imposed on iran, those sanctions have hurt the iranian people, but they have not changed the calculus of the islamic republic of iran. when those sanctions started, iran had few centrifuges. now they have, as i said, over 18,000 of them. so we have to be realistic about what iran can deliver, but i think ayatollah aha maney who's -- ayatollah khamenei who is the ultimate decider in iran, he is a playing a clever game, extremely clever game. if you'll notice when we had that famous telephone call, supreme leader khamenei said a that while he embraces the diplomatic initiative by rouhani, by zarif, at the same time he said i am very critical of some aspects of what he was doing. then a day after his talk the commander of the revolutionary guard explicitly said that iran

made a tactical mistake by talking to president obama at that stage. which takes me back to the game that ayatollah khamenei is say ising. he is on record for saying he embraces this diplomatic initiative. he is also on record for saying that he does not trust america as a reliable partner. he believes america is going to get what it wants, and then they're going to go to the business of overthrowing the islamic republic of iran. now, if these negotiations succeed, ayatollah khamenei can come out and say, look, i told you that i accept that i embraced the diplomatic initiative. if on the other hand, if on the other hand the rest does not give the kind of concessions that iran believes it should receive and the negotiations fail, then ayatollah khamenei is going to come back and say i told you so, i told you that this is going to fail.

the only reason why i accepted it, because the iranian people -- 51% of you -- spoke. we have a democracy in iran and, therefore, this is not going to go anywhere. i am, i believe, iran today is in a much better position to deliver than the u.s. is. i think the obstacles president obama faces are much more powerful and much more difficult to pass over than the obstacles that the islamic republic faces because we have an authoritarian regime in iran. and when the head of that system decides that the deal is a deal, he can deliver. we have a democracy in this country, and i am not very sure if the major centers of power have reached the conclusion that the deal must be struck with the islamic republic. >> so when these type of impasses are taking place, a

very common line of thinking in washington is to believe that there needs to be more of a threat of force to get movement. of course, they're referring to movement on the iranian side which there is doubt about in washington. but giandomenico, you got hostages released, and your book is called "a man without a gun." which seems to go in complete contrast with the very fundamental premise in washington which is that there constantly has to be a military threat in order to be able to get any deal. in the case of iran whether past but more specifically right now, would a military threat as some people in washington are arguing or the threat of more sanctions be helpful or hurtful for a diplomatic yield, based on your experience? >> well, if i knew the answer to your question, i wouldn't be here, i would be signing more books. [laughter]

two things. first of all, i think i appreciate what dr. kahl mentioned earlier about the state of affairs of the nuclear dossier. i think that there is one element we do not mention or we don't recall how many negotiations between the east -- between iran and the west have actually produced results. we also seem not to remember, i have this really bad habit of keeping notes, we have cried wolf in general, and i say general because i have to go home with two legs and not one, we have been crying wolf about the nuclear weapon in iran to be specific since 1991 16 times. 16 times. we've been told that in two years, sometimes 18 months, iran will have a nuclear -- now, be

i'd said something like this to my children 16 times in 20 years, they would told me, daddy, can you please think before talking? so in a way this dimension together with the dimension of what actually has been achieved doesn't seem to feature. now, i -- the point of, again, we go back to the question did you ask about how to negotiate with iran, allow me to repeat we do not negotiate with iran period. we are negotiating with the possibly islamic republic of iran in 2013 after what has happened and what the present time bring about. now, the negotiation with iran at this point require, as we have said here, to have a clear cut view of who is actually on the other side of the table.

and requires one to understand the narrative, the narrative in the mind of people. does anybody in this room know the case of the 13 jews from shiraz was solved by using something that was told to henry kisserrier -- kissinger with his negotiating with iran? i don't know many who would. that's what actually happened. and do you know who invoked the kissinger formula for that case? the president of iran. so these are the facts i see. all the stories about writing about the sex of the angels is very interesting in reading but doesn't bring anything home. so the question is there is no generalities in this case. there never were generalities in this case. there are no generalities when you're talking about human life of any kind.

at least not in my book. so at this moment in time what we have, we have to try to understand better who is in front of us. i'd like to drop something here which many will probably not like, especially those outside this country. i'm not so sure whether having gone from multilateral dealing with conflict down to mini laterallism, i think now we should accept that we have to go down to bilateralism. multilateral is failing since 1992. we all know that. mini-laterallism doesn't seem to work well either, if you ask me. so i would focus on using, if you like, the mask of the 5+1, but in reality to take what the secretary of state has said over and over again that that we go bilateral. that is a great movement can has an -- which has an implication for the iranian side, and i

think the iranian side is thinking about it more than we think about what it means. this opens possibilities. but it's be realistic about it. we are not talking theory. we're not negotiating with iran in general. we are in 2013 we have this cast of characters, and we have to go deep and understand what their their ty is -- their narrative is. you could not have negotiated if your knowledge of khartoum was zero. let me tell you, you would not. but you would not have negotiated with rafsanjani if you'd never been to bazaar. and this is what happened. everybody at a different way to, you know, if you talk to me and you speak -- [inaudible] just because my name, you would be mistaken. you would be wrong. because since my childhood empire was connected with the hungarian reality of my family. so you see, the basic things of how does my mind work, is my

mind worse in my own way? on top of that, my god, the revolution is going on from the -- [inaudible] to the hindu kush, and we don't seem to talk about. something -- i want to scare you now to understand what we have to take into account, the reality on the ground. not the blah blah. does anybody realize the importance of 1534 in the sheer narrative? i'm sure everybody knows about it here, so i'm sorry if i asked. it's a very bad, important point. the world five centuries ago which we change now, but who change it back? this country change it back. i had an iranian official a few

years ago -- i don't go now -- who said to me we don't know how to explain how generous the american government has been because it brought us back 1534. mesopotamia in 1534 was -- [inaudible] and it began the rule of the sunnies more five centuries. when somebody tell us about -- [inaudible] why don't we reply 1946? would iran be as complete and whole as it is today if the u.k. and the u.s. in '46 had not really kicked out the soviets? these things are helpful, i think. helpful not because we know things, but because they play into the narrative. there are always different narratives, not only one. so i understand, but for god's sake, that's not the whole story. >> giandomenico, there's a narrative in that essentially

says that's not important because congress is about to pass new sanctions. how do you deal with that narrative, with that reality that in the midst of these negotiations there are bills introduced, bills passed three days before rouhani is inaugurated, congress passed in the house new sanctions that will go to the senate probably many a few weeks. what will that do in this specific environment based on a narrative of the individuals you know on that other side for the prospect of getting a deal? and, please, mohsen, chime in on this as well and colin as well. >> i'm sure this question can be answered better by dr. kahl, i'm sure he knows better than i do, and professor milani, so i think i pass the baton to those who know. >> what would happen if that takes place? >> i think it's going to complicate the negotiation process. significantly. and i think those in the

leadership in iran who are suspicious of american intention are going to become even more suspicious of american intentions. i think right now the best thing the two countries can do is to give each other at least a month or two to see what they can do in terms of bilateral and multilateral negotiations. and if they can produce some tangible agreement about the course that they need to take, then i think any kind of sanctions imposed by the u.s., in my judgment, would be an attempt to derail the negotiation process. i think the people who keep pushing for more and more sanctions ultimately answer the following question: what is the strategy behind this? are we imposing sanctions for the sake of sanctions?

you probably are going to ask us, i hope, what can the iranian-american community do many this country. -- in this country. one of the things they can do is to show the humanitarian disaster that these sanctions have created. they have not hurt the iranian government. they have not hurt the revolutionary guard. they have hurt ordinary iranians. and, therefore, i think these sanctions are not helpful. just compare cuba with china. and look at what happened to cue cue -- cuba. we have imposed sanctions in cuba since fidel castro took over back in 1960, '61. and his family's still ruling, but the cuban economy has been devastated. now, when president nixon had the audacity to open up china to

the world and allowed freedom, allowed private sector to gradually grow in china, look at china now. china used to be an enemy of the united states. right now it has become a partner of the united states. why did this transformation take place? many -- it took place because china was forced to open up its borders to international investment. this is what we have to do in iran. this is why the sanctions, in my judgment, are not only a human rights issue, but more importantly they do not contribute to promotion of democracy. private sector, growth of the private sector goes hand in hand with democracy. if you impose sanctions in a country, what do you think happens? you would allow only the most powerful in the government to have access to the limited

resources and, therefore, you undermine the private sector. so my short answer to your excellent question is that i would say any kind of sanctions at this time when the two countries are testing each other's intention would be, i think, harmful to peaceful negotiations toward resolution of the nuclear impasse. >> and i think a lot of people would agree with you. but if i could play devil's advocate for a second and also point out that in the case of china, yes, no sanctions, private trade, all of these different things occurred, tremendous prosperity, but not human rights. not democracy. how do you make sure that if you actually do resolve this nuclear issue, you actually have a lifting of sanctions, that iran does not turn into a china in which, yes, it becomes economically prosperous, but it comes at the expense that the human rights agenda is even further buried down and even

