tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 6, 2015 3:00am-5:01am EST
labor statistics 3.3 million americans make minimum wage or below. most are employed in fields like food service. rosemary gray makes minimum wage as a custodian. >>we have to pay for our bills in our housing and we can't do that on minimum wage. they are like, why do you need food stamps? you have got to eat. you did -- you don't make enough to feed yourself and pay your bills. >> it pushes on to raise the federal minimum wage from seven dollars 25 an hour to maybe $10.10 an hour which would divide over $21,000 a year if the individual works 40 hours a
week. it's been six years since the minimum wage was raised. some in congress say now is the time to raise it again. >> things are getting better. they are only getting better for some. we know corporate profits have continued to break records while americans are working harder and getting paid less. >> some say raising the minimum wage will cost jobs, citing a nonpartisan study by the congressional budget office. >> if we mandate a higher minimum wage, we would lose 500,000 to one million jobs immediately. that's the last thing we want. we don't want to create more unemployment. we want higher employment. >> more education and better worker training are the key to improving the lives of minimum wage workers.
>> now it's time to meet one of the students on the grand prize-winning team. she is joining us. where were you when you heard the news you won the grand prize ? >> i was in the principals office. for the first time i didn't have anything to say. >> were you surprised that you won? >> my team and i would joke around. we just wanted to get the word out and let people know. we had no idea. there is always something better out there, and we didn't know this was a possibility.
>> how did you choose the topic? >> we were looking through the clips, and we are passionate about human rights. i was like, let's look at this. minimum wage. give more money. help them out. we were like, that's what we want to do. help people. >> when people watch your video you have a point of view that you speak through. was it your opinion when you started out the piece? >> know, our opinion changed. when we first started researching, we saw the top line. if you give people money they will be happy and buy more things. we started to dig deeper, found out the cost of inflation. people can put people out of a job.
we decided its not best for the workers and our communities. >> how did you find the people to interview for your piece? >> my father had a job connection. he found them through a job fair. we were able to coordinate those interviews through a program called jubilee jobs. we said, we have three people. if you would like to interview them we are happy to tell the story. >> were you surprised they were willing to share their lives with you? >> absolutely. one of the gentleman said no, i don't think it's a good idea. that shocked us. it was very interesting. absolutely. >> have you worked with video before, or is this your first project? >> this is my first time. michael is very experienced.
he helped out with the technical aspect. >> how did you put your team together? >> it was originally katie and i. we have been friends since fourth grade. we were like, who is going to figure out how to make this into a news story and not just fact. we were like, how about you help us out? we all worked well together. we are on speech teams, so we get along very well. >> how will you celebrate, and what will the three of you do with your money? >> starting out, we didn't do this would happen -- didn't think this would happen. i haven't made new plans. invest in the stock arctic, you something worth -- stock market and do something worthwhile. >> do you know how your school will celebrate? >> we will watch this on tv.
we are going to have an assembly and all sorts of stuff. >> i am sure the other kids will be happy to cheer you on. congratulations for your big win. we are proud of you. >> thank you so much. >> there were winners in the first prize category. the first rise went to a team of nine graders from maryland. they produced a video on school lunches. their provider is comcast. the first rise went to a senior from oklahoma. the topic was public access to natural resources. cox cable is their local cable company. another cox communications it he won first rise at high school west, a team of three seniors from phoenix, arizona. here is our first prize in middle school. it went to two young ladies from silver spring, maryland with
their cable service provided by comcast. they chose medical research for the video. finally, our first prize winner from jenks oklahoma, won our first fan favorite prize. this is the first time allowing the public to preview and cap their votes. -- cast their votes. you should know all main prizes were decided independently of the public vote. the documentary received 119,000 of those votes. she will be recognized as this year's fan favorite, and she will win an extra $500,000 cash prize. congratulations to all of the winners and all the students who entered this year. you can watch the winning entries at our website. >> coming up, nicholas burns
talks about foreign-policy challenges facing the u.s. ben michael dell talks about starting his computer company at the age of 19. after that members of the house foreign affairs committee here the latest on the ukraine russia conflict. after that washington journal, live with the day's news. >> the c-span city tour takes both tv and american history tv on the road, traveling to u.s. cities to learn about the literary life. we traveled to galveston, texas. >> the rising tide, the rising wind threw them -- drew them. we watched in amazement. we had wooden outhouses --
bathhouses over the gulf of mexico. we had a huge pavilion. as the storm increased in intensity, these structures literally were turned into matchsticks. the 1900 storm struck galveston saturday, september 8, 1900. the storm began before noon increased in dramatic intensity and finally tapered off toward the night. that evening. -- toward midnight. this hurricane was and still is the deadliest recorded natural event in the history of the united states. >> watch our events saturday at noon eastern on book tv. and sunday afternoon at two on american history tv.
>> next, nicholas burns talks about former policy including with israel. and the threat posed by isis. this is 50 minutes. on journal" continues. host: and we are back. we will now turn to foreign-policy challenges facing the united date and joining that discussion from boston -- the united states and joining that discussion from boston this morning is nicholas burns diplomacy repressor at harvard kennedy school. let me begin with the headline in the "wall street journal" this morning on the steel that the united states is trying to broker with iran, being helped with five other countries. and the headline is "iran said to near deal on nuclear fuel limits."
what do you make of this, mr. ambassador? guest: thank you for having me on your show. i'm pleased to be here. the obama administration has done a good job of trying to negotiate with the iranian government from a position of strength to my because as you say, we have european countries as well as russia and china on our side of the table all saying to the iranian government, we will not permit you to become a nuclear weapons power. what we are trying to do is get the iranians to limit themselves to civil nuclear power, to construct nuclear power plants and have a limited amount of enriched uranium and have that verified by the iaea and to keep iran away from a nuclear weapon. i served in the bush administration as undersecretary of state. i was one of the people working
on the iran issue. we tried very hard to sanction iran economically and to try to persuade it not to become a nuclear weapons power. i think president obama has pretty much taken up the baton from president bush. i see a lot of similarities between the two administrations on this issue, and i hope will that there might be a negotiated agreement. secretary of state john kerry was in switzerland earlier this week trying to negotiate a steal. it is not ready yet, but it looks like iran and the other countries -- negotiate this deal. it is not ready yet, but it looks like iran and the other countries involved are close. two days ago, benjamin netanyahu addressed a joint session of congress on this issue. he was very much opposed to what the u.s. and other countries are doing. we can talk about that as well if you would like. host: i do want to talk about that and show our viewers a little bit of priming mr.
nishiyama's speech before congress and have your reaction to -- prime minister netanyahu's speech before congress and have your reaction to this part. [video clip] >> at come here to tell you we don't have to that the security of the world on the hope that iran will change for the better. we don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future. we can insist that restrictions on iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world. [applause] before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that iran do three things.
first, stopped its aggression against its neighbors in the middle east. second -- [applause] second stop supporting terrorism around the world. [applause] and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, israel, the one and only jewish state. [applause] host: mr. burns, what do you make of what the israeli prime minister is saying, outlining the case of why iran should not be allowed to do this, or have some sort of deal with the country echoed -- with the
country? guest: if you look at the entire speech and i did it was very powerful and effectively delivered. and if you were a supporter of prime minister netanyahu, you have to say it was successful from that perspective. but two other points, i'm sorry that he gave this speech in the u.s. congress. we have a tradition in the united take that when congress invites a foreign leader to address a joint session, the president has to agree to that invitation. in this case, and for the first time in my memory and several decades, the republican leadership invited prime minister netanyahu against the wishes of president obama. i thought that was a problem and i'm sorry congress made that invitation. secondly, as an american citizen and someone who worked for our government, and i work for republican as well as democratic administrations, to see a foreigner come into the heart of our capital and really denounce the president -- now, he said
the nice things about the president at the beginning flowery language, but he took the president's policy against -- about iran and really eviscerated it. i don't think you for leadership come into the capital and try to denigrate the president's policy on arguably the most important policy facing -- most important issue facing country. and thirdly, it was a speech that offered no alternative. it was a speech that said no. it wasn't a speech that offered instead of the president's policy, the we should do this or that. that was the great weakness of the speech. in essence, we have the entire world with us. we are sanctioning iran. we are isolating the iranians. and we have partly been successful in doing that because we have been working with the europeans and the russians and the chinese. we have the south koreans and the indians and japanese buying less oil from them because we asked them to.
