Skip to main content

tv   Endowment For Int.  CSPAN  September 9, 2013 2:00am-6:01am EDT

2:00 am
address those grievances they have about turkey, they will have to come to the negotiating table and address turkey's grievances, two, and i believe that there are internal forces from the european union i believe we have run out of time here. exactly what they call swiss timing. i would like to thank you on behalf of brookings as well as the turkey project at the foreign-policy part of brookings . uri for having read my report and reflected on it. thanks.
2:01 am
[applause] >> today, nobel prize-winning physicist peter diamond will talk about the causes of high unemployment. he will be speaking at the american enterprise institute and after the remarks are be a and between dean baker former federal reserve board senior economist kevin hassett. that begins live at 2:00 p.m. eastern on seat span three. -- on c-span3. discussion about iran's nuclear program in line of the company's new president and possible military strikes on syria. albrightinclude david and colin powell. this is an hour and a half.
2:02 am
welcome to this morning's briefing on guarding against a nuclear armed iran, diplomatic risks. -- we are an independent nongovernmental organization dedicated to providing information and policy ideas to most dangerous weapons including nuclear, chemical, biological weapons. we publish the monthly journal "arms control today". it is good to have you here. please turn off your mobile devices so that we are not intrepid before we get going. know, from this issue, for the past decades, iran's nuclear program has been a subject of intense international concern. since the international atomic
2:03 am
energy agency a decade ago confirmed that iran secretly built a rate -- uranium enrichment plant. has improved its nuclear capabilities in various ways. , iran and the united states and the other france, uk,, germany, russia and china have fumbled fleeting opportunities to resolve the issue through a negotiated deal. tehran hastime, expanded its enrichment program and other sensitive nuclear fuel cycle act including its heavywater reactor at iraq and even as international sanctions on iran have tightened and had a huge impact on iran's economy. iran's leaders have apparently not made a strategic decision to build nuclear weapons and they yet the necessary ingredients for building a , but they have
2:04 am
taken other steps mr. to build a nuclear arsenal. there is time for diplomacy and to secure a meaningful win-win deal to guard against a nuclear armed iran. ofh the august inauguration a opportunitye is to have a breakthrough in terms of their enrichment program and other sensitive fuel cycle access to itsiaea program to ensure that there is not a secret program going on. in exchange for significant phased relief of the international sanctions that have been put in place over the years. now, leaders in washington and tehran all say they want a diplomatic solution. from our perspective, the arms
2:05 am
control association, my colleagues here agree that it is time to translate those words into concrete action. beginning with the next round of p5 plus one talks with iran. the p5 being of course the permanent five members of the security council plus germany which is expected to be scheduled soon, perhaps within a month. there's also an important meeting on september 27 between iran and the international atomic energy agency to try to address the long-running questions about potential military dimensions of its nuclear program. let us note that just this morning, in a step towards those me r --esident rajoy rouhani has made a
2:06 am
shift from the previous presidential approach, so we will hear from our colleagues about what that shift could mean for the iranian tactics and approach. ,his is a very complex issue and to help the public and you all here and policymakers better understand the key huge issues , we are releasing today an updated version of a briefing book that we published earlier this year titled "solving the arena nuclear puzzle," and there are copies outside on the flash drives that we have provided for you. you're also on our web site at arms control.org. it goes to all the key issues, the history and the options up to date as of this week. more importantly, we have three excellent speakers are today. their analysis on
2:07 am
the status of iran's nuclear capabilities. ellman's thatthe winld require a win- situation. david albright is a founder and president of the nonprofit institute for science and international security. they did and his team at ices for many years have been a leading independent source of information on the nuclear korea,s of iran, north pakistan, india and other states of concern. among other things he is going to fill us in on the latest international atomic agency reports on iran's program and its implications for diplomacy in iran's nuclear capabilities. call --will be calling cowell, he is a
2:08 am
senior fellow at the center for a new american security and from from 2009 2 2000 11 he served as the secretary of defense for the middle east. batting cleanup will be george berkowitz, my friend and georgeperkovich. george for many years has written for many years on nonproliferation and nuclear policy issues and he is going to provide us with his perspectives on the path ahead. so with that, i am going to turn over the podium to david. after david and colin and george speak for about 12 minutes or so each, we will turn it over to you, the audience, for questions. i'm sure we are going to get into a robust and interesting discussion. thank you all for being here.
