is damaging this domestically. but also internationally. it makes it difficult for american companies to work overseas, for americans to be hired by companies overseas. and when you lose that, you lose some of the best ambassadors for who and what america is. strong economic growth allows national defense to be a smaller percentage of a larger economy and we can dwarf any with the enemy of the united states by having a stronger economy more quickly that we can by raising taxes here. if you grow the economy 1% faster than expected for a decade, the federal government and of the $2.80 trillion in higher tax revenue. what more revenue, you want to fund that national defense and the state department, reduce

marginal tax rates. deregulate, take that trial lawyers and took them down the pacific. do all the things that the great the american economy and move us forward. revenues flow in from strong growth better than if you try and take people down and pick their pockets. questions, arguments? >> wonderful. thank you very much. i am struck as i look at the history of the cold war and since that america's most powerful time were those times when we were most help the economically and vice versa. in the early cold war in the truman and eisenhower administrations, we held the soviets in check.

we were also in the 1980's and 90's during and after the reagan performance, we were able to bring about the end of the cold war. we were least powerful during that entire history when we had economic difficulties of the late 1970's. with soviet adventurism on the rise of the places like afghanistan and central america and africa. this is related in little bit too grover norquist's point about domestic politics and reagan. i wrote down a few things. in 1984, reagan's reelection year, the economy grew by 6.2%. our current president could use. in the second term, the average growth rate was 3.4% and as soon as he managed to get the country through that recession

which was an induced recession to squeeze inflation out of the economy, the growth rate per year on average was 3.89%. reagan takes a big key on the deficits which is what it -- take a big hit on the deficits which is a legitimate hit. in 1987, he had a 5.8% gdp. by 1987, it was 3.61%. in his last budget, it was 2.8%. that is a manageable level. then under george w. bush, it went back up to 5.8% in 1992. growth has a big impact on the deficit an economy.

you talked about ryan's plan but a lot of critics of that plan suggest that those numbers do not add up. that the tax cuts are going to be devastating to the deficit and that the cuts in the entitlements and other places will be devastating for the economy. what is your answer to that? >> the key number to look at in terms of the cost of government is total government spending plus the regulatory burden. set the regulatory burden aside because that is largely driven by the executive branch implementing but at the spending level, the cost of

government -- the government spends $100 and it takes $90 in taxes and borrow $10. what problem have you solved by taking the other $10? in the other case, all $100 is taken. it is gone from the private sector. the cost to government in that case is $100. some was borrowed, some was taken or always taken. this is one of the challenges we get into when people focus on the deficit rather than total government spending. that is where reagan was trying to focus on reducing the total sites of government. one of the ways you can reduce that is -- as percentage of the economy. our government would be bigger. but as a percentage of the

economy, you want your government to be a smaller percentage of gdp. the thing to focus on, this is what ryan focuses on, not only does the cost curve on spending start to fall as a percentage of gdp because the economy is growing and we're spending less through washington. but eventually it ends up paying off the national debt because the reforms are so key. you can reform entitlements to save a lot of money. and you save a lot more than my cutting a particular program. we reform welfare by putting it out to the states and allow the state to handle it. the state -- the federal government's a great deal of money. it did not keep increasing the welfare payments and get the state's office state money because they were spending less than they used to have to and spending it smarter. those people who say the ryan plan cut aid to the poor in 1996 need to say why they will be

right this time. the ryan plan brings down spending and brings down the deficit. the obama plan -- if ryan has plans written down, you have simpson bowles, an essay in haiku. the want to take taxes from 18.5% gdp to 21%. they are very clear about that. everything else is on the fuzzy side. simpson bowles is over the next decade -- we expect $2 trillion in gdp. so they will increase the tax

burden on the american people from what it would be, never mind obama's $5 trillion in increases but an additional $5 trillion under simpson bowles. the spending restraint discussed at this point -- simpson bowles is not real. the democrats in the senate have not voted for any of this stuff. they have not put it in their budgets. obama does not put any of simpson bowles spending cuts in his budget. so there is no interest in the spending cut part. they like the $5 trillion in a tax increase. i would argue that ryan has already had his moment. reagan was -- his meeting with gorbachev. his empire was imploding and he wanted us to make these

concessions and reagan walked away from what the entire washington establishment said was a great deal. they love the idea of the deal. reagan walked out and took all the criticisms for having walked away. ryan blew up the simpson bowles phony deal. a massive tax increase little or no spending cuts. that is before it gets to the democrats in the senate. ryan is old enough to have lived through the 1982 budget deal where reagan was promised $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. the tax increases were real, permanent. we are still paying them. spending went up after the reagan budget deal. then you had the 1990 deal with

george bush who was in the bush reagan administration and watched reagan get taken on the 3 to 1 deal walked into the room and said we have a deal for you. we will give you $2 of imaginary spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases. i think that is a bit insulting to the democrats. as long as you are lying to the guy, offered 10 to 1. and of course you did not get 2 to 1. simpson bowles is the third iteration of 1982 and 1990. discussions about the possibility of someday cutting spending. it would have ended the same way. ryan would have been a hero for the washington post and time magazine. he would sign a deal and find the republicans up for that disaster. instead he stepped out and said i know everybody in washington

thinks this is a good deal. ryan has been in washington, not of it. you are going to fight against the other team, you have to live and in washington from time to time but you do not have to become of it and you do not have to be scared of the washington establishment. he walked away from a very bad deal. because a much better deal with no tax increase as a result. his leadership encouraged on that fight. >> if you want to ask grover a question, kept my eye. >> i was listening to c-span on my drive this morning and the caller said paul ryan was a puppet of grover norquist. [laughter] i was a little surprised by this.

he referred to an adequate defense budget. it seems that -- if paul ryan was a puppet or even a strong accolade of grover norquist, he would be serious about cutting military spending as well as other spending and he is not. how would you respond to that? >> i would argue that he did not ask everybody to do everything. ryan has designed a budget approach with three things that 66 of the clinton plan and moves it forward on others. you now have the division in the democratic party between the old clinton people and the traditional liberals and a hard left. obama's guys want to smash reform. they do not want it expanded to other government programs. he has that, he has tax reform, he is looking at in tandem reform. bipartisan entitlement reform. other people need to lead the argument on how can

conservatives lead a fight to have a serious national defense that defends the united states from any potential aggressor without wasting money. i work with a group called right on crime. domestically. it is conservative folks who are focused on -- they say we are incarcerating too many people for too long. it does not make sense. we are not stopping crime in with all this additional spending. we are hiring more democratic

union members and is that a wise way to spend taxpayer dollars? but only a conservative can come to the table and talk about how long should bad guys be in prison for? the good news is that the first reforms were done in texas. at the same reforms were done by liberal and in vermont, they could not travel. nobody would go. they did this in vermont. but when you have prosecutors and police and people who are serious about personal responsibility and keeping bad guys in prison and stopping crime and punishing crime -- say are responding too much too little? you have a similar discussion that needs to take place on national defense. how we spend money wisely? you had dick army who did this with his base closing legislation. it helped our national defense but it was difficult to do because bases were put in different congressional districts just as some of the contracts for weapons systems are also allocated by congressional district rather

than by talent and confidence. that is an entirely long -- a huge, important project. we should be very careful. the government should do this things mentioned in the constitution. with the possible exception of the post office. and probably not things that are mentioned in the constitution. if you take government seriously, we want the bits that should be there then confidently. that includes the defense budget. i would not ask ryan to be the reformer of the defense establishment on top of that. >> please identify yourself before asking your question. >> thank you for coming. i have a question to purpose into three observations. i'm a radical eccentric. as it on the board of a number of financial companies. and regulatory reform is overdue. you mentioned mitt romney three times.

my question is this. obviously we need entitlement and regulatory reform. you are not going to get 60 seats in the senate. how you do it? >> my own view -- paul ryan loses the election to mitt romney. obama and wins by eight points. set the because i am not an obama fan. >> let me cheer you up. i grew up in massachusetts. the left post a reaction to ryan is very interesting. they are basically tired. there plagiarizing everything the democrats said about reagan

when he won the nomination in 1980. are we glad to run against the guy who wants to cut spending and cut taxes and confront the soviet union? their understanding of where the country was is not with the country is. looking at it -- if you live and in chicago, you do not have an understanding of what the united states is thinking about in a given time. i would argue he is more ideologically rigid and learns less. his economic policies -- equally challenging. the second part is the argument that the republicans have written down the rhine plan. now we can attack. the democrats always attack the republicans ever since the 1940's with wanting to undo social security and later medicare. they always say that when bush ran in 2000 and 2004 with a plan to privatize social

security for people under 55 -- if you are under 55, will give you the option of a 401k. the democrats said this would have us win the election. that was one of the few elections where social security was a winner for republicans. we did not let the democrats care the old people when they yelled social security. they made it clear they were not changing it to 55 and over. every time, the castoff 20, 30, 40, 50 year olds who understand they will never get what was promised. when you rate something down, you make it more difficult for the other team to lie about your position.

the democrats will attack his reforms on medicare. the only thing obama has done to medicare is promise to take $700 billion away from it to pay for obamacare. and he has had no reforms that will help. he added an entitlement that does not pay for itself and costs twice what they said it was going to cost. by writing down the ryan plan which is reasonable bipartisan reforms on medicare and bill clinton pulls of reform to the poor, let the democrats attack bill clinton 's successful legacy. and make that case if they want. that is the civil war in the democratic party that we should encourage to continue. i am very optimistic that by writing down the ryan plan, the other team seems to have a better target. >> let's say that mitt romney wins. have you get tax reform?

>> you can repeal obamacare with 50 votes. it does not require 60 votes. you might have an argument on a couple of the policy things but with the right parliamentarian, those are completely solvable as well. most of ryan's tax cuts can be done with 51 votes. you can do them inside of it in your window. these are the guys who redistricted the country. in california and illinois, they redistricted. others have redistricted to elect more traditional.

these state legislative lines, the red states redistricted to stay red. but the rest of it stays pretty much the same for the next decade. on the back of that is the chart. 23 democrats in the senate, 10 republicans. half the deeds are doable. you are about to the republicans in maine and massachusetts. scott is running an extremely hard left against him. elizabeth warren, who has a lot of problems. that is a tough sell there. we will have the senate next year.

the senate election cycles are so advantageous for the republicans because these are the people who are elected in 2006 and 2008. only the republicans who were really tough one and a lot of democrats got swept into vote against bush. some of us and did not understand what bush and karl rove were doing but now we can really tough one and a lot cleverly see, they were sneaking up behind the democrats to take them all back. we will get the senate this time around. we will get close to 60 in 2014. in the presidential election, our president is not going anywhere near 50%. he will not get -- the guys who

are undecided will not be voting for him garrett -- for him. >> i would like to debate what you said of my question is, let's assume we do dumb things and go to a dull more like a record something. should we ask the american people to pay more taxes so they will feel part of it and maybe ask for questions? >> i think to avoid stupid things. >> i know, but bush did not. that is my point. >> there are two things -- one, there are ways to reduce those cuts now moving forward.

and if you have a a government program of any kind that is not working or that is counterproductive or is lot -- is worth less than the money you are extracting by force for the american people to pay for, you should stop doing that. since we have been doing all of these somethings, it is like a ship that collects barnacles. you get rid of the barnacles over time. you go back and say what works, what does not? let's reform these issues. i am in favor of reforming government to cost less, not cutting it. some stuff government does it is useful. tough to find in between all the stuff that is that useful but there are important things and you want those fully funded and then confidently and transparently to rebut that you also want to stop doing those things that are not working well. i am not in favor of raising taxes to pay for mistakes of any kind. >> center for immigration. you were talking about

efficiently running for policy and avoiding waste. that is not really the issue. the issue is what are the objectives that we want in foreign policy? we smashed the nazis and the japanese with massive inefficiency. what is the goal, what are the foreign policy goals? i think you are capering over a difference among conservatives. i agree with what i think you're for policy is which is frankly, let's not invade whatever the country du jour we are supposed the takeover. >> if the president cannot pronounce it, you cannot blow it up. >> mali is easy to pronounce. my point is that my sense of what you're saying is that even if we undertake the tax in the reforms that i agree with you

are essential, we are going to be under fiscal constraint for a long time into the future. what i want you to actually say is that those constraints are going to force us to not do what mitt romney and paul ryan have said they wanted to do with our policy. the way they have articulated their foreign policy goals is very expensive. not really in any sense like what bush campaigned on. a more limited, modest foreign policy. my senses we are going to be stuck with that no matter what it because of our economic constraints and is that a positive outcome from your perspective of all the problems we have been dealing with? >> whenever you meet any foe,

the first thing you need to do is cut the capital gains tax. [laughter] from there, there are different approaches. i would argue -- you need to decide what your real defense needs are. that does that mean chairman of certain committees get to build bases in their states. that is not a defense needs. that is a political desire but we need to figure out what do we need to do to protect the united states. how do we keep the canadian on their side of the border guard to mark an otherwise make sure the united states is secure? what is that? what does it cost? there are questions about how to less expensively by things if you are the pentagon? have you make that economically efficient?

it is not like going to walmart. so there are a lot of challenges government have is a meeting has been a buy stock. because there is not a market for it in other places. i with a start with what we do come to a decision on that. your question on foreign policy -- presidents have a lot of leeway on foreign-policy compared to other issues. there is no nra on general form policy. there is no americans for tax reform which has asked politely and consistently and repeatedly for people to make a written commitment to voters. the reason why the pledge has been useful and important is that i ask all candidates for the federal office and state office tuesday -- sign a pledge to their voters.

