give sarah ran a much stronger bargaining point. . .

>> we will want them to continue to reduce purchases. and we will want oil producers like the saudi's and others to maintain high production so there is alternative supplies. iranians will know that we are beginning to make these preparations now we need to recognize this. that getting russia and china on board with an end to the negotiations and a return to sanctions is going to be very challenging, probably not possible especially in the context of this. but up until now come the most important sanctions and the ones that really bites are the ones that the u.s. and the allies have imposed and i think we need to begin making preparations should it become necessary to go back to this. and third, i would like to see the white house and congress working on legislation that would increase the u.s. leverage authorizing the president to

impose sanctions without at the same time giving the iranians an excuse to walk away and blame the united states and of course it will talk about this in more detail. it may be that this is just determined not to budget. and in that case i think that the prospects for extending the joint plan of action past july is going to become very difficult. and that would be unfortunate and return us to the status quo where presumably they would resume all of the nuclear activities and the u.s. would resume its sanctions campaign. so i think that we have to accept and recognize that even if we resume this, it's not going to always capitulate. maybe over time it will come back to the bargaining table. but in the meantime we will be creeping forward with a nuclear

program. and they can begin to build up the stockpiles of centrifuges and so forth. i don't think the u.s. is close to attacking ron including observing these constraints. but a collapse of the joint plan of action is honestly not in our interests and our best chance of keeping it going is to show that this is necessary as we get back to the sanctions campaign. >> thank you very much. and perhaps, david, you can focus on some of the remaining gaps in the negotiation and what might be required to close those gaps. what would make a deal a good deal. >> i would like to say that i agree that in the sense that

iran has not been willing to make concessions and the u.s. has been willing to, in some cases go too far and i will talk a little bit about that in order to try to find a acceptable deal. unfortunately it was true in july. i was at the end of negotiations and a ron was not willing to make concessions they are. we didn't have this kind of instruction that would allow a stability on these negotiations and the same appears to be true over the last weekend. so i don't know what it's going to take, but i think that from a technical point of view it is going to require a high level of political decision in order for this to work. so what i would like to do as bob suggested, is to go through some of the particular provisions. and i would like to start with this within itself.

we have been scrutinizing the records very carefully for years. it became apparent to us about a month ago that there is a little bit afraid edges of the concessions that they have made on this deal when they started enriching this and lawyers can debate whether it is a violation or not. with my group it would say that it certainly them pushing against the antelope or it's a loophole of a deal. and i think the current negotiations on an interim deal, i don't know if they're finished or not, but it would be that there has to be better defined centrifuge in the interim deal and that these things need to be clarified. it also makes sense as tinier before, that this ends up in the fuel for the research reactor.

in that it hasn't gone that well as expected. i expected the deal would have 20% of enriched uranium into fuel assembly. it's not much more than 5 kilograms because of what it means to use this in the fuel assembly, it turns out that he law doesn't end up there. so that's another thing. you can strengthen the constraints on the program through the concessions that they would make in this interim deal to get the $700 million per month. so the core kind of issues, did they have a nuclear weapons program, and part of that program, was impossibly continuing, will they build nuclear weapons in the future great i think that i was a little disappointed in this idea that things can be deferred. and it would be linked to

sanctions release. it would have to settle the issue and that's what they heard as the u.s. position in order to get the sanctions released and it in a sense it would be deferred. now that we have seven months, it's important to return to the position that iran should satisfy the concerns before they are part of this deal and i think it's hard to argue that this isn't enough very than then i would say it's dangerous not to do that. and i followed the activities, i worked with them during the inspections in the '90s and you have to know this history in order to know what is going on now. and i think that that is true in any area. we're going to be very limited in our ability to understand what is going on if you turn your back on the history but it's very important because we

expect some of these activities could be ongoing. so it's not just a history question but a history of what could be happening today and it gets right to the issue of verifiability of this deal. if the concerns are not addressed, one of the things that they would learn is that they could stonewall this and that is going to undermine the credibility and yet they are going to be the principal mechanism to verify and a long-term deal and so it doesn't make sense to undermine the credibility and encourage iran to do this after the deal is signed. there's funny at times to settle that and i do think it's going to require a very high level decision to do that. on some of the other issues that are well-publicized, it is well known with these number of centrifuges.

this includes reducing stocks and i don't think that there's been an agreement on how far the stocks will be reduced. we need to have an impact and strengthen the limits on the numbers. you have to drive those numbers from seven or so times of 3.5% down to a few hundred kilograms. so i don't think that that is by any means settled. and so also the primary goal has to remain getting this number down and then the u.s. has put on the table and is going to consider this and that's not that far from our position as we have stated since last january. but the u.s. wants to strengthen this by having it come down significantly. so it's a very important part of this. and another thing is what is going to happen to the centrifuges and it would be

declared excess. they have been part of this and so how do you deal with it. and so you are talking about enriching 15,000 or so in this to stay in place. so how do you make sure that those can't be operated or restarted quickly. and it remains a difficult technical issue among experts and we don't have a good answer if you want them to have six months or more to restart them. and i don't think the u.s. has a good answer either end iran doesn't seem to be willing to go down the path of doing that much detail. so i think that there's quite a few issues and let me just and on the verification side that not only will they have their credibility intact but they will have to do a lot more than it would normally do. this includes 20 or it's in