2:09 am
david, the floor is yours. >> thank you, darrell. as he said, i will be concentrating on iran's nuclear program and status and some of the implications for negotiations. mostly i'm going to be talking about results from the iaea's court early safeguard reports which is a nonclassified public document that the iaea reduce his four times a year. they do this to fulfill their responsibilities to its member states and also the un security council about what it is trying iran'so verify commitments under the nonproliferation treaty and also whether iran is abiding by un security council resolutions that have called for suspension of its centrifuge program and the hall to the construction of the iraq heavywater reactor. thatusly, the iaea reports its is not fulfilling
2:10 am
obligations under the security council resolution and it is a mixed message on the verification of its commitment under the npt, and namely declaring its nuclear materials is accounted for but its past activities and possibly ongoing activities may be in violation of the treaty. are, but itid they certainly raised enough concerns that it's an issue that has to be addressed. one of the nice things the iaea has been doing in its report is trying to put in enough detail so that the member states and the interested public can actually proffer a chart progress of iran's nuclear program. at isis we have tried to identify several metrics that can bring that to life. , in hisjust evaluate
2:11 am
sensitive things are getting worse, from our dave's their program is advancing significantly or are they getting better in the sense of programs going slower. i think the last report is a mixed bag. for us, one of the most striking things is the number of their centrifuges continues to grow quite dramatically. ir one, the, the first generation has over the last two years, they have double the numbers of i are one centrifuges. they have also been installing advanced centrifuges the call ms. this means they could enrich uranium at any time. the good news is that all these recently installed centrifuges are not enriching uranium. iran has decided for some reason we don't know why not to actually use this growing
2:12 am
centrifuge capability. it essentially enriches and the same number that it has enriched in for the last two or three years. again, we don't know why, but to us that is a positive and they could be making a lot more 20% enriched uranium, which is the most sensitive material right now, then they are now. is aer metric we use concept which is called critical capability. i howa measure motivated well can a deterrence policy as articulated by obama, namely to prevent iran from seeking nuclear weapons, how well can that policy work? from our view it works best if what you are really trying to do is deter iran from making enough weapon grade uranium for nuclear weapons. once, from our view, once they have whatever amount, 25 kilograms of weapon grade uranium, which is the amount we use, whatever happens after that
2:13 am
will be extremely difficult to work with. we don't know where it will go, it may take them several months to make a nuclear weapon but we don't know how to measure when that is going to happen. whether facilities can make a statedare small, iran they not to make a crude fission weapon and was working on more sophisticated nuclear weapons, and so they have a head start. the bottom line is that if you're trying to deter them from breaking out and making weapon grade uranium, then you want to have adequate warning of that. the idea of critical capability is when you could reach a point where you are going to lose that ability to have adequate warning. what is adequate warning mean? the ability to go in and strike militarily and stop them from finishing making enough uranium for making nuclear weapons. we think that deterrence is in effect now. if they used all their facilities and centrifuges,
2:14 am
although 20% in the form they have come it would still take them months to break out. this is a minimal estimate in our calculations. it could take longer if they have problems with the enrichment plan which happens a lot in iran. a month is enough from our view, enough time were critical capability comes in is if they could do it in a week or two weeks. then you are in a regime where they may delay inspectors access or some other things that would make it hard for the iaea to detect it or for the intelligence agencies to detect that based onk their progress, the midst 2014 is when they reach critical capability. 's that point i think obama deterrence policy will read serious problems. we don't see anything in this report that changes this.