fewer people care about it? >> well, you push human rights. you push, you make it part of the agenda. but in life you have to prioritize. in life you have to prioritize. what is the top priority right now? this country is not going to go to war with iran if iran continues to violate human rights of the iranian. this country can go to war if iran becomes a nuclear power. that's the difference. so i would say make human rights an important component of your negotiations. but in order to do that, first you have to resolve or come to an agreement about the nuclear issue, but secondly, more importantly -- and i think this is the point you're trying to make -- we've had 33 years of mistrust. if the iranian team, the negotiating team does not trust american' intentions or if america does not accept the iranian intention we don't go anywhere with these negotiations. so i would say human rights must

come at the later stage when there is some sort of agreement about the contour of negotiations. at this time i think the focus is rightly on the nuclear issue. >> and we'll talk about the human rights component in more detail on one of the panels in the afternoon. you mentioned that sanctions would be something that would complicated, i think others would use perhaps even a stronger word of saying undermining diplomacy at this point. there's also another way of undermining it, and that is to set the bar for the negotiations so high, essentially saying that the only good deal that can be had is one that is essentially impossible to achieve. and the way to counter that is to have a much more forthcoming conversation about what is the best, plausible, viable, feasible, achievable deal that can be had. what are the contours of it at a very minimum. i want to first go to colin

since you brought this up earlier on, what would a good deal look like in your view that at the same time is achievable? not the best idealistic deal that we would get in the best of universes, but in this universe, in this very, very current situation. colin? >> yeah. let me, that, just let me say one quick thing on the sanctions front though. i think that i would agree that additional sanctions at this moment if the negotiations especially, you know, go well would be counterproductive. but i do believe that there's pretty clear evidence that the sanctions up to this point are what are motivating the iranian leadership to get to the table and negotiate in good faith. i think that they are, that they are increasingly concerned about the economic situation. i think rouhani believes that that's one of the reasons why he was elected overwhelmingly, was to ease the pressure. so i think the challenge for

people making the argument that we shouldn't have more sanctions is i don't think it's persuasive in washington to make the point that sanctions have not been helpful thus far in getting the iranians to the table to negotiate. i mean, we can debate about whether that's true or not, i happen to think it is true, but even if it's not, you're never going to win that argument in washington. you have to make the argument that sanctions have been helpful to empowering the current negotiations, but going further at point would be counterproductive. i think that's the argument that i think is better to make in washington. as it relates to the, as it relates to the deal, um, i mean, i think we know what the broad contours of an acceptable deal at least from the, you know, if the concern is to remove the major risk of a nuclear breakout, a deal would need to cap enrichment at 5%. that's the level that's

sufficient for civilian nuclear power but is fairly far away from bomb-grade material. so no enrichment of uranium above 5%. the second would be some reduction of the iranian stockpile of low-enriched uranium either by shipping some of it out of the country or by converting that stockpile into a form that is not readily usable to make bomb-grade material. and you would want to reduce the stockpile ideally to say below a thousand kilograms of 3.5% low- enriched uranium so iran would not have a bomb's worth of material on hand even if they decided to treat. i should also say iran doesn't have any justification for having more low-enriched uranium than that, if they only have one civilian power plant, bushier, even if they wanted to make an argument that they needed domestic supply, they don't need

a bomb's worth of material for that. so i think that would be another component. i think there would also need to be some limitations on the number of sentry fumings. david albright, a non-proliferation expert in town who's among the most careful observers of the iranian program, has suggested an upper limit of 10,000 first generation iranian centrifuges. if they insist on installing more advanced models, then you'd probably have to reduce the number below that. and then lastly on the enrichment side, you know, it'd be important for the iranians to reimplement the additional protocol so that the international inspectors associate with the the iaea cannot only visit declared facilities, but can visit other suspected facilities in iran to insure that they're in compliance with the agreement and not taking a secret path towards the bomb. which we know from their past activities there's a risk that they might engage in. so it's really, really important

for transparency to be high. the last point i would make is the iranians are, you know, sometime in the next year or so they may bring online the heavy water plutonium reactor at arak for those who think i'm talking about the country iraq. not the place we invaded, the heavy water reactor in iran. once that reactor becomes live, the iranians will produce enough plutonium every year for a bomb or two. now, they would have to reprocess that plutonium, and they don't have a reprocessing facility, but the international community is very concerned about that reactor coming online. and so part of an acceptable deal would also have to find a way to either halt construction on that reactor or say convert it to a light water reactor or make other modifications that would make it very difficult for them to use that in the future

to pursue a plutonium pathway to a bomb. so i think those major contours of the deal at least from what would be required on the p5+1 side to check an iranian breakout potential are fairly clear. where they hit, where they hit a snag, of course, is that, you know, there are several u.n. security council resolutions that require iran to suspend all enrichment activity. and there are some voices in congress and elsewhere who insist that, you know, anything short of a complete and total suspension of enrichment for all time is defined by them as a bad deal. i would agree, by the way, that a deal that zeroed out iranian enrichment, all else being equal, would be better. it would be better from a non-proliferation perspective. but i'm also a realist on this issue, and i just don't think that this iranian regime can agree to such an arrangement. and i think a good if imperfect

deal along the lines i just described is better than pushing all out for a suspension on end richment which isn't going to happen and, therefore, risk collapsing diplomacy. >> thank you, colin. on the point of sanctions, you raise a lot of very interesting points, and i think you can make the argument that in washington the sanctions argument is, the effective one would be that you have to credit it. but i think it creates an interesting dilemma mindful of the deal that you just pointed out which is an achievable deal even more than that could have been achieved ten years ago prior to all these sanctions. because implicit to what you're saying is the key steps by the united states that actually enabled this deal in the first place, which is that there is an acceptance of enrichment in iran. that is more, in my view, leading up to the opening that currently exists than anything else. and all of this and more of what you mentioned could have been achieved ten years ago prior to this very unhelpful and

unfortunate escalatory game that has been played by both sides in the last ten years. mohsen. >> if you pay attention to what we just heard, it makes sense. these are what the international community demands from iran. but this is only half of the story. what are we going to give iran in order to do this? we always talk about what the iranians must do. we are very clear about what they have to do but very unclear and ambiguous about what we are going to do. that is not the way you this is -- that is not the way you negotiate. this is the way you dictate. there is a difference between dictation and negotiations. what are we willing to give iran to stop enrichment of 5%, what are we going to give iran be they agree to close -- if they agree to close down faldo? what are we going to give them when they are willing to bring the number of centrifuges from

18,000 to 10,000? this is the problem i have seen all along with american policy toward iran. we are very clear about what we want them to do, and we are very -- deliberately, i believe -- unclear about what they have to do. this is not going to work. this is not going to work. i think you are absolutely correct, everything that we just heard could have been achieved a few years ago. but we didn't. >> [inaudible] >> 2004. but the reason we didn't is because, i think, some people thought that they can continue pushing iran to achieve other goals. so i believe anytime any of you in the audience or anywhere they hear about how can we have a deal, don't just talk about what iran has to do, talk about what the group of 5+1 must do. these are two sides of the same

coin. but unfortunately, in the western media we always focus on one side. >> go ahead. >> well, if i may listening to this conversation i sat down with a team of really experts -- not as experts as dr. kahl on this, but almost, in a group that i'm sure is very well known and mr. tom pickering was involved, and there are clearly some ideas that were mentioned, i know colin makes plenty of sense, but i would like to add something on the side, which is the following: once you sit down in a negotiation and you have in front of you the mountain and you know how difficult it is to move the mountain -- not impossible, of course, because you and i have done it before -- [laughter] but when you have the mountain in front of you, sometimes -- i don't say this is a rule that works all the time, but sometimes it helps -- when you

start, you know, the engine of a submarine, the engine of a submarine is an incredible machine. but it starts with a teeny little flame which is the igniter. and i found that at times the igniter, teachny little bit, you know -- teeny little bit, you know, nothing dramatic, but the igniter is very useful because not only starts the greater engine, but it also sends signals that things are possible. and the question is of discussing and focusing on the nuclear dimension is indispensable just to be done. the question is to avoid some of the repercussions you may have here or in tehran to concession, whatever, by other side. i think if i were to try to imagine a game which could be realistically played, i would look at those couple of

igniters. that has nothing to do with the overall thing of, you know, the major system, who's better guard or whatever. but those igniters may actually take away the focus and the leadership by those who are using the big bigger issue to st is impossible and that at the same time can create something physically new on the ground. and that's what, for whatever it is worth, what i would put on the table. when the situation gets so static and when we all know that, you know, protocol is what the iranians want to, you know, like anybody else in the world and all those things fine, but if the machine does not move, why not identify one or two igniters? teeny measures, if you like, teeny things that would create and generate a reaction, chemical reaction maybe? in the narrative of individuals. and i thought my, you know, i don't teach.

i have nothing to teach. but i had to learn in the streets how to do the practicality of things. everything i learned was in the streets because, you know, nobody tells you how to negotiate when somebody wants to kill you. especially, you know, i learned this from saddam. saddam was a very clear man. he would tell me you are my enemy, i am your enemy, we're trying to kill each other. my point is i don't get where the europeans are. [laughter] he tried to kill me a couple of times, but with a clear cut position, right? sometime a negotiation is to get out of the chain by which you are and see how you can find the igniter that starts the negotiation going. i mean, i hope we understand in this room that the iran/iraq war was negotiated and was ended without iraq and with iran in the other room. literally.