there is pressure on iran. and lest we get into a third big war in the middle east, inc. it is best to trust diplomacy to see if we can negotiate -- i think it is best to trust diplomacy to see if we can negotiate an agreement. if we agree to let them have civil nuclear power, but i think that is a better deal for the united states and i think that may be the deal that president obama is able to negotiate. so i didn't like this betray much from that perspective. host: and an editorial yesterday saying that the prime minister's concerns are worthy of a response. then you have the "wall street journal" this morning. it is not just israel, arab allies also fear president obama's deal. the rhetoric is that saudi arabia come other countries, egypt, they fear that -- they worried that the nuclear deal may enable of ron -- enable
i ron -- enable iran and the middle east. guest: some of the middle eastern states are very much opposed, it appears, to a negotiated agreement with iran because it feel they -- it will strengthen iran's position. i oppose all most everything they are doing, but they are the dominant power. there are one of the dominant powers, unfortunately, and negatively, in syria to the iranian revolutionary guards fighting there, and through their proxy, which is fighting in syria. so we have to deal with that. for the gulf arab states, you can't make peace with iran on a nuclear issue because we have our own problems, the united states has to do it is best for the united dates. what is best for our country is to try and stop a ron -- iran from being a nuclear power.
it is better to do that to diplomacy, if you can do it, and try diplomacy first. rather than resort to military a -- and war. we are just coming out of two big land wars. our troops have been fighting for 14 years. in afghanistan, we fought for eight years in iraq, and now we have several thousand special forces back in iraq to combat isis. i think the president is right, we should try for a diplomatic solution. and i really think the prime minister and the critics in the gulf -- in saudi arabia, emirates come and elsewhere -- should wait for this deal to be finished before they start opposing at the way they have. we haven't even seen what the terms are yet, those of us outside government. so i trust the president and secretary kerry on this one. host: when you say we need to deal with it, and you're talking about the conflicts between sunni and shiite, how?
you said earlier you were a part of that negotiating team under the bush administration. how do you deal with that? guest: well, you know, we can't resolve all the problems of the muslim world. the muslim world is very badly split, particularly in the middle east, between sunni and shiite islam. it is a big part of the problem in syria. we can't be the kingmaker. i think president obama has tried very hard, i think, to decide where the united dates can use its influence and where we can hold back. my own view is i think we should obviously be supporting the iraqi government to try keep iraq together and american air power has been striking isis for the last six months. i think that is appropriate use of american u.s. force. we have special advisers in iraq, but they are not in frontline combat. they're trying to help the iraqi
government to reconstitute itself. so that the iraqi government can take backmosul. i do think, greta, that the artist dates and president obama could be more assertive in syria . i don't mean that we should go to war there, but there are 11 million homeless in syria and a population of 22 million. we have to do more to try and help the homeless there through refugee and humanitarian assistance. and i do think we should be arming the moderate syrian rebel groups. not putting american troops in but arming them so they can fight isis. host: ok. let's get the calls. we go to florida, a democratic caller. jj, you're up first. caller: yes, i just wanted to make a statement. the statement that i want to make is the jewish leader came here before. and made a big stink about saddam hussein.
and we jumped on that. and we got them riled up like when over there and we ended up getting into a war that started all this here -- conflict that is going on right now. i think the president is very wise about to see what is going on. because we don't want to jump into something like that again. just over what you think about when he came and made that big stink about all the mass destruction with saddam hussein and the nuclear weapons and all of that. host: ok, got it, jj. guest: thank you very much for your comment. i think the prime minister and the israeli people have a right to be concerned about iran. the iranian government is a very irresponsible government. it is aggressive. the iranian supreme leader, the top official of the country, has vowed to destroy i ron -- excuse
me, israel, on several occasions. so you really have to look at that problem very carefully. and you have to defenders of but having said that, i think united states has to be very careful here to see if we can get our way through intimidation economic sanctions through the threat of force, but mainly through diplomacy. all of that comes together sometimes when you are dealing with thugs and the iranian government is thuggery. i think president obama and president bush before him, in the second term, felt that he had to try to at least see if that negotiated agreement was possible before you resorted to war. that is exactly where we are. if the negotiations fail, and if i run -- iran heads for its nuclear weapon, we might have to use airstrikes to knock the program back. but if negotiations succeed and we can keep them away from a
nuclear weapon, i, for one think that is a better deal for the united states. and that is why supportive -- why i am supportive. host: why is it a better deal teco guest: you have to -- a better deal? guest: you have to weigh the pros and cons. i think that freezing the iranian program in place establishing and international verification regime to inspect what they are doing keeping enough sanctions on to pressure them to implement the agreement -- you don't want to take all the sanctions often the first few months. to me, that is a better deal for the united states than risking a confrontation in which we get involved in some sort of a third big military conflict in the middle east. you have to weigh the pros and cons. i weigh them on the side that president obama has also weighed them. host: jim, richmond, texas. hi, there. caller: hi, there. host: go ahead, jim. caller: ok.
the simple fact is there is only two groups i can settle this. the sunni and shia. we have no business there. we arty lost the middle east. there is no need for us being there. until those two religious groups can settle the differences there will never be peace in the middle east. host: let's take that point. guest: thank you for your question and comment. i respectfully disagree. the sunni and shia have been at odds with each other since the seventh century, since mohammed -- since the word of allah was revealed to mohammed. and i think the united states has great interest in the middle east. we have an interest in the free export of oil and gas through the persian gulf out across to the -- to europe and the big economies of asia. we have an interest in the survival of israel, what does a great ally of the united states.