2:15 am
news, the iaea has continued to have no progress on weaponization and other military nuclear issues. the thing that has gotten limelight in the last two years has been one particular site. it is only a small part of the issue. for whatever reason, the partainided to focus on , and in that sense the focus on on that sense has allowed a broader focus of issues to be reduced. the iaea that is asserting that it wants it back and play. it is laid out its positions to bring back a more realistic view of how to deal with those issues. i think with all the activity at if you follow that, it was a site that had no activity
2:16 am
for years. the iaea asked to visit and all the sudden a lot of construction activity against to take place things are taken out of the building, there's all kinds of water being used which could either be washing down facilities or cooling equipment that is cutting up equipment. you have seen as faulting of the site recently and there isn't a lot of as faulting of facilities creatinghin. it is large parking lots at the site is not normal. not privy that i can do much. very likely we will get an ambiguous results and i think they are stepping back in this report to say it is a much bigger issue and we need to revisit that. >> just to put this into context, what you are talking parchin, with ou there are high explosive tests could be related to uranium. the iaea efforts over the last
2:17 am
two years to clarify that question and other questions about potential military activities have not made progress. for the first time in this report i'm just saying the iaea lays out several steps that iran could take to help clarify that. as i said at the beginning, their next meeting is going to be september 27. there is an opportunity for progress if the iranians want to help achieve that. hopefully rouhani will make the right decision. without solving this weaponization it is hard to believe that you can settle this issue. you certainly can get short deals, but without solving weaponization, you are not getting to the core concern which is if iran had a nuclear hasn't program and stopped the program? the international community has ways of dealing with that and honesty about past activities doesn't usually lead to
2:18 am
punishment it leads to increased confidence that they won't do it again. that has been played out in south africa, libya, brazil and other countries. it is an important condition to achieve. will comeouhani clean on that. part of the problem though is that he set this up in 2003 or was involved in setting this up, coming clean on a whole set of activities. andhiding the weaponization so he is very skilled, but will he make a different decision now? i'm sure i am running out of time, how much time to have left? other good news is that they didn't increase their stock of 20% low enriched uranium hexafluoride. get 242 200 50 kilograms
2:19 am
of that then israel will supposedly do something. the way iran can avoid that is to stop making that which it is not doing or the other is to convert it into oxide form for use in reactor fuel, the tehran research reactor. tehran is following the latter. so the amount is being produced is staying the same, but it is sending more off to the conversion facility for conversion into oxide and that is seen as a positive development. it is also a sign that iran does respond to pressure. i think that is one of the advantages of the situation is that iran can be deterred, its behavior can be changed through various pressure tactics. we saw that in 2003 when they radically changed their approach
2:20 am
and i think you see it in this limit on the 20% enriched uranium production, or at least limited the stock file -- or at least limiting the stockpile. it doesn't mean that they stopped the program at all. another positive step, although i think they shouldn't be overplayed, iran is very proud and it often will say things about its nuclear progress that are not realistic and so a couple of months ago and in the last iaea report, the one before in may, it said it would rapidly start the iraq heavywater reactor. in this report it is clear they can started on that schedule and they delayed the start of date now, that reactor is important because israel has bombed two reactors in the middle east andady, one in iraq in 1981
2:21 am
one and one in syria in 2007. one would expect israel to bomb this reactor, two. it could be a way to get into the military option. so there is certainly, if you watch this, you want to see this reactor operation delayed. you just don't need the hassle heard iraq does need the reactor and it is a from my point of view just a disruptive element where it creates another timeline that could lead to military action. it could also pose a dilemma for israel. are they going to not vomit and allow it to operate? i think that it would create an amex in israel that could increase the chance of a strike. >> at a heavywater reactor is especially worrisome from a
2:22 am
proliferation perspective because heavywater reactors are better suited for plutonium production. that really could not happen for correct?, you, jerrold. they have chosen to use a kind of core that isn't ideal to make weapons grade plutonium. they could have chosen a different court. maybe they will in the future, but their core design, each was a fuel design provided by russian entities back in the 90s when russia was working more intensively with iran's nuclear program. it is not ideal. no reprocessing capability that we know of right now and you need that to separate the plutonium from the fuel. isis we don't view the reactor is serious, but we don't see it nearly as serious as a centrifuge program in particularly the growth in the
2:23 am
number of centrifuges. in an agreement you want to cap the enrichment output of the we use the term separate of work. you want to cap at a much lower level than it is now, if you count all the centrifuges. you want to roll back not a suspension necessarily, but a rollback in their number of centrifuges. a capabilityt that could, if the agreement is not working, could lead to a huge surge in the production of 20% and be used in a breakout. so we think it is important to reduce the number of centrifuges. some of the things not in the theyt, two years ago announced they suspended construction of a third . they wouldant throug
2:24 am
keep that in suspension for two years. the two years has passed and questions remain whether iran is building a third centrifuge plant building the number of centrifuges it has been installing, you have to worry that they could do it if they wanted. the iaea doesn't have the mechanisms to know and iran is -- and iran has refused to allow , are you going cover notification, george? >> i was going to say what has to be in any deal, but i wasn't going to back over the history of it or it >> all right, i will leave it to george. but that is an issue that remains. the last one is, how is it wrong -- how is iran banking the centrifuges? there's a lot of success in detecting their procurement. you see a lot of efforts to buy.
2:25 am
there are interdictions, but they have been getting what they need. i think at isis we used to think they were cap in a way. we now see that they probably have enough carbon fiber, which is a vital component of advanced centrifuges, for thousands of ir2m's. again, the centrifuges aren't operational, so we don't know if they have all the equipment they need in the plant to make them operational. be they appeared to bypassing the sanctions. in our work we see two big loopholes and i will end with this. we see china not doing enough and that iran can buy american, german and french there and it means they can get high-tech goods for centrifuge program. iran still wants is goods. we also see the eu as a problem.