there was not a negotiation. whatever the canadian diplomats or whatever wrote the book about the fantasy of the security council ended the war. no. the negotiation to end eight years of war were done without the iranians and the iraqis, if you want to know. i know, i was there. there were two of us, two of them and the telephone. and who was on the telephone? his majesty, the king of saudi arabia. the war would not have been finished without the last two days' intervention of the king of saudi arabia. do we learn this in the books? what did the book tell us? that maybe you have to find something else completely different. that's what happened. so that was a big igniter, by the way. >> yeah. >> but a small igniter, in my view, when you are in such a complex situation may just help. i don't say that it would, but i certainly would not keep going around and around the story of, you know, the nuclear --

repeating what correctly we already know. so once we know the picture, how do the picture tally with each other? not by repeating over and over again. and that's in a way, that's what i learn from negotiation. >> jan do men coe, have we completely lost the art of diplomacy? because listening to what is sellable in washington and listening to what is sellable in tehran you get the impression that more than anything else the leaders are afraid of their own domestic audiences. and there's differences within that, by the way. >> sure. >> i think as you pointed out, mohsen, there's a dictating. part of the reason why there's a dictating is to cover up that there's also a softening of our position over here. but when we point that out, the fear is that the president would be further attacked. so we're speaking as if it's all about the sanctions whereas reality we are getting or very close to agreeing to the bottom

line of the iranians which is accept 5% enrichment. in new york two weeks ago for the first time there was a conversation between zarif and the p5+1 about the parameters of the end game. that's about enrichment. before that from the western side there's not been an agreement on. on the iranian side, however, dealing with their domestic audience it's interesting, because there appears to be a preparation for a compromise. with khamenei going out and coining the new term or rehashing the term heroic flexibility, there's a preparation to sell something. on this side my impression is at least we're doing the opposite, we're not saying anything until it happens, and when it happens, that's when we go and we present congress with a fait accompli. because if you open it up before that, you're going to have to deal with so many of the attacks prior to actually having a deal in hand. but that may also then reflect on the difficulty of actually negotiating in the way that you

are describing, jan do men coe, because the way you're describing seems to be somewhat devoid of negotiating with a domestic audience. >> yes. absolutely. every negotiation cannot proceed as if we do not realize we are now in 2013. we went for a walk for the last 25 years, 20 years, and that road which we have already walked we know what it is, so now we're in 2013. so what do we do? do we go back again and do the same? i think that like in the life of every individual, we are not what we were 13 years ago. so now why don't we look what can we do today that we could not do yesterday better, perhaps more imaginative, perhaps different. but, you know, as i said, not only iran has changed as we know, not only the u.s. has

changed, the world has changed, but more to the point of this negotiation the immediate neighborhood of mesopotamia's changed. i'm reluctant to say what is the greatest change of the region because, you know, i have family and children, i don't want them to be the target of those who say something stupid which, of course, i do frequently, but anyway -- let me just go philosophically so i try to a avoid being shot downstairs. we are now in 2013. we have gone through this negotiation in different way. we know all the angles, and as dr. kahl said and i think he's absolutely right, correctly. now, at this point in time with all the changes which have happened in that region we still talk about an approach and a

tone which is, belongs to another decade. and this is what would worry me, that of course we are right, of course we are always right. that's what i said to my son. of course i am always right, i am your father, what are you talking about? but how do we move? now that -- and he knows i'm right. so how do we move forward? and this is what is happening now, in my view, on this incredible, dangerous -- let's look at the region. let's have some other way to attack the tumor. and my humble suggestion apart from the igniter which i mentioned to you would be to have a bit more courage and say something that many much beyond iran may not like it, and that is how do the leaders we have in front of us build tomorrow? semicolon, is tomorrow anything

to do with yesterday? no. tomorrow is new because we don't even know how it looks like. so can we be ready? do we have enough guts and enough mind and brain to build tomorrow? which in practical terms means to the leaders as i see in front of me. are you able to be a

>> what is the bobs obstacle from that point of view, and how can that be integrated into the discussion, solved? >> [inaudible] in two seconds. >> yes. let me just repeat the question just to make sure since the microphone was not with the question. there is a gorilla in the room, it's israel. what is the angle from israel, what is the relevance, and how can it be handled? >> my colleagues would be surprised at what i'm telling you. i humbly submit that the gorilla is not in tel aviv. in fact, that's what i'm referring to the entire -- twice i mentioned the entire region

from -- [inaudible] to the hindu kush. if you thought that the gorilla is where you said it is, i'm sure it was. i'm not so sure it is. change. change is the change. everything changes all the time. all the time. >> mohsen. >> i think the islamic republic, at least the top leadership, would be making a huge strategic mistake if they think they can normalize relations with the u.s. by bypassing israel. it is not going to happen. this is a reality of the world we live in. and unfortunately, so far i have seen no evidence that they're willing to accept that. and it's too bad that they don't can. because israel is a domestic issue in this country. as hezbollah is a domestic issue in the islamic republic.

whether you like it or not, it doesn't matter. this is the reality. and i hope they come to realize that, i hope they come to change their policy toward israel, and if they don't, it's going to be tough for them in the years ahead. >> colin, would you like to chime in on specifically how the obama administration's going to deal with some of potential pressures from israel in this regard? >> well, look, i mean, frankly, i will start by saying, you know, as someone who has traveled to israel 14 times in the last three and a half years i think israel's concerns about iran are understandable. i think that if mexico was, you know, had an advanced nuclear program, had a covert nuclear weapons program up until about a decade ago and if mexican leaders regularly made statements about wiping america off the map and cutting america like a cancerous tumor out of

the north american landscape, you know, we'd be worried about mexico developing nuclear weapons, and we'd be pretty hard line about it. so if you sit from the perspective of tel aviv or jerusalem looking towards tehran and some of the things that are said, i think it's understandable why they're so worried. that said, you know, our policy, the united states policy has to be u.s. policy. we have to take israel's incredibly seriously. i think what president obama has said repeatedly is, you know, we do take the threat to israel seriously, but even if israel wasn't in the equation, we see iran's pursuit of potential nuclear weapons capability as a threat to the vital interests of the united states. i think where the israeli perspective comes in at this moment in diplomacy is that prime minister netanyahu has laid down four markers for a successful diplomatic deal. although there's really five

components, so i'm not sure why it was called four. but, first, zero enrichment. second, zero sockpile of low-enriched uranium. third, the complete closure and dismantling of the fordo enrichment facility near the iranian holy city as well as the dismantling of advanced so-called irmm centrifuges and last, the dismantling of the arak plutonium reactor. in my view, this type of position if it were actually adopted by the negotiators from the p5+1 would lead to a diplomatic train wreck. so i think that the israeli leadership sees their role in this as kind of a bad cop, and i don't know whether, actually, they would be willing to stomach an agreement along the lines that i have mentioned earlier, the kind of good if not perfect deal that i described.

my concern is less about, you know, whether the israelis themselves will play spoiler and more that if the markers that netanyahu has put down at the general assembly speech and some others, if those are picked up by a majority in congress as the litmus test or the metric against which to judge any agreement that comes out of geneva or the talks out of yes thee v.a., then -- geneva, then i would be very concerned that congress could play the spoiler role in this. so i think what's important is for the obama administration to continue to make the point to both the israelis and to congress that we are consulting with all of our closest allies to include israel on this issue and that we will not accept a bad deal. you heard terry make that point to an aipac conference the other day. kerry make that point to an aipac conference the other day.

but then to go the next iteration and to defend what a good deal would look like and why it's not only good for the united states and for the world, but good for israel's security. so again, i think this is -- we're not, we're not at that stage yet, but if there is meaningful progress in geneva and in the weeks following, then i think there will be a lot of onus on the administration to start clarifying the case for why whatever they come to is actually a good deal. >> question is -- [inaudible] >> wait for the mic. >> morning. the question is about israel. we are concerned about security of israel which is very valid. however, they are not signatory to mp3, and at the same token if you look at the history of iran,

in the past 200 years they never attack any country in any form or shape, but israel in the past 60 years of existence they have been the bully in that area. they are the one that's been attacking neighbors. they are the one that use chemical weapons in gaza. yet we still blindly protecting their interest. so the other countries should not have the rights to protect themselves against a bully down there and then we sit there and we speak as if, you know, they have the only rights and everybody else are this -- so my question is, how would you justify that? i mean, i understand the politics, they may talk about things, but as the individual citizens who see this on a day-to-day basis, you cannot fool vims any longer. they -- individuals any longer. they see what the reality is. so how would you describe that? how do you sell that to the

citizens of rapp -- of iran or the world, for that matter? >> my expertise is u.s./iran relations. i have no comment about in this. >> colin, this is for you. >> yeah. [laughter] you know, look, i think that the focus on israeli behavior in the current context is not productive. it's not productive for anything. it's not going to change, you know, the approach to negotiations with iran nor its outcome. so, you know, i understand that that there are people who share the questioner's views. i just think it's not a helpful way to think about it. i also think it distracts from the very real point the iranians have, why does iran have an obligation not to develop weapons? because they signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. if they want to pull out, you know, they should do it and make it clear that they want to leave open the option to pursue