recently have an interest in the survival and health and welfare of our friends like egypt, the gulf states we talked about before. so, we are the strongest outside power. if the united states just leaves the middle east politically, i think the situation will worsen. i think we have a possibility here on the eye ron -- on the iran case to give them away from a nuclear weapon and key them limited to a civil enrichment program. so i would say the united states is very important, but i would agree maybe what is implicit in your question -- we are almost always better off waiting diplomatically. trying to protect our business and economic interests. we can use military force sparingly. we got into big trouble in iraq in our eight year occupation there. a lot of young men and women from the united states died, were wounded in that conflict. we don't want to repeat that exercise. so i think the airpower that
president obama is doing against isis in iraq is the best way to do it. host: let me show the front page of the "wall street journal" on that point. blow the full time with the headline, i ron flexes new clout beyond its borders. they had of our runs -- head of iran's elite troops, now he services and i -- in iraq to bolster the morale of iraqi troops and to -- guest: well, i have long been opposed to a the iranians are doing in the middle east. the iranians support hamas. they created hezbollah. those groups are both anti-american groups. in iraq, when our troops were there, the iranian supported some of the shia military groups
that shot at our troops and laid roadside bombs that killed our american troops. i don't agree at all with what the iranians have been doing trying to expand the powers. and i think united states obviously wants to be powerful enough that we can crowd iran out of some of the situations, like iraq. here is the irony. we are trying to help the iraqi government get act on its feet and take back his country from the islamic state. we haven't talked much about them yet this morning did oddly enough, the iranian government wants the same thing. they are the primary military supporter on the ground of the iraq he government -- iraqi government. i don't believe we are even talking to the iranian government much about this, it just means that we are supporting the same government in iraq. it is a strange to have events in the middle east. at the same time, of course, we are opposed to what iran is
doing in syria and lebanon and the palestinian territory. so a lot of the big problems for the united states -- and that is why i want the united states to remain involved in the middle east so that iran doesn't become a power. host: robert, texas, a republican. caller: yes, good morning. ambassador burns. i am sure you know neville chamberlain. i think if you listen to the news this morning -- and i haven't heard the full details -- but nbc's ann curry has interviewed sharif. he has obviously been carrying on negotiations with john kerry. when post with the question two how does he feel about the statement about destroying israel, he supports that. he openly supports that with the -- with his interview. how can you not believe that what he says that the most
important thing he has to do with is the open and willful destruction of israel -- how can you sit there and continue to be a pacifist as our president is? guest: well, you said some sort -- some strong things, and i certainly disagree with the last thing you said in that i'm a pacifist or that president obama is. president obama went after osama bin laden and killed osama bin laden. he has led a very vigorous work against al qaeda. so i think you have to be careful with the charges that you make, the inflammatory charges. the ones you just made on television. we all need to be careful about historical references. if you open up your statement by implicitly saying that either me or president obama is guilty of acting like that for a timberland -- guilty of acting like neville chamberlain, mark
twain said that history doesn't repeat itself, but it sometimes -- i think we need to be mindful of these lessons, but i wouldn't say that the situation in iraq is similar to the threat that adolf hitler posed to the world in 1938. the fact is, we are much stronger militarily, politically, and i was safe morally than the iranian government. i disagree vehemently with the iranian government. and i detest the government with its repeated threats against israel. if you have been listening, i very much sympathize with the israeli leadership. if you have a foreign country in the middle east threatening to destroy you, and the have been such statements by leaders, you have to defend yourself. so i don't criticize the prime minister for that. i criticize him for coming into our capital in -- in the capital city of the united states and criticizing president
obama. as a patriotic american, i don't like it when a foreign later comes into the capital and come in a act, doesn't give the proper deference to our president. we will continue to be the best and that israel has ever had but best friends -- my experience in diplomacy is that if you have a problem and you have a disagreement, you can argue that behind closed doors. you don't try to the for the president of the united eights in a joint session in congress. host: we go to wallace, michigan. a republican. you're on the air. caller: hello. mr. burns. guest: good morning. caller: i noticed he can do for my did me of president kennedy. in a sense, demanding the doctrine. president kennedy would not allow any nukes in the neighborhood. should president kennedy have
negotiated for some enrichment in cuba? in the same sense, i noticed that israel says that it would actually defend itself. it didn't ask for american boots. but i wonder, can you answer a question? has a obama threatened israel for doing any kind of strikes against iran to defend itself? guest: first, i agree. i think that one of president kennedy's greatest agreement -- achievements was to raise the -- remove soviet missiles from cuba in 1962. in this case in the middle east president obama is not threatening the state of israel. president obama's tech to support the state of israel. there is a big disagreement between the israeli government and the american government and how best to do that. i have been a think that, as someone who has worked in the u.s. government a long time, someone ought to take the lead here. in support of israel, obviously. but i would think it would be
quite ill advised for the israeli government to get ahead of the united states and to try and use military force on its own. the fact is, we have equities, too. we set to the iranians, both president bush and president obama, if you get close to a nuclear weapon, we will threaten military force. we iranians have not gotten that close yet. we are now at the negotiating table. i think we are almost always better off hard to deal with things peacefully, if you can do it, but from a position of strength. and we are in a position of strength. i think israel should trust the united states on this issue. host: his piece about the speech to congress. what he chose not to say signals a slight shift. while he condemns president obama's nuclear deal as dangerously lenient, one word was missing from his expensive speech. zero. it is aware he likes, what he
has used before to describe his bottom line when it comes to the sectoral -- two acceptable iranian nuclear programs. zero whatsoever. guest: well, i haven't read the peter baker article. he is a really fine journalist but it is interesting he should point that out. here is the heart of the negotiations between iran and a western power. the united states and the other western powers are trying to limit the number of centrifuges that the iranians could adapt to enrich uranium. enriching uranium to a weapons grade quality is one of the essential ingredients of a nuclear weapon. we are trying to keep them below enrichment for weapons grade uranium, and trying to limit the number of centrifuges. previously, administrations have said years ago that iran should have zero centrifuges spinning. obviously, in the cover my's --
in a compromise of the type that obama is negotiating, the iranians would have more than zero. it is interesting that he, in that sense, do not insist on zero enrichment. if you adopted that as a policy, it would be unworkable. negotiations cannot succeed. so we are talking about a compromise here, greta. i think it is a compromise if the negotiations turn out the window newspapers say they will. the problem with compromised is, in this case, you are dealing with a bad government, you're dealing with the government with which we vehemently disagree on a number of issues, and yet when you are a diplomat, if you're the president of the united states, you have to judge whether that kind of compromise is in the best interest of our country. will it keep us out of a war and limit iran's nuclear program? if that is the case, and might be a sensible deal for the united date.
he is a very tough leader of israel, who lost his life in 1995. he said you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with a very -- with very unsavory enemies. we are negotiate with a very unsavory adversary in iran. host: by the way, the "wall street journal" this morning also reporting a vote on whatever comes out of these are run -- iran negotiations. they said they will block any effort by the majority leaders to bring this legislation to the floor next week. mike in pennsylvania, an independent caller. you are next. good morning to you, mike. go ahead. caller: ok. it is obvious to me that the kurds are by far the best, most effective group fighting isis in iraq. and they always end up always think i'm -- always being on our
side. i was wondering why we don't work more directly support the kurds than what we do. i will is not tv. guest: thank you very much mike. it is a good question. i think both the obama and bush administrations have been very close to the kurdish regional government in iraq. you are right, the kurds have been great friends to the united states. they have been loyal friend. the peshmerga have been a good guerrilla fighting force. they haven't been as effective in mechanized warfare against the islamic state. they don't have that kind of heavy weaponry, but they are very effective forces. we have supported autonomy for the kurds, but the u.s. has not supported independence mainly because we think that would be, you know, the jury is -- extraneous to the state of iraq. it might actually encourage greater instability to that process.
so i think they are important to the fight against isis in iraq but the captured by themselves. the iraqi army has to be rebuilt. the iraqi army, as you know felt a part in losing mosul last june and july, and had to be a much what effective fighting force with the peshmerga against the islamic state. but one more point on this greta. the islamic state, isis whatever you want to call it controls about a third of syria and about a third of iraq. they're based in syria. all of our efforts have been to try contain most of them in iraq. i think with the obama administration should do now is have a more assertive policy in syria. non-american troops, but to arm those troops in syria with which we agree, and try to build up account of force against the islamic state in syria itself. if you take out your map or google it at home, you will see that isis controls part of syria, part of iraq. it envelops both borders.