noncompliance with safeguard oppositions and in most cases they have to do more to ensure that they determine the absence of this or facilities. on those issues they are well-defined with what is needed and they have also not been so willing to engage on these measures that would be supplementary to what is called the additional protocol. >> the members of congress probably approach this issue roughly the way that you have heard those two speakers approach with a fair amount of concern and sometimes cynicism and not really believing that they will choose to make a deal, but that they have a problem and

the problem that members of congress face is that their options for legislation are very good as well. and so if you look at some proposals that have been made in the last year or so, they died in subsidies. and they are leaving even under republican control. and so when you hear people say they harry reid has bottled up sanctions, don't believe it. everybody has bottled up sanctions and the reason they have done this is what it puts forward has not been helpful legislation and it's very difficult to be very helpful and it's much easier and gives much

better to see that we need to have all enrichment. then we need to destroy or dismantle all of the illicit infrastructure. >> if you could get a complete surrender on these issues by iran, it would be very nice, it's just that nobody, literally nobody is predict ding that they are going to do that. and so if you want a piece of legislation that would help our negotiators rather than antagonizing our allies and ending the negotiations, you have to come up with something all us. and it just isn't easy, as i

say. and the other type of proposal that has been made in the past and we expect to see more of these in the future, is a requirement that any agreement with iran survives a process similar to that which is used for a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement under which congress would have the ability to pass a resolution of disapproval and you might ask can't they always do that. and the answer is well, yes, they could always do that. but the difference is that under those other two bodies of law, congress sets up the expedited procedures so that they can actually get a vote on the

resolution of disapproval and they don't allow implementation of an agreement to be given until congress has had 30 or 60 days in which to try to pass one of those resolutions. and of course, such resolutions can be vetoed and so they would still need to have a two thirds majority in both houses in order to impose the will on the president. but you could imagine giving them continued unwillingness to compromise that eventually they would get that two thirds majority if they had something good to propose. and so what is it that they can propose that might actually be useful? and here i'm talking only for

myself and i haven't found others willing to get down to this level of detail just as perhaps the negotiators haven't gone down to this level of detail. and you could imagine a sanctions bill that was tailored to what we are offering. so that the bill would say we will not invoke more sanctions unless we cannot get some of the things that we are willing to sign a deal on.

and it could help the negotiations if we back up the negotiators to the extent that they can say here is how far we can go and we can implement the deal. but if it goes further, we may not be able to get congress to support it. and right now our negotiators are able to say that and you can imagine the negotiation. you can imagine the legislation and the way in which we say that more precisely.

and you can give more help to this and you can give more direction to the u.s. intelligence and other agencies as well. you can set up the executive branch to report to congress on a regular basis what is going on. and you can set up exceptional reporting requirements that the administration has to report to us on what it's done and what we are doing about it and why we shouldn't give up and just cut

this off. and largely this is in the realm of arm can control the treaty. the arms control treaty. and beyond that you could give the president more sanctions and so you would give them more sword hangs over people. but it would still be up to them whether to cut it.

and so there are things we could do. i don't think in congress or the administration that anyone has set out and said, okay, let's work together to come up with this. i think it would be very interesting as a staff exercise to have us work on that if you could come up with some good legislation sometime in the spring time. and my friends tell me that they don't expect anything to happen in the lame-duck session are you so we are looking at next year rather than the end of this year. >> thank you very much. i'm going to ask a couple questions, then we are going to open it up. first, i agree with jerry that the main reason we don't have a deal as of yet, the main reason that we outlined this deal is

because iran has taken a rigid unrealistic position and it hasn't been prepared to reduce the operational capacity and it has insisted upon very early lifting of sanctions before it was even demonstrated as compliance to the satisfaction of that. and i agree with it also as to why they haven't showed much flexibility. and they agree that the ed obama administration needed them on regional issues and perhaps and perhaps they thought that they could muddle through with their economy for a number of reasons. but the interesting thing is that secretary john kerry has indicated that he is seeing some

movement. and then what is the likelihood that he and his negotiators will say look, vos, this hasn't worked and the americans are not going to cave. >> that is the promise. it was the supreme leader who is giving this to his team. and they had talked about how they wouldn't give up this capacity as they insist on building up and that is like 20 times what they currently have by 2021, which has negotiators operating. so they're not going to get a deal unless the supreme leader

operates in that way. >> you know, it is hard and obviously the supreme leader hasn't whispered in my ear. but i believe based upon iran's behavior over the last couple of decades that he is deeply committed to requiring a nuclear weapons capability and as well to a certain dominance in the region. and that includes when they intimidate their neighbors. but how many have shown sensitivity in pursuing a nuclear weapons program? we know that when the threat and risk has been high enough, they are prepared to accept the limits. so we have most of the enrichment program for two years

in 2003 after the u.s. invaded iraq and afghanistan and they didn't unfreeze hoeven until it became clear u.s. is bogged down and recalculated and most recently in this includes if you recognize that the only way to get the sanctions lifted is to meet some of the american demands, they are going to make that place. and they are also being lobbied and we can afford this as well.

and up to now they have tended to side with that. so we will have to wait and see what happens in seven months. my main argument as to the extent that we can influence these calculations. and i think that we have to convince them. >> that is the issue of whether we are bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, to build nuclear weapons. it is clear that at least until 2003, they have what the iaea calls this to do experimentation, research, directed at the design of a nuclear weapon.