harry reid seems to get this wrong. they make that commitment as a way to let voters know where they stand. they do not oppose taxes because they signed the pledge. a sign the pledge because they oppose tax increases. those are -- both republicans who do not support and tax increases, do not sign the pledge. sandoval said repeatedly he would not raise taxes. when asked that it would put that in writing, they would say i am offended you would question my character. then they got in, the bulls past -- they both passed massive tax increases. they lied their way into office present a loss of one not raise your taxes but i will not put it in writing.

the first time he had a pickup, he raised taxes. the pledge is there for those who know the want to raise taxes. the politicians who signed the pledge do so because they want to leave the door open. that is okay. they have to run being honest about that. >> you still danced around the issue. buying b52s cheaply is not the point. how you define the objective? what does security mean? much of our foreign policy elite, security means we need to have democracy in burkina faso before any american is safe. that is baloney. my sense is your try to be too polite and a team player to point out that in mitt romney

and everybody else other than paul -- have the same take on ruling the world. you will not get what you want until that is addressed frankly and directly by people on the right like you. >> i think you do need to have that kind of conversation. i engaged in that earlier when i said we do need to have a conversation about what our goals in afghanistan are and what is winning. what are we trying to do? how long are we staying? the answer to those questions are ridiculous? we need to have these

conversations with in the modern conservative movement because the guys on the left have forfeited their capacity to argue that they have something to say here. so it has to be a conversation. chris is going to be managing this and you can be his co- chairman of the committee. >> [inaudible] the point about the one contingency everyone is talking about -- the war with iran -- does it seem looking at the statement that mitt romney is even more willing to go to war with iran than obama? if there is a war with iran, no one knows how much it will cost >> follow this event at the c-

span library. we're going to take you live now to iowa. president obama and michelle obama set to address a crowd in dubuque. it just getting under way. but coverage here on c-span. -- live coverage here on c-span. ♪

>> thank you, guys. oh, my goodness. [applause] oh, my goodness. this is so sweet. we love you guys, too. let me start by -- four more. [applause] >i want to start by thanking

jennifer for -- we are so proud of her, and we are so grateful for her sacrifice and service, and for andrew service and sacrifice as well. i just want to thank her for the wonderful introduction and for all she is doing for her country. yeah, it sounds like you all are pretty fired up. ready to go. and i am really glad to hear that. first of all, it is good to see my husband. i have not seen him in a good week. >> 5 days. >> seemed like a week. it was so long.

but i am just as happy to be back in the great state of iowa where it all began. [applause] you guys are getting me all fired up just being here. it is so beautiful here. good to be back. our family has so many wonderful memories of our time here in the iowa. in pella i remember an entire neighborhood saying happy birthday to melia. on the day of the big and jefferson/jackson dinner, i remember how we danced down the streets. a few thousand folks across the state as well were there as

well. that was fun. our girls still talk about our visit to this day there. we had a ball. we rode the bomb for cars, slid down the big slide. barack almost lost sasha. it was not pretty. was not happy about that. yes, we experience the magic of our first fried twinkie, even though you say i do not let you eat them. you eat what you want. [laughter] we were surrounded by the press. so barack left and the girls that i am so glad he is gone, now we can have fun. after he left, we stayed until the fair shut down. it was a ball. i have to say, we are all very jealous that he got to go back to the fair without us last

week. did you have a fried twinkie? >> pork chop and beer. [applause] >> he is so pleased with himself. in all seriousness though, because of those wonderful memories and some anymore, i want to start by saying thank you, truly. thank you for the kindness, generosity, and love you have shown our family. throughout the state, consistently. [applause] iowa was a very first experience with our national campaign, truly. it is because of all of you that our daughters still think campaigning is fun. [laughter] they do. they never really want to go,

but there were like that was fun. more importantly, because of you, we will always remember what this process can be at its very best. every election that you all remind us what democracy is all about. it is about people getting to know the issues and discussing them with their neighbors. it is about meeting your candidates and getting to know them and their families up close and personal. i will never forget the very first visit that i made here back in 2007. i'd think it was the very first campaign event that i did, so i was nervous. it was in the backyard of someone's home. i have to admit, i really did not know what it would be like. i have not done much campaigning. back then the people barely even knew who barack was, let alone who i was.

the folks in the backyard welcomed me like an old friend. within minutes i was so grumbled that i remember kicking off my heels, and i was standing barefoot in the grass talking and laughing and listening to people's stories. i heard about what was going on in people's lives. the jobs they were struggling and businesses there were trying to keep afloat. the kids they hoped to send to college if they could find a way to afford it. and the more we talked, the more i learned that and all of the stories i saw my story. i saw barack's story. my father worked at the city water plant all his life, in either one of my parents had a college degree, but they saved and sacrifice some my brother and i could have the kind of education they only dreamed of.

whitney young -- that is my high school. go dolphins. while pretty much all of our college tuition came from student loans and grants, my dad still have to pay a small portion of that tuition himself. every semester my dad was determined to pay his small portion of pay and on time, because he was so proud to be able to play a little part in sending his kids to college that he could not bear the thought that me or my brother would miss a registration deadline because his truck was late. really more than anything else i remind people that is what is at stake in this election. this is what we're all working for, the fundamental promise that no matter who you are or where you started out in america if you work hard, you could build a decent life for yourself and even better life for your

kids. [applause] that is why we are here. and whether it is equal pay for women or health care for our families. whether it is supporting our veterans or saving our auto industry, that is what this man, my husband, has been fighting for every single day as president. [applause] the one thing i share with people is that over the past 3.5 years as first lady, i have had the chance to see up close and personal what being president really looks like. i have seen some things. [laughter] but seriously, i have seen how the issues that come across the president's desk are always the hard ones. the problems with no clear solutions, a judgment calls were

the stakes are so high, and there is absolutely no margin for error. as president i have seen how you will get advice and opinions from all sorts of people, but the truth is at the end of the day, as president all you have to guide you are your values and your vision and your life experiences. in the end, it all boils down to who you are and what you stand for. [applause] we all know who my husband is. don't we ? we all know what he stands for. the son of a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills. the grandson of a woman who broke -- woke up before dawn every day to catch a bus to a job at the bank. even though his grandmother worked hard to help support the family and good at her job, like so many women she hit the glass ceiling and watched men no more

qualified than she, men she had actually trained climb up the ladder ahead of her. what i remind people is your president knows what it means when the family struggles. this is not a hypothetical situation for him. he knows what it means to want something better for your kids and grandkids. [applause] that is why i love him. that is why i married him, and that is what i think about every night when i put the girls to bed. sometimes they put me to bed. because i cannot stay up later than them anymore. i think about the world i want to leave for them. i think about how i want to give our kids that foundation for their dreams. you know, opportunities for the of their promise, because all of our children in this country are worthy. we all want to work to give them

that sense of limitless possibility, that believe that here in america, the greatest country on earth, there is always something better out there if your willing to work for it. we know we cannot turn back now. we have come so far, but we have so much more work to do. if we keep moving forward, then we need to work our hearts out for the man that i have the pleasure of introducing, my husband and our president, president barack obama. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> hello, dubuque.

thank you. how is everyone doing today? [laughter] now, first of all, i just want to thanks jennifer for not just her introduction, but for serving as the military spouse and championing of the causes that are still in port for some in the military families like hers. please give her another round of applause. thank you. thank you for everything you do. very proud of her. [applause] i also want to acknowledge sitting next to jennifer is tongressman bruce braveliley help to get the bill that jennifer had worked on based on her experience with andrew passed, and i have the honor of signing into law.

doing a great job on behalf of our veterans. and on behalf of the working people here in iowa. [applause] a couple of other friends were here, your own attorney general. the skies supported me when no one could pronounced my name. -- this guy supported me when no one could pronounced by name. [laughter] he is a man of great integrity. a champion on behalf of consumers nationwide, as well as here in iowa. give him a big round of applause. [applause] also, your own mayor. give him a big round of applause. [applause] and finally, my wife. and [cheers and applause] it is true i have not seen her

in five days. except i caught the end of "leno." [laughter] the only reason that she, i think, is happy to see me because she knows that' after today she gets to go tomorrow and get our girls from sleep away camp, and she has been missing them terribly. we stand in the way of her getting to her babies. [laughter] but i have to tell you, when i stand here and listen to her, i am just reminded how lucky i am, because she is a woman of strength and integrity and honor. she keeps me straight every single day.

she is the best mom in the world, and she is cute. [laughter] and the problem is sometimes when i listen to her talk i start choking up and forget what i am going to say. but i could not be prouder of her, and i say often, back in 2008 i said i am not a perfect man and will not be a perfect president. i do think she's the perfect first lady. i want you to know that. [cheers and applause] now, this is our third day and i win iowa. she is right, we have been traveling all across the state. we did stop at the state fair. we stopped to get something to eat before she showed up, just so there was not any issues.

smart man. [laughter] we began the journey in council bluffs. just like four years ago we traveled all across the state. west to east, meeting with you and talking about your lives. we are driven through boone, des cedars, water wilook, rapids. we of met farmers that have been badly hurt by droughts and now need to pass the farm bill. we met folks -- [laughter] [applause] we met folks who helped iowa become a leader in wind energy, and now we need -- they need us to keep investing in clean, renewable energy. [applause] this morning i had breakfast with some of our outstanding veterans who fought under our proud flag. so now we need to serve them

just as well as they have served us. and make sure that they have got new jobs and new opportunities and our roof over their heads when they come home. every stop i have fond memories of the last campaign, the campaign we have four years ago. every stop i have gone reminders of what makes iowa so special, and how this is where our movement for change happened. [applause] it was because of you. it was because of your stories and your strength and your spirit that i had the strength and spirit to go through that campaign. have hadcause of you i had ha this thing to do the job over the past four years. i have to tell you, we're not

done yet. we have some unfinished business to do. [applause] i have come here to ask you to stand with me, just like you stood with me in 2008. to finish what we started. because less than three months from now you will face a choice, and that jurors could not be bigger. -- that choice would not be bigger. this is not just a choice between two candidates or to political parties. this is a choice about two fundamentally different visions for our country, how we move the country forward and the direction that you choose when you walk into the voting booth will have an impact, not just on your lives, but on the lives of your children and the lives of your grandchildren. it will impact us for decades to come. you know, when we came together in 2008, and it was not just

democrats. we have independence and some republicans, too, it was to restore the basic bargain that built this country. the basic bargain that made us the most prosperous economy in the world. a bargain that says if we work hard, we should be rewarded. it is a deal that says if you put in enough effort, you can find a job that pays the bills. you can afford a home you call your own. it will not go broke when you get sick. you can retire with dignity and respect. [applause] most of all, it is a bargain that says your kids will get a great education, and they will grow up safe and healthy and have opportunities that you could not even dream of.

that they will be able to achieve things that you could only hope for. that is the basic promise of america. that is the american dream. we knew that restoring it would not be easy, that it would ableo achieve take more than one year or one term or even one president, because we had just gone through a decade in which the middle class have been taking a lot of hits. jobs had been getting shipped overseas. incomes and wages were flat or even going down while the cost of everything from health care to college were going up. a few folks at the top for doing really well, but the average family was struggling. this was before, before we saw the worst financial crisis since the great depression and so many more of our friends and neighbors and family members lost their jobs and homes and savings and push that american dream even further out of reach.

so when i ran for this office four years ago i told you there were no quick fixes, no easy solutions. that is still true today, but what i also told you in what is still true today is that we have the capacity to meet every challenge. we have everything we need to meet our challenges. we still have the best workers and the world. we still have the best entrepreneurialism and small men and businesswomen in the world. we have the best scientists and researchers in the world. with the best farmers in the world, as colleges and universities in the world. [applause] we are still a young nation. we have the greatest diversity of talent and ingenuity. people want to come here from every corner of the globe. no matter what they say, no

matter how dark the other side tries to paint things, there is not another country on earth that would not gladly change places with the united states of america. [applause] because people understand that even though we go through some tough times, there is the resilience and great about this country, in this country is the place where if you are willing to work hard, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from and what your last name is, you can make it. that is the idea that we were trying to rebuild in 2008. that is the idea that we continue to pursue and 2012. that is what this campaign is all about, and that is why i am running for a second term of -- for president of the united states. [applause]

[crowd chanting "four more years." ] we do have one problem, politics in washington. do have the other side, which is the side where compromise is a dirty word and thinks the only way to move forward is to go backwards to the same top-down economics that got us into this mess in the first place. you know, governor mitt romney chose his running mate this week. congressman ryan. no, no, no. i know him. he is a good man. beautiful family. he is the ideological leader of the republican of congress.