and, therefore, we have to have a policy that is effective in syria as well as in iraq. i have said a lot of nice things, and i meant them. but i don't think he has been strong enough on the serious side. host: we were just showing our viewers, that yesterday iraqi's announced that they want the lead role in driving prices from moul. a democratic caller, you're up. caller: yes, good morning. i remember when president obama was running, he also said that i am not against was, but i am against dumb wars. i believe in diplomacy, and i believe everything, ambassador, that you said is true, is right. as far as saudi's are concerned, i could care less about them. saudi's were pilots on 9/11. and i want to know something off. i saw the speech and i looked at the tv and the jews were outside
-- and some of them said go back to israel. i saw that on one channel. so, i don't know what that was about. host: i will have ambassador birds respond. guest: i don't know, beverly, if you are referring to his speech. host: she was. guest: ok, listen, it is one of the great things about israel. i deeply admire the country. my wife and i and our two kids lived there in the 1980's. it is a deeply democratic country. if you go to israel, it looks a lot like the united states. you have left, right, and center on the political spectrum. you have liberals and conservatives. you have influence of outside groups trying to get their voices heard. and i deeply admire the fact that israel, since its founding in 1940 at, has been able to
sustain its democracy within israel. so if you saw some of that here, i think it is why we are so close to the israelis. host: by the way, the wash -- the "washington post," a modest impact and razor a -- impact in israel. reporting this morning that it will give him a slight bump, but could speed over the next few weeks before voters go to the polls in israel. in north carolina, a democratic caller. no ahead to you. fayetteville, that is right. caller: please let me make my points, please. 52 years ago -- 52 years ago i was sitting in germany. we were worrying about the russians coming across the check -- the border. we were worried about the north koreans coming across the 30th parallel.
and i was told back then, 52 years ago, that those countries were not our threat. and i was told, right now, we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons. israel has nuclear weapons. and we are closer right now to a nuclear war than we have ever been in our lives. and israel don't have but a handful, but if they throw one, they will start a world war. and all humanity is going to be wiped away. host: ambassador burns. guest: i would respectfully disagree with you. i think that 53 years ago, we were much closer to a nuclear war. and that was the cuban missile crisis of october 1962. fortunately, president kennedy was able to deliver us from that , protect us from a nuclear war. and he made a compromise diplomatic deal. sometimes diplomacy can do great things.
i would say this. i wouldn't point the finger at israel. israel wants to live in peace with its neighbors in the middle east. israel has been continually assaulted by those neighbors over the last 60, 65 years since it came into existence. and that is why israel has a strong military, and that is why the israelis have to be tough-minded. so, i think we ought to be supportive of israel. defendant when we can, but as good friends in any family come any friendship, you are going to have differences. you saw that this week within the prime minister and president obama. i would have preferred come as i said before, i would have preferred that disagreement behind closed doors in the oval office. instead, it had to be a television. one more point, greta. my friend david i really find journalist for the "washington
post," he did say about the speech and his column, i figure was yesterday, he said that the prime minister raise the bar and president obama now these to meet higher expectations. what he meant by that, i think was that that was a very powerful speech. and he raised a number of questions about the wisdom of a nuclear -- about a deal with iran. and it really demand that president obama and secretary kerry goes out and explains this to the american people. and defended in a way that they know is convincing. i think that david is right that the bar has been lifted, and prime minister that yahoo! -- the prime minister lay down a number of questions. host: garth in midland, texas. a republican. good morning. caller: he is right, he needs to look out for his people. i mean what part of this do we not understand? religion is cause for deception.
and they don't do any better job once -- if they get an agreement side, then they are doing now. this gentleman here, i were to caution one of the callers on what they say. they're trying to caution people not is as it would be what to say. well, i'm saying what i want to say. i do not trust making an agreement with iran. i think this guy is just a mouthpiece for it. now i can caution me, as well . caller: i wouldn't dare caution you, sir, but as americans, you have the right to say what you just said. i have an equal right to respond. if we have a disagreement, that is just a part of what our democracy is all about. let's go back and look at the interim agreement made with the iranians with the united states, britain, france, germany, china. that was about a year and a third ago. that agreement froze the iranian
nuclear program in place. so they have not made progress in the last year and a third. they have not made progress in terms of the number of centrifuges spinning. the program has been, in essence, frozen in place. that is a good deal for the united states, and that was negotiated by president obama. i am not about these for the administration. as a career diplomat in the u.s. foreign service. i worked in the reagan administration, the george h.w. bush administration, and the george w. bush administration. as well as the carter and clinton administration. i try to see things objectively. i'm not perfect, but i think on this one, i would give president obama a little credit. i think he has intimidated the iranians. president obama turned up the strengthens -- sanctions. he also threatened twice in 2012 the use of military force. so i think so far so good. and i think david, the journalist of the "washington post" is right.
have to hold our government to a high standard. when this deal is presented to the american public, the obama demonstration have to defend it. i think they're headed in the right direction. host: on the timeline for these negotiations, the wall -- "wall street journal" reporting -- the talks broke up on wednesday, and they are to resume march 15. it also says that iran and the six powers are aiming to complete the framework by the end of this month, and seal a detailed agreement by june 30. ron in d.c., an independent caller. caller: hi, how you doing? host: doing well, sir. caller: i am really impressed with mr. burns. what i would like him to do for all of us, myself included and i am an lawyer, but i don't know this area too well, is to show
with us white is that israel's existence in the middle east and why it is a such a problem for its neighbors. and i would like mr. burns to comment on -- i don't have any issues with the prime minister but why it is -- and i agree with him -- that someone who is not from the united states to come here and criticize our president that we voted for. i will take his answer off line. guest: ron, thank you. on the second question you asked, i think a procedural grounds, the congress and the executive branch, no matter which party is controlling this institution, they are to be agreed on who we abide -- invite to a dress. it is a huge platform. you saw that millions of people watched that speech. and the fact that for the first time in my working career, congress would behind the back
of the white house, i just thought that was wrong. on procedural grounds. on the first part of your question, boy, we could create a whole course where i teach at harvard university on your issue. but you know the history. you know that you the united nations create a jewish -- created a jewish state in palestine, that began in 1948. and immediately, five countries attacked it. they fought wars against each other in 1956, 1967, 1973. there have now been big struggles between iran and israel, which has resulted in war yet, but israel has been in an embattled state. and president truman made the decision that we would recognize israel and support israel. and it was really president nick, president ford, present carter president reagan who built up the security relationship between the two states. i think we have an obligation to help israel. as the only jewish state.
if you think about what happened in the holocaust and the second world war, more than 6 million jews killed, murdered in the most brutal fashion in the death cap's by the nazis, i think we have a moral obligation to support a jewish state. and here's what i like about his speech. he began by talking about the fact that there is no question that democrats and republicans most americans do support israel. but israel's upon -- israel depends upon that. host: there is a lot of discussion aboutc i -- about iran and israel and that discussion there. and the discussion between israel and palestinians, can you address that? do those two situations tie into each other? guest: well, they are related, but they are separate. you are right, greta, for many, many decades the israeli-palestinian dispute --
now with the iranian threat, and i do think it is a threat, and the threat from the islamic state, and that is a real threat, our attention is elsewhere in the middle east. unfortunately, it is not a lot of good news to report about the israeli-palestinian relations. the palestinians in the west bank are not free. they are living under occupation by israel, and i think that is a real problem for israel going forward to occupy another people. in gaza, the situation is worse. it is more crowded. the standard of living is worse. and they are governed by an irresponsible palestinian group named thomas. -- named hamas. unit palestinian leaders who are focused on peace negotiations to even begin to have hope. secretary kerry has tried very hard to bring them together. he has not yet succeeded. i think we have to keep at it
but right now, i think the more critical short-term challenges are stopping iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power, and stopping isis from murdering innocent people. they have murdered five americans in the most brutal of fashion. they murdered christians in libya. they have murdered thousands of syrians. and they murder anyone who opposes them. they murder shia, they murder christians. this is a sunni, radical group. and away we met look at it analytically is this is a battle for the sunni world. isis is an extremist, brutal group that needs to be stopped. which is why i have supported with the president is trying to do and that is use air power to try and stop them in iraq. host: let's talk about the isis threat. and the headline, no clear way forward. the president's plan doesn't
plead either democrats -- please either democrats or republicans. guest: the efforts here is to see if congress can pass a solution to, in essence support what -- and draw some conditions on with the united states is trying to do against the islamic state. i think this is important because we do have american aircraft in combat right now against isis. we have american special forces on the ground, and other military personnel in iraq. it is always good if you have american forces forward deployed in a place like the middle east. congress should have a say and have a vote to hopefully support what our troops are doing, and what our pilots are doing. so i would hope congress would find its way forward to do that. it is going to be a long fight. we do not have the capacity right now, or the will right now, to defeat isis. we are not going to put 100,000 troops. should it.