nuclear weapons. but they didn't do that. they signed the npt. the shah signed it on one of the first days that it was open for signature, and the islamic republic has said that they plan to abide by it since the revolution. so they're signatories. it's not about hypocrisy or not hypocrisy. there are a lot of international laws and rules and norms. some are come mid with, some are not. but if the argument is that absolute consistency has to be applied in diplomacy, then i would argue that the questioner has never actually engaged in diplomacy. [laughter] in this case, iran is legally obligated not to pursue nuclear weapons. the other thing is there are half a dozen u.n. security council resolutions calling out iran for suspicious nuclear activities. they've built covert facilities, they've engaged in previous weapons-related research. they've done a lot of things in their nuclear program which lead

folks to be very suspicious about their nuclear ambitions and whether they have nuclear weapons ambitions. so i think that we shouldn't use the behavior of others to distract from the very clear obligation that iran has both under their treaty commitments and under u.n. security council resolutions. so it's just not helpful to make the focus about israel. >> thank you. i wanted to ask about the, there was a question earlier about the increasing sanctions, and it was put -- i kind of wanted to ask the question again, i guess. you know, if iran doesn't come forward with, you know, and i'm not sure exactly how to qualify it, but a positive offer at these negotiations starting tomorrow, should -- what if, you

know, there are people who are saying that if this round of negotiations doesn't, isn't productive, then sanctions should be, should be strengthened. so that's my first question. the other is, you know, i don't know if israel is the 64,000-pound gorilla, then how heavy is the saudi arabian gorilla? [laughter] and what role does it play in all of this? and i'd really like to hear a lot more about that. and i guess, you know, while i've got the microphone, just one other question. [laughter] there have been a lot of, you know, a few kind of concerning, you know, after president rouhani was here, he said some really nice things, but since he got back to iran there's some, you know, several kind of concerning things that came out, you know? i think javad zarif was quoted as saying the supreme leader was

unhappy with how close the negotiations and how far they went in reaching out to the americans, and there were a few other things that were kind of, that kind of seemed like they were pulling back a little bit. and i'm wondering if, you know, if that is -- you know, what does that mean? what's the significance of that? >> you got three questions. we were very kind to you. mohsen. >> i will only answer one of them. the one that, i think, is the easiest one. and you'll answer the most difficult. [laughter] because you're the diplomat. saudi arabia, i think, is a major gorilla in the room. and iran and saudi arabia are natural rivals in the persian gulf. and the animosity they feel toward each ore, i think -- toward each other, i think, is deep, it has religious dimension, but now it has geostrategic dimensionings.

for the -- dimensions. for the past ten years, i think ever since the u.s. liberated iraq from saddam hussein's dictatorship and empowered the shiites, i think saudi arabia and iran have been engaged in a bloody, secret cold war against one another. and as you correctly said, it goes all the way from afghanistan to the persian gulf, bahrain all the way to can levant. and we have seen different sides of this. now, this competition is not just with the islamic republic. we know, for example, we know now that saudi arabia had a major role in decreasing the price of oil back in 1965, 1975, '76 when the shah was a strategic ally of the united states. and as a result of the decrease in the price of oil, iran had a major financial crisis which

then paved the way for the coming of the islamic revolution. in other words, this competition goes back to the time of the imperial iran. anyhow, after the, after saddam hussein was overthrown, i think the saudis concluded that iran has become too dangerously close to them. iraq has the longest border with saudi arabia, and to have a shiite government knocking on your door is not something they like. then hay tried to undermine -- then they tried to undermine iran, and iran tried to undermine saudi arabia in lebanon. it didn't work. hezbollah has been empowered, and it has become a major player in lebanon. and then, and i think as you correctly said, we have the so-called civil war in syria which is the latest dimension of this rivalry between iran and saudi arabia. just look at who is providing the money to the rebels. there is only one thing you need to know about international

politics if you have to know one thing. that one thing is follow the flow of money. look from whose pocket the money comes out from, but more importantly, pay attention to whose pocket it goes into. now, in syria we have the civil war on the one side are the saudis and now, reluctantly, the turks and the baa tarries and emirates, and on the other side we have iran, russia and other countries. so right now i think saudi arabia, riyadh is extremely concerned about the potential of a rapprochement between iran and sabia. saudi arabia. iran is the natural power in the persian gulf. it has 80 million people which is more than all the countries combined multiplied by five. it has the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. it has the third large oil reserves in the world.

it has the largest middle class, and it has a glorious history. they know that if iran and the u.s. can develop the mechanism to manage their conflict, iran once again is going to become the undisputed power in the region. that is unacceptable to the saudis. i honestly believe and i know this is going to create lot of problem for me, but since you have been so brave -- la. [laughter] and did not say too many things that are controversial, i am going to say something that is controversial. i think the conflict between iran and israel is much more manageable than the conflict between iran and saudi arabia. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> this is, i think it's a good component of this conversation because what i, when i dropped

the penny earlier in my comment about the changing reality of the region, a good part of what you just said. we continue to look at the region as if it was 1980 or 19 70, for that matter. as we know in life, the region is really now running around pivot of saudi, iranian so to speak let's call it competition, call it whatever you like it. it is interesting to me that when rouhani was elected he did mention in a public speech about his interest to have, you know, a discussion, a conversation, a

negotiation with saudi arabia which, i think, was much the point. of course, as we all know rouhani does speak fairly decent arabic which doesn't hurt when you speak to the saudis. he also, i like to take this opportunity to add that rouhani speaks alsogerman and english, as you know, and they seem to be technical matters. i tend to not be so sure. because when you can communicate, you know, in the language of your counterpart, things are quite different. in changing many sometimes moral respects, some others in different respects. so rouhani saying those comments saying i want to speak to saudi arabia i think makes plenty of sense where we are, and there will be one step to describe the present situation that professor milani just described and i mentioned earlier about, you know, from the hindu kush to the levant, but i will stop there, because, you know, i have family

and children, and i don't want to put them -- [laughter] >> i'm sorry. unfortunately, we cannot, we have to move on to the next panel. just wanted to give a couple concluding remarks. i think you said something extremely interesting, mohsen, about what conflict, which rivalry is most manageable. and in some ways it certainly, there are aspects that potentially the iranian/israeli relationship could be more manageable, but it is lacking one component and that is as you mentioned rouhani in his first press conference spoke about the need for improving nations with the brotherly nation of saudi arabia. rouhani was critical with the rapprochement in the 1990s. there are channels of communication. that does not exist on the iranian/israeli side to the extent that it should, and that makes the issue of management all the more difficult even if some of the facts on the ground are more difficult on the saudi side. we will go even deeper into that issue tomorrow. we are delighted, because we're going to have prince turkey from

saudi arabia on the panel to speak specifically on this issue as well as -- [inaudible] from israel as well as two other very prominent people, and we will go specifically into the regional dimension. for now, i want to thank giandomenico, mohsen, colin -- thank you so much for being on the phone, i know you had some difficulties. please give them a round of applause, and i think the next panel is to start in a few minutes. thank you so much. north[applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and in about half an hour, we'll be taking you to the rose garden at the white house for remarks by president obama. he's going to be talking about the difficulties the healthcare.gov web site has had enrolling people in the insurance exchanges that opened at the beginning of the month. you can watch that live. his remarks are scheduled for 11:25 eastern time, and we'll

have that over on our companion network, c-span. also on c-span at noon eastern we'll take you live to the heritage foundation in washington, d.c. to hear from north carolina governor pat mccrory. he'll be talking about the legislative initiatives he's focusing on in the his state including voter laws, economic development, energy, education and medicaid. and then after his remarks, we'll take you back to the white house for today's daily press briefing with spokesman jay carney. that's all coming up live on our companion network, c-span. and some news out of capitol hill this morning, republican congressman tim griffin of arkansas will not be seeking re-election in 2014. congressman griffin is a former interim u.s. attorney and white house staffer. he's currently serving his second term as a representative from the state's second district. and also the u.s. house gavels in for the week tomorrow at noon eastern for general speeches, 2:00 for legislative work and as always, you can watch the house live on c-span.

>> this is eleanor roosevelt's typewriter. it was on this typewriter that mrs. roosevelt wrote her "my day" column. what i have here are some of the original drafts that i wanted to share. this first one is actually eleanor roosevelt's "my day" column, and it sets the tone for the columns to follow. what she's talking about here are the comings and goings in the white house as they're getting back to the regular schedule after the holiday season. this clipping is a "my day" clipping from november 6, 1940, election day. she talks about how at midnight a larger crowd than usual came in from hyde park with a band and torches and wonderful placards. the president went out greet them. itthis was a tradition on electn night, the roosevelts would come to hyde park, gather family around and await the election results. when they were announced, the folks from hyde park would march down, and the president would come out and greet them. >> first lady eleanor roosevelt tonight live at 9 eastern on c-span and c-span3.

also on c-span radio and c-span.org. p.m. indiana, but before we can proceed with his introduction we would like to thank mr. richard heller, who is responsible for are getting in here. they don't see eye to eye. mr. heller -- [applause] it was his losses that overthrew

the d.c. gun control law which was a landmark decision. anyhow, thank you. and by way of him we have mr. helmke here today. paul is a former mayor of fort wayne, indiana. is the former president of the brady foundation. and is now a professor at the university of indiana. he attended the university of indiana and yale law school. where he was a classmate of two people called bill clinton and hillary rodham. he took a few years off, several years ago, to think things over and then joined the faculty. he is speaking today on common ground with the national rifle association. paul. [applause]