he is an articulate spokesperson for the vision. i just happen to fundamentally disagree with his vision. [applause] their vision is warm -- wrong for working families and wrong for the country. my opponent and friends in congress believe you just get rid of more regulations on big corporations and big banks, and then you give more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans, that that will automatically lead to jobs and prosperity for ordinary americans. i am not exaggerating, that is their basic economic plan. the centerpiece of governor ronnie's plan is a new five trillion dollar tax cut. a lot of it will go to the wealthiest americans. keep in mind, 5 trillion dollars is a lot of money, even in washington. our entire defense budget is a

little over half a trillion dollars a year. a blend of the entire defense budget and tax cuts. a lot of it going to very rich people. every year for 10 years. and these folks say they want to reduce the deficit and the debt. so the question is, how do you give away five trillion dollars and then reduce the that is it? recently we found out. mitt romney expects you to pay for it. he expects middle-class families to pick up the tab. his tax plan would actually raise taxes on middle-class families by an average of $2,000 for families with children. now, you do not have to thousand dollars to spare. i did not think so. by the way, do not take my word for it. this is based on independent studies that have that have been done by folks

that analyze this stuff for a living. they say it will cost middle class families with children an average of $2,000. they are asking you to pay an extra $2,000 to not reduce the deficit or help our kids get educated or go to college or rebuild roads or bridges or ports. they are giving another tax doubt folks making $3 million a year or more. have you heard this before? >> they have been trying to sell the trickle down snake oil before. guess what, it did not work then. it won't work now. it is not a plan to create jobs or reduce the deficit or plan to move the economy forward. secretly i think they know this. i think they know their plan is not very popular. you can tell that because they

are being dishonest about my plan. especially when it comes to medicare. this is something i have to point out. they are throwing everything at the wall to see if it sticks. here is what you need to know. i have strengthened medicare. i made reforms that saved millions of seniors hundreds of dollars on their prescription drugs. i proposed reforms by getting rid of wasteful spending in the health care system. reforms that will not touch your medicare benefits, not by a dime. mr.omney and his running might have a different plan. they want to turn medicare into a voucher program. that means seniors would not have the guarantee of medicare.

and because the voucher would not keep up with costs, the plan offered by governor romney's running mate would force seniors to pay an extra $6,400 per year, and i assume they don't have it. my plan already extended medicare by nearly a decade. their plan ends medicare as we know it. my plan reduces the cost of medicare by cracking down on fraud and wastes and subsidies to insurance companies. their plan makes seniors pay more so can give another tax cut to millionaires and billionaires. that is an example of the choice in this election and that is why i am running for second term as president of america. just like we have a different plan on medicare, we have a

different economic plan. you just heard they want to give $5 trillion tax breaks to wealthy americans that don't need them. four years ago i perhapsed to cut middle class taxes. that is exactly what i have done. so, if you talk to a friend of yours that says those democrats are all tax and spend liberals. you tell them the average middle class family their tax is about $3,600 lower since i have become president. and right now what i want to do is to keep taxes right where they are for the first $250,000 of everybody's income. if your family makes under $250,000 like 98% of american families do and 97% of small businesses do, you won't see your income tax increased by a single dime next year.

now, if you are fortunate enough to be in the other 2% you still get a tax cut on your first $250,000. but all we are asking is for the next little bit that you make, you can afford to contribute a little bit more above 250 so we can pay down our deficit in a responsible balanced way and invest in things like education that help america grow. now, that alone won't cut the deficit. we will have to make sure government does its part. we cut spending that we need and we can do more to make

government more efficient. but we are not go to reduce the deficit just on the backs of the middle class. so i think that it makes sense to ask folks like me who have been incredibly blessed to go back to the rates we paid under bill clinton. a time by the way when nearly 23 million new jobs were created. we went from deficit to surplus. and here is the kicker. we created a lot of millionaires too. the reason is because the economy, when you look back on american history, always works best when the middle class is doing well. let me ask you something. when a teacher or a construction worker or a receptionist or a firefighter, when you have a

little extra money in your pocket what do you do? you spend it. times are tight. maybe you have been driving around that old beater and decide it is time to trade it in. maybe you think now is the time i can finally buy a new computer for my kid who is about to go off to college or maybe i will go to a restaurant or heaven forbid i take a vacation once in a while. you know what happens is that suddenly businesses have more customers. they make more profits. so folks at the top are doing well. the businesses, because they are doing more business, they are hiring more workers, who have more money who buy more products who give businesses more customers. that is how you grow an economy, not from the top down, from the bottom up. giving everybody a fair shot. that is the choice in this election and that is why i am running for a second term as president. that is why i believe. that is my vision for the

future. on just about every issue governor romney and i have a different opinion. when the auto industry was on the brink of collapse, more than a million jobs at stake governor romney said let's let detroit go bankrupt. i said let's bet on american workers. we got workers and management together. they changed how they were doing business. three years later the american auto industry is back on top. that is what i believe. that is the kind of america we need. so, now i want american manufacturing back in america. i want to stop giving tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas. let's get the tax breaks to

investing right here. right here in iowa. in cleveland. let's put people back to work. you know governor romney likes to say that i know how to fix the economy because i have been in the private sector. turns out a lot of that experience were investing in experience that were called pioneers in outsourcing. we don't need folks that know how to outsource. we need folks that know how to in-source and hire american workers so we sell american products around the world stamped with three proud words, made in america. that is what i believe. on energy, governor romney has said that he wants to get rid of

the tax credit for wind energy. doesn't believe in it. he says these sources of energy are imaginary. congressman ryan calls them a fad. he needs to come to iowa and he will find out that there are 7,000 jobs in this state that depend on the wind industry. they are not a fad. they are the future. we should stop giving $4 billion of taxpayer subsidies to oil companies making money every time you go to the pump. let's start investing in clean energy that will create jobs and secure our future. that is the difference in this election. i want to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world. i was just visiting some teachers in the middle school right before i came here.

aren't you supposed to be at the in service over there? i won't tell. just don't get photographed. we have this great meeting. folks don't go into teaching for the money. they go into it because they believe in our kids and believe in our future. but school districts all across iowa and across the country are having a tough time. budget cuts, teacher layoffs. i said let's help local school districts to make sure that they can hire great teachers, especially in math and science where we have to really do better in terms of our performance. let's make sure that 2 million more people can go to community colleges to train for the jobs businesses are hiring for right now. and let's bring down college tuitions once and for all for young people because higher education is not a luxury. it is an economic necessity for

young people. back in 2008 i said i would end the war in iraq. we ended it. i said we would go after al qaeda and bin laden, we did. we are transitioning and bringing our troops out of afghanistan. so, after a decade of war i say to folks none of this could have been accomplished if it hadn't been for our amazing men and women in uniform. so, we have to make investments to make sure that they are getting the services they have earned because they should never have to fight for a job when they fought for this country. and let's take half the money

that we can save after a decade of war and let's do nation building here in iowa. let's hire some hard hats to get on the job rebuilding roads and bridges and schools. that is good for the economy. that is where we need to take america. governor romney says his big economic plan he wants to kill obamacare, get rid of it. now first of all, i want you to know i kind of like the term obamacare. because i do care. that is why i passed the bill. i care about folks with preexisting conditions which is why because of this law they will be able to get health insurance. i care about the 6.5 million young people that can now stay on their parent's plan because of obamacare.

i care about the seniors who have seen discounts on their prescription drugs. we are closing the donut hole because of the law that we passed. so if mr. romney and congressman ryan want to spend the next two and a half years having the same argument we had about health care all over again they can feel free to do it. but the supreme court has spoken. it is the law of the land. we are moving forward to give every american the health security that they deserve. that is the difference in this election. on all of these issues, health care, manufacturing, education, all of these things that go into creating a solid, secure middle

class life. all of these issues tie together. it goes back to what michelle was talking about. that is who we are. our values. we have gone through tough times. what hasn't changed is our care. americans are tough. we are resilient. we may get knocked down but we bounce back up. and the other thing that we understand is what our parents and grandparents and great grandparents taught us. if you work hard, this is the country to be. you may meet barriers sometimes. there may be hurdles. but you can't be stopped when you decide on something. that is what is at stake in that election. do we affirm the values and pass them on to the kids and grand kids.

over the next three months you will see more negative ads than you have ever seen in your life. you are already seeing them. and these folks on the other side. they are just writing $10 million checks. governor romney obviously has more friends than i do that can write $10 million checks. they are just -- they are running these ads. they are not selling a plan to create jobs or to grow the economy or revive the middle class. they have one message. the economy is not where it should be and it is obama's fault. they are going to say it over and over again. you will get sick of it. i would be worried given the amount of money being spent if it were not for iowa. if it were not for what i remember about 2008. we haven't outspent before. i know the american people cut

through the nonsense and they focus on what is important. and when they remember what it means for us to have a country where everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules. when you guys decide what is important, you can't be stopped. when you pull together, you have more power than any guy writing a $10 million check. so, iowa, i am go to need your help one more time to finish the job. we have more schools to build. we have more folks to put back to work. we have more roads to build. we have more young people to send to college. we have more troops to come home. if you are willing to stand with me and work with me and make some phone calls with me and knock on some doors with me. if you are still fired up, if

you are still ready to go like i am, i promise you we will win iowa. we will win this election. we will finish what we started. and you and i together will remind the world why america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you. god bless the united states of america.

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪

♪

♪

♪

♪ take a load off anny put the weight on me at picked up my bag i went looking for a place to hide i saw carmen and the devil walking side-by-side it

i said, jeu. carmen, come on, would you go downtown she said, well, i got to go, my friend can stick around take a load off ammu take a load for free to take a load off anny and you put a load right on me go down, ms. moses and there ain't nothing you can say because just like look and look is waiting on a judgment day well, look, my friend, what about anna lee he said, do me a favor, keep anna lee company take a load off anny take a load for free to take a load off anny and you put the weight on me

♪ catch me a cannon ball now take me down the line in my bag is sinking low that believe it's time to get back to anny you know she's the one who sent me here with our records for everyone to take a load off anny take a load for free take a load off anny take a load for free ♪ ♪

>> ♪ have been knocking on at the door that holds the throne and i've been looking for the map that leads me home have been stumbling on good cards turned to stone the road of good intentions has gone dry as bone at we take care of our own we take care of our own in wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own from chicago to north wins

from the muscle to the bone from the shotgun shack to the superdome we yelled help but the calvary stayed home there ain't no one hearing the bugles blown we take care of our own we take care of our own wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own where the eyes of the eyes with the will to see where the hearts

that run over with mercy where is the love that has not forsaken me where is the work that set my hands, my soul free where is the spirit that all rain over me where is the promise from sea to shining sea wherever this flag is flown it were ever this flag is flown it wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own we take care of our own wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own we take care of our own we take care of our own wherever this flag is flown we take care of our own ♪

♪ ♪ it's your thing and do what you want to do i cannot tell you who to sock it to it's your thing -- >> some iowans must feel like

the iowa caucuses this week. the state has gone the attention of so many politicians this week. the president is wrapping up three days in iowa. we have our phone lines open and we're opening up twitter to see what you have to say. republicans -- 202-585-3885. democrats, 202-585-3886. and a special line if you are from iowa -- 202-585-3887. the president will be wrapping up his bus tour this evening. that is scheduled to get underway at 6:35 p.m. eastern live here on c-span. on your phone calls, we're getting your reaction to what the president had to say. and "washington journal" talk about issues of substance from the campaign. we go first to our republican

line. here is stanly in piedmont, south carolina. caller: i am die-hard republican. i totally support the romney, paul ryan economic plan to overhaul the medicare plan as if this. host: next up, our democrats line. caller: i love the plans that obama has, and i wish that everyone, all the democrats and republicans to get out to vote for him. he has the best plan that will turn the economy around. host: you have been seeing a number of tweets from the viewers on the screen. we're using the obama hashtag. to brooklyn, barbara on our republican line. caller: hello, yes 08 a disabled

veteran and i am biracial. i want to make this comment. i wish that c-span would show as many evens that romney in representative ryan has. i know use the president of united states, but it is supposed to be a fair shot. i happened to the disease and is fair. when i look at all the tweeds, there were two from the republicans. the rest were dominated by democrats. we do not have a voice. president obama is a nice person. he wants to change the country. change it to what? this is a country of opportunity. i fought and was wounded for this country, and he does not care about the military. he got osama bin laden, but it was bush policy that held it. he should be more consider it to the republican people, because i am tired of obama being pushed down our throat. host: thank you for your input

and your comments. we did cover paul ryan speaking at the state fair the other day. you can find that in our video library. not just republican guard democratic events, but recent events with the libertarian candidate and reform party candidates as well. all of that available at our website c-span.org/campaign in2012. this is william in dubuque, iowa. caller: yes, i read an actual book about barack obama. that he lived in kenya, and he had intercourse with -- host: sir, we're going to let you go there. elizabethtown, ky, democrats line. caller: thank you so much, c- span, for publishing this, and a think obama is absolutely fantastic. i do have a couple of points

that i hope i can make. one is that, you know, he talked about medicare in his speech. i was wondering what legislators, what their health care plans are -- or they tied to obamacare? and i think he cares. the other question i have is on, you know, romney's taxes -- he asked for several of paul ryan's tax returns, but we have only gotten one of romney's. i was wondering, is there something i missed on c-span? i try to watch it religiously, but i might have missed it. host: one of the news reports leading up to the event afternoon said the president would be focusing on medicare. you talk about his comments on medicare and that he would play offense and medicare. the "new york times" wrote that paul ryan has written two budgets approved by the house that would alter the medicare

plan for future retirees. the romney and paul ryan campaign is not backing down from the medicare debate. the ap said in developing a strategy, the romney at rain campaign -- and paul ryan plan to campaign aggressively on medicare and not run away for it. john is also in dubuque, iowa. go ahead with your thoughts on what you heard today from president obama. caller: i think that obama is doing a wonderful job. other people criticizing him. but they do not understand that the men chose to run a country that was going to collapse. remember, he's not jesus christ. he is not god. he cannot do everything by himself. if jesus christ came to earth, look, everybody will not be saved. people need to understand that -- [inaudible]

host: were you at the event today in w? caller: no, i was not. i was watching it on tv. host: thank you for joining us. i call on our republican line from york, pennsylvania. caller: thank you. i was raised a democrat, but i am a reagan republican. the thing he said that we all have a fair shot if you work hard and play by the same rules. but geithner did not pay by the rules, the not paid taxes. the ge guy did not have to pay taxes. obama is not enforcing the arizona laws for the immigration, for the border patrol. today, illegals are signing up for green cards. he has kind of doubled the entitlements. it is frustrating when he is double-talking. i voted for him last time, but i am not going to vote for him this time. i am very disappointed with him right now. he's not following up what he said.