we should not do that. show -- so, we have to rely on the margins to contain ices. if the iraqi state, they are going to have to take the fight to them. they are going to have to do the majority of the fighting here. it is going to be some military action. it is going to have to be good judicial actions to try and arrest some of these people who are supporting isis in other states to dry up the sources of the economic financing. it may take years to ask the defeat isis. host: i am going to try and squeeze in her one last call. mary from pennsylvania. hi, mary. caller: hi, how are you doing? listen, i have two comments. first, i want to know since the new administration in iran came in in 2013, is it harder or easier to negotiate with them than it was to negotiate with the administration before 2013?
the second thing i want to say is, although i agree with everything you said so far, i don't think we should have any groups, any american boots on the ground because now recently iran and the tribes are fighting iso- -- fightingisil. they united the middle east against themselves. host: our time is running short, so go ahead. guest: to good comments -- two good comments. certainly, we have to be there to help the arabs push back against isis. they have not combat boots, but troops to train the iraqi army. on the first question, this is a difficult dilemma for the obama administration. we are dealing with reformists and the president of iran. they are the people negotiating with secretary kerry. they are very different from the other government. but remember this, the supreme power in iran is the supreme leader. he is a radical.
he is anti-american. i don't think we can trust him as a, and he is backed up by the revolutionary guard, which has been a menace to the united date and abilities. so this is a dual government in iran. will they keep their word and implemented? that is the question the obama administration will have to answer. greta, thank you very much for having me on the show this morning. host: yeah, absolutely. mr. burns, the former undersecretary of state. and now a professor at
"washington journal" live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> you would see what they used to call when i was a kid, a mut and jeff e comnaugs, or a stick bal set. washington was a large man. six foot, very robust. terrific natural athlete. and madison is a skinny little guy. his gift that i write most about is his ability to form remarkable partnerships with really the great people of his era. but it also alludes to the gift
>> michael was a college undergraduate and began sembling computers in his dorm room started the company at 19. the company went public when he was 23 and he became at 27 the yuppingest crmp eo of any fortune 500 company. and the company became well known for its personal computers business among other things. and then he ran the company until 2004, and then stepped back as ceo to turn it over to somebody else and at 7:00 -- 2007 came back. and in 2013 decided to take it private in one of the largest buyouts about a 24 billion
buyout. and the company has done quite well since it's a privately owned company. michael is very involved as well in philanthropy and he and his wife have a foundation given away more than $1 billion. involved in urban education poverty, research and children's health. michael is also very involved in the computer and technology industry. he is here in town in part for a council among other things that he is doing in town. i would say in the computer world and the i i.t. world he is one of the ledge nds. one of the few people who started a company 20-some years ago who is still the ceo in the industry. if i could just start off by asking you, you took your company private in 2013. do you miss dealing with
analysts and public reporters? >> we focus on our customers and medium and long term and getting away from this shot clock has given us freedom and flexibility to invest in our business without, let's say, fear of the short term targets. and i think it's energized our team. we had a very good year last year and it's really changed the focus to be more long term. >> so at the time you were
considering doing this i remember you and i were in dabos. i did a tv interview and somebody asked me what i thought about your transaction that was pending. i said most buyouts of that size don't work so i wouldn't be that optimistic. i wouldn't look at investing in it. i didn't realize we were going to have lunch later that day and i would apologize to you but there were other buyouts firms that looked at it. you did it with silver lake. have you called up the buyout firms that didn't want to do the deal and tell them they made a mistake? >> i wouldn't do that. i think, look, our business has some volatility. it has some uncertainty. that's why the technology industry is so dynamic. it's changing all the time.
and we have been actively changing our business. when you're doing that in a short term focused financial market it can be pretty difficult. >> so at the time firms like mine said he is a pc manufacturer and that business is probably going down and there is probably too many people that manufacture them very cheaply. so this wouldn't be a great business. what did people miss because you're not just a pc company or what did people miss in analyzing the way your company would operate in the future? >> as it relates to the small computer systems, pcs, tablets
work stations we have had eight quarters in a row of increasing our share of the overall industry. so that's clearly a good thing. there isn't necessarily a lot of growth there but by gaining share we can grow our business. there is somewhat of consolidation there. on the other side of our business in software and services and data center we have some pretty robust growth. now, we have spent over the last six or seven years roughly $15 billion acquiring 40 or so firms that acquired 150 companies and built pretty substantial capability in it solutions, software services data center. to give you a sense for this last year our deferred revenues grew more than 20% year over year which is pretty hard to do. many of our competitors similarly positioned would have had negative growth in the same period. so we have been able to reshape the business pretty significantly and successfully.
>> so what percentage of your revenues if you can say roughly are pc oriented? is that less than 50% of your revenues now? >> it's still a little more than 50%. i also think of it as the tip of the spear particularly in the emerging world. so if you think about you have 3.5 billion people in india, china and africa. while it services and data analytics and more complex solutions are interesting it's not actually what they buy first. what they buy first is infrastructure which is the actual machines that bring the data, the servers, the network and then they get into the more complex areas. so when i look at our small computer systems business with businesses in enterprise in these emerging developing
markets which still have relatively low penetration compared to developed markets there is robust growth there. in the developed markets it is kind of a replacement cycle business, but to be able to bring an end to end solution i think you have to have both ends of the solution. so we fundamentally believe to be able to solve the problems that customers have out there it is a combination of hardware, software and services together. >> private equity firms usually like to exit at a nice profit and maybe three or four or five years. what will you do to help silver lake exit? will you take the company public again or have you had enough of that?
how would you give them an exit if you didn't do an ipo? >> they haven't shown any desire to exit anytime soon, but there are many ways for that to occur. >> going public wouldn't be your highest priority again? >> no. why do companies go public? there is certainly a role for public markets. when we went public in 1988 it was really the only way to get the amount of capital we needed for our growing company. but we don't really need capital now. we generate lots of capital. our brand is also very well known by our customers so the reasons to go public aren't really there. i find it much more enjoyable to be a private company. i think the flexibility that we have is tremendous and we can take on investments with an
uncertain outcome. that is quite attractive in our business. instead of having to manage -- to try and hit a particular target, we don't care about that. we are much more about the long-term. >> the own personally about 12 and half percent, is that more or less correct? >> 15%. >> now you are on to 75%? >> 70%. >> is it too late to invest in the ipo? >> it might be a little bit late. >> let me go back to when you began the company. you were 19 years old. >> flattered by the interest, though. >> we always like good investments. unfortunately, we missed this one, but at 19 you're in college and you're a freshman at the university of texas.
you grew up in houston. you're a premedstudent. your father was an orthodontist and you have a medical background in your family. you were preordained to go to medical school, i assume. what happened that led you to start fixing computers? how did that start in your dorm room as i understand it? you were assembling computers. how did that come about? >> it goes back a little further than that. when i was in junior high school i was in this math class and my math teacher had this teletype terminal. you could type in programs and the answer would come back. i became enthralled with this idea of machines that would calculate and threw myself into all of that. fast forward to 1981 i'm 16 years old. ibm introduces the ibm pc. it was clearly aimed at
business. and what was interesting to me about that is you have this computer for a few thousand dollars that any business could buy, not any business but a lot of businesses could buy. and it was incredibly empowering. it was exciting. and kind of threw myself into all of that. as i took the computer apart what i realized is that they were selling $500 worth of parts of $3,000 which seemed to me like a kind of criminal enterprise almost. it just seemed unfair. it's like how could it be $3,000? and so i started mapping out what all the parts cost.