and that includes the weaponization component including the actual design of a nuclear device. and my view is that it's not inevitable that iran will not make that decision to go to nuclear weapons and i think the purpose of an agreement needs to be to deter any future decision to make that choice, to decide to go from a capability which they have and will never get rid of, to the actual acquisition of nuclear weapons.

in this includes making it in this includes what makes it risky and making it clear that when they are caught breaking out of the agreement that they will pay a very high price. and this is not the only thing that they use to judge the value, but it is an important one.

and they have written so extensively and persuasively on the issue. and that is to increase the amount of time that it takes them from the time it makes these issues to break out of an agreement to leave an agreement with the kind of capabilities that they actually fabricate a nuclear device. the administration has said publicly that it is looking for a breakout time of around 12 months and it is the report that

ron seems to agree that it can send a substantial amount and that includes stocks, and that would be some flexibility that have a higher number of centrifuges and maintain a long breakout time. and it focuses down with what kind of reaction time, in order

to respond to an iranian effort. and that includes coming up to this concept. and this involves some sophisticated modeling to be more realistic. and you end up with numbers if you want reaction times and this includes those being driven by

the stocks particularly of 20%. and more than enough for a bomb if he think of benjamin netanyahu's way of thinking and it's just not this form and it is stronger and that is part of it. and how much will be there and a final deal and that will affect the breakout.

and that is why the u.s. to raise their number from 1,502,000 up to 4000. if they feel that if they drive down the stocks are breakout time will remain. and the u.s. government agrees that you can't let it go up to 10,000, 8000 and the centrifuges are making this all the time. so the limits become somewhat meaningless when you get to this because you're going to be making so much every month that it would take them long to stockpile to have a much more rapid breakout. and i should also say that there

is a debate on this, why focus so much on the program, going back to what wendy says, part of the reason is you want to limit them across the board. of course we are worried about a covert breakout and so we think that there is an interrelationship. that they have lost the centrifuges and they have a fairly robust manufacturing complex. and that includes additional supplementary measures that they are expected to get under their. and that includes the production of centrifuges that could then go off to this. and reaction time is the fundamental driver. and you translate that on this program.

>> thank you. as you suggested, you have some very constructive ways that the congress could contribute. and two additional legislation, that is not going to be the initial thing of many members of congress, especially in the new congress. and i would assume that a number of senators introduced legislation and that would require the administration to achieve the objectives to impose the sanctions that are very far reaching. and i would also assume that the administration would strongly oppose any further sanctions on the grounds that it could be

disruptive and that it could lead to divisions within the international sanctions coalition, which is necessary in this way and i think that that might be the initial confrontation. and so what are the chances from that initial confrontation will come a negotiation over time to get legislation that starts to reinforce rather than undercut the issue. >> we have just switched from the question of negotiating to the question of negotiating with another foreign country,

congress. and i would say that you are correct and i would say that we need to talk about what would happen first. and that is kabuki that must be played out. and that will put pressure of the administration to marshal these democratic forces to prevent the passage of the draconian bell. and all of you were used to complaining about republican obstructionism, remember in six weeks it's going to be emma craddock obstruction if you are a democrat. but obstruction versus that

obstruction. the democrats will have a lot of ways to block the legislation. and they aren't giving up on the administration. but losing confidence you be a part of this or to assume that the administration is able to convince democratic senators that it will do the right thing with iran. and it will probably also also be a part of this. it is to say to the democrats,

we will work with you in private to see if there is a good bill that you can come up with afterwards or that you can pull out of your pocket in some ways to show that you are not averse to this and we are merely adverse to a bad deal with congress. and i would think that there would be some pressure to talk and to explore this and as i said, it won't be easy. but it is amazing that if you try, you can come up with something, one of the things that present negotiators with iran is how many good ideas they

have come up with. and i would simply note to our audience and they have come up with how many ideas we have come up in this testimony and they said that they found a strategy that is sounder that includes disablement steps with limited but carefully selected set of equipment. and the deal could include certain key things such as bal buescher flow measuring and what you are saying to the house committee was that if you want to reach a deal with iran that

lowers the number of functioning centrifuges, that doesn't mean that you have to destroy them completely but rather you can destroy some critical parts of the centrifuges while leaving this still standing. and that was a very interesting proposal. it is the kind of thing that i would guess although i don't know but you have to think about this with the iranian negotiators. one of the things i would hope for in the coming months is that we show more willingness to work out a deal and that secretary john kerry would relax and would

instead be a little bit more open about how creative this has been. that is they realize that the negotiations will fall apart this spring and summer, it won't look good to them. and i think that we have to prepare the world for the possibility of accepting that we are the good guys. >> i agree with that last point.

many of them are western educated and dated english than they have been the reasonable book party. i don't think they have to do be reasonable party, but i think much of the world has been pressuring this and i really do think that that is wrong and i think that it is to begin getting the word out especially if they continue to be rigid. but so far i think the administration is taking the understandable view that we don't want to negotiate in public. so even if they aren't talking about how they should have accepted. this is a problem potentially in

the future and they need to give up they good public strategy. and we have given you many thoughts or questions. so let's open it up now and please wait for the mike and ask a very concise question. >> thank you. a suggestion strikes me as a parallel with moynihan's way of doing gun control and so let them keep this and stop reducing bullets. and there are two very quick

questions that i would like to pose because i would like to make sure that i hear the answers. the first is that, has anyone actually ever seen and read [inaudible] from the supreme leader and second, given that the leader has spent the last quarter century creating a foreign policy that is focused upon america as being like satan, has there ever been a consideration given to having negotiations as we get to this point between ron and others that took place without the u.s. at the table so that he doesn't have to give into this?