host: president obama wrapping up three days in iowa today. this evening, he will be in davenport -- davenport, iowa. we will have that for you at 6:35 p.m. eastern. we will let you know about the coverage coming up of the conventions in october. three presidential debates, rather, in october. the three debates are on october 3, october 16, and october 22. we will have live coverage of those debates, of course but also, the convention getting away a week from monday, august 27. every minute of every speech here on cnn beginning monday, august 27. the convention starts at 2:00 p.m. eastern. next, john. caller: i have seen the president on tv today. if you take interstate 35 which runs north-south through iowa, if you go west of interstate 35, that is steve cain country.

that is basically, you know -- if you go least where he is at this time, that is pretty much -- if you go east where he is at this time, that is pretty much obama country. i like the president. i am on the northwest side. i have always liked the president. i like what he is doing. it is going to be close. with ryan on the ticket, he will play very well in northwest iowa, his policies. the president actually might lose iowa. i really hope not. i am going to get to work and get out to vote. if ryan would have popped in and went to des moines, iowa, because that is east of interstate 35 -- host: it geographical divide. caller: that is basically half of iowa. that is what steve cain is running, you know.

then obama came in. i think the president came in and touched base in boonek part of steve cain country, and it is very rural. however, we also have wind farms right out here. host: all right, the president talked about that the other day. thank you for calling in. mark from florida next, a democratic caller. caller: thank you. i am 70 years old. i have followed politics. i do not trust these two rich corporate poster boys, romney and ryan. i addressed obama. you know, the republicans always get us into these problems, like bush did with the economy. then there the first ones to come out and say "we are going to fix it. we have the solution." obama has been working day and night to get this country back in shape.

and romney on tv a few months ago said, "it is our time now. it is our time for the presidency." what is this elitist bull? host: obviously, medicare is a big issue in florida. who do you think is winning this argument over medicare? i think we have lost her. let go to buffalo next. republican line. caller: good afternoon. i tend into another cable news network and turned over to c- span when they cut it off, and i really think that barack obama and michelle obama together were a very charming. i found myself, while the president was talking, actually listening to what he had to say. i am pretty stark ideologue, and i think he's doing something right right now. host: well, you're calling on

our republican line. >> it sure am. i am libertarian-republican. i have a very stark ideology. i am not calling to make a political point. host: can you give us an indication how your leaning? caller: i do not think i am going to vote for barack obama. but however things fall out, i am wondering if the politicians, the congressman running for reelection, will really commit to the idea of a mandate election and maybe somebody can hold their feet to the fire, hold them accountable, and if romney wins, make it a mandate. if the democrats win, make it a mandate. host: a few more calls. on twitter, the hashtag is obamaiowa. the president will wrap up his bus for tonight. next is dan.

make sure you meet your television. caller: ok, thank you. i do believe obama will have a tough job considering the obstructions with republicans in congress. people have to realize the for the last 30 years, we have followed -- [inaudible] all we have gone with tax cuts is great debt. host: 1 quick tweet. it talks about the president spoke about college tuition. he says -- what did mr. obama have to say about lowering tuition that was actually of any substance? republican line from massachusetts. caller: one of the things listening to is talking about medicare and everything. well, i am 50 years old, and i became disabled.

for whatever reason, social security messed up my disability and denied me. when i tried calling any of my democrat, because i am in massachusetts, every one of them said the same thing, that it was a conflict of interest for them to work for me. i cannot get any help from anyone. i just finalized declaring bankruptcy. ok, so how did anybody help me? who worked for me? ok? that is all i have to say. host: does this affect your vote? caller: right now, i am voting romney. host: thank you. a reminder, you'll be able to see the president one more time. he is headed to devonport -- davenport, iowa. we will have live coverage this evening here on c-span. >> now the soviet bear may be gone, but they're still wolves in the woods, and we saw that when said on hussein invaded kuwait. the mideast might have become a

nuclear powder keg. our energy supplies held hostage. so we did what was right in what was necessary. we destroyed a threat, freed the people, and locked a tyrant in the prison of his own country. [applause] >> tonight, a 10 million of our fellow americans are out of work. tens of millions more work harder for lower pay. the incumbent president says unemployment always goes up a little before a recovery begins. but unemployment only has to go up by one more person before a real recovery can begin. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984, and this year, watch the republican and democratic national conventions live on c- span starting monday, august 27. >> president obama signed into

law this week additional sanctions for iran's energy, shipping, and financial sectors. in washington, the former state department and u.s. officials participated in a discussion of u.s. and iran's stance on nuclear weapons. it was co-hosted by the middle east institute, and it is about an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. my name is daniel serwer, and it is a real pleasure to welcome you to this middle east institute event announcing a middle east institute scholar publication called "prospects for u.s. on the nuclear issue in the year ahead." i find this a remarkably clear, straightforward, and very

useful analysis of the situation. one that avoids any of the pitfalls of the journalistic treatment of this issue in washington today. it is a particular pleasure that i was asked to moderate this panel, if i have any qualifications for that role, it is not actually my time at the u.s. institute of peace, which is displayed in the biography, but rather that i spent seven years abroad as a science counsellor in the american embassies, preventing technology from going to potential proliferators, and three years managing one of the energy offices in the state department. we have a wonderful panel to bid that includes the two principal authors of the report, allan keiswetter and roby barrett, as well as geneive abdo, who

contributed substantially to the report and who will be commenting. it is not my habit to the biographical introductions because, after all, you have them in writing and you can read them at your leisure. but i would like to say something striking about each of our speakers. for allan, i read his bio defense said to myself, what you really need to know about allan keiswetter is his post in the foreign service. ghana, yemen, riyadh, tunis, khartoum, baghdad -- not a bad representation of arabic- speaking areas. really quite extraordinary. i know allan from our service together in intelligence and research.

geneive abdo, i have not known well, and when i asked her what i might emphasize in this context, she offered me something that is not in the bio, so i will cite that. it is a book from 2003 called " answering only to god, fate and freedom in 21st century iran." i think it is relevant to the issues that we have to discuss today. but you can read her distinguished background as a journalist, as a u.n. official. geneive abdo comes to us amply well-prepared. unfortunately, we're going to miss melissa, who is ill today, but we have roby barrett to finish up this. i cannot say i know roby well,

but we sat together in a number of meetings. i can tell you that when you're in a meeting with roby barrett, you're going to know what's roby barrett thinks about things. and he has a particularly incisive way and brutally honest way of dealing with military issues and gulf issues, which have been a real focus for him over the years. so, without further ado, i will ask allan keiswetter to do the initial presentation of the report. allan? >> when i was in the department of state, i describe myself as being the deputy assistant secretary for miscreants. iraq, iran, the arab peninsula, libya.

fortunately, some of them have become good guys, but we're back to the miscreance today. i also feel a little bit like the head of the corps of engineers who, newly appointed, was reluctant to make a public speech. however, he saved up his energy until he was invited to speak on a topic to which he could do justice, and he did well until he got to the question and discovered there was noah in the audience. i recognize some of you out there. i would like to do two things today. the first is to summarize the report's key judgments overall, with a little bit of fill-in on israel since melissa cannot make it. my second part is to talk about the u.s. perceptions and perspectives on the iran negotiations on the nuclear

issue. first of all, in the short run, dealing with diplomacy and the u.s. position, there are sort of two points i would like to make. that is, in the short run, the negotiations are stalemated and likely to remain that way, at least until the elections. in the longer term, there are margins for negotiation, and i will return to that a bit later. on iran, i would like to come forth with our key judgment, which is to say it is not clear to what extent iran has committed to a diplomatic outcome. well sanctions exact a significant role, they seem unlikely to be sufficient to force agreement, because iran is prepared to concur down as necessary. in addition to this, therefore, strategic pressure and diplomatic inducements are very important. and geneive will expand on the

iranian position. on israel, without sufficient diplomatic process, there was in the group an uncomfortably real possibility of israeli military action because of the israeli perceptions of existential threat. i think that since melissa is not here, i would like to read a couple sentences that i think express her points of view. this expert, melissa, focused on the military option because "this is where we truly are in the israeli view. the debate in israel now is, does is to have the capacity to hit and destroy the no nuclear infrastructure? with the unknown sites have the capacity to sustain an advance new program after attack? how would the iranians respond?" i think the news of a brick and confirms that judgment. she concluded, "it would be a serious mistake to dismiss the

possibility of an israeli unilateral attack. netanyahu is a competent leader who thinks he can do what he wants despite u.s. opposition." now, lest you think that any group that mei has consensus, i have to read the next paragraph. an mei commentator differed from the expert by positive that netanyahu's statements are in part intended to press the u.s. to take a hardline stance and to scare the iranians into a concession. given israel's military capabilities, he judged there is more plasticity -- more elasticity than one would surmise. that is in an yahoo!'s remarks. i think this is a fair representation. -- that is in netanyahu's remarks. i would like to comment about the gcc states. the gcc has unprecedented unity

in response to the fears of iranian pretensions of hegemony in the gulf. we think it likely will hold. still, there are new and son -- nuances among the gcc states and they might not fully be aware of the extent to which they risk iranian retribution. roby will expand on this. the conclusions of the report, we think the next year will almost certainly market turning point in the u.s.-iran without progress, it could lead to nuclear -- excuse me, military confrontation. i would like to go on and talk a little more about why we reached these conclusions, and i will stick entirely to the u.s. position. what is the current situation? well, the administration has a

two-track policy of engagement and pressure. in the past few years, engagement has largely taken the form of negotiations. and the pressure in the form oft call active measures. obama has made clear that "all options are on the table," with one exception, and that exception is contained in. he has made clear the u.s.' red line is that moves by iran to actually weaponize it to nuclear capabilities -- its nuclear capabilities would cost them. the u.s. -- excuse me. in the short term, we think, therefore, that the prospects for any movement is not very great, particularly before the u.s. elections. the situation is that the p5 +

1 has asked for suspension of iranian enrichment. and a second condition. the third condition this cessation of work of the heavily fortified facility. in return, they would offer minor inducements such as spare parts for iran's boeing airplanes. iran pose a response to this has been, should we say, will bringly low, -- wimperingly low. they have considered, the words of one negotiator, grand ideas and issues that are centered on the acknowledgment and lifting of sanctions. in the u.s. point of view, any broad deal, the end game, and from the u.s. point of view, we're not even in the game yet we have a de facto suspension of talks because the west's

willingness to wait for the full effect of sanctions to come into play and because the iranians insistence on assurances about their right to in rent each -- and rich. we think the prospects for extended diplomacy are better. once the elections are over, a second obama administration could be in the position to consider a broader deal, and the iranians may have sufficiently spelled the effect of sanctions to be willing to negotiate on specific steps. one proposal is an acknowledgment of iran's right to enrich to a limited degree, 3.5% to 5%. in return of acceptance of stringent monitoring and inspections. there has not been a full discussion of this possibility of and ministration according to a former administration official. there are negatives to this idea. any acknowledgment of iran pose a right to enrich would run

counter to several u.n. security council resolutions, aggravate israel's sensitivities, alienate u.s. supporters of israel, and allow republicans to accuse the president of being soft on iran. these risks are not acceptable to the administration in the pre-election period. whether there would be acceptable later depends greatly on, one, the extent to which these down sides can be mitigated, especially in the view of israel. two, prospects for an arrangement -- the prospects that such an arrangement could actually lead to stem iranian nuclear development. what if there is a romney victory? the specific nature of's new- paragraph policies still remained largely speculative -- nature of romney's policy is still remains a cliff. if the usual patterns prevail, probably a new president would prefer to focus on appointments,

organization, and campaign priorities, but events could alter that paradigm. whatever administration is in power, pre requisites for successful extended diplomacy include, first, establishing a framework for regular negotiations and to broaden discussions beyond the nuclear issue. two, establish a private u.s. to discussel these issues. these are points with which we could make progress now. another requisite is the preservation of p5+1 solidarity. on that, solidarity has been strong, but the prospects are uncertain. while russia and iran have cooperated under u.s. leadership, they do not fear the consequences of nuclear iran to the extent the u.s. does. furthermore, their growing differences over syria and other issues. another possibility out there

is a crippling sanctions. an administration official described this as a truly crippling sanctions. these would expand tertiary sanctions to a wide range of iranian exports and imports, much like the sanctions now. they have downsized -- the down sides. such sanctions might find limited support abroad, curb the iranian people with little effect on iranian decision makers, and offer no guarantee that there would be a prelude to the popular based overthrow the government. moreover, it is not generally realized, but a certain level of iranian oil exports must be preserved to maintain stability and international energy markets. i would like to do a summing up and tell you where the group came out. there was easy agreement among the conference participants that the best scenario is diplomacy.