2:26 am
while they have good controls, we have seen cases where, let me give an example where goods went from japan to the u.s.. it was carbon fiber. through a goodpe country, a legitimate sale and then it sort of disappeared in the eu which is a big place. many of the countries don't have the same level of controls as the white nights there. orn it is tracked via turkey adjacent country to iran. we have identified these two loopholes that need to be fixed. thank you. >> thank you very much, david albright for that great summary of where the program is and what some of the implications are. now we are going to turn to call in to give us his take on where the negotiators might be able to go with the election ofrouhan
2:27 am
thank you darrell and thanks to carnegie for hosting and thanks to all of you for coming out on a morning to listen to us. my remarksmentioned, will basically focus on three things, whether there is a window of opportunity with the election of rounani to make some diplomatic progress. second what a deal might look like and how investigators might approach set on getting a deal. also what the implications of a possible military strike on syria might be because it is obviously very much in the forefront of our minds at the moment. think there is a lot of skepticism in some quarters in congress among the israelis who is aounai, genuine moderate. he's not going to transform iran into a jeffersonian democracy.
2:28 am
but he isgime insider also a pragmatist with a demonstrated history of being able to forge elite consensus on controversial foreign-policy issues including the nuclear issue. it is important to keep in mind that he campaigned, the elections workfare in the sense that not everybody wanted to run got to run, what a lot of people voted in them and rouhani campaigned on a platform of producing the isolation. , jallililnts campaigned on a strategy of nuclear resistance. basically saying no on any compromises. his election was a referendum on whether the current approach on the nuclear issue and the sanctions issue is the right approach. overwhelmingly the iranian
2:29 am
public said no. there is a mandate for change. since his election, he has continued to emphasize his willingness to engage substantively, it seriously and promptly on nuclear compromise. he is also signaled his willingness to meet bilaterally with the united states, which is promising. he is put together a including a cabinet former u.s. ambassador -- a former u.s. ambassador. he is a well-known figure in the west. is going to be the foreign minister and it looks like he will have the lead for nuclear negotiations with the + team has also
2:30 am
suggested that the economy is worse than imagined. i suspect that they were actually shocked by how bad the economy and iran is as a result of sanctions, suggesting they are highly motivated to cut some deals i think it is also important to note that in his writings and some speeches and to make anhis team interesting argument about iran and nuclear weapons. as a result, the supreme spotlight against weapons, iran will never pursue that. the argument they have made is that not only are the religious prohibitions against a nuclear weapon intact, but the or suit of nuclear weapons will be a net negative to iran's security. it wouldn't provide strategic dividends. it strikes me as an argument they may use for stopping somewhere short of a nuclear capability, at least in their internal infighting.
2:31 am
there are a bunch of uncertainties about how much he can do. opportunityindow of how much latitude the supreme leader will give him on the issue. the supreme leader is the ultimate decider on this issue. we don't know how the negotiations will be framed if it is true that's a reef will take the lead. does that mean the p5 plus one -- who will he appoint at the undersecretary director level? wills a reef take the lead in a bilateral dialogue will happen knowe contract -- we don't any of these things. it is not clear what type of might be willing to accept.
2:32 am
increase inspections on iran's program in coming to terms with the iaea on the past military dimensions. i will say that transparency in and of itself won't a sufficient in the p5 plus one, particular the west because there have to be fundamental limits. numbers of centrifuges number of facilities, so transparency alone, which appears to be the watchword is necessary and not sufficient for a deal. from hislso clear statement is that he will not be able to accept a deal that does not in some way allow him to frame it as respecting iran's npt i think the probability of this iranian
2:33 am
government or the iranian regime in general agreeing to an theall compromise probability of that happening is zero this regime will risk a war including with the united states , to defend what it interprets as its rights. which means it's not the right thing for the p5 plus one to insist upon and we can talk darrellat later mentioned there has been no date set for the next round of the five plus one talks. i think there was hope that some might happen before the you in general meeting. i don't think that will a possible if a serious strike happens. split further. i'll get back to the serial issue. if talks resume, there is an offer on the table from the t , the current issue
2:34 am
calls on iran for six months to suspend its enrichment activities, to ship out its stockpile of 20% material that is not immediately required for medical purposes, to agree to enhance monitoring of its centrifuge production and dissemination facilities and to suspend activities at its enrichment plant under a mountain near the holy city and is a major concern to both the u.s. and israel. to suspend activities, reduce the readiness. previously they had called for shattering but they have moved off of that. in exchange we would provide relief from u.s. and eu sanctions on golden petrochemicals. provide licensing for repairs of iranian aircraft and let you have no new proliferation related sanctions for the. of the confidence building measure. iran agrees, the six-month. will then be used to negotiate
2:35 am
the next step towards a final agreement. that is a general framework on the table. i call the small for small. it requires relatively small concessions from the iranians and provides little in exchange for those concessions. i personally believe is that small for small can't work. even though it is a fair deal from the u.s. perspective, it looks like a raw deal from the iranian perspective. there are two big sources of leverage over the west. forgo. and i just don't see them being able to, it is a fair deal objectively, but i don't think it is one that the iranian leadership could accept or sell. p5 -- iel that if the don't advocate small for small.