>> does anyone have anything to say? >> my understanding is that nobody had seen a written version, but i'm sure they would produce one for you at the right time. as though it's part of the deal. the second question, the only way to this negotiation will succeed is if there is a deal between washington and around. there's no other possible formulation that will lead to an agreement because those are the principal antagonists on this issue and there's no proxy that the u.s. could step in and negotiate a deal with iran. one of the positive developments since the joint plan of action was agreed upon is that we see more and more that most of the real negotiations have taken place in a bilateral context with the u.s. representing this process in convincing the other members to support american initiatives and ideas that you

can't negotiate a seven or eight, it's impossible to sit around with all of those parties and do the kind of give-and-take that is necessary for negotiation. so one positive if you're looking for a positive sign, is that they have finally got over the hurdle of meeting directly with experts. for most of president obama's first term when we were directly involved, the iranians refuse to meet with us and we often many times sat down and negotiated or discussed the issue and they were under instructions not meet with us. hassan rouhani had persuaded that leader to allow that direct discussion to take place and of course i'm very skeptical that this is possible because i don't think the americans would accept our nuclear program.

>> there has been secret talks and the so-called thing and it supports that the u.s. needs to be a key player. >> in today's hopes, we are very optimistic but given this during the next seven months, nothing happens further than what has

happened so far and so what do we think beyond the u.s. we can talk about sanctions and so on. but there is another party who could take some sort of action and what does the panel think would happen if we progress and have not gone any further and what would the u.s. and israel be doing at the end about seven months. >> i wanted to make a general point that applies not only to your question but to some of the comments by some of the panelists. and that is the best answer to a lot of these questions is we do not know.

we are operating under conditions of uncertainty and we would be better off accepting that uncertainty been trying to make predictions when frankly we don't have the basis on which to make them. but your question raises an interesting point that we have not quite covered, which is could we become a steady state that exists to the indeterminate future, and would that be good or bad and my guess is that my colleagues will say that we are not sure. and it is certainly a better

state than we had before the joint plan of action. and there is the risk that it will impede progress to a real deal because it is such an easy and second-best solution and i think that some of our talk of increased sanctions is looking for a way to force a decision that will move us to the surprisingly comfortable dead center. >> so i would say most of our partners in this have the possible exception of france and we have this succession and yet

we have converted the overall sanctions regime and i hear the same thing from some of our israeli friends who recognize that the status quo, while not solving the problem stopped the clock. and so i think there is an argument to be made and this includes that we can speak to this as well. and that includes the indefinite future unless you can demonstrate that you are really making progress for tackling some of these tough issues. so i think the obama administration is operating in a political climate and we have to show forward movement and we can't just play this out for the rest of the administration keeping the status quo in place.

>> and i think that one thing that we tend to reinforce is that it's not inevitable to strike militarily. and if the deal breaks, i don't think that that's always true. it has some benefits to both sides and we have some real incentives not to see the escalation get out of control. and the deal stands that there could be something that replaces a and i think that israel should look deeper into the israeli government than benjamin netanyahu to see what they are really thinking. and i don't think that they want to go to war, and they know that if they strike, they can strike once and that is it.

and if you are going to pursue this comment has to be part of the strategy that ends the program. and they can deliver that. and i don't see a great incentive here in this country to back them up. >> i would like to also chime in as well. it's tough to break down this as it continues, will it be israelis do, they would defend and if they ratchet up their program aggressively, that will lead to a lot of israeli concerns. but if they play smart as they have given every indication of, they will be very slow and they will turn on some machines that have an been part of this. maybe they will increase at the

margin. and i think that they will avoid a highly provocative action and if they do, they are smart enough to do that and i think that the israelis will be frustrated but i don't think that they will see a compelling need to launch a military attack. can so i have two questions. i think that for you, how much attention do you think the united states might take towards working to try to work out more detail over there at agreement with the iranians. and they are assuming that the goal is to try to regularize the nuclear program and give them justification for some sort of commercial enrichment going

forward until more importantly the deals ended up this way and it was pretty vague when the announcement was made. secondly, how much scope is there, in your view, and if the iranians, in my own opinion is if they were smart they would say we have we need to get under machines, let's focus on this, we don't need the capacity right now to give them that. and we need to look further into the future. but this has become such a point of symbolism that it's hard for them to do it. but let's say that they were willing to finally concede capacity. how much scope is therefore our side to concede upon with the duration of the agreement. >> i will take a quick crack at it. and the others will try.