and then started upgrading like people would upgrade cars and things. i was upgrading computers. and that ultimately led me to starting the company and making our own computers. >> you were in your -- you have two parents who thought you were going to medical school nice jewish parents. >> that didn't go over so well. >> you tell your parents you are dropping out of college to start a computer company what did they say? >> they said you are bananas. it did not go over well. so we basically made a deal. and the deal was that i would take a semester off. at university of texas you could take a semester off and go back. and if the business did well enough then i would continue. if it didn't i would go back to school.
so after 90 days i had financial statements, business was booming and thriving and i continued. >> so the name dell is very simple name and sounds like it would always work. suppose your last name had been reuben stein? you think the company would have worked as well? how did you come to name it dell? >> i don't think it would have been -- but the name was actually a bit of an accident. when i was in my dorm room i had a trade name called pcs limited. i was a sole proprietor doing business as pcs limited. i had this customer who was a lawyer. he was kind of saying your business is thriving and growing. maybe you should incorporate.
i said why would i want to do that. he explains the benefits of being a corporation. and i said so what's involved here? he said well how about you install another hard disk drive for me and i will do your incorporation. so that's the deal. so i installed a hard drive and he says there's two problems. first is you can't incorporate the name pcs limited because it is too generic. this is the lawyer speaking. i called it dell computer corporation doing business as pcs unlimited. i said fine. the second thing is he said you need $1,000 and he said you can't start a corporation unless you have $1,000. i said i will come back with $1,000. so that was may 3, 1984. company was incorporated with $1,000 as dell computer corporation. fast forward three years we
embark on our global expansion in the uk, hire a guy in the uk. he actually didn't show up for work so the second in command was promoted to be the head of the uk. and he is calling back to headquarters saying i can't make pcs limited limited in the uk so what should i call this company? back in texas business is booming. we're too busy. we just said you figure it out. so the guy in the uk says i'm going to call this dell computer corporation. so we were dell computer corporation in the uk. and we were dell computer corporation doing business as pcs unlimited in the u.s. for a period of time. and then a bunch of folks came to me and said you should just
have it be dell computer corporation. it has all worked out. >> i would say so. so you are in your college dorm. do you have a lot of friends from your college dorm era who have said this is really their idea and they have sued you and said you took their idea? that hasn't happened right? >> no. maybe they weren't that clever. but i had this one room mate who really got upset with me. there were boxes and so one day my room mate piled all the boxes in front of my door and so i couldn't get out of the room. and so i moved to a different. >> what happened to him? >> i don't know.
i think he is a lawyer somewhere. >> so as i remember it when you started your company the thing that was very clever and was unique is you would say i'm going to by pass the middle man. i'm not going to go to the retail store to buy my computer. somebody would send you an order. is that essentially right? >> we created a direct business model. and that enabled us to create all kinds of efficiencies in our supply chain, customer information. today we have a what we call omni channel where we have channel partners and relationships with customers kind of combined together. >> today as i mentioned earlier in 2004 at your relatively young age i guess you were 40 or so or something like that 39?
you just turned 50 years old. so -- >> in the 50 club. >> 50. 50 to go. 39 you say i'm tired of being ceo. i will step upstairs. and, you did that for a couple of years. you have somebody else running it. what did you miss as the ceo? or why did you come back? >> i was actively involved in the company. i think the industry rate of change started to accelerate. and the board asked me to come back as ceo. and i think we needed to make some relatively swift changes in our strategy. and i was happy to do that. that's what we did. >> you came back. let's talk about the industry today. what do you see the biggest challenges for the american technology industry, the industry not only in silicon valley, obviously in texas and
other parts of the united states where people are building companies that are technology leaders? do you see foreign challenges that are great? what do you think the biggest challenge is you face? >> i think if you step back what's interesting about our industry and the way our customers are using the technology is there was this enormous wave of let's make existing businesses more efficient and more productive using technology. and all of us have been doing that for a long, long time. that has been going on. now you are seeing this how you -- you know -- how you reinvent things or invent them completely new given all of this new technology that is out there. and in the technology sector we kind of live and breathe this all the time but now i think it is showing up in sort of all industries. and for any company in our
sector, you have to change or die. you have to evolve. for us that has meant aggressively growing in these new areas like software services, understanding the challenges our customers have like in cyber security and helping to go build solutions to go solve those problems. >> now, you still make a lot of pcs. do you make tablets? >> we do. >> is that a growth business? do you think that will replace b -- replace pcs? >> i think of the tablet as a descendant of the notebook. the notebook is the living descendent of the desktop. there are many different shapes and sizes for the products. you've got work stations virtual machines, tablets, notebooks, desk tops. gaming machines. we make them all but let customers decide.
i think with the enormous growth in mobile devices particularly smart phones, there was, i think, maybe a bit of a swing to believe at some point that all of those devices would replace the pc. i think the reality is it is more of a multi device world and not just the pc and the smart phone and the tablet. it's now all of these embedded computers, the wearables, the internet of things. so you are kind of going from this world of let's say a billion connected devices to 100 billion connected devices. as the cost of semi conducters comes down you have this instrumentation and kind of making everything smart and intelligent. that creates this data that has to be turned into insights and knowledge. that is really the big opportunity that all organizations have out there is how you use this data to make
what you're doing more productive or reinvent it. >> i want to talk about big data because you have so many customers you know what they are interested in among other things. do you use the data for other purpose that you can make another business out of all of the data that you have? >> sure. we use it to improve the efficiency our own sales and marketing and services. increasingly, with data scientists that work for us help our customers be more productive, efficient with better outcomes in whatever it is that they are doing whether it is health care, education banking, finance, et cetera. >> you don't make manufacture smart phones? >> we do not. >> and the reason is? >> a lot of ways to make money in it other than smart phones. the i.t. industry is about a $3 trillion industry.
and of that roughly $2.75 trillion is commercial business enterprise public sector, and $250 billion is consumer. we are much more focused on the 2.75 trillion and so from a device standpoint what does it mean? pcs, tablets, embedded work stations. then we get into the data center, all of the infrastructure, cloud computing, software to find network storage, compute. then we focus on the systems management, the security, the big data. and then ultimately one of the most exciting areas is services because we find more and more customers want us to help them implement all of these systems run them for them and help them
make use of all of the tools. we think the combination of all of these things together are really important. >> so you bought one of your acquisitions was perot systems. i think that may have been your biggest. did you deal with ross perot in negotiating that? how did that come about? >> i didn't personally deal with him in the negotiation but he still comes to work every day at our office. >> really? >> yeah. >> do you tell him what to do? >> i don't think anybody tells ross what to do. >> so what about apple has said they are going to come out with a wearable watch. are you going to make a watch? >> no. here is a way to think about the smart phone. for every 50 smart phones that get put into the world a new server pops up.