2:36 am
some have advocated, ok we need to do more for small. idea is aterrible terrible idea because it is a horrible negotiating tactic.. basically signals at the longer they wait the better deal they get which is a wrong signal to send them. the only thing iranians want is really from sanctions. those are the biggest source of western leverage over iran. more for small is bad idea. it wouldmore for more mean that we could offer them significant sanctions relief on the financial front, on the oil front and insurance front in exchange for everything in the current confidence building measure plus it iran doing something with its 3.5% low enriched uranium stockpile.
2:37 am
an escrow or something like that, as well as agreeing to much tougher inspections. however, while i think this is better than the small deal, it would require the west to give up its biggest sources of leverage vomit central bank and iran, for a deal that is left incomplete. i would rather use the sources of leverage for the big, final deal, not some interim deal of any size. like i said, this would be preferable to the small agreement. what i would propose is what some people call big for big. this could start in private, it could start a bilateral setting between united states and iran, and you flesh out a roadmap for the endgame, what iran's nuclear
2:38 am
program would look like and what kind of relief they would get in exchange, then you have phased implementation. instead of having measures that built for the final agreement, you have a roadmap that is implemented in a series of measures. it reverses the order of the .urrent negotiations what was such an agreement look like? i don't know. it would have several components. it would cap enrichment at five percent. it would allow some level of enrichment, which would be hard for u.s. in congress to stomach, but it would cap at five percent. it would limit domestic stock stockpile tossage lessen the amount to make one bomb. it would stop dismantle or otherwise suspend activities that david mentioned. it would resolve disputes over past military dimensions of iran's nuclear research at the
2:39 am
iaea. iran would have to submit to much more intrusive suspects and -- much more intrusive inspections. safeguard onewould and recognize some right to enrichment. they would get significant sanctions relief, everything that was proliferation related. would providee peaceful nuclear cooperation. fuel assemblies for the research reactor, medical isotopes and those sorts of things. the p5 + onewould have to again sanctions and perhaps the united states would have to offer the prospect of some long-term dialogue with them on security matters in the region, something that they have periodically signaled they want. moving quickly in this direction is preferable for a couple of
2:40 am
reasons. this relates to david's point. if you take on the assumptions about their trendline, in the next 12 to 18 months they could hit milestones which could make the insurance strategy or israeli military action more likely. whether that would be breakout oracity in uranium enriching because their activity to become live and the moment before could create an intense time. we don't have a lot of time. case assumption we should benchmark our diplomatic schedule to that. i think that a bigger deal is much more likely to be implemented by the united states. i don't see congress substantially waiving sanctions for small deal. in fact the probability is zero. it's more likely they would increase sanctions if they could in the face of a small deal. they would frame it as intransigence by the iranians
2:41 am
and use it as a reason to increase sanctions. -- i't see any product don't see any prospect of congo styling back sanctions unless there is a big deal. offer of ak the bigger deal gives rouhani something to use to make the claim that he is changed the contours of the conversation and has shifted its. that is something that is important for him. the dealnot least, that i outlined gives iran everything they have asked for. it calls their bluff. if in reality they have no intention to build weapons they should be satisfied with this deal. if they have secret intentions and they reject his deal on those grounds, it would be very clarifying for the international community. if the u.s. needs to take military action and galvanizes much support as possible, it would be better in the context of which a good generous offer was slid across a table and the
2:42 am
iranians said no. the me just say one or two things about syria. is there is no one iranian elite few on syria. they are deeply divided very at his allies have made the case that all use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. they have not assigned blame to if called for this issue to be resolved through the u.n.. they have taken a fairly sedate tone. in contrast, hardliners within the resume -- within the regime has said the opposition did this. they said if american strike we will light israel on fire. i believe this is bluster. has hit iran five times in the last 10 years and they have done nothing. friction generates
2:43 am
between the moderate faction in the hardline faction which successo spoil rouhani domestically. this will be a huge test for him when a military strike happens. the strikes could arguably help -- could helpn convince them that the u.s. is serious. it could add to this deterrent effect and maybe even give rouhani a chance to push back thenst the notion that hardliners advance that the u.s. is a paper tiger. it would allow him to make that argument heard it in the near term it would put him on the defensive by allowing his adversaries to paint him as soft and weak in the face of western aggression. the answer is we don't know what the effect of a strike would be, but it certainly will create a wildcard in the diplomatic equation. thanks. >> thank you very much, calling for that very robust and detailed outline of the steps forward.