i was in moscow last weekend and i have the opportunity to speak to the russians about this. i think that despite the difficulties that the u.s. and russia have in their bilateral relationship, the russians have played a constructive role in the negotiations. and it has been in the interest to this. and the russians don't want the iranians to develop an industrial capacity. but they would like to provide fuel for whatever nuclear power reactors that they have and in fact, this recent deal a couple of weeks ago, the russian believes are that for any additional reactors, russia should provide the fuel and if that is to be agreed upon, it

would seriously and in an argument that it needs to have a large scale indigenous enrichment capability. and this includes most of iran's enriched uranium. and there are many details that have not been worked out, quantitative easing and so forth and this would be a very positive step in which uranium stocks, the more leeway you have to accept a higher number of centrifuges. so they have played constructive roles in their own interest. and yes, i think that this can be worked out. they have to figure out the cost associated with that and there is the question over whether it

is technically suitable to be used in the production and the additional cost associated with that. and there are lots of details and i think that the russians have played a constructive role and will continue to do so. in the u.s. would be more flexible and i believe the duration is very important and that is one of the things that they can remain wet. and there are five years or something like that, because they would like all of this to end so that they can ratchet up quickly to the industrial scale enrichment capabilities, but that would be drastically reducing message. and i think that they have to last a long time, my preference would be 15 years or so.

and this would provide sufficient time for iran to demonstrate a track record of compliance with this to begin to restore confidence and there's a lot of trade off to the basic number that would remain and the problem posed by this is that they have breakthroughs in so they can just get by with fewer machines if they did decide to do go with this plan. but and so we are trying to play out this summary on productive ways and so it's a little bit

like taking your foot off the excelerator probably just as quickly you can put your foot down again. so i think that the extreme number that they have discussed doesn't really mean anything and you are forced to have this number of machines given the amount that you're producing grid and that includes existing capabilities. and that is a problem because they won't reveal very much about what those machines do. they don't reveal it at the pilot plant. >> yes? >> wanted to follow-up a little bit on the deal that you mention.

clearly by them signaling a willingness not only to build this but also how we include this, they are weakening the argument to support large numbers in this way. and my question is the supreme leader has been characterized, why would the supreme leader approved this deal? [inaudible] >> i think that the narrative that they need to have an independent capacity to produce fuel for their power reactors, because they cannot rely on russians were any other outside supplier. there is a lot of strong public support for that narrative and i

don't do this deal with russia as undercutting iran's argument that it needs to eventually have an industrial scale enrichment capacity. and of course, such a capacity would be a part of the nuclear weapons option, either covert or overt. >> this includes agreeing that they can provide fuel for nuclear reactors and that they also wanted to have the standby capability built in about two operate. and so they have the capability anyway [inaudible] >> thank you. i have a question regarding the

sanctions and the presentations. i was wondering if you can talk more about this because of the report of the iaea which pretty much concerns this timeframe and after that we share the assumptions and going back from this component, that we are sorting through this issue to closing the deal, we understand the argument and our question is will you be willing to undermine an agreement on the duration of the deal and sanctions and the

verification measures and it's an issue that is certainly substantial. >> i think that in regards to this agreement it is corps. and it's core to the agreement. if you don't satellite, it is one that will risk being part of this and hurting the credit of the very valuable institution, iaea. if you learn to turn her back on the history, they will fail. all you have to look is look at the country of iraq in 1991.

and that includes a few and build this. and what we have seen is there are issues about calculations related to nuclear weapons. and it is headed this way and that involves with nuclear weapons. been there on growing concerns about this 2004 program. >> i think that this is important largely for its impact on the verification in the

future. and because when we spoke your couple of weeks ago, he made clear what he wanted to see in the deal, which was access to facilities and personnel and access to information. and access to facilities is something that we have been used to in the kind of verification provisions that people have talked about that we have guaranteed with that kind of access and then the question is who are you talking about. and that is where it is important to see what is done in the past because you want to in clued all of the people who were involved with the program in the past so that you know who to

talk to on a regular basis and who to watch closely. and so when you talk about information, you're really talking about what was the structure of your program and how are things done. what organizations were there and that includes my view that much of it could be done even without them satisfying this issue before an agreement is signed. we certainly want to have major

sanction relief and we have solved three of these issues, six to these issues, nine of these issues and whatever. and with personnel we have an understandable fear of this accident. and not necessarily with the associated press. >> we have the panelists who will give some conclusions. the stroman here first.

>> if you recall back in 2006, he said that the difficulty is that the west is asking us to take a concrete step in return for promises in which we do not have confidence. today this is basically one and the same and one of the things that the united states should do or not do to basically ensure that the iranians do have the will and ability to live up to this part of it. >> yes, thank you. >> [inaudible] i would like to talk about the issue and [inaudible]

and we are certainly talking about the role of the new congress. and i want to know how does this look at the end of june. in this new situation, both republicans and democrats have had to talk about this all because we do need to engage in these talks. thank you. >> who is raising her hand? >> hello, i am with the center for national policy. we would like to know if members support additional sanctions. i highly suggested and i would

like to know why or why not. >> thank you for being so concise. >> thank you. we're talking about the need for more concessions for uranium. and this includes your own concessions and negotiations from this taken into account all in the political situation [inaudible] thank you. >> the last one over here. >> hello, i am from the national war college. how close do you think that iran got by 2003 to proving the

technology needed to produce a nuclear weapon. is it possible that all they needed was this kind of material? >> okay, why don't we just go down the row and we can deal with these remaining questions in any concluding remarks. >> several people have asked questions about sanctions and so let me address that is. i think this is exactly what has been said, that the u.s. won't be able to deliver on sanctions. and clearly the president is not going to be able to convince congress to repeal all of the sanctions against them that are in place. but the president does have the authority to waive most of the sanctions every six months. and the protection that they