and the reason the server pops up is because when you get a smart phone it doesn't have anything on it. and you put stuff on it that comes over the network. where does it come from? usually not another smart phone. it comes from a server. and so this massive build up -- so you think about the companies that are providing the services that users are using on their mobile phones. we're providing the infrastructure and the equipment to be able to power those. >> as a young man when you were running the company you met with steve jobs and bill gates, how did you compare the two of them? are they different in personalities? were you competing with them? are they are customer of yours? >> pretty different. some form of collaboration, you know, and/or competition with
either of them. >> ok. and today you were in washington recently for meeting with government leaders on part of the technology ceo council so you met with president obama. what would you say the technology ceos said to president obama about technology? were you concerned about something? what did he say to you? did he ask for free computers or anything? any advice? >> he didn't ask me for free computers but i did wonder how come there is no computer in the oval office? maybe one day there will be. >> probably hidden. >> yeah, probably something like that. but we focused on a couple of issues. i think trade promotion authority. we are exporters and u.s. technology industry has done very well.
and to do that, to continue to do that we think trade promotion authority is very important. we talked about immigration and certainly the focus on the stem skills that we need in our business is a big one. we talked about taxes and how do you keep the sector that we are in competitive. all of our foreign competitors don't deal with this repatriation problem. and then cyber security. there are a number of bills that are worked on. that will help us address the challenges. cyber challenges is a big one. we see on behalf of our customers about 120 billion events per day. and i really built a threat intelligence to be able to
understand what's going on. you have state sponsored groups. you have criminals, activists, espionage. you have terrorists. they are all using the cyber domain as a big attack factor. david: were you impressed with any members of congress? michael: very impressed. david: do they seem to know technology very well? michael: i think they are more and more knowledgeable. we met with some of the incoming freshman. some of whom came from our industry and had a refreshing insight into our sector. we are pretty proactive about explaining what challenges we
see and communicating what the opportunities are. it is a frustrating environment. there is not anybody who would tell you something other than that. david: people always want to know what the next big thing is. if i wanted to make an investment, what area when i put my money in? michael: there are probably many next big things. this idea of the data economy, big data, machine to machine communication, machine learning, we think that is an and norma's opportunity for not only our customers -- an enormous opportunity, not only for our customers but the i.t. industry. roughly a $1 trillion
opportunity for the i.t. industry in turning this data into real insights. the availability and cost to acquire the data keeps going down dramatically. david: you started your company by bypassing the middleman and went directly to the customer. apple has a lot of stores in the united states. i think microsoft does as well. you have no stores in the united states. are you considering having stores? michael: our business is 85% commercial business enterprise public and 15% consumer. we do have stores that are operated by partners in the emerging market. for example, china, we have 1500 exclusive stores. we just opened our 400th store in india. we are opening one every 16 hours there. business is booming in the
emerging world. david: you get more than half your revenue from the united states still? michael: it is about 50-50. david: as you look at your life, you have the opportunity to give away a fair amount of money. you are involved with philanthropy. to atone for your sin of not going to medical school, you're creating a new medical school in texas. why did you decide to do that? michael: interestingly, the university of texas system with its main campus in austin did not have a medical school. many regarded that as an oversight in opportunity. we have been working to bring this together. now, we have a new medical school, a new teaching hospital.
over the course of 2016, 2017, will really get going. david: at your age, ill gates stepped back as ceo of his company. do you have any plans to step back as the ceo? michael: very happy to keep doing what i am doing. it is a lot of fun. i think privatization has made life more enjoyable. david: you and your wife has a -- have a foundation of giving away a good deal of money. if you disagree on where the money should go, how do you decide that? michael: if we disagree, we just don't do it. fortunately, we have a lot of the same values and beliefs and that has been some great
ingredients for a fantastic marriage. david: mary 25 years? michael: 25 years. for children. the foundation is something we do -- four children. the foundation is something we do together. david: explain this to people. everyone would say, this man has a perfect life. what is not perfect in your life to make us feel better? david: make us feel there is something that is not perfect. is there anything you could say that is frustrating? michael: i feel very fortunate and grateful to be born in this country and the opportunities that i have had. i do not have a lot of
complaints. there is nothing you should feel sorry for me about. david: do you have a high handicap in golf? michael: i am undefeated at golf. david: wow. michael: but i don't play golf. david: for outside activities, you are obviously in pretty good shape -- michael: i like to stay outside in move around whether it is hiking, walking, running cycling. david: if people want to get a hold of you, they can e-mail you? how do you stay in touch with your office? michael: we go to the office. that is one way. all the normal ways. e-mails, phones. david: you think it would be as easy -- do you think it would be easy for michael dell to start a company today?
what would your advice be to young entrepreneurs? should they drop out of college? should they get their degree? if your children came to you and said they will drop out of college and start a company, what would you say? michael: i would want to hear what their idea is. i don't think dropping out of college is for everyone. it worked for me. it did not work for charles manson. michael: if i was 19, i would be trying to figure out what company i was going to start. if, in the process of going
private, somebody had bought the company from me, i probably would have started another company. david: carl icahn was saying something like, he would make an offer. it's supposed somebody had done that? you would have cashed in your chips and started another company? michael: if somebody had done that, very likely. david: in the computer area or technology area? michael: i am not going to say what the company would be. likely in the computer -- that is what i love and no. david: most of your philanthropy in the united states or outside? how do you side -- how do you decide how much to put in the united states? michael: it has been expanding around the world. we have been active in india and also in south africa. we continue to expand what we
do. the focus on children and urban poverty. we have done a lot in the education sector, using insights we have gained from the dell experience in terms of, how do you use data and knowledge to inform progress? in education, there is a standard that has been adopted by over half the states in the u.s. called edify, a way of normalizing all the information that a district may have about a student's performance and outcomes. the challenge is, the kid goes from third grade two fourth grade, what does the fourth grade teacher know about the student from the third grade? it depends. did the teachers talk? were records cap? -- were records kept?
the other challenge you have two kids can go into two different classrooms in the same school, learning the same subjects and have different outcomes. how does a principal, a district, parents begin to understand that data? we have been focused on those kinds of obstacles. david: what would you like your legacy to be? what would you like people to say about what you accomplished? michael: the goal we have set for ourselves is to figure out how to make a bigger impact on the world through philanthropy than we have through our business. don't exactly know how to do
that. i think we are off to a reasonable start. the foundation has done some great work. it is not easy to do it really well. we have treated it like an investment activity with real measurement of results and returns. we also look for projects where we can change the trajectory make a meaningful difference and then leave and have it continue without us. david: living in austin, your well-known. can you go into a 7-eleven and not have people say, i have a good idea for a computer? do people leave you alone when
you're walking around? you don't shop that much probably. michael: i like to shop online. i find that easier. david: do you ever walk into an apple store and -- david: they would know who you are right away. michael: i have not had that experience. people generally leave you alone. i don't find it is a big problem. david: have you had role models in the business world you have a spinal -- you have aspired to be like? michael: i think you can learn from just about anybody, positive or negative. in the tech sector, we have had great folks before us who have paved the way and let through all sorts of challenges. i have been fortunate to have known and worked with just
about all of them. david: you seem like a very even killed person. you do not seem to -- even keeled person. you don't seem to raise your voice. how do you tell people they are not doing a good job? what is your way of showing anger if they are not doing a good job? michael: i don't think you have to throw things. it would not seem like a good idea. i am direct in my communications with our teams. spent a lot of time on making sure -- certainly for the executive team that i work a lot with, we are all aligned on what it is we are trying to accomplish. everybody knows how they are doing, relative to the objectives we have.
there is no confusion about where we are. i think having a realistic assessment of where you are and what is working well and what needs to change is important. david: when you met with the president, he said he would like you to serve as a senior cabinet officer, would you ever consider going to government? michael: no thank you. david: what you would like to do to help your country is what you're doing now? build a good company, operate it, pay taxes. michael: i can be more helpful than that. i have taken on various roles from time to time where i think it could be helpful. for example, the united nations asked me recently to be there in bassett are for
entrepreneurship -- there in bassett are for entrepreneurship. the general assembly is going to vote on the sustainable development goals. my job is to convince world leaders that job creation and entrepreneurship ought to be one of the sustainable development goals. goal number eight if you happen to be voting. my experience around the world is that, if you look at new jobs, 70% to 90% of them are created by entrepreneurial businesses. small, growing businesses. governments can or cannot do things that can help that. i have seen some interesting experiences. we have a site in morocco. i was there recently.