but there was sharp disagreement as to whether diplomacy has a decent chance of succeeding. one group argued, 1, the iranians would not dismantle the nuclear program unless the very existence of the islamic republic is at stake. two, israelis see iran with even the capacity to produce any clear weapon as an existential threat that they will not tolerate. 3, the united states has stated it will not allow iran to develop nuclear weapons. four, the leading the gulf states are adamant in opposition to iran's pretensions in the gulf. given these trajectories, their conclusion is potential for military confrontation over the iran nuclear program is hot. another group did not deny the significant risk for military confrontation but believes the

real margins for diplomacy still exist. a deal that would allow iran the right to entrench -- enriched with stringent safeguards and strict monitoring could be possible later. the margins for negotiation include that the iranians certainly do not want war on their territory. two, the israeli's best option is not to go it alone but with at least u.s. support. third, the u.s. pro family does not want another war on the heels of the ones in iraq and afghanistan. and four, the world's fragile economy would suffer yet another severe blow. in the end, there was common ground. it was a realistic view of possible hostilities, while acknowledging that there is time for a redoubling of efforts on the diplomatic front, including,

one, staving off military actions in the near term, keeping the negotiations opened, moving toward a at least discussion of enrichment issue at some point soon, this look is probably soon after the u.s. elections, establishing a second track or non-nuclear issues could be discussed, and making clear to the iranians what has to be done for sanctions to be lifted. i have to say, one of my tasks as a diplomat was to find the areas of agreement in this group. >> thank you. geneive abdo? >> good afternoon. hello, everyone. as allan explain, a hope that we

do not become somewhat repetitive one we are all finished speaking, but my specific remarks are going to be focused on how iran used the, sort of, nuclear issue, and more broadly, their role in the region, and what has changed since 2003. when a surge of examining iran's position on the nuclear issue, it is important to place it in the context of where iran was in 2003 when it was willing to negotiate with united states over afghanistan. it was not only in 2003, but there were a few years between 2003 and 2005 when ayatollah khomeini actually sent a letter to then president bush through the former swiss ambassador in iran in an attempt to reach the kind of breakthrough that we are trying to reach with iran now. so i think that in explaining

what has changed, unfortunately, we can grasp how come a sort of blew me the picture is going forward over the next year. even if we set the minimal goal of sibley a trust-building exercise with the nuclear negotiations without even assuming that a breakthrough could be reached, iran now is not in favor of establishing any sort of trust with the united states because of the way it is reviewed over the last several years in the region and also u.s. policy. iran is convinced that the ultimate goal of the u.s. this regime change and that the new peeler issue, regional issues over syria, united states activities in afghanistan and iraq, that all of this was meant

to undermine the islamic republic and this is the rate that the regime it views the united states intentions. i think that, unlike 2003, we are a long way now from convincing iran that this exercise of nuclear tracks is to build trust. and i want to be specific. i do not mean to generalize about the iranian regime, because i think it is a mistake to generalize. i am speaking about the supreme leader and the inner circle. the 20 or so people who help him reach a consensus on issues. i think this is another point that is often ignored. if he were president right now, we probably would not be having these discussions. because political personalities in iran make a difference. and the generation that created the revolution, the elites,

think very differently than some of the other political personalities we have seen come to power in iran over the last 33 years. in a way, for them, this belief that the u.s. objective of regime change is a self- fulfilling prophecy. he has believe this since the founding of the islamic republic. he continues to reiterate his belief. in july, he said, for example, the animal on it -- the animosity of these african nation returns to the principles of the system, they try to make their issue with iranian nation seem as if it is founded on human rights and the nuclear issue. so he says, but of course, it is not. it is not found it on human rights issues or the nuclear issue. it is founded on regime change. you have to as, well, why would he believe this? well, if you read the american media every day, as the iranians do, and it all the media very closely, of course every day there are statements coming out

of people in congress, there are statements from the republican candidate running for president in particular that we need to launch a military attack on iran. if you're sitting in iran in your ayatollah khomeini, why would you not think that the ultimate goal is regime change? another thing that has changed significantly is iran no longer continues to hide its non- conventional means in the region, in iraq, afghanistan, and now in syria. at the less we have seen revolutionary guards in iraq and syria become very active. the iranians have taken a very direct policy toward their intervention that regionally. another significant change that has happened, not since 2003, but over a long time span, is that iran's educated middle- class, the middle-class elite which were once the basis for the reformist movement have been completely marginalized.

this is the sector of iranian society that is actually very favorable toward americans in the united states. they want iran to cease being a pariah state. and when they had political power, there were those in the region that were looking for some sort of a way to break three decades of hostility. even the former president recently came out and publicly stated that there should be a breakthrough on the nuclear issue. other reformists recently have also come out and stressed the need for a settlement. however, those voices have now been silenced in iran. they are no longer politically relevant. this is ending that has changed dramatically. another thing that has changed since 2009 is the mass movement for democratic reform in iran. we have seen that the regime has

completely triumphed over the opposition in iran, unfortunately. so the voices that could put pressure on the regime, whether it comes from a mass society within the system, from some sort of breakthrough with the west are no longer active and no longer have influence. and they think that -- was reading just this morning an article on a foreign affairs in which the argument was made that, you know, let's forget about the nuclear issue because a democratic revolution is coming to iran if we're just patient. i think that although people tend to draw parallels between the arab uprising and iran, unfortunately those parallels should not be made because we're dealing with a completely different kind of authoritarian state, and we are dealing with a completely different kind of political culture. you do not have the kind of advancement of civil site -- society in iran that you have in egypt and tunisia. that kind of civil society does

not exist in iran. another thing that has changed dramatically since 2003 is the rise of the revolutionary guards in iran and the -- as a political and longstanding economic power that they have built the country. the revolutionary guard they can be argued, their position to word the united states is very similar to khomeini's. stand to lose the most from sections because of their great economic interests in iran and abroad. nonetheless, for some, it would serve their interests of their were in military attack on iran, because it would reaffirm their long-held position about the united states and there is a logical positions about the united states. i think that specifically, as it was mentioned, we're also not very hopeful on the specific points regarding the nuclear

negotiations. before the negotiations, this summer, many argued, such as the former iranian ambassador, that if the united states and of the p5+1 would offer iran reduced in richmond at 3.5% to 5% -- reduced enrichment, this could be the deal. unfortunately, iran now, although they had been talking about reducing in richmond a few years ago, there is no longer any movement on that issue. iran is also no longer entertaining the idea of shipping out its uranium, making it an easy case and for israel that iran has now entered what they call the zone of immunity. and the reason there's so much discussion now, one of many reasons, of a unilateral military attack on iran is that the israelis are convinced that iran has reached nuclear capability, even if the

political decision has not been made to build a nuclear bomb. as they continue to enrich uranium at 20%, this gives avella to it -- validity to the argument. this was not the case a few years ago. just last week in israel, prime minister netanyahu and his top ministers declared that the united states and the west should officially announce that the nuclear negotiations have failed. so you can see how the way is being paved for there to appear that all options have been eliminated. when i was in israel in march, even then, even during that time which was a lot less tense than now, it was clear to me in the meetings i had with israeli officials and the national security council and a foreign ministry that even though their position toward iran is much more nuanced and much more

profound -- they have a great understanding of iranian politics, their conclusion is still the same. which is that iran must be stopped before its nuclear capable. iran has also asked for all sanctions to be lifted before there is any sort of real serious talks on the nuclear issue. and it was mentioned that that is highly unlikely that sanctions would be lifted. i think that for all these reasons, it is clear that iran is interested in prolonging the diplomatic process but not necessarily reaching a breakthrough. on both sides, both the u.s. and iran now have a reason to prolong the diplomatic process. president obama certainly does not want any sort of unilateral attack by israel on iraq before the presidential election. and the iranians want to buy

time. they want to buy time until there is perhaps some unpredictable event that occurred that would allow the diplomatic process to go forward, even though all parties realized that there's not likely to be any sort of concrete brick through. i think the other issue that has changed dramatically is politics, both in israel and the united states, and i think we will be discussing this further in the q&a. thank you very much. >> thank you. before i give the podium to roby, i love the standing-room- only crowd, but there are a few seats up front. you're more than welcome to come down and take them. do not be shy. roby? >> i like the introduction.

i think i will put it on the back of my next book. i am going to talk a little bit about the gulf, a little bit about what i call diplomacy in war in the gulf with iran. i will touch the little bit on israel and policy that i see -- i see kind of the short-term fallout on what we are going to be looking at in the next six to nine months. analysiswith geneive's of where the iranians are. i would add that if you put your the so far in the position of khomeini or the revolutionary guard and you look at the current situation and you evaluate your interests, i think that leads you to the conclusion that there pressing ahead with the nuclear program and not really interested in a negotiation. that is looking at it from an

iranian perspective. think about it from there. with that as a backdrop, i want to talk about the gulf. it is -- i have spent quite a bit of time in the gulf. i think that since almost the beginning -- i mean, since the beginning of iraq, there has been a consistent theme among gulf leaders and anybody else out there, analysts, that you want to talk about about what the iranian intervention was, what the ultimate process of what you're going to have to deal with them is, and a theme of the united states has been somewhat naive in its dealings with them. it is not this administration. it is past administrations. go back as far as you want to go. from the golf point of view, they do not believe that the iranians are going to give up their nuclear weapons capability, and they also, most of them believe that the capability will move toward

actual possession. they really have consistently said that the world needs to do something about it. the world meaning the united states needs to do something about it, to prevent it. and then, almost double the share fairly high number of them have come with its second statement right after that that another war in the gulf would be disastrous. ok? i do not know how you reconcile the two at this point in dealing with it. what has emerged in the last year or two is a resignation on the part of the more hard-line -- that is, hard line on the position that iran is taking on nuclear-weapons, that the only alternative is going to be war. as one commentator said almost three or four years ago at an mei function, well known in the gulf, he said, for the first time, i now come to agree with the israelis almost 100% on an

issue, and that issue is the nuclear capability and in the direction that iran is headed with it. all right, if you take that and said it aside and look at it. then you look at the war issue. and the possibility of war for the gulf states does create some difference in the way some of the state's view the issue of conflict. you could argue that the kuwaitis, to one degree or another, the saudis, the bahrainis, and abu dhabi want to see the program stopped. people in the bite -- in the bi and qatar have a slightly different nuanced view on it. here is where the iranians make a mistake. i think the iranians see some possible separation in the

positions of the various states out there when on the issue of iran's nuclear weapons or iran's hegemony in the gulf, it really does not exist. this accounts for mistakes that they make from time to time, pronouncements by a senior foreign-policy adviser to khomeini back by 2008 or 2009 about bahrain being the 14th province of iran and then the storm in the gulf. i think it honestly shot to the people in tehran, and dispatched the minister of interior to a conference in bahrain to explain that the real problem, of course, is the american presence in the zionists. to a degree, the iranians do not understand just how much their policy position and their overall attitude, of these of the the arabs in the gulf our

spies across the waterway from them. i actually think that while they may press the issue thinking there is some daylight, that does not exist in you'll find the arabs solidly behind the policy to either end or curtail the way or another. that said, i do not think anyone has added up what the cost for a full-blown conflict is. everybody is buying the new systems when we are busy integrating command and control, etc., etc. blue line we are looking at all sorts of options. i think the impact in the event that an actual war started would be significantly more than most of them have come to view as expected.

said that aside then beg that raises another risk. if geneive is right, and i tend to agree, if i am right and they viewed it in their interest to pursue a nuclear weapon -- this is not just this regime. the position originally balled up with -- it is their view of their role in the gulf. never say never. it is difficult for me to understand how diplomacy is going to stop war. which raises the whole issue of diplomacy and war. diplomacy i see as a tool in folding your policy.

it is supposed to forward your national interest. war is another tool used to forward your national interest and perhaps create stability then they'd given the iranian position and the daylight between the american and the israeli position, the american definition of capability versus possession and the red line capability issue, i think there is a very high probability that this will go forward. i think it will be very difficult for the united states to stop the israelis from attacking the iranians if they decide they had to. impossible, as a matter of fact then they'd just as i think it

is unlikely that sanctions will at theem th then then looking future, i think it is likely we will see conflict then banged it is very unlikely that we will see the united states -- i think eight is very likely that we will see the united states initiate an operation. if a unilateral israeli attack against iran's nuclear facilities occur, it is going to be as much political as it is military. the one thing holding the israelis back right now is the fact that officials are concerned about the limitations. it is a 2000-mile round trip and is much more difficult than anything else they have undertaken plane then there is a

strong preference that the united states did with a man it. one would have to assume that a unilateral strike would express a level of if not desperation but a level of very heightened concern on their part with a political objective of bringing the united states into the conflict, most likely by the iranians fleshing out at everyoneut at in the gulf. thank you. >> if anyone thought that mid august was a time for cheer, they have had that illusion dispelled. we have ample time for questions and comments. do we have microphones? we do.