have is within any agreement if obama can deliver, if congress overrides him when he waves the sanctions, they are free to resume this. and they are at a point in the nuclear program were it's not being asked and it could not permanently give up this ability to resurrect it. until i actually think that this is one that can be addressed in a deal and the more difficult problem is they are simply not willing to come even close to meeting the demands on nuclear programs. now, the gentleman asked about further extensions and my guess on this is that congress is unlikely to overturn the current extension mainly because as long as they continue to comply with

the joint plan of action, we have frozen the program. so we lose very little by trying to see whether or not we can come to an agreement. and i think it's going to be very difficult unless there is genuine progress on these critical issues that we have talked about. if there is progress, then i think it will be possible to justify these additional extensions. but under current circumstances i think that it probably is not possible. >> let me just say on the question of technology that there is a report that we have published parts of and their assessment is that iran knew enough to build a weapon at the end of 2003. it was working on a miniaturized design which was going to be about .55 meters across.

they have a long way to go to finish that. .. >> >> of the question of war

sanctions to be part of that authority but not per se at this time. but i would much rather discuss for the administration what they need for the future to take steps if they decide they need it. congress is not a very effective institution for running policy. i used to work for old-style republicans to believe in a strong president. but on the question if we

had any more give, we don't know because we have not been told how much we have offered in the negotiation. so it is very difficult to figure that out. what i do think might interest iranians is the extent to which of major sanctions relief they get real benefits from greater international acceptability to be welcome to back into the international community. to that extent that is not giving them something in the negotiation, but making sure they are aware of how mitch

the half to gain if the deal is reached or how much they have to lose for the compromises that we think are reasonably within the overall objectives. >> nobody knows if we will achieve the deal i think it will be very difficult there is the prospect we will not come to terms and if we do it is not perfect will not have achieved everything we wanted to achieve but that is the nature of the negotiations but one is to look as a whole not just one particular element but the overall deal. the second point, one needs

to be realistic to use the alternative it may not be perfect public at the realistic alternative. one is to ratchet up sanctions in the hope they will have more flexibility eventually but even under hard sanctions for over one year, this has not moved them sufficiently. it will be hard to do that and the efforts upheld will raise concerns that will continue to put pressure on iran. also the use of military force. that can succeed temporarily but it cannot prevent iran

from eventually succeeding in its objective than king give iran additional incentives to move more quickly to build a nuclear weapon so my deal is not just to the audience but to the american public in general to look realistically at the alternatives to make up your mind. you have been a terrific audience and i want to thank our guest for giving us an illuminating conversation. thank-you. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> as much as we have accomplished over the last 36 years and looking for were the next couple of months there is a couple things of a blake to do. get my defense authorization bill passed it is a major

effort involving large amounts of staff. also finishing up the permanent subcommittee on investigations looking at gimmicks used to avoid taxes >> i have been a member of congress 34 years. to finally get to be to the pie was a manager for of football team i would be in the hall of fame. it does not bother me because i had 18 co-chairmen in my candidate that were supported me and wanting be to run and i did.

>> ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hello chicago.

[cheers and applause] thank you so much. everybody have a siege. thank you very much. at the early thanksgiving it is good to be home. [cheers and applause] although it is cold. at was 60 degrees in washington. it is not 60 degrees here. let me begin by thanking the copernicus center. [cheers and applause] i help you don't mind because there is a lot of stuff in the news i need to

begin about what happened over the past day digest and ferguson, our neighbor to the south and all across america. a verdict came down, a grand jury made a decision yesterday that upset a lot of people. and as i said last night, the frustration that we have seen is not just about a particular incident. said deep roots of many communities of color that may not be true everywhere for the vast majority of officials that that is the impression that is not made up of the rich kid in reality.

it has existed in this country for a long time. has a said last night there are productive ways to respond and destructive ways of responding. burning buildings, torching cars, destroying property property, putting people at risk, that is destructive and there is no excuse for that. those are criminal acts. people should be prosecuted if they engage in criminal acts. although not as much attention we saw people gathering in a peaceful protest chicago and new york yanase angeles to see young people organizing and having real conversations about how do we change the situation

in so there is more trust with law-enforcement agencies communities? those are necessary conversations to have. we're here to talk about immigration but what makes a wonderful place is being american and does it mean look a certain way or come from a certain place but a commitment to ideals, a belief in certain values and if any part of the american community does not feel welcome that puts all of us at risk we all have to be concerned so my message to those that are constructively moving forward to organize or

mobilize how we improve the situation that led them to know their president will work with them. [applause] separate and apart from the particular circumstances of ferguson them careful not to speak to because that is not my job as president to comment on the on goings situation but generally those are greeted with a hard truth. so those are prepared to work constructively the president will work with you. and i believe in law-enforcement and city

hall, governors' offices across the country want to work with you as well. part of that i have instructed attorney general eric holder to identify specific steps we could take together to set up a series of meetings building trust and our communities. next week we will bring together state and local officials to law-enforcement and face leaders to start identifying specific steps we can take to make sure law enforcement is fair and applied equally to every person in this country. and we know certain things worked it improves policing to make people feel the system is fair. when we have a police force