we have 2000 young, excited people that are energized and love what they are doing. i remember when we were deciding whether to put that site in morocco or tunisia, it was close. maybe 60% morocco, 40% tunisia. the moroccan government did a few extra things to make it better and we decided that was a good place to go. i think we should be thinking a lot about where the next 500 million jobs come from. i believe they come from these entrepreneurial businesses. we also should be thinking in these conflict zones, where you have a lot of young unemployed people, how do we figure out how to get them jobs? if you have a new administration but you still
have a lot of unemployed young people, you have not really solved the problem. what i also worry about is these places where we have been, dropping bombs for a few decades, once all the smoke clears, you still have a lot of young unemployed people. unless they can go back to their families and explain that tomorrow is going to be better you still have a problem. there is no new administration that can solve that problem. we have to be thinking, how do we create jobs over there? that to me is the root problem. david: any regrets in your career? again, to make us feel good that there is something you think you did not do right. michael: you could've done this or that. that is not how i live.
david: if i wanted to go out and buy a pc, which one would be the best value for money for me if i wanted to spend a couple thousand dollars? michael: i understand you are reasonably well off. david: not compared to you. michael: what i would recommend for you, given that you are traveling all over the world and you want to have the latest and greatest, our newest xps 13. depending on the configuration call it $1000. david: no discounts. $1000. michael: everybody gets a discount. david: i want to thank you for a great interview. david: this is the first map of david: this is the first map of the district of columbia.
ring is chaired by ed royce. >> welcome. this hearing will come to order. our topic is ukraine under siege. ukraine is under siege by russia. unfortunately, the response to russia's aggression by the administration has been tepid. one year ago, russia invaded and seized crimea and some thought that vladimir putin would stop there. not so.
last april, we led a delegation to ukraine. we travel to the russian speaking east. we had eight members on a delegation. we went to bordering areas and i have to share that the members -- that the ukrainians -- russian speaking ukrainians -- they wanted to be ukrainian. they did not want to be separatist. we spoke to the women's groups the lawyers grace, civil societies, jewish groups various ethnic minorities, the governor, the mayor. mr. angle spoke of the largest community center -- the largest synagogue in eastern europe. i can share with the members
here what alan will attest to. the attitude was it seems that russia has recruited every skinhead and malcontent in the russian speaking world and they are trying to bring them into the east. they said we are holding them until hostilities are over. but they are coming in from russia in order to try to overthrow our government. so we have seen this situation where moscow moves from crimea to aggressively supporting militant separatist in ukraine and bringing russian troops into the country. russia may try to secure a land bridge to crimea. that is the great concern here. that is the wording we heard.
but they would further expand this conflict and try to siege the port of mary a pull. when we talked to the united nations on the ground, they count over 6000 civilians who have been killed in this conflict. there are 1.7 million ukrainians that are now refugees. the actions taken by the u.s. and the eu allies include economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation have not checked hooton -- vladimir putin. he has become bolder, even menacing nato countries. the obama administration have put hope in diplomatic and cease-fire arrangements but it is not working. last week, i met with the deputy speaker of the ukraine
parliament who says that his country urgently needs anti-tank weapons. he needs radar to pinpoint any fire, in order to oppress that artillery. he needs communications equipment to overcome russian jamming. ukrainian forces cannot match these advances that russia is pouring into eastern europe -- into eastern europe grain. when you see tanks coming to eastern ukraine, those are not ukrainians in those tanks. those are russians. there is no shortage of the will to fight, only a shortage of defensive weapons. at the committee's hearing last week, secretary kerry said that president obama still has not made a decision on whether to send defensive lethal military aid to ukraine. six months after the president told congress that one cannot
win the war with blankets, it was not surprising but still discouraging to see him have to shop for defense of weapons and, unfortunately, it has been difficult. i was just as discouraged to read in the wall street journal that u.s. intelligence sharing with ukraine keeps ukraine in the dark. satellite images are delayed and obscured, making them less useful. frustrated, ukraine is approaching other countries like canada to share such information. this is not u.s. leadership. moscow is also undermining ukraine's economy. today, russia is using his natural gas and other energy sources for political corrosion and to generate economic chaos in the country. ukraine is facing an economic precipice.
it desperately needs help. meanwhile, russia is winning the battle on the airwaves and they are doing it by broadcasting out conspiracy theories and propaganda. anyone who is monitored is well aware that this propaganda is offensive, is aimed at sewing confusing to its aggression in ukraine and elsewhere. we are barely in the game of countering this. as i told the secretary last week, i would like to see more administration support for the effort mr. angle and i have undertaken. the broadcasting board of governors is broken. if we cannot begin to change minds, the struggle over ukraine today will become a generational struggle for the future of eastern europe. ukraine's fate has security implications well beyond its borders.
we pass this bill into the senate last year, we were not able to bring it up get it out of the senate, we did not have the support. we have invented this and have a great deal of support in this institution. we are getting back on the air with radio free europe. it is time for strong and unwavering support for ukraine. it is time for this right now. many of these committee members are concerned that u.s. policy toward ukraine will become too little too late. i turned to ranking member for any opening remarks that mr. engel might wish to make. >> thank you very much. thank you for calling this timely and important hearing. i want to acknowledge the
ukrainian participants in the audience. ambassador , welcome back. we thank you for testifying today. i have had the pleasure of working with ear and i am a fan of your hard work, knowledge, and tenacity. in ukraine the events of the past year and the ongoing russian aggression threatened the security and stability of the entire region and undermined decades of american commitment to investment in europe. this is a threat to the whole international order. today, we face great questions. what can and should be done and who should contribute to solving this problem. the u.s. is providing substantial assistance to the government of ukraine, including
billions of dollars in loan guarantees and nonlethal military aid. we have posed sanctions on russia. we sanctions officials supporting russia's economy. we have seen results. russia's economy has been taking on water and this is only been magnified by the recent dip in oil prices. these policies are good but only up to a point. they do not go far enough, and my opinion. russia's military gains in ukraine have slowed, but vladimir putin continues to grab land in violation of the minsk cease-fire agreement, which mandates that russia supported rebels pull back forces. the government in kiev has admitted to reform the leaders struggle every day to preserve sovereignty. while financial assistance has cap ukraine's economy afloat they still confront a bleak economic outlook and they are on
the precipice of a financial meltdown. when ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal in 1994, the united states made a commitment to help protect ukrainian territorial integrity. i can then was also made by russia, uk's, china, and others. our commitment is being tested. let me also say that i think nato made a grave mistake in 2008 when it refused to admit ukraine and georgia into nato. i know that germany and france try to push it, and i think we are paying the price today. i did not think cute and -- putin would have been as aggressive had ukraine been in nato. his request was simple, provided ukraine with weapons and technology to defend itself. specifically, ukraine needs
antitank missiles to protect itself against rebels attacking with heavy russian supplied armor, ukraine needs longer-range battery radar to pinpoint attacking artillery and tanks, not to win a protracted war against russia's military. ukraine needs better communication technology to deal with russian efforts to jam their signals not to advance on moscow. i was laughing at that conference in europe to hear the russian foreign minister denying the russian troops were in ukraine, saying it was just ukrainian rebels. lies, lies, and more lies. i have spoken on the house floor, calling on the government to supply defensive weapons to ukraine. mr.