>> [inaudible] . >> that is good to hear a bang bang who has microphones? very good. this gentleman here in the green shirt, stand up so they can see you. oh, no. wait for the microphone. i meant the other guy in the green shirt. you can go ahead and we'll take the other guy next d. >> let's try this 1. what do you suppose our policy towards iran would be if they had no nuclear program? i argued it would not be very different because the real issue is strategic control of the gulf. that issue is ongoing and is likely to become more dramatic than day >> can you identify

yourself with the microphone? allen, it sounds like a question for youbig. >> can you hear me? i think i agree with you, ken. the issues would be separate. we have had 30 years of negotiations with the iranians or non-negotiations on issues. but i think the nuclear issue is bringing it to a head and then this is something that we think actually threatens our own national interests so severely. that is the dominant issue. i think you are right. >> can we have a microphone down here please?

pleased to introduce yourself first. >> the surprise invariably results from faulty assumptions. one of the assumptions we are making here is that when i ran complete its bomb, it will test it. there is a proven design in the possession of iran. there is no need to test on iranian soil. they can test in downtown tel aviv. there is only one way to make sure i ran stops completely its nuclear weapons development, and that is to promise them that within 48 hours or iranian use by iran or one of its surrogates, the city of tehran will be destroyed. that announcement now and kept

perpetually as a promise will make the iranian nuclear weapon useless. >> we have a proposition to intimidate the iranians out of it. can that be done? >> i don't think so. seennk that whta we've over time is the more iran is pressured and threatened, the more belligerent the regime becomes. if there is one lesson we should take away over the last decade, iran does not respond to pressure in a way that is constructive. i think that approach would be very counterproductive. >> that begs the question, what would the iranians respond to? >> i think that a while ago,

they were responding to collaborative efforts in afghanistan. there have been several commenters written over the last several weeks that cooperation over syria could be some sort of entry point into improving relations. i think that is a very interesting and constructive proposal. i do not know if that leads us to a breakthrough for the nuclear issue. if we go back to the beginning of the whole trust issue and what i was mentioning a few minutes ago, you have to start somewhere. if there could be another issue upon which there is collaboration that is not about the nuclear issue that could be a trust building measure with iran, that could be one way of eventually getting to the nuclear issue. this proposal was considered by the u.s. government for many years.

that is the reason why we were negotiating over afghanistan, to create some sort of broader relationship in which we could discuss many things. the reason we are at an impasse is there has been far too much focus on the issue and not enough focus on issues where we have commonality between the two countries. >> i actually think what you are talking about is -- saying if you do this, i'll do that. that already exists. if something bad happened in downtown tel aviv or the gulf, the iranian republic would be attacked. i think this is all -- i do not think is very constructive to make threats like this. they understand a nuclear

attack in tel aviv will be the end of the iranian republic and will be responded to accordingly. >> [inaudible] >> i think they absolutely do. >> i have asked you to not do that partly because you will not be heard. >> what we are trying to do is figure out how it does not get to that point, where somebody can make a mistake whether it is the iranians making a mistake. this is what we're trying to do. it may very well be this idea that diplomacy -- this idea that somehow diplomacy and war are separate. it may be the only way you are arrived at negotiations at this

point to prevent that type of situation. it may be through a war to negate that effort. it would be nice if that were not the case. we are pretty pessimistic about it right now. everybody. i hear what you are saying, but i think that is already understood. this idea that the iranians are a crazy people who do not understand this is utter nonsense. that is people who do not understand how it is worked in the iranian context. i think the iranians are aware of it, and i think it is a huge risk. when you do not know how to control it, you can have that happen. there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if the iranians had a bomb and unloaded eight --

whether you have the design or not, and i spend a lot of time in the nuclear weapons industry, you do not know whether it will work or whether you have done is right until you put it in the ground and pop it. >> the gentlemen in the back. >> i have a question. studying the iraqi case, that did not finish the program. that hindered the program and started the military aspect of the program. would it an israeli attack on iran might lead to a crash program similar to the iraqi program that started after the invasion of kuwait? would that have -- if the iranians started to do that, how would the u.s. respond to that?

>> allen? >> i think i am going to defer to roby on this one. roby? i actually belive this time the knowledge and technical capability is dispersed enough in iran that the likelihood that an israeli strike could do it any more than temporarily curtail it. it is probably not very likely. i think the iranians learned something from 1991. you do not put all your eggs in one basket. i was recently at a function in germany. the germans have a very good relationship with iran. a lot of their analytical people are trained at the university of

tehran and other places. we had this exact same discussion. when i pointed out that the sanctions had come too little, too late, he said but nobody has an idea. which is true. i do not think it is a question of if it would happen. which leads you to the question of is it going to looi like the no-fly zone over iraq from 1991 to 2003 where you are constantly trying to redo it? short of the fracturing of the entire iranian state or what happened to iraq by accident, you are not going to see that

capability go way. that is a huge issue right there. it is so ingrained in their perception of themselves, of sovereignty and national rights, even people who opposed the regime and my place it they believe it is their right to do with it what they want. >> i have to ask you not to conduct a conversation without the microphone. >> what if they use the safeguard day already have which is almost 80% enriched? to produce a single bomb in limimted time in three or six months. >> i think i agreed with you. i think it would be an ongoing thing. we would not get it all.

>> you raised a really important point. i hope that no one misunderstands that even though we are in agreement it seems more likely now than before there could be a unilateral military check. this is not something we believe it is the solution. i think you raised the most important question. what happened the morning after? if you read all the statements coming out from israeli officials and politicians, they openly acknowledge that a unilateral attack will not set back the nuclear program. they have openly said maybe they would have to have isolated attacks on nuclear facilities every few years. i think it is safe to assume that a unilateral attack would iran's nuclear program.

from everything we know about the iranian society, it is an issue that is a point of national pride. if the country were attacked on that basis, you could assume there would be far more support for the government than it exists today which is completely counterproductive for where the united states believes it interests lie. >> let me take the gentle man right in front of you. >> thank you. i am part of the treasury department. you talk about sanctions before. we hear that the sanctions are multilateral. different country sanctions, things such as that. i am waiting to see one case outside the united states where a financial institution, individuals, an organization or anybody either paid a fine or

was in prison. when i ask that question, it is very embarrassing because i think what happens is there is no example. what i often say sometimes is there is an old italian proverb that says many pairs of shoes are worn out between saying and doing. i think it is wonderful that we have a plan for diplomacy before war. as the general said, even silence is a weapon. i am just wondering what your views are on sanctions basically. >> maybe i should respond to that. since you work for treasury, you may be better positioned to answer your own question than i am. but i think the retribution for violating sanctions has not necessarily been imprisonment and fines.

it has been the denial to the u.s. market which discourages doing business or buying oil from iran. there have been punishments. as to the exact answer to your question, i cannot answer that. to some extent, is not the most relative answer. the effects of the sanctions have been very well known. there has been a drop in an iranian oil exports and an inflation rate that has now about doubled. there are beginning to be shortages. i think the facts is there. the question is does this economic effect have any political effect? the answer is unclear at best. >> the gentleman down here. >> i am jonathan from

congressional quarterly. in the report, you mentioned the political constraints to get into a serious negotiation with the iranians. i am talking about why the diplomatic track has stalemated. given one of the key demands is recognition for the right to enrich, in your view and that of others on the panel, is it politically impossible for any american administration before or after the election to recognize that kind of right? >> good question, and the answer is, again, i don't know but let me tell you what they think.

it is certainly politically impossible before an election. after that, it is conceivable that the administration could come to an agreement based on this basis. what are the alternatives? are you willing to attack periodically? are you willing to send in the troops? are you willing to absorb $800 a barrel for oil for several months? i am not as pessimistic about the chances of war. frankly, the results are horrendous. i see this as a chance for renewed efforts of negotiation.

it in some ways reminds me of the peace process. people know the answer but they cannot find the political will to get their. re. it is a question of coming up with tight enough controls so people can have confidence that they will work. so, politically, that is a different problem and it deals with the nature of american politics. we will have a better idea after november. >> maybe i can add a word to what allen said. you have to realize there are quite a few countries that have reached the point that iran has reache din terms of capability to enrich, for example, who has

stepped back. the equation in brazil was simple because they had only one motive to develop nuclear weapons. that was argentina. a mutual stand down was possible. how does the iranian situation differ from that? several important ways. 1 is complete lack in confident between iran and the people who threaten it or might threaten it. another is it is a multi-party situation. it is a much more complicated situation and one in which building confidence is much more difficult. if you have what allen is pointing to, which is very strict safeguards, you really --

an agreement is conceivable. we are not imagining something that cannot be imagined. it is something quite possible. the equivalence has been done in other cases. let me take this gentleman here. >> my question relates to the previous question. we hear a lot iranians are not seriously negotiating. but from the report from the summary mr. keiswetter mentioned, i heard today the effect americans are waiting for the sancitons to run its course and influence iran's actions.

at some point, americans are moving on full speed with the pressure track. and they are having their diplomatic track mentioned. but iran always has metnioned acted it is not serious. i want to say there is no excuse for the iranians' on willingness in the past, but from what i know, this time, iran for its own various reasons is seriously committed to negotiations.

unfortunately it is the year of a political election. the americans perhaps hoping that sanctions and the dynamic of the election -- they are not committed. that is a comment i wanted to make. the second one is -- you got me lost when you said [unintelligible] proposal of accepting the right of 2.5. you do not see iranians are serious about changing the course. i would like to get your evidence of that because i do not see that. thank you. >> do you want to start off?

>> i want to go back to the broader point before i answer your specific question. i do think that if there could be a way -- a measure of confidence building after the november election, perhaps iran would entertain the enrichment reduction. but i think the problem has -- the problem that has developed, at the time when iran was willing to seriously consider this proposal, the united states backed away from it. from iran's perspective, every time they come close to accepting something that they never said they would accept in the past, the offer is withdrawn or is it is no longer a possibility for a variety of

reasons. so, i think to answer your specific question, because there is a lot less confidence on the iranian side, i think it is much more difficult now to get to that 3.5 to 5% that was six months ago when the ambassador first floated that idea in the "boston globe." that is why i give the answer that i did. as this process evolves, the iranian perception is that they do not want to ever think about offers any more because as soon as they get close to compromising, it is no longer on the table. there is absolute evidence for that plane bank every time there seems to be some sort of negotiating process, the west makes greater demands. that is why i am not very optimistic any longer.

however, if we could turn the clock back after the presidential election, maybe there are talks over syria or in negotiating process that goes on, perhaps that could be a confidence-building measure to get us back to where we were six months ago. on the issue of sanctions, the sanctions are i think it is important for us to also realize to what degree the sanctions are hurting the population, and we should never forget that. it sort of gets lost. people cannot afford to buy chicken anymore. inflation, the violation of the rielle has tremendously hurt people's buying power. i think if to keep that in mind as we talk about the effect of

sanctions. >> are the americans negotiating seriously or not? >> i think they are negotiating seriously. maybe i differ a little bit from genieve. we are not at this point able politically to reach in the grand way that the iranians would regard as satisfactory. the proposal is in essence a series of confidence-building measures that in the american view could lead to serious negotiations on big issues along the line, as they suggest. it is the the old adage about you have to walk before you can run. in this case, crawl before you can walk. the iranians have not been willing to deal at this level, so you have a mismatch.

i guess my own pocket is that eventually, the fears that come from the fear of war will perhaps -- i don't see that happening before the u.s. election. >> thank you. i am from the u.n. press corps in new york. i would like to address this to any of you, but particularly to ms. abdo. it leads to the question of what is really going on, and what do the people really think inside iraq? do the people at large, the majority of the people, really support the government on

development of nuclear weapons, or do some of them really believe it is only for peaceful purposes? do they really support the government, or does any significant percentage of the population look at this and say we have one of the world's finest natural pulse of the planet and we are spending all this money on development of peaceful alternative sources of energy. this nobody realized that this is costing the government, and therefore it is costing us. >> i think i would like to turn that question over to the iranians in the room to get some sense of public opinion. there are few familiar faces. maybe reza could give us a sense

of public opinion in iran. >> where are you? there you are. >> i think it is a very difficult -- >> could do stand-up? >> i think it is a difficult question to answer because i personally am not brave enough to represent the public opinion or claim that i know what 75 million people in the country think. it is also very difficult because when you talk about polls, and some public opinion polls have been conducted. they are really very difficult to judge, given the restrictions that's the society experiences from the government. for the most part, i think i am just going to discuss what the iranian public believes reconsider nuclear issues.

it is one thing that the public does support the government on. the question is, after sanctions, how is it going to affect the people if the costs are actually increase for the people. the impact of sanctions, will the iranian public be changing their opinion on this? and at some point saying enough is enough, it is not worth that. it would be a good thing to have, but we would just rather go along with their everyday activities. maybe there is a second party creston? >> -- the second part to your question. >> did not see what it is doing and will they support it only as development of peaceful uses of

atomic energy? do that out we did not realize what the real intent of the government is? >> the real -- the government says that as far as they are concerned, they are not even developing a nuclear weapon. it is a peaceful energy program. so that it's very tricky. it depends on what segment of the population believes the government will help them, what segment the young, well- educated -- there are other ways of getting it formation. they have other doubts. it is very difficult to answer your question very simply and say yes, the people do realize that the costs have been increased, the sanctions are impacting some of the average people in the street, and i think it is early to say if it will change public opinion against the government or not.