>> i obviously was inspired by the fact that the federal government was able to reopen, and folks came back together to at least find common ground for a few months on the debt ceiling and on the budget. and that gave me hope that perhaps those of us who are concerned about gun violence from the gun-control perspective can find some common ground with those on the gun rights, nra side of things. at least i hope so. and part of the reason that i wanted to do this talk today was, i've got a different perspective perhaps being back in indiana. i was head of the brady center to prevent gun violence for five years. it was an eventful five years. it was during that time the supreme court issued its ruling in the heller v. d.c. case and mcdonald v. chicago case. we had the tragic shootings at virginia tech and in tucson as

well as a number of other shootings during that period of time. we did see one bill passed congress after virginia tech where the nra and the gun-control side came together to back a bill originally submitted by carolyn mccarthy from new york to strengthen the background check system by encouraging states are giving care and state -- carrot and sticks to states. so that was something positive that came out during that period of time. it was an eventful time. since january of the shopping back in indiana, my home state. i teach at a school of public and environmental affairs at indiana university. i've been teaching classes on urban problems and solutions, law and public affairs. and now directing a new program for freshmen in at iu dealing with civic leadership. and happy to have 10 of the students here with me today. i've got another 20 that are

touring the capital and might be joining us later on. but being back in indiana talking to the hoosier students, midwestern students, professors, grad students and others, elected officials in indiana, i see the challenges that the issue of gun violence resumes but in this country and how hard it is to solve the issue, particularly i know living in the beltway for five, six years to develop a bit of the beltway mentality of think it's all about fighting here and you don't realize there are a lot of opportunities, should be opportunity to find common ground on many issues including the issue of gun violence. that's kind of the perspective i'm coming from. i've talked to elected officials, and others, i talk to friends and others in the state. and hope to have a few ideas that might be interesting here today. i want to announce quickly my old friend, former mayor of albuquerque, good to see you, marty. as was my former public information director at brady,

carolina brewer. so thank you for coming. good to see. we had a couple reps for moms demand action for common sense -- ackermann the official title now, but moms demand action to end gun violence in this country, so thank you. actually when i start the semester with my students i had shane watts who founded the moms group, speak to them. not so much to push my plan to attend the orders but to talk about how people can try to push for change using social media and internet connecting. either young man who would work for me at brady who told his personal story having been shot four times at virginia tech. i'm glad to see dick heller here. we never did get -- hopefully we can make that up sometime soon, dick. i've been on panels and discussions with dicks and some others over the years.

want to make a few points. point number one is that we still have a problem with gun violence in this country. some people will argue that there's less gun homicides today than there might've been in the early '90s. they might argue that violent crime has gone down. that's all true but we still have a problem with gun violence in this country. even if the numbers are decreasing, which i'm happy about, we still have problem with gun violence in this country. the tragic shootings at newtown where 20-first graders were massacred, was just two months ago. the shooting at the navy yard was just a month ago. and we haven't done anything as a country to address these issues, and these are crucial issues for us to address. even, and hear from so many people, why do you focus on mass shooting so much of the time?

mass shootings are very rare. but i very few people killed in the context of mass shootings. that's true but often times that's the only time the needy and the public and our elected officials will focus on massive -- mass shootings. i've always said it's not that i'm saying anything different than i said last week or the month before or the year before, i keep saying the same thing. it's only occasionally does the media focus on issue and that's when we see a tragedy like virginia tech, like tucson, like newtown occurring. but in this country we still have 32 people murdered everyday with guns. and that's something that we shouldn't tolerate in this country. in addition to those 32 people were killed, murdered with guns every day, we have a number of suicides i guns an accident with guns that brings the total of gun deaths on a total basis about 80 gun deaths per day in this country. the death by guns are only the tip of the iceberg.

the people that are injured with the guns every day increases that number significantly. for every gun death, there's another three or four gun injuries in this country every day. a lot of times when we focus just on gun homicide we ignore the fact that our emergency rooms and surgical care doctors have gotten a lot better at dealing with gunshot injuries. part of is the experience from iraq and afghanistan, but we have a lot better system in dealing with those gun injuries than we did in the '90s. a lot more people survive these gun injuries. when i talk to folks who work the emergency rooms and a talk to the folks that are the doctors and the nurses, they oftentimes in a large city will talk about they are still saying as much gun violence today as he saw 10 years ago as they saw 20 years ago. i look back at indiana in the midwest, chicago has been having a horrible year in terms of an injury to my home city of fort wayne, i think the number of homicides is now on one of its

highs for the last 20 years or so with the gangs and guns and drugs in the community. so point number one, we have a problem with gun violence in this country and as a nation we are not doing anything to try to solve that, to try to fix it, to try to make it better. point number two, when we have tried to fix it, we have generally run into roadblockroadblock s. we'll know that congress has a tough time doing anything. if they have a tough time passing the budget are raising the debt ceiling, how can we expect them to handle something like gun control, like gun violence in the country? as i mentioned after virginia tech, all sides worked together basically told get a bill that got more records into the background check system. but since newtown, we at least have a vote for the first time in the u.s. senate, but at the boat all the policy proposals from both sides, from all sides of the aisle basically were blocked. there weren't enough votes to

get a universal background check bill that was a compromise bill supported by senator manchin from west virginia and send it to me from pennsylvania. that was my hope that bringing together a conservative republican, former head of club for growth and a moderate conservative democrat joe manchin but then both a rated by the and/or a. manchin had a first run for office from somebody shooting a bill with a lot of help to regulation. obviously, people that have a lot of gun owners gun and disease in the states and among their constituents. so when senator toomey and senator manchin were able to come together i had a we could get something done that belleville five or six votes short of getting the supermajoritarian are required to get anything passed in the u.s. senate. on the other side there was a bill to push basically national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. this is a bill that had come up as a stand-alone bill about four years ago proposed by senator thune.

so-called thune a minute. when it came up it fell short of the 60 votes. i think god 68 votes at the time but this time he got less than that. i think it 53 vote. both sides pushing for their ideas on what to do with guns, gun violence. and, of course, even if we pass anything in the u.s. senate from the perspective of more background checks and restrictions on semi automatic weapons or high-capacity ammunition who knows what would've happened in the house? it was difficult to get, tough to get through the senate and even tougher through the house. speaker boehner, until the vote the other night has been operated on meeting a majority of the majority in order to bring something to the for. those bills probably would not have made it to the floor without a lot of pressure from the public. this is the situation we've got. what i see is i see a lot of good grassroots efforts from

people like moms demand action and mayors against illegal guns at the u.s. conference of mayors, from brady and two other groups on the one side and i see a lot of action from a lot of groups, the nra is the major one but other groups that are pushing the gun rights agenda. and again both sides i don't see that as the long-term solution to enough grassroots organizing to change the people to get elected. when the people change, they get elected then we will be able to get something done. but that takes a long time. and even if there is a backlash against the republicans for the way they handled the debt ceiling and even keeping the government open, you are probably not going to get the sort people into congress quickly that are going to change these things. we are still going have enough votes on one side to block national concealed carry. there will still be no votes on the other side to block background check. we're all back to square one where 32 people are getting killed everyday with guns.

that is an action at the state level. i was very pleased that some states took some action after newtown to strengthen some other laws. there were other states that responded the other way after newtown to in effect loosen their laws or make it easier to carry or have different restrictions. we saw states like colorado where what i consider to be good laws were passed, and then there was a recall election and two of the people who push that got removed from office. the law still stands. we have this back and forth, and that's a look back on it we've been having this back and forth fight since at least 1993-1994. after the brady background check bill and the first so-called assault weapons ban was passed. so what do we do now? we've got a problem and we have a political system that can't seem to move these things. what can we do? this is were i think we need, all of us need, we need to find a way to find common ground

between the other eight and again right side and people like brady and moms demand action and mayors against illegal guns. those who are concerned about the gun violence in this country. there should be a lot of common ground. when i look at other issues that face us as a country, guns really is one where particularly since the heller v. d.c. case, we should be able to find common ground. before the heller case, there was a serious argument about what the second a minute to the constitution meant and you can argue the history and the language, you can argue the intent and you can argue what the military said in 1938. there were tons of these but once the supreme court ruled in june of '08 that there was an individual right of a gun for self-defense purposes, at least in your home, that battle is done. one of the points i made after that ruling, in fact i was on a tv show.

i was on chris matthews hardball with wayne lobby or that my. i said congratulations, when, you got what you wanted. now let's pick up where we can find common ground. lets figure out what we can do. -- wayne floppy ear. the decision justice we made it clear any pain in section three of the opinion that this right, the second amendment right isn't like other rights is not unlimited. and he said that you could have restrictions on who gets a gun, on how the gun is sold, how the gun is stored, how the gun is carried and even what kind of gun is a. now, you can still argue with in all those categories exactly where you can draw the line and if it steps over the line constitutionally but basically justice scalia outlined some areas where i think we can start up a discussion and we need to have a discussion. and where is crucial for the future of our country and the health of our community to have this discussion. so i want this just a few things

today where i think we can possibly find common ground. first one is still on background checks. this is the one that people should agree on. we all agree that people that we are pretty sure are going to be dangerous, that are dangerous the and will likely be dangerous shouldn't easily be able to get a gun. that's sort of a starting point. someone who's been a dangerous felon. someone who is dangerously mentally ill. someone who is a clear drug abuser. a member of the other categories. folks generally agree on that. even wayne lapierre, i know i saw on one of the national talk shows after the navy yard shooting, said he wanted to fix the background check system. he said with a broken background check system. he wants to fix that system and no one is sitting down and talking with him. i'm saying now we need to sit down with wayne lapierre and find out how we can find agreement, see if we can find agreement with them to fix the broken background check system. if he is blocking a lease let's

find out. if he is going to work, let's get that work done. because the background check system is broken, but just because it's broken doesn't mean we walk away from it. one sender wrote and said he wasn't going to sort the manchin-toomey bill because the system is broken. my reaction is do something to fix it. that's what we need to do. ethics can be complicated. we have to look at the definitions of who we consider a dangerous person. maybe they can be better ways to defined people. we can look at other, how the records get in the system. even if you've got a great definition of dangerousness, if the states are not getting the records in the background check system it doesn't do anybody any good. we need to find better ways to do that. we need to look at how many sales are allowed without doing a background check since on 10 -- background check.