2:44 am
george, tractor of studies at carnegie. >> thank you all of you for coming. when call talked about the importance of going for a big agree withe deal, i that premise entirely, that the only way to get a diplomatic resolution of the iranian nuclear issue is going to be to theout how you actually and crisis over this issue. that has to be big in the ways that calling suggested. trying to do a little bit at a time, confidence building incrementally, doesn't work for the reasons you mentioned and i would enforce this by saying that the president in either
2:45 am
country would have to expend a lot of political capital to get the various opponents for skeptics to agree to anything, including a little incremental process. neither of them will have that much political capital to spend for a series of incremental steps. i think you have to frame everything ends and then implemented incrementally. said,lding on what colin i will add a few points. one is that we have to understand that the leader of khamenei istollah obsessed with fairness or with his understanding of fairness and justice. state he heads of doesn't know details of nuclear policy. this is not peculiar to iran. anybody who has talked with heads of state or foreign intoters and starts to get
2:46 am
details of nuclear policy issues realizes they don't follow those details. but they get the general principle. principle is going to be if it is fair. to give up to asked a lot more than we are getting. in are they picking on us? terms of thinking about how to design a deal and how to approach it, i think we have to have those general principles in mind. so the framework that i would suggest as we think about it borrows from president reagan. hise of you who remember famous thing about negotiating arms control with the soviet union, which by the way, the people who elected him in 1980 did not expect. the early reagan would not have been expected to have been a major leader of nuclear arms reduction, but in his second term he did that and he said
2:47 am
trust but verify. that was how he explained what they were going to do. the run i think we should distrust and verify. so not trust but verify, but distrust and verify. that would be mutual, by the way. as much as we distrust the iran, they distrust us one thousand times more. we can talk about the historical reasons for that. under the notion of distrust and verify, what do i mean? they say they don't want nuclear weapons. they say there is a religious by as colin says and it is not in their security interest rate that is great, except the u.s. government and so as don't believe it. dealer would have to pick up on what they say is their position, but verify that that his deposition. we say we don't seek regime we welcome them
2:48 am
having a peaceful nuclear program. they don't believe that. and they are kind of right because we do seek regime change, always have. the u.s. government doesn't support islamic republic and the theocracy with the leader of the jurisprudence. that the is actually u.s. would not physically or otherwise try to bring about and theange in iran. iranians don't support the u.s. regime or that speaking about our arrogance and corruption. they are not going to try to develop nuclear weapons or otherwise physically in dangerous or our allies and we wouldn't physically be endangering them. but we have to demonstrate that and we have to demonstrate that we actually do recognize what they claim as a right to
2:49 am
peaceful nuclear energy, which currently they don't believe. suggested, with a kind of frame, the basic approach is for them to convince us they don't seek nuclear weapons. yes, they're going to have to provide transparency as we have all talked about. that means assigning or implementing the additional protocol, which is a stronger motive inspection that the international atomic energy agency has developed. that means going back to something david alluded to. there is a thing called subsidiary 3.1 which basically is a commitment that states make to the iaea that they will tell the agency when they are planning to build a new facility and then will provide them with design information before construction starts and so on. that way the agency could monitor and have a better idea
2:50 am
of what is supposed to be and that there aren't hidden compartments underground and that you don't wait until the facility is basically constructed and then say oh by the way it is constructed and in two months we will start enriching uranium. is an important way to provide transparency but also a lot of warning. iran unilaterally several years ago abrogated their commitment. so they would have to bring this back. and there would have to be as david suggested additional transparency necessary to address the questions about whether iran had done military experiments in the past and to build confidence that they wouldn't in the future. this is what david is talking about that the iaea is trying to focus on. i think there are important things to say. for a long time we have been asking iran to come clean about its past nuclear activities.