>> can you stand up, please? >> my name is jessica. i have a reaction to the comments on the two-track system. obviously it is incredibly politically dangerous with iran. it just gives the republican something to gnaw on for a while. with regard to come into negotiations after negotiations with some degree of credibility, it would be important to have the sanctions on the table. your comment to crippling sanctions versus tralee crippling sanctions earlier, i would like to respond -- we continue to up our military presence in the gulf, if we pass additional sanctions there

really target everything, between now and election season, should there not be a trust on our side to be willing to negotiate? not that i predict they see our paralysis before the election. >> i think to answer your question, perhaps the biggest element of trust is the intensive u.s. effort to convince the israelis that now is not the time to attack. the rest of this is sort of beyond control of the administration at this point. that would be my answer. >> you made a point earlier, and that is something i want to address my question or comments

to. there must be something that would make the iranians agreed to it, and if i were an iranian negotiator, my position would be to dismantle israel's nuclear capability, number one, destroy israel's nuclear stockpile, number three, we need to get what the russian and chinese position is with respect to any unilateral attack by israel. i think they should take the courage to come forward and say they would neutralize israel just as the united states would say it is real contact with the nuclear weapon, but suddenly pteron would go up in flames. when france and egypt attacked attackede and england attache

egypt, if they do not stop, london would go up and flames. just because barack obama is cajoling israel to stop, is not going to stop. >> does anybody want to take that on? >> it was addressed to you, dan. [laughter] >> i am realist. i don't think israel is going to give up its nuclear option. that is what is required, i think it is back, pat that we have already seen. >> i would like to respond to that, too. they are not talking diplomatic track.

they are talking pressure track and conference track. all of this is part of the same process. if a conflict breaks out tomorrow, do you think there is not going to be some credible flurries of activity on the backside of the conflict while it is going on? about trying to limit it and do this. on the other side, the problem of iran is not going away. on the other side of it there will be continued diplomatic sanctions, whatever. i think seeing these things as alternatives is wrong. i think they are all part of the same -- there are parts of it that are much higher risk than other parts. anytime you think you are going to solve our problem with war, then you better think about again, but you are going to create another problem. anytime you think you can absolutely prevent a war and create a stable situation

renegotiations, when the tensions are running as high as they are and the positions are as hard as they are, then you are also being naive about it. it is much more productive to view this on a continuing. one more comment about the iranians. if i were the iranians or i were revising them, from an iranian point of view, i would look at the past 10 years and say the united states has destroyed our enemy, the taliban, in afghanistan. they have done everything, accomplished every policy goal that we have in the iran-iraq war. they have gotten saddam, the bath party, and they have placed the shia in the control of iraq. iran comes around and hold it handout wanting to have a relationship with us. the label as part of the axis of evil and then do nothing about it.

now the united states is trying to get the israelis to back off of a tax so we can let the sanctions work. i am not sure i believe we were serious, or anybody was serious at this point. i think they are making a big miss judgment about just how serious the situation is right now. i think it is serious. >> i have three comments. i take your attention to the quotation from churchill that is on the cover of the paper about war. secondly, about israel and its nuclear weapons. there are beginnings' along these lines of a u.n.-sponsored conference on the middle east nuclear-free zone, but that is only the very beginnings, and generations away from anything happening. >> let me take this gentleman in the bright blue shirt. whenever you come to a meeting like this, where bright blue.

>> i am with human rights watch. it seems there were many reports in the last few months and weeks of how much the sanctions are actually harming the civilian population. it seems the only good option with iran may have a 1% chance of working, preventing -- it would not have the kind of rhetoric that makes everyone so upset. if the sanctions are hurting the middle class so much that they -- that civil society structures are collapsing, and if these things are not really harming the regime, as we all know the regime wants to stay in power. if they launch their nuclear program, that is where they will put all their money. it is doing a lot to stop the people from building a civil society. what is the point of the

sanctions and why are we doing it? >> one answer is that they have 40% less income to do things, to spend, for whatever activities they have in mind, what -- whether it is nuclear or otherwise. i think it is not right to argue that there has been no response. it just has not been concentrated enough at the political level. whether it will ever reach that is another question. i don't know if you have seen the movie "the green wave." if you have not, it makes the point that the regime is now so cruel and brutal that it is provoking a resistance that may need some time to generate, but there is a reaction, a very severe reaction. i was struck by one of the blogger saying our greatest weapon is our endurance. >> i will take one last

question and then i will ask the panel to make final remarks if they want to. >> i would like to hear the panel spot on kenneth walters argument. >> tell us what it is? >> let it go. having a nuclear iran would create security and stability in the region and give them enough self-confidence. >> i am sure roby will want to comment on this. >> thank you very much, that what we need is more nuclear

weapons in the world. my reaction is, it may be in fact we end up with a policy of containment. i personally think it would work, but i don't think it should be are intended policy. there are better options. >> i think it opens the door. this is one of the arguments that the israelis have been making that is probably correct. it opens the door to a whole series of countries -- turkey, because if you think the whole competition between turkey and iran is dead, then you don't understand what the geopolitical dynamic has been for 500 years, or maybe even longer. probably a lot longer than that. turkey, egypt, saudi arabia. i think all of them at least consider the nuclear option,

because none of them -- as a whole, at a very fundamental level, the spies and fear the iranians as a historic thing. the other thing is, i think it is totally impractical. i don't think there is any way this administration or the next administration or any other in administration can agree to that, because they will be pummeled by the opposition. there is a political limitation on our part. i think people are underestimating the obama administration. militarily, and in the use of force, the obama administration has been far more aggressive in many ways than the bush administration was. far more aggressive. remember, it was the republicans who castigated him for saying that if he found out osama bin laden were in pakistan, that he

would go into pakistan unilaterally and get him. what happened? right? i think people are assuming that somehow obama is going to really be easier in the long term. i think they are really hope that somehow the iranians will come around to the view this is serious. i also think there is a very realistic view that is not likely and then we have that ignition point and we have to look at what would happen at that plant. does that make sense? >> i think when you think about it, it is a very destabilizing situation, not only because the proliferation, but because the israelis are reduced to choosing between launch on warning are taking a big risk. i don't think they would want to take the big risk, so they would launch on warning. this is one the reasons i think it really is a negotiated

solution. i think when the iranians really think hard about what the implications of their actual possession of nuclear weapons would be, it would not be in iran does the interest. maybe it -- it would not be in iran's interest. maybe i could ask the panel in reverse order to make any remarks that they would like to. >> i am afraid that path to some sort of meaningful arrangement -- and do not kid yourself about they are no longer being a conflict in the gulf. there'll always be a conflict between iran and the gulf arabs and their neighbors. it is just the nature of the thing, and it dates back -- i can give the example after example historically. i really do not see that changing. going to a situation where you have a simmering conflict, where there are no big strategic issues were people feel like they have to do something, the

only path to convince the reins at this point that everybody is really serious -- unfortunately it may take a conflict. >> i would like to go back to what we were talking about earlier. even if there is a conflict, i don't think that will resolve the issue. i think this story is far from told. a lot of what happens with the u.s.-iran relations will depend on what is happening in syria and what eventually happens in bahrain. i think we are likely to see, or have some sort of unintended consequences, of the arab uprising in terms of iran was the power and influence in the region. power and influence in

the region. >> that think it would be devastating economically. i don't think the u.s. public wants another war in this part of the world. i don't think the countries there want it. there has to be some options here. the primary job to do now is stay involved in the conflict, and think about how you can negotiate seriously a new american administration. >> in concluding, let me just thank the staff of nei for their strong support for this event, and thank the panel for really good discussion. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama wraps up his three day trip to iowa this afternoon in davenport. first lady michelle obama is with him on the bus and we will have live coverage of that last campaign stop at 6:35 eastern here on c-span. tonight at 8:00 eastern, former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor talks about civics education. she is chairman of website to help students become interested in the judiciary. she said six has taken a

backseat to math and science. here is a brief look -- she said pacific's has taken a back seat. >> i learned to our dismay that american students, when tested on math and science, are not doing as well as students and equivalent age from many other countries. i think that distresses us because our country has been pretty advanced in math and science, and we don't want to see our students lag behind. mack is promoted in an effort to increase education efforts in those areas. it has resulted in the dropping of six -- civics courses. they have tended to do more math and science and less on civics. i would just like to be sure that we continue to teach civics to students.

my own concentration has been at the middle student level. by then the brain is formed and young people are eager to learn. they are receptive and they can get it, and it is not too early to start. i think it is important, and students want to know how government works, how their city works, there county, their state, their nation. they want to be part of it. the civics program teaches by games and the young people play a role and they learn. it is very effective. >> housing experts -- by the way, the event with the supreme court is with justice sandra day o'connor at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. >> i started as a copy boy on " the new york times."

>> this sunday on "q&a", washington post columnist walter pincus talked about his job as a columnist, and his criticism of the defense department's budget priorities. >> it has separate rooms for everybody. if you spent four million dollars on an elementary school, somebody would raise a question. >> that is sunday night at 8:00 on "q&a" on c-span. >> housing experts and civil rights advocates next, talking about the future of the housing market, rising foreclosures, unequal opportunity in housing credit. david stevens is joined by the national council policy director, janis bowdler.

>> i am a partner in a law firm and on behalf of the home for the lines and all those protests and peyton, we welcome you all here on a warm august day in washington. notably, it is five years since august 2007, that the financial sector and the global economy began to collapse. foreclosures had jumped the year before by 75% over 2006. bankruptcy's of subprime lenders had also shot up. until that summer, many commentators just talked of it as a subprime housing crisis. in 2007, what had seemed isolated to the housing sector turned into a freezing up of the international financial sector. banks stopped lending to each other. wall street loan securitization

stomped. no one was sure who held the securities in their portfolio in which institution would collapse next. fear and panic spread to the global markets, and everyone knows what unfolded after that until today. today, the legacy of the policies and practices that led up to that systemic collapse remain clear. million american families have already lost their homes to foreclosure. millions more are still hanging on, but we don't know for how much longer, and have lost all their equity. at the same time, production of new homes and rental apartments have dropped to generational lows. the echo generation is looking for housing as it comes into the work force. rents are rising rapidly and already diminished supply of affordable rental housing is stretched even more. worse still, communities that

could least afford to lose well foresee properties foreclosed have been hardest hit. roughly 25% of african-american and latino borrowers have regarding lost their homes are at serious risk of foreclosure. this is double the rate of white families in america. only, this legacy of the foreclosure crisis is hardly surprising when you consider that during the unregulated era that inflated housing bubble, african-american and latino homeowners with good credit who should have been given safe prom on for three times more likely to be sold subprime or high- interest loans. naturally the foreclosures followed with higher impact. almost since the housing in foreclosure crisis began, many in the public arena, including many elected officials, have a

skewed perspective on the underlying problems to address. has become too common to blame the homeowners and the lenders. this perspective tries to minimize or ignore the ways in which the private sector financial community contributed to bringing about the crisis. no one sector is to blame, but all share some common responsibility. importantly, we are told the biggest problem we face and housing of forward is a need to free up the private sector even more. the homes for brutalizes is coming together because we believe strongly that we need to look at the whole picture of the house and challenges. it is time to focus back to the issues in the housing policy area on where it belongs, on the people affected. questions such as what policies are best for the vast majority of americans who are having a hard time keeping up with the rest. what can be done to help those barely holding on to their

houses? where is the opportunity for americans downing they will ever have the opportunity to own home, no matter how hard they work or how well they say? we chose to hold this event in august because we are entering a critical phase of the presidential campaign for the election of the president and most of congress. our speakers today will challenge the candidates and others running for national office to address in detail where they want to take us in housing policy. to accompany this, several of my colleagues have finished a brief bit it is time to talk about housing. you will find copies in the back and online. ask questions of each candidate to be addressed. we will hear during the campaign that americans want equality of opportunity. this is certainly true. it is a deeply held american value. but opportunity takes on many forms and does not come from building on to the structures of

our housing finance system another era of bleeding money behind. as the homes for good -- despite the progress we have made as a nation, and equal opportunity and discrimination by banks and others based on ethnicity has meant that communities of color are among those hardest hit by this crisis. i am reminded of this and somewhat personal terms. my father-in-law was a poor kid in chicago who became a navigator and flew many bomber missions in europe. he often tells of the fact that while he was on bomber missions, he and his crews were saved by the tuskegee airman more than once. when he got back, he was able to get a low-interest, no down payment, no closing costs long before a poor kid with no credit. that enabled him to buy a house.

that house enabled him to have equity to start a business and to roll into a better health. when my wife and nine got ready to buy a house, my father-in- law had some equity he could pass on to the next generation. we don't know exactly who was lying for the tuskegee airmen, but we know largely through the policies and practices at the time, that same area and probably also poor from chicago, was excluded from the same opportunity. his generation did not have the opportunity to build well to pass on it is to pass on to the next generation and so on. what we can do is build -- an opportunity to create wealth. to help us understand what is needed for effective housing policies and what issues the candidates need to address, we have assembled a fabulous panel of experts today.

later, my colleague will introduce and moderate the panel. first i want to turn the podium over tojanis bowdler. she is the director of the wealth building program and more knowledgeable than many in the room and many around washington on the issues we are about to address. without further ado, please come up. [applause] >> thank you, david. that sets the bar very high. i doubt that i am more knowledgeable than many in the room. fortunately, i am not on the panel so i will not have to prove that to you. i want to thank those hosting the panel. thank you for all the energy that went into the event.