that's something that can be fixed. the manchin-toomey amendment proposal tried to fix that. some folks felt that went too far. let's try to figure out where folks thought they went too far. if it's because you live in a rural community of in this place to do a background check is far away, maybe we can draw some of the procedures up and deal with that either in terms of timing or in terms of how you can do the background check, but this fix the background check system. this is when we can all agree upon. the fact that lapierre on television and in a column surely after that said he wants to sit down and fix the background check system is something that those in the gun control movement and the gun violence prevention movement should take up her right away. i think that's one where the rest of us, whether it is dick heller or martin shabazz, you know, interested people who have been in politics, have been in the gun issue for years can't sit by and pushed them to get to

the table. like any other compromise there's a little gift, a little take but let's get something done that fixes this broken background checks system that makes it harder for dangers people to get guns. that's point number one. point number two is i think we have some potential to do things on the weapons that we consider perhaps too dangerous to have easily readily available to everybody. this gets into the whole issue of a so-called assault weapons, semiautomatics get tickets to the issue of a high-capacity magazine. again, we should be able to draw some lines. some people say why do you want to ban a magazine clip that -- wide you want to open at 10? by standard issue is 12. or my standard issues 15. i'm going to get involved in those discussions. where do we draw the line on 10, 12, 15 or whatever number of bullets. right now the number is infinity. there is no limit and you see people like the aurora shooter bring in one of the guns that has over 100 bullets.

you can make a strong argument that the reason that the tucson shooter was stopped was the fact that the 32 round magazine that he had emptied and in the time is trying to get the other magazine in, he was tackled. somebody who is good can change a real quickly but when you're shooting people and people are screaming and dying and there's blood on the ground, that's a lot harder to do. so the size of the clip, the size of the magazine does make a difference. newtown, one of the argument was 11 children got away when the shooter went to change the magazine clip. so there are advantages to having a restriction in a magazine clip. what the number is is not as crucial as the fact that we need to have some limits because right now there are no limits, and as the technology changes we're seeing more and more guns that are having, holding more and more bullets that can fire more quickly at high rate of speed and cause more damage. a lot of folks say that's the stuff you will never get.

you'll never get another assault weapon ban. there will be ways around it. how do you define things? the way they do point out is we've had restriction on machine guns, fully automatic guns since 1934. we don't ban them. it's not a machine gun ban but we have heavy recessions i mean she and guns and fully automatic weapons and has been on the books for some time. it was modified somewhat in the '80s but these restrictions have worked. for the most part. you don't see machine guns and fully automatic using bank robberies today like we did in the '20s and '30s. you don't see them used in common street crimes, partly because it becomes expensive and you pay a high taxing because you did the registration and licensing and some other things with fully automatic. they are available but they are not available to most people. this to me is another category of where do we draw the line. let's figure out how technologtechnolog y has changed to make guns more deadly in terms, again, the velocity by

which the bullets are released, the number you can shoot, how quickly he shoots them and figure out is there a way to draw the line and maybe not have the alternative the a and but some sort of have your standard of regulation like we do with fully automatic. i'm sure a lot of the folks on the other side will oppose that immediately, but most of them support the machine gun restrictions. not all do but most people generally, including the nra, has supported the machine gun restrictions in the past. if they supported the restrictions in the past there should be some possibility to support restrictions going forward. the last point i wanted to make deals with who carries the guns, where they carry the guns and how we figure out who should be allowed. i think this is the one with a might be some potential, maybe the most controversy from the gun violence prevention site. one of the big things we fought a few years ago back was the thune an amendment. that was one of the amendments

that was proposed in april. again, and i proposed that and others opposed it for a number of good reasons. we opposed it because some states have such a requirement are getting a concealed carry permit that basically in virginia one of the people who shot at virginia tech -- who got shot at virginia tech, she was able to get a concealed carry permit without having ever touched a gun in her life but she was able to do it online. utah, fairly easy this to get a. you fill out a form, mail in a check on you get a concealed carry license. other states have tougher requirements. there is a whole variety. some states you have to renew the permit on a regular basis. some like india once you get it it's a lifetime for me. you have an obligation to tell l the state of indiana if you gotten into trouble during her lifetime, they might take the permit a way but you've got a lifetime permit for your gun. not for your driver's license but for your gun.

so different states have different criteria. one of the things we should look at, because in order to get the nra and the gun rights groups to the table we have to find something they have been pushing and are interested in that they haven't been able to get. i think that deals with some of the reciprocity issue. one of the heirs were potential, and i think it's an area that the gun violence prevention side should be willing to discuss is having some national recognition for concealed carry if there are minimums standards met for concealed carry in those states can either said he and i shall stand or a minimum standard that states have to follow. i know a few years ago when i looked at it, texas has one of the higher levels, highest levels of standards. if we could find a state where its work and it's worked well, and where legitimate gun owners who feel they need is for protection meet the criteria, let's have those sort of criteria, adopt an answer. i think that something that

should be put on the table. i think if we do that i think would also perhaps get into some of the other issues with background checks. i think one of the things that's implied with concealed carry permits is the idea of permitting, the idea of the licensing. it's always been interesting to me, one of the books i read early on on guns was david hennings book about private guns public health. excellent book. his conclusion as to what might be the best thing long range for being with gun violence was he proposed a system of licensing and registration. the analogy that we do all the time is that if you get a driver's license, you register your car. the state is involved when you sell your car. in getting a new registration. and again, i'm not arguing that message. we go with the way we handle cars and driver's license but the concept of licensing for permitting and registration is one we should look at. we register those machine guns.

we license those concealed carry permit holders. we do a background check before we allow people to buy. if we combine those concepts into a system that looks at the individual and then gives a license or permit, when we look at some of the weapons and look at some that need to be registered and others that don't, i think we can come up with a workable solution hopefully that can perhaps advance the interest of folks on different sides of this issue and help us move forward. i think about the dick heller v. d.c. case a lot. and the remedy in that case, the last line in justice scalia's decision was basically telling the district of columbia that they were ordered to give dick heller the license he had applied for. during the argument the lawyer for mr. heller basically conceded that he thought that was the appropriate remedy. licenses shouldn't be considered something that's unconstitutional. as part of the remedy in the leading case, in the field on this topic.

people always say, gee, if we did that they would be a list that the federal government could use to confiscate the weapons. the heller case again made it clear that the government cannot legally constitutionally confiscate weapons. you do have an individual right to these things. one of the arguments i made after the heller case was that the whole issue of licensing and registration is a moot point now because the courts have now said you can't have confiscation of the weapon. so it's another thing we should look at next. the other thing that's kind of become more clear to me as i've been back in indiana is that the most enthusiastic gun owners that i usually deal with and the most aggressive gun owners that i usually argue with are those that have gotten their concealed carry permit or want to get a concealed carry permit. getting a permit, the government knows who they are. and these are the most aggressive, most active, most

articulate, most argumentative folks. there's a list of their, not to mention the fact that people list and profile all sorts of other things. i think the fact that the heller case set it up with a charge for d.c. to get the license to dick heller, i think the fact that concealed carry permit holders know that there are lists to prevent holders but i think the fact that we've looked at registration for machine guns for years means there's some capability to take those concepts and combined them with some sort of national reciprocity that would take of the argument i hear from the nra and others on the gun rights side that why should our sides -- our rights be given in wednesday and not another state? that's a big concession. it's not probably something i could argue from with a lot of people that i deal with. but again we've got a problem in this country. our political system is not in a position to do with the problem. it's not probably going to be in a position to deal with the politically for some time. the only way that we are going to be able to get something

through congress in the foreseeable future is if the nra and others on the gun rights side are willing to join in the conversation, sit down at the table and try to work something out. i think again if we focus on the background checks and who should be prohibited when we focus on which weapons should be treated more like machine guns, and when we focus on this idea of licensing, permitting and national reciprocity, my hope is we can find common ground. i don't want to see another tragedy. i do want to see another mess shooting. i do want to see my home city of fort wayne or the cities in this country continue to see the death and the blood and the mayhem they have. guns isn't the only part of the issue. you have to do with the mental health system, the breakup of the families, with the economy. bikini discussion that ignores guns is also closing its eyes. we have to do with the issue of guns, and i hope we as a contra willing to do that. i salute the president obama and vice president biden and some in the administration for dealing with the issue and talking with

the issue after newtown but we have to find a way to break through the other side to let folks know that there is room for common ground here and it will benefit the kennedys as a whole. thank you for listening. [applause] >> we will now entertain questions. asked you questions and identify your organization. if not within organization, that's fine. again, questions. >> my name is maria. do you think that there is a window of opportunity from here to the end of the year after the present recommend just to the congress to take care of the issue? >> i think now that they've reopen the government and raise the debt ceiling i think we have an opportunity to we are getting close to election season. election season goes on full-time it seems like but i don't think we'll see a lot of the full focus on the elections

until next year. i think there's an opportunity now that we've got the government shut down behind us to deal with issues like gun violence, issues like immigration, some of the other things that been talked about for some time. it's again something we need to do. so i'm hopeful. i might just mention, and there are other parts to this issue that might have some common ground that i failed to mention. one is the gun trafficking. the guns going from our country to mexico is an investment. there are -- embarrassment. that our traffic laws and all sides should agree on that would make it harder to have these false sales that would go to the gangs to go down to mexico. that's something that deals with law enforcement but a needs to deal with the law in the books, and hopefully that's another one of years where we can find some common agreement.