representative of the communities it is serving, it makes a difference. [applause] we know when there is clear accountability and transparency when something happens makes a difference. there are things we can do. so now we have to work city by city, state by state, county by county county, because the problem is not just ferguson that america we have to make sure that we're actually bringing about change. the bottom line is nothing of significance or benefit from a result of the destructive act. i have never seen a civil-rights law or health

care bill or immigration bill that happens because people and mobilize and organize and people look at the best policies to solve the problem. that is how you move something for word. so don't take the short-term easy route to a ring gauge gin destructive behavior but the hard turf -- long-term route to work with me and governors and officials to bring about real change. into those who use as an excuse for violence i have

no sympathy for that. [applause] for destroying your own communities the for the overwhelming majority that feel frustrated and pain because they get a sense they're not treated fairly or not seen as worthy as others, i can understand that. will want to work with you in the four were with you. your president will be there with you. let's take a constructive. [applause] i appreciate your patience you came to talk about immigration but this is relevant because ameritech is stitching together people from different backgrounds and faiths and ethnicity

that is what makes us special. [applause] face it that is hard to do. if you go to japan did not have problems with folks being discriminated because mostly everybody is japanese [laughter] but here part of what is wonderful is of makes the democracy hard sometimes. because sometimes we get attached to a particular tribal or race or religion and we treat other folks different they. and that is the bottleneck

to immigration and. there are periods where those who are here say i don't want those people pico --. even though the only people who have a right to say that our native americans. [applause] since it is fitting that i have come here back home to chicago it has always been a city of immigrants that is still true in the neighborhoods that defined this city. [applause] especially on the north side of pierre. [laughter] we have everything appear. [laughter] go to public schools around

here 50, 60, 70 different languages being spoken. to chinatown the ukrainian village, immigrants have made this city their home. swedish and politian german and an italian and everybody is irish on st. patrick's day. [laughter] [applause] we have names like our governor and a good tsa is -- movies goodyear is our congressmen. [applause] and cover congresswomen and

rahm emanuel. [applause] all mixed up. [laughter] is true that he speaks the language that cannot be translated in front of children. [laughter] although he is the mayor announced he doesn't do that anymore i am sure. [laughter] anyone who has driven along the kennedy to see this steeples says diverse as the house of worship and the communities that called them -- home today.

today we're at a polish community center. [cheers and applause] i was just reading with a group of chicago business leaders coming here from mexico or china or ireland huge desert of a successful business owner but he says i have a thing for the united states i wanted to see if i could pack it with you so he comes to chicago to open a irish pub because there was a shortage. [laughter] then he opened another restaurant then another and

four months ago they became american citizens and voted for the very first time on november 4th. you confined their son charming to the customers together they employed than parker said the 250. and he said this is what immigrants do. one study found immigrants start more than one-quarter of all new businesses in the united states. another study found immigrants and children have over 40 percent of fortune 500 companies. think about that. as a nation of immigrants give is a huge a larger print real advantage over other nations. if you were to strike out and build from scratch you

have that sense to take a risk to build something from scratch, you have that spirit. that is what drove us westward over the frontier. not stealing what is in front of you is the only thing possible but something else. because of those businesses started by immigrants it means more jobs and more growth for everybody. our immigration system has been broken for a long time. families gang kids stuck in line for years. business owners often see the competition exploit

undocumented workers workers, undercut businesses. all of us don't like the idea somebody could reap rewards without the responsibilities. and people who want to desperately embrace those responsibilities but they have no way to come out of the shadows so every petty in stock with a system that does not work for anybody. a year-and-a-half ago we had a big majority in the united states senate who came together to pass a bipartisan bill to fix a broken system. it was not perfect it did not have everything that everything everybody wanted it would double the border

patrol agents so few are concerned about illegal migration, a bookmaker the borders that much tougher and legal immigration system smarter to reduce the backlog that hampers families. millions of people of chance to earn their citizenship the right way. and experts say over the next two decades the of all will grow the economy. had the house of representatives of loud and the simple yes or no vote, it would have passed. that's all they need to do. at would be lot right now we would be on her way to solve the problems in the system. i would be implementing

those provisions before a year and a half come over 500 days republican leaders in the house simply refused to allow a vote. there would not let it come to the floor per car still believe the best way to solve the problem is to work together to pass common-sense laws. everything's that could only be solved by congress. but until then their actions i have the legal authority to take to make the system more fair and more just. i did last week. [applause]

sent to krispy -- krispy those that cross over and initiating smarter reforms so they can contribute to our economy, and then taking new steps to deal with those of undocumented immigrants including those in chicago. >> i said this before undocumented workers should be able to. there is a particular category for those that might be dangerous over the past six years said deportation of criminal is up. we'll keep focusing the

limited enforcement resources to those that pose a threat. felons, not families. gangs, not mom or dad working hard to make a better life for their kids. >> that is a lie. >> okay. you made your point. thank you. >> any make them criminals

and that is not the truth. >> okay. i have heard deal. okay. i understand. hold on. young lady. don't judge starr yelling. sur, a sit-down. here. let me just say this. i heard you. and you. i have been respectful. [applause]

. .