we have staff from the latino economic development center. you'll hear more from them later. if anybody in the room has questions about their own home loan are questions about the local housing market, i want to point them out. we have hosted community events like this one from detroit, sacramento, las vegas, columbus, ohio, miami. we have been listening to homeowners that tell us the housing market still needs a lot of work. our nation continues to face a home opportunity crisis. analysts tell us this year will likely see a least 2,000,004 closures, with many more risk. this means that hundreds of thousands of senior citizens are losing their economic security. children and families are being uprooted. neighborhoods are being blighted by vacant properties. making matters worse, an equal opportunity and targeting of

communities of color by lenders means that minority families are among the hardest hit. all this results in a continued drag on the economy that hurts us all. in this room we all know there are proven and practical solutions that can stop needless foreclosures and restore effective neighborhoods and preserve fair and affordable ending. we can do this while making sure that home ownership remains a pillar of american opportunity into the 21st century. over the past year we have seen some progress on this front by the obama administration in certain states and by some lenders. that has reduced the number of foreclosures facing american families for sure, but that fall far short of what we need and they are not getting to scale. many have not included at a good measures to address a nickel opportunity. the home for good campaign calls

on our presidential candidates to commit to addressing our shared concerns. if you support this effort, signed this postcard. together we will tell the candidates to come to the table with real solutions, to stop needless foreclosures, expand affordable rental and provide a sustainable path to home ownership. the topic of housing has that been all but ignored, campaign trail. neither candidate had laid out a clear strategy for a market system after this election, and this is troubling, considering the role that housing place in our economic recovery. we have offered our own set of solutions which we have gathered in a document. spearheaded by our partners at the opportunity agenda, the compaq for all opportunities list proven strategies for a balanced and accessible housing.

we call on policy makers, industry leaders and everyday americans to commit to real solutions. implementing these a way that is in fourth and accountable makes them as effective as possible. the compact encompasses both the immediate remedies and long-term objectives. we invite you to go to my home for good.com or you can text the word home to62571 for more information. now is my great pleasure to introduce the deputy assistant attorney general for the civil rights division at the department of justice. we appreciate your willingness to stand in at the last minute for the assistant attorney general who could not make. in her current role she oversees the division's work on their house in fair lending issues.

in partnership with several federal agencies such as hud and the part of the treasury. i would like to commend others for their brown waking -- ground breaking work in bringing justice to families swindled by unfair price hikes. please come to the podium. [applause] >> thank you. it is indeed my honor and privilege to be with you today. i want to thank the center for american progress for being a forum in which we can have this important discussion. and sir the council for spearheading this important effort to keep a focus on this

housing crisis. we know many families are struggling and until we can address those issues, we should not rest. i do sent regrets from the assistant attorney general. he was called at the last minute to be part of a delegation to the dominican republic for the installation of a new president. therefore i am stepping in, but i will tell you i am absolutely thrilled to be here today. this is a critical issue and are focused on the issues that you care about, because we also care about what is happening throughout our country. the promise of equal opportunity is at the core of our american dye use and ideals. the opportunity to learn and gain fair access to credit, to burn, to live for one chooses and move up the economic ladder. we see to level the playing field and provide the cornerstone of that economic opportunity.

one of the most basic building blocks has been home ownership. as an administration, our job is to enforce the law so that every eligible person has equal access to credit and housing opportunities. free from fraud and abuse and discrimination. it was the absence of such enforcement that contributed to the housing in foreclosure crisis and led to many of the abuses we are working hard to remedy. this is why in the wake of the housing and foreclosure crisis the federal government, under the leadership of president obama, has responded forcefully, with unprecedented levels of foreclosures, mortgage servicing practices have not only failed to adequately address the crisis but have exacerbated the problem. these practices, along with abuses in the foreclosure process, prompted the department of justice in coordination with hud and the hud office of the inspector general, 49 state

attorneys and state banking regulators across the country to conduct an extensive investigation into serious violations of state and federal law. these violations included rowboat signed affidavits and foreclosure procedures, deceptive practices in the offering of long modifications, failure up to offer non foreclosure alternatives, and filing improper documentation in federal bankruptcy court. as a result, the part of justice, with these other federal agencies and state attorneys general, have reached a landmark, $25 billion agreement with the nation's five largest mortgage servicers to resolve the allegations of mortgage loan servicing violations in foreclosure abuses. the agreement provide substantial financial relief to homeowners and establish a significant new homeowner protections for the future.

the joint agreement, the largest federal-state civil settlement ever obtained requires servicers to implement comprehensive new mortgage loan servicing standards in addition to and the $25 billion. in keeping with the homeowner's bill of rights, president obama announced the servicing standards require that homeowners be treated fairly. for example, establishing a single point of contact, a commitment that homeowners will get assistance before a servicer 6 foreclosure and that foreclosure will be saw only after other options fail. the standards, in combination with vigilant monitoring, will help transform the servicing industry. significantly, of the $25 billion servicers have agreed to pay, $20 billion will go toward various forms of financial relief to borrowers, including principal reduction, refinancing, and other types of relief.

since time is of the essence for a family facing foreclosure, there are incentives for servicers to provide relief sooner than later to homeowners. while it is clear that communities all around the country have been devastated by the abuses in housing prices, african-american and hispanic families have been hit especially hard. discriminatory lending played a particularly devastating role in housing and foreclosure crisis, draining significant wealth from all communities, but especially from communities of color. too often, african-american and hispanic families paid more for loans because of their race or national origin, not based on their credit characterization. too often, african-american and hispanic families are given more risky subprime loans, not race on their -- not based on a

credit qualifications. incredibly, some lenders refuse to lend in minority communities, making assumptions based on the race of residence rather than their credit qualifications. to address discrimination and it -- it in lending, attorney general holder created a housing in civil enforcement section. since the establishment of the fair lending division, we have brought record numbers of enforcement actions. in the approximately 24 months since the unit was established, we filed our resolve 17 lending matters. by contrast, from 1993-2008, the department of justice filed or result 29 lending matters, an average of less than two cases per year. the division produced unprecedented results in 2011 alone. we filed a record eight lending

related federal losses and obtained settlement providing for more than $350 million in relief for victims of illegal lending practices. countrywide was the largest -- as well as record settlements. no one case can rectify the multitude of unlawful practices in housing and lending market that contributed to the nationwide housing and foreclosure crisis. as the enforcement record illustrates, the fair lending unit uses every possible tool to address the range of abuses seen in the market in both mortgage and non mortgage lending. collaboration is critical to all we have accomplished. much of the fair lending enforcement is done in conjunction with regulatory agencies and the president's financial fraud enforcement

counsel. particularly its nondiscrimination working group which the attorney general cochairs. in addition, from 2009-2011, the bank regulatory agencies, the ftc and hud, reported a total of 109 matters involving a potential pattern a practice of lending discrimination to the justice to permit. 55 of the matters referred in of race or national origin discrimination. a combined total that is far higher than the 30 race and national origin discrimination referrals the that it -- the division received from 2001- 2008. our enforcement efforts have enhanced -- have a new and critical partner. the countrywide case was done in conjunction with the illinois attorney general's office.

the settlement was more than 50 times larger than the next sediment at the time. our complaint alleged that system in generation over four years violated the equal credit opportunity act and the threat housing act and impacted more than 200,000 african-american and hispanic families. at the core of the complaint was a very simple story. if you were african-american or hispanic, you like the paid more for a countrywide loans than a similarly qualified white bar or, simply because of your skin color. if you are african-american or hispanic, you were for more likely to be steered into an expensive and risky subprime loan and a similarly qualified white bar or. african-american and latino borrowers who walked into a countrywide store had no idea they could have gotten a better deal. nothing can undo the damage that hard-working, responsible

family suffered as a result of these types of discriminatory practices, but the relief for victims of discrimination will begin to address some of their financial losses and made clear that that kind of behavior will not be tolerated in the marketplace. we also reached our second- largest settlement against wells fargo for steering and pricing violations in its wholesale mortgage lending. there will be a minimum of $125 million in direct compensation to pricing victims and a commitment to provide additional compensation for any retail steering victims found. wells fargo committed the $2 million in downpayment assistance to borrowers in targeted communities were substantial victims were located. this will begin to address the community harms that are a consequence of such discrimination. additionally we have brought other discrimination cases since then it was established,

including multimillion-dollar settlements as well as the first unsecured consumer lending pricing case, brought by the division in at least a decade. and a case we fought against regional lender in collaboration with the united states attorney's office in the southern district of new york. many of the pricing cases have relied on disparate impact analysis to show a violation of law. this approach has been unanimously accepted by the court and using all the tools and our arsenal to root out discrimination when supported by the facts. we settled redlining cases in 2011, won again citizens bank of flint michigan and the other against midwest bank of st. louis. citizens agreed to invest $3.60

million in wayne county and in the city of detroit. they agreed -- midwest agreed to invest in african-american neighborhoods in st. louis. to access credit in areas where lenders have previously denied such services. however, our settlements never require a lender to make a loan to unqualified borrowers. the department's selman agreement repeatedly refers to extensions of credit to qualified applicants only, and we know there are plenty of qualified minority borrowers. the department makes clear that no provision in any redlining settlement agreements include any special loan programs or requires banks to make unsafe or unsound loans. we want to encourage responsible lending throughout these

communities, and sound products. last year, we also brought our first fair housing act case alleging discrimination against women on paid maternity leave and mortgage insurance on to underwriters. that case is currently in litigation. in addition we have stepped up efforts to protect the rights of our servicemen and women reinforcement of the service members civil relief act. we have moved aggressively to protect service members whose homes were foreclosed on in violation of that law. as a result, the vast majority of all foreclosures again service members will be under court order review. recently we reached at $12 million settlement with capital one that will address violations throughout its lending arms. we have helped shape and define

what access to equal credit means under the law for all borrowers. enforcement continues to ensure that people have a black assistant housing opportunities. the ability to live where one chooses without facing discrimination is the foundation upon which we build our lives. the opportunity to choose where one lives is essential to enabling individuals and families across the spectrum of race, ethnicity, disability, and sexual orientation the opportunity to have a choice in the selection of schools, access to job opportunities, and the ability to engage as fully equal members of their community butte for example, the department settle against a city in wisconsin for discrimination and violation of the fair housing act. it was filed in june 2011 and the lawsuit alleged that the city blocked 180 units of affordable housing projects where the developer had proposed

for the city center area. the city's planning commission initially approved the project but reversed course. it was based partly on racial stereotypes and fear that the tenants would be african- american. in response, the city chose to bar affordable housing in the city center in the future. our settlement requires the city not take any further action to obstruct or delay the affordable housing project and also requires that the city take affirmative steps to provide for future affordable housing, including the requirement that the city communicate its commitment to fair housing by establishing a housing trust fund, capitalized with $75,000 initially to assist such projects. it will opportunity is not just about individual rights.

it is about community prosperity and stability and it is about economic growth. this administration and the department of justice continues to be committed to full and fair enforcement of the laws that protect people from fraud and abuse is and keeps open the doors of opportunity for all. we remain committed to addressing the harmful practices prevalent during the mortgage meltdown, but we also investigate and bring enforcement actions to confront emerging discriminatory practices in the credit and housing markets. we will continue to aggressively enforce the law to protect rights of service members and all who face discrimination to ensure fair and equal access to credit and to housing opportunities for all, as the law requires. thank you for letting me be here with you today, and i look forward to the discussion ahead.

>> vicki, thank you so much, and thank you for all of your great work. it really means a lot to the community to see justice brought to our families. i would like to melt it -- to welcome monica radcliffe and the rest of our panelists. >> good morning. i am a senior fellow here at the center for american progress and the executive director -- -- since north carolina is a hotly contested state and we have a nominating convention coming to charlotte soon, it is nice to be able to get away from politics and come up here to washington today. so thank you all for coming, and welcome to the panel. it is an amazing range of

experience and insight that they bring at where we stand today and how we move part. five years since the financial system really began to unravel. over here on the far right, david stephens, president and ceo of the mortgage bankers association. he brings an impressive career as a lender with world savings bank, freddie mac, and wells fargo. most recently on the public side as a former commissioner of the fha. thank you for joining us today. next we have terry ludwig. he helped create affordable homes and rebuild communities. she has pretty -- priebus let a community development company as well as a large nonprofit lender

to small business. she is recognized as one of the world's leading social entrepreneurs. to my right is jim kerr of the national community reinvestment coalition. he worked at fannie mae and the center for urban policy research at rutgers. he served on advisory boards that numerous colleges and is currently a visiting professor at columbia university. he is a deeply engaged academic. i would like to ask you to start us off. let's begin with foreclosures. the white paper being presented today reports 3.5 million foreclosures since 2008. that is less than the 3.7

million households that are either currently delinquent or in the process of foreclosure. housing economists are starting to talk about a bottom to the market and maybe even recovery on the horizon. how does this square with what you observed? >> that is an excellent way to start the conversation. i have been hearing analysts and housing economists argue that we are seeing a bottom to the housing crisis, going all the way back to 2007 before the crisis even ensued. the fact is, just as the economy has shown greater hope and then lost steam, the housing market continues to show greater hope and then it loses steam. we need to be careful about being overly optimistic about the current state of the housing market. it could lead us to taking actions that would severely