>> you mentioned statistics about the numbers of deaths and injuries. do you have any idea how many of the deaths and injuries fall within the parameters where as an ongoing source of such a special illness and drug ridden neighborhoods? how many are there? and how would you answer that question also, the people, who say they're going to find it anyway? >> a couple points. one is the mental health issue is clear one of the crucial ones here. i know after newtown and after some shootings, a lot of people say it's just these mentally ill, deranged, dangerous people and sometimes the descriptions get even wilder and wilder, in terms of describing the type of person. i heard a researcher, an academic talk about the other day about the issue of mental health, and he felt that mental health can be a contributor factor but it was only like 4% of gun violence that you could really a tribute is someone who have mental health issues.

his conclusion was that the most dangerous combination was mental health combined with drug abuse or with alcohol. so those are things i think we can focus on and perhaps focus on better, that right now the only category of mental health that's prohibited is summoned to a court has found, or a court or court like body has founded a danger to themselves or others. if we look at this definition perhaps differently, if we look at combining that with the drug abuse, alcohol abuse, we might be able to come up with a better predictor as to who is dangerous for those reasons. a lot of violence ties to drug sales in gangs that are selling drugs, and a lot of that is, the urban violence that we're seeing. whenever someone says though that they're going to get the guns anyway, i keep thinking, are they -- to give gun manufacturing plants in south chicago or the bad part, the poor part of fort wayne?

i don't think so. you might be able to grow marijuana in your help. you might be able to do -- in your home. you might give you some things with methamphetamines o on the property but not many people produce guns. against come from someplace. this is what starts out as a legal product and quickly moves into illegal use. we need to figure out how it gets there. one of the ways it gets there quickly are from folks who can buy a lot of guns in bulk without a background check. the classic example i give is the fellow who went to a gun show in dayton, ohio, bought 81 of the same make and model's with a semi automatic pistol and i say is anyone surprised that someone who buys 81 of the same make and model, semi automatic, what he does with it? it's not for his personal collection, not for hunting. he's going to sell out of his car all through the midwest and northeast which is what he did and a police officer ended up getting killed and other people into getting killed from this. so the way you deal with that is

to require a background check when he sells it. require the background check when he sells it, look at trafficking statute that looks at both purchases like that to make it harder for him to do that sort of thing. some people also say with a lot of the bad guys are going to get it anyway. that gets into the issue what is the function of a law is one of the functions is to prevent something bad from happening. when our current background check system is stopped over 2 million illegal purchases, that's too many people that have been stopped. a lot of people say how come they haven't all been prosecuted? that's an issue that needs to be dealt with but at least they were stopped from getting begun in the first place. it also means that once the of committed a crime and have not followed the law and it gives the prosecuting attorney the charging of 40, the police officer another thing to charge them with. giving them another thing to charge with, a violation means they can have a stricter punishment because they've had a

gun charge entered into. sometimes having a lot is meant to prevent. sometimes it makes it easier to find a penalty. the other thing it helps will be considered to be suicidal thoughts. i think the societal norms should be while you have a right as defined in heller case and the mcdonald case can you also have a responsibility. the rights are not unlimited and you need to point out the people that we want a society where you don't make it easy for dangerous people to easily get dangerous weapons. >> i'm from california. would you like to comment on the attempt by this fellow in his book the proclaimed the one year anniversary of the shooting of 26 people as a guns save lives they? >> i think it's disgusting. i do want to say much about. i've debated alan a number of

times and he comes from his own perspective and pushes his own issues. i think one of the things he likes to get is publicity for the point of view he likes to argue. i think is looking for publicity. i think tying it to the anniversary of the tragedy is, no, it's not, it does disgust me. that's not the approach we should be taking. there are other ways to get those issues out there. again i'm going to sit down with alan at the table and negotiate on these things. i don't consider people on the other side evil, but i think that sort of a strategy is not appropriate. >> okay. all of you will get a chance to ask a question. >> i'm christina with the "huffington post." the and/or a has shown that it's more than willing, especially in recent years to raise alarms and

to raise money over threats, hypothetical threats that are not real and i point to the is arms trade treaty, and i did a few and will come and confiscate your weapon. so the nra has its own interests and its members want to hear perhaps a certain thing and it needs to keep raising money. how do we get the conversation with a group like the nra back to reality? how do we meet them at the table if the table is costly shipping? >> it's not going to be easy i think. they are a large organization. they like to raise money. large organizations of any sort need to raise money to keep going, and they raise money based on fear. they raise money based on fear that you're going to get, somebody will break into your home in the middle of the night and do all sorts of horrible things. you need your gun. they raise money, fear that if obama is elected or if obama is reelected he will come and take your gun away.

they raise money based on if you make this one change in the current law, it's a slippery slope that leads everything. i think folks need to wake up and realize playing on fear is not reality. and that's where i want to take wayne lapierre at his word when he says he wants to talk about fixing the background check system, and then call them on a. if he won't do that he won't do it, but i think there's a possibility because he also needs to deal with the real world and realize that if he says one thing and isn't willing to sit down and talk about his comeback on it. i'm after the tucson shootings when the justice department started a review of gun laws, the nra's reaction was, why should we meet with, someone like the attorney general holder who wants to take our guns away? but after the new 10 shootings and the president called for, at least they went to those meetings. i think it is a continued pressure, and the pressure needs to come from their members and it needs to come from the

electives that have supported them. when they start hearing from their members and the elected, look, background checks is something in 85-95% support. try to figure a way to work it out. you know the details better than we do. let's sit down and work at. that's where the pressure will have to come from. i haven't followed all the details as close as it should but it's my understanding when illinois made some of the changes last year the nra did sit down at the table and tried to work things out on figuring out how they redid some of the things with their fire arm owners identification card, adopting concealed carry in the state. so i think there've been times when they been willing to sit down. at the virginia tech shooting we were able to work in directly with them through the senders that supported their positions to get this, the instant check system amendment aspects i think

there's a potential. it's not going to come just from somebody like me calling fort are suggesting. it's going to come from their members and others pushing them to it. we've got those other issues off the table. let's do with the gun issue. it is still a problem and is not going to work unless we get the ira. if they see something that they promised their members our push for the members, like national reciprocity and concealed carry, i think that might be enough of a carrot to bring them to the table. >> who else has questions? >> i recall a statistic indicating that between 2005 2005-2010 some millions of guns were stolen in home break-ins and issues like that. so i'm wondering how would, how do you see the country addressing that particular, i guess you might say, loophole

and background checks? >> that's a serious issue, too. when folks are interviewed in prison and in about know how much you believe what they're saying and what they got the gun, but again stolen guns is as where people sometimes they do get their guns. i point all the time when i talk to friends of mine that are gun owners or who are thinking about becoming a gun owner. i say i am not anti-gun, no problem with you becoming a gun owner as long as you recognize not only the rights but the responsibility and the risks that go with owning a gun. some of the risks, there are different studies have shown different percentages of how often that gun is likely to be used against you or a family member. some studies at the 21 times more likely to be used against you or a family member and against an intruder. whether that number or a smaller number, it is the risk it will be used against you. part of it is somebody gets drunk, somebody gets angry, depressed, somebody shoots a

brother-in-law when they think it senator. the other part of the risk is it's going to be stolen. so i indicate if you have a gun make sure you know where it is and it's secured from the kids in the house or the neighbors in the house. and that it is secured if possible from the burglars. the things that burglars should look for, they look for things they can very quickly which is jewelry, small electronics and guns. those are the three most popular things generally when people break into a house. so if you're in the standard, i've got in my bed stand up and at that problem is where the broker will look for. put it under the mattress. the burglars know that, too. so not the smart places to get the gun, or at least keep them open when you were not there. >> i just want to know how much can we learn from other countries? specifically countries like canada or australia with respect to things like the laws, their

ownership, the number of deaths and injuries from gun's? >> we haven't learned i don't think anything from other countries yet. we are unique in the level of gun violence in this country. i'm not up on the latest statistic necessary but is something like you can take the next 20 largest and touchless countries in the world and ours is 25 times larger than them combined. it's amazing. of the countries have taken steps. i hear the other countries don't have the second amendment. our second amendment pursuant to the how decision and in the composition does allow some regulation on guns. even with that sort of an opening from scalia and alito we haven't been willing to do any regulation you. other countries have figured out some ways to do it. sometimes it's been basically buy back weapons they consider too dangerous to be in civilian hands. sometimes it's just having restrictions on those weapons. sometimes it's encouraging gun ownership like in switzerland, but having tight regulations