2:51 am
u.s. intelligence and others believe that before 2003 8 they were doing experiments related to making nuclear weapons. we say we have to come clean. but we have never said that we would in dam that fine day from coming clean -- that we would them for coming clean. we haven't done that with iran. so if they come clean, if they give us the answers, then do we bomb them? i've asked government officials for years about this. have we offered and said look whatever you say we won't use against you? they say no. a french official said no they haven't asked for it. i am saying so the iranians are supposed to say if we tell you what we did then what are you going to do? is not realistic. we have to put that out there as
2:52 am
part of seeking this kind of transparency. very importantly, the leader will insist that what they do be consistent with nonproliferation treaty so they are not being asked to do more than they are legally required to. that will be challenging, but i think experts in this room, david and others in the u.s. government can come up with examples within the nonproliferation treaty that go beyond the routine. iran is noncompliant with this obligation under the iaea. other states have been noncompliant, too. libya, south korea, egypt. andhat kind of transparency immediate steps of those countries have to take in order to satisfy the world that they were now back in compliance with their obligations? so what iran might be asked to do would not be what you're , pick a country that no
2:53 am
one suspects. maybe there isn't such a country -- you're asking them to do things for which there are no precedent for it south africa had nuclear weapons and they had done a lot of enrichment like the and then they joined npt and to do that they provided extra information. so framing what would be asked of her rom based on precedent what wouldportant -- be asked of you ron based on precedent would be important. the nuclear nonproliferation treaty doesn't define a nuclear weapon and it doesn't define weaponization. what the world wants from iran is to know and to have confidence that they are not going to build nuclear weapons. the agreement has to specify waynd the enrichment issues
2:54 am
is that will limit the way iran would agree to in the area of research and development experimentation, adapting missile nose cones, so that you have confidence that they are not going to build nuclear weapons. the way to frame that is offeredng that rouhani when he was the chief negotiator . he came up with the phrase in negotiation with france, uk and germany, we will provide objective guarantees that iran will not seek nuclear weapons. that was the phrase. in 2003 in 2004, the eu three said the only way you get the guarantee is that you don't do enrichment reprocessing. the focus was on the cycle. the iranians suspended for a little while and broke out. resuming the objective , but now weramework
2:55 am
will have to acknowledge that they will do enrichment, which is a huge win for them. so you have to go to them and say look, you one, rouhani because remember in 2003 this was the issue and you said you wouldn't suspend. but you one. be also agreed there had to objective guarantees. so now that you are doing enrichment, we're going to need layers of objective guarantees that somehow compensate for what you want, which was the biggest objective guarantee that we wanted heard some of that has to be in the area of weaponization where iran would specify the things they would forgo. this at a minimum would include the experiments at the iaea is worried about that they did in then alsoeard benchmarking and transparency about what they did in the past heard that the weaponization side needs to be looked at. these guys talked about the
2:56 am
heavywater reactor. a couple brief points on that. it is free helpful if americans and israelis and others don't emphasize this a lot, especially publicly, like the great threat of the iraq reactor and we have to capture that reactor, because it just drives the price up in iran when you do that. i think keeping it as low key as possible is important. it is worth exploring in addition to them not building that reactor or suspending which would be harder. if there are technical modifications that could be done to the reactor or ways that it could be operated and verified at lower power or how long they keep the fuel in the other or could you switch the core or do other modifications so that if the reactor continue to exist, the concerns about its usability for breakout could be addressed. the right to enrich, which
2:57 am
iran has insisted upon, as collins said they will have to be able to say they won't even though we don't put it in the terms. i would modify that. basically, the right way to think about it is the right to make fuel for peaceful purposes is justtors. enrichment a means to an end. tackled thee it issue is a right to make fuel. one of the reasons why this is important is there could be value in them saying that iran and other countries who would do enrichment should turn that orduct into fuel immediately peg the quantity of the product that they are enriching to the quantity of the fuel that they need and can make. by focusing on the fuel issue rather than enrichment per se, if this is going to be a model,