>> the change in the law works is because we are reprioritizing how we enforce our immigration laws generally so that not everyone qualifies for being able to sign up and register. at the change in priority applies to everyone. the point is that although i understand why you might have yelled at me a month ago. [laughter] and although i disagree with some of the characterizations, it doesn't make much sense to yell at me right now. [laughter] we are making changes. [applause] [cheers] [applause] >> but the point is let's make sure that you get the facts and that you know exactly what we're doing. then if you have disagreements

that you can work through all the organizations that we work with to try to address some of your concerns. right? and so but here is what won't work. what will not work is people does shouting at each other. i have been respectful, i would ask you not to let me speak to all the other people that are here. [applause] okay. now. even -- okay. [cheers] [applause] >> it is good to be back in chicago. because everybody has something to say. and i'm not going to be able to have a conversation with each of these separately. and so there are other ways of

engaging. and i went out for a pretty long time come i don't mind, i know people are passionate about this. but be respectful of everybody who is here. [applause] so now let me get to the point i was making, which is even if we supported all the criminals, folks that had actually done badly, there are millions of people that still have broken immigration laws. in tracking down and rounding up and supporting millions of people is not realistic. it is not what america should be. but on the other hand, and this is sometimes not acknowledged,

if you came here illegally, you're cutting in front of the line of the folks who are trying to come here legally, which is also not fair. and that's not fair. [applause] and that doesn't make people bad people, but it does mean that you cut in front of the line because there are a lot of folks that are waiting to try to get here legally. and so the deal that we are putting forward is that if you have been here for more than five years, if you have children who are citizens or legal residents, if you register and pass a criminal background check and pass back rent checks coming you can apply temporarily, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. amnesty, legalization, even a pathway to citizenship, that's not something that i can do, that's something that only congress can do. it also doesn't apply to anyone who has come to the recently in

borders do mean something. and so it is accountability. it's a common sense approach that allow me to exercise legal authority that i have been part of the reason it has become important to me is that there have been times when families got token apart. while i have been president. and it is heartbreaking. and it's not right. so until congress does a complete fix, if you have deep ties and you start paying your fair share of taxes, then we won't deport you and separate you from your kids. [applause]

[applause] and even if you don't fully qualified, we will still try to reprioritize how we are enforcing the laws, which we have to do in a way that is less likely to break families apart. because the system is broken and one of the reasons why this is important is because immigrants are good for the economy. we keep on hearing that they are bad. but a report of via my economic advisers put out last week shows how the actions we are taking will grow the economy for everybody. by 2024, the actions that i am taking will at least $90 billion to the gross domestic product. [applause] and this economic growth will reduce the deficit by

$25 billion. and these actions will grow the labor force by nearly 160,000 people and it will boost wages for workers. so if we pass the comprehensive law it might be even better. we would go faster and the steps that we're taking now will make a difference and these actions are lawful, not only lawful, they are the kind of actions that will be taken by every president for the past 50 years. and when i hear some of my friends talk about this, i try to remind them that president reagan took action to keep families together. the first president bush took action to shield about 1.5 million people and that was about 40% of those in america at the time. so when folks in congress

question my authority to make this immigration system work better, i have one answer. pass a bill. go ahead and pass the bill and we have to work on them or permanent legislative solution and they have been at the fighting and then it will no longer be necessary. and in the meantime i will do what i can to make this system work. in the meantime, washington shouldn't let disagreements be a dealbreaker on every issue.

>> you can't disagree with one thing and then say okay, i'm going to take this away and go home. and congress certainly should not shut down the government began over there. americans are tired of gridlock and we are ready to move forward. and as you can imagine i have gotten a lot of letters and e-mails about immigration over the past two days. in one letter that i got last week came from brett duncan. and so he doesn't really agree with me about anything. well, maybe everything.

and so his immigration status is pretty much settled. [laughter] but he has done missionary work overseas. and he knows what it's like to be a stranger. over the years he's gotten a lot of the new immigrants in his community. and he said that their children are as american as i am. and it would be senseless to defer their parents. it would be bad for america. and i believe that freedom is the greatest resource that we have in this country. [applause] and we want a nation that is

exceptionally and fundamentally special because we find ways to welcome people. children and adults. while pinning them into the fold. making the future brighter for everyone. we have been brave and we need to bring it back to the way that we did it before. including a light and a beacon shining. whether we crossed the atlantic or the pacific or the rio grande, we all share the hope that america will be the place where we can believe as we choose and pray as we choose and start a business without problems, where we can vote without fearing other things and that the law would be enforced equally for everybody.

and that is what is at stake when we have conversations about immigration and about ferguson. so are we going to live up to those ideals? the ideals of who we are as a people as it falls upon all of us to hand down to our kids a country that lives up to that promise. where america is the place where we can make it if we try. so thank you, everybody. god bless you. god bless america. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[cheers] [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ >> coming up next, live coverage. we have coverage on c-span and c-span.org. coming up next on c-span2, a discussion on government cronyism and discussion.

>> here are a few of the comments that we have received from our viewers. >> i just have to tell you that to see these people in person and to hear them have the panel discussion or a congressional hearing, it is so important to understand the context and to listen to this statement in its entirety. >> hello, i have been watching the tv for a few years. and i really think it's the greatest program on tv. i realize that these authors take the time to present what they write but the moderator always does a great job of stimulating the conversation. and that's what i look forward to