that are tied in effect to switzerland to volusia. even regulating in effect the number of bullets somebody has. i'm not seeing any of those are the solution for this country. it's a bigger country, a lot more guns, a history that's different than some but i do think we can learn from other countries. to our ways you protect yourself. there are ways we can live with guns without making it as dangerous as we make for ourselves. >> i want to ask about some of the miss that are circulating among the public and among officials in washington that keep us in be able to make progress on gun violence prevention. >> i've talked before that i think there are myths that keep some of our elected officials from doing things. one is the myth i usually hear from republicans that say we can't do anything about gun violence. we can't even argue about background checks or

restrictions, because the second amendment. what i need to do is point out to them, have you read the heller case? have you read section three of the heller case? when it says these rights like other rights are not unlimited, these lists of presumptively legal restrictions are not -- this is a list that is not exhaustive. you can go too far, but there are things you can do. so even this last april when the senate debated this again, half the time when the republicans were speaking they were saying second a minute, second a minute, second amendment. when the proposal they're talking about didn't infringe on the second amendment at least as defined by justice scalia and the majority of the supreme court. the second amendment does allow things. the our restrictions -- first than it sounds absolute. congress shall make no law. but then, you can't libel somebody, you can't slander somebody. you can't have thermography in public places.

there are restrictions on first amendment laws. there are restrictions on the other amendments. there are restrictions that our constitutional with regard to the second amendment. it is not absolute and that upsets them. the of the miss that a user deal with is the one that the democrats used to say, which is gun control is so politically radioactive we don't want to talk about it. i think that was one of the reasons perhaps the president and the vice president didn't talk about the issue much until after the election, even though it was afternoon can -- it was after new down. it takes a while to build up public support for issues. where do this are to come from that this is politically radioactive? a lot of the democrats will say gingrich and republican congress that came in 1994, that was because of gun control. and, of course, then when the argue health care debate they say they came into -- they are to all the other issues in 94.

always point out is i was a republican in indiana involved in politics during the 94 election. three seats went from democrats to republican. none of them slipped because of gun control. it might've been an issue here or there but very few races. and i hear al gore lost in 2000 because of gun control. i point out that during the campaign, actually george w. bush was more supportive of gun control and al gore. george w. bush during debate support the assault weapon ban, supported trigger locks, and it's part of what that tells me is a political calculation that he made, and karl rove made, were that these were things that were popular. particularly popular with independents and moderates and female voters and with the suburban voter. and that was part of his compassion, maybe he didn't do much about once he was elected but when his campaign he realized that was crucial. with the al gore election,

especially since it was such a close election, you can argue any a number of things. i just had a friend of ideas to be a mayor and knoxville, tennessee, speaking to my civic leaders group and i was talking to him afterwards, maybe during the presentation became a saint if al gore had made only one visit to tennessee during the campaign he might have carried his home state. tennessee didn't vote against him because of gun control. he was basically treating them like he did know them anymore. he needed to get back to the. so politically you've got those things. and i look, what's happened lately? when i followed closely the races in '06, '08, and 10 and 12, i don't know any races were someone running on a pro-gun control platform lost because of that issue. they might have lost because of other issues but i don't recall of any that lost because of that issue. don't a lot that talked about the issue. i think it was the one cycle where it was a big issue in

senator boxer's reelection campaign in california. she want again. it was an issue in governor quinn's campaign in the. it was an issue in gerry connolly's congressional race just outside of d.c. in virginia and he won. here's a senate race, governor's race and the congressional race in the west coast and east coast and midwest, where the person he was in a tight race one advocating gun control type things. so again i think it points out, the bottom want to think this is gun control was so controversial starting after the brady bill and you saw -- how did bill clinton get reelected so easily. it will be an issue in some races, it will be controversial in some races. but when i see polls, 95% american people support an expanded background checks system including 85% of gun owners and send 5% of an are a member scott i think we have an opportunity to get something done.

some people say gun control doesn't work. my response is, how do we know? we haven't tried it. in this country all we have got is this background check system that does need a lot of fixing, better definition of these dangers, more records in the system, more checks going forward. that's basically all we've got. we had the assault weapon ban that expired. we've got the definition of prohibited purchasers and we have the requirement that federally licensed background dealers -- dealers do a background check. that's all we do in this country. that's not trying can control. that's the first step toward it and we haven't taken any of the steps. in of the country it has been successful. there are things we can do. >> dick heller, citizen, washington, d.c. very good presentation, paul. >> thank you. >> i was pleased to see you using the fbi figures for the number of homicides per day.

that number a day is very sobering. i can assure you. one of the things, and that i will make my questions brave and we can discuss them at a later date may be in indiana somewhere, the one thing that really struck me was that the number of firearms owners that we have in this country, there are about 40 a day in every state of citizens that believe that they saved their own life because they have a firearm. that comes to basically 40 times 50 is about 2000 a day people believe they saved their lives, as compared to 32 homicides. so it's really i think more of a human nature issue than a gun issue. i have a couple more points, of many. but the one thing that's important to me is that when anyone has their home invaded,

who was the first responder there? it's not the police. it's the homeowner. it's the citizen who has just had their door or their window kicked him. and the police can have body armor and everything up to but not including machine guns, we as citizens as the first responder, that's a we should be having. we should have what we give our second responders. and number three, in australia, once again it goes back to human nature to address your point, what i did is i look at aic, australia institute of criminology. i bet you have been there. and what they found after their gun confiscation or turn in our volunteer turn in, whatever they called it, what surprised me was that the homicide level only went down 10%. in other words, 10 years later the homicide level was 90% of what it was when everyone that

wanted to was armed. but wait a minute, there is no guns. what is wrong with this picture? and that's what i think happens when you have a total gun ban or confiscation, or whatever you want to call it. and then the shocking point is i kept looking at the charts. what i found out, the 10% homicide that went down from guns then went back up additional homicides with knives and brutal weapons. it was a real wakeup call for me. and last point, i thought you were kind of unfair to utah or folders closure, i'm a utah concealed carry holder, and they require eight hours of safety training, and a normal nic background check. so you sort of glossed over that, serve. thank you. >> just a couple of responses. on numbers in terms of protective uses versus homicides. one of the things i learned as mayor is any sort of crisis is

the gore crime related statistic, it's tough to keep just because people don't report rapes, people overestimate things. fans ago -- just a reporting criteria. the one statistic that is generally the most solid and the most comical jurisdiction is jurisdiction of homicide. is because everything else is a little fuzzy. it's a lot easier to track a dead body than somebody who didn't report getting shot or raped or burglarized. so you can be different statistics. people sometimes blue duiker and protects them when it was a noise in the backyard. i'm not saying that was every case. there are good defensive uses of guns. again, i'm not anti-gun, and the supreme court in your case did indicate the homeowner does have that right. but again, my point is the homeowner needs to realize the risk and responsibility that go with that, and too many don't do that. in terms of the guns they use,

most police, they are generally come in with a semiautomatic pistol that they've got. they are not usually coming in with us walking. you can't have a swat team respond. most burglars don't want to do a home invasion with somebody there. the thing you're looking for isn't easy in and out. but again, you've got, the court made clear the homeowner does have a right and that's the law of the land, and that's not being question. i think when we look at other countries, people will be -- people will always depicting the evil exist. people will kill each other. we have made it easier year after year to do that. even guns today are different than guns that were even around 20, 30 years ago. you talk to police officers and what they're seeing. us out of that special that my father saw when he was a prosecuting attorney in the '60s were cheap throwaway guns that could kill but they oftentimes didn't even work. what you see now with a high

velocity and larger bullet size, number of runs they can hold a significantly different. we need to look at that. to defend yourself in your home basically you don't need that sort of weapon. you need, you might feel that you need a weapon, but you can do that with the gun you're not allowed to have in d.c. with the shotgun that mr. macdonald had before that case as well as sense that case. i still think we can find common ground on strengthening these issues, on making it harder for dangers people to get dangerous weapons and get some common sense. we haven't done anything differently though since basically the early 90s on this to try to help. >> my name is carol. i don't think i need to stand up. my husband and our sort -- are survivors of an in person home invasion, and we are vehement gun control advocates. it wouldn't have helped us in that situation, but my question

is, how do we as individual citizens get the nra and the gun lobby to sit down with you, and the brady commission, to talk about the issue of background checks? what can we do to promote that? >> i think the crucial thing is to keep the issue on the front pages as much as we can. talk out about it in your communities. get your friends to talk about it. you tell your story. about the home invasion. if you have friends that are gun owners, talk to them about it. again, a lot of the issues we argue but in this country really, people do go to extremes for a lot of reasons a lot of times. it's hard to find middle ground. abortion is an issue. guns are here. there is a constitutional right to have a gun in the home for self-defense. there are a lot of things we can do in the middle ground but it's only going to happen if people

keep talking about, keeping the elected official to think about it to a challenge for the gun-control side has been most of our supporters are in the areas where the congresspeople and senators are on the outside. it's getting back to the indian and the midwestern states and the southern states and the mountain states where people haven't looked at it that way. i think now is the time since we've had the heller case and the mcdonald case, since we've e seen congress give to block this april that we can get some progress on the senate issue. ..