician couldn't walk on water. i'll listen to your comment. congressman beyer: i think we need international agreements on many different things and made the world a safer and better place. i think we want to bring the israeli people into the

agreement as much as possible. the primary beneficiaries of this are the israeli people and their security. there is a huge american interest in this also, but we have kept them fully informed every part of the way and continue to do that. host: on another issue, the u.n. climate change initiative is next year. and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 28% by the year 2020. you served on the science committee. what does congress have to do to effect that change? congressman beyer: i've been frustrated. in one of the primary reasons i ran for congress was to try to be a leading voice and try to take it out of this left versus right democrat versus republican type of debate. there is a fascinating article in the post where they say, it's not a climate change denier.

and many of my colleagues i've talked to privilege privately agree we need to work together to find ways to work forward. we've done a good job but done it without legislation from congress and we could do a better job. host: they challenged some of the deaths from climate change, they did some reporting on that. what's your take away from their rating? congressman beyer: they're right. the 7,000 deaths was worldwide from all weather related events. so it's clearly the wrong statistic. so, yeah i apologize. i won't use that statistic again. and the bad part about it it takes us away from the real damage that is being done. i don't think you can measure it so much in u.s. deaths right

now. we are seeing the tropical diseases and more deaths related -- just injuries or illnesses -- related to respiratory things from wild fires and heat related. but the best leaders think long term bill, they think about 10 20 and 30 years out and that's where it will have its big impact. the nation will disappear like the maldives and the bangladesh people that disappear when the satisfy level rises. host: you were a successful businessman and car dealer. what's the car industry's role in climate change? where is it heading in terms of renewables? congressman beyer: really good directions. from 1992 through 2008, it was set at 22 miles per gallon and

made no progress. we made tons of technological progress but we turned it into bigger and heavier and faster cars. but then they raised it 22 to 34, 35 and will go up to 45 by the end of the decade. we're much better off than we were. you see manufacturer to manufacturer coming up to new products. i drove a toyota -- i don't sell them -- it was fuel cell hydrogen. it burned hydrogen and burned off water. it was perfect. host: earhere's allen in brooklyn. caller: i want to compliment you on climate change. there is a comparison in the iranian argument by the republicans between real and immediate threats and make believe threats. i think they focused as much

attention on the long term danger to america of not attending to climate change on the possibility that the iranians will not respect their agreement ten years from now we'd be in good shape toward a viable climate policy. the republicans seem to be motivated more by simply denying obama any accomplishments by helping the country. look back in 1980 when many of our viewers were born yet and they had this october surprise where bill casey went to europe to negotiate to get the hostages and i think there is an over tone of that by the letter by representative cotton and his colleagues in the senate to poison the well. i think we need to focus on our real national interests and not just political interests and our

long term national interest on climate and on iran. congressman beyer: thanks for the perspective. the greatest need is climate change. the immediate needs is syria and isis and this framework with iran but when you look at something that can effect billions of lives it's what we're doing to our climate. i'm an amateur scientist so i believe in humility and we learn new things every day but let's build on what we know now and then we can adjustment host: laura, hello there. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. first of all, the representative is finding out from the calls this morning there's an awful lot of us americans out here who do not back israel. i think we give them an awful lot of money. it's a very small piece of land. they're not even as big as almost -- any of our states and

we give them so much money. they should be all millionaires over there by now. but the thing that started making me pay attention to this and a comment was made was a while ago we asked the military that we pay for and public pay for that we told them you can stand down and netanyahu was in charge and he said screw you america, we're going to go on the boat and killed an american kid, a 19-year-old kid. who else they killed. the boat was fine and let it go through, but this is israel for you. we gave them all this money. i don't see what they do for us. congressman beyer: when did that happen? caller: a couple years back and that was -- i don't know if the boat was going to pakistan or

wherever it was going through, but if you look at it you google it. it was on the news and everything. they shot our kid. a 19-year-old. yes, they killed our kid even though we we will get a response from congressman buyer -- congressman beyer guest: that was a complicated incident. it was in 2010, a turkish ship going to gaza. there was concern that there were weapons on the ship as opposed to only humanitarian goods. and i think there were 10 or 11 deaths as a result, and one american citizen. host: do you think as a result of this proposed iranian deal that it's likely that the white house last week announced military aid to egypt, that the administration would provide more military aid to israel? guest: i think the administration is very committed to israel, and saudi arabia, and egypt.