2:58 am
it has greater value. last point, just building on what colin has said, clearly what is in it for iran as i alluded earlier is they are worried about regime change. that is what they think the sanctions are about, all right? especially the heavier sanctions as they come. that is regime change. that has to do with a schedule and a plan for removing the sanctions. that has to be part of the arrangement. it may implemented incrementally just like they may implement what we want incrementally, but you have to give them the map in the schedule and the trade-off by which the sanctions would come off. that is the most material way that we could demonstrate to the isn't aboutct this regime change is about the nuclear program. if they take the steps we need on the nuclear program, the sanctions would come off. last thing i will say unless artie said it, in which case i'm
2:59 am
sorry, we naturally focus especially in washington, are the iranians ready to make a deal. could they make a deal and so on. i think it is at least as difficult to ask whether the united states would be prepared to make a deal and then to implement it to the extent that implementing it would require bipartisan cooperation, which means to the extent that congress would have to go along with providing some of the trade-offs that the iranians would insist from the u.s.. it is relieving sanctions or some of the sanctions. it will require the cooperation. we have to look long and hard at whether this town is prepared and these political parties are prepared to deliver on our end of any deal -- and this is a question that the iranians want
3:00 am
to know. we always want to know what about their politics and will the leader go along and the relative illusionary card go along -- and the revolutionary guard will go along. , so what whole list makes us think that even if we negotiate with this you are not just going to pocket what we have offered on our side and then not deliver on your side? that is a big challenge for us rate
3:01 am
3:02 am
3:03 am
3:04 am
3:05 am
3:06 am
3:07 am
3:08 am
3:09 am
3:10 am
3:11 am
3:12 am
3:13 am
3:14 am
3:15 am
3:16 am
3:17 am
3:18 am
3:19 am
3:20 am
3:21 am
3:22 am
3:23 am
3:24 am
3:25 am
3:26 am
3:27 am
3:28 am
3:29 am
3:30 am
3:31 am
3:32 am
3:33 am
3:34 am
3:35 am
3:36 am
3:37 am
3:38 am
3:39 am
3:40 am
3:41 am
3:42 am
3:43 am
3:44 am
3:45 am
3:46 am
3:47 am
3:48 am
3:49 am
3:50 am
3:51 am
3:52 am
3:53 am
3:54 am
3:55 am
3:56 am
3:57 am
3:58 am
3:59 am
4:00 am
4:01 am
4:02 am
4:03 am
4:04 am
4:05 am
4:06 am
4:07 am
4:08 am
4:09 am
4:10 am
4:11 am
4:12 am
4:13 am
4:14 am
4:15 am
4:16 am
4:17 am
4:18 am
4:19 am
4:20 am
4:21 am
4:22 am
4:23 am
4:24 am
4:25 am
4:26 am
4:27 am
4:28 am
4:29 am
4:30 am
4:31 am
4:32 am
4:33 am
4:34 am
4:35 am
4:36 am
4:37 am
4:38 am
4:39 am
4:40 am
4:41 am
:
4:42 am
4:43 am
4:44 am
4:45 am
4:46 am
4:47 am
4:48 am
4:49 am
4:50 am
4:51 am
4:52 am
4:53 am
4:54 am
4:55 am
4:56 am
4:57 am
4:58 am
4:59 am
5:00 am
>> in our case we don't get into 100-round of a magazine or things that don't and are rarely owned by people except as a item, what we say is clearly unconstitutional is hose magazines which are indisputably typically owned by law abiding citizens for lawful hand guns is for magazines up to 20 and rifles to 30.es up that is enough to say a ban on unconstitutional, categorically unconstitutional court's e supreme precedent in district of columbia versus heller. just by observation, people you talk to gun nd owners, lots of them own the magazines.pacity not because they want to kill a lot of people at once because
5:01 am
only for lawful self-defense and legitimate recreational shooting. possessedery commonly by sheriffs and their deputies handguns of glock or pringfield or smith and wesson pistol with a 17 or 19-round magazine. patrol cars of almost every law enforcement 15 type rifle not carrying them because they are going hunting or because they are gun or because they want to kill a lot of people quickly. for the carrying them lawful protection of self and others. he reason they choose those firearms so often with those magazines is they believe they the best choice understood their particular circumstances firearm fits f heir hand best, what they can
5:02 am
control the recoil on and what helps improve public safety. they believe citizens have the same right to choose the same firearms. opposite of the idea that the law enforcement is a uard that is superior to the citizens. rather, the belief of the sheriffs is they are elected by people and given delegated power to serve the people and who control eriors them from above and have access to arms that ordinary citizens do not. the magazine bans directly harm law enforcement. exception here is an for people that work with law enforcement agencies but not ofrybody to comes to the aid law enforcement is a full-time employee of law enforcement. i will give one anecdote about difference the magazine ban would have made had
5:03 am
20 years ago.ect hinsdale county in southwest colorado, very rugged the sheriff knew he had to o out and do a high risk road stop, so he brought along a who he person he knew had actually trained to be a shooter in ficient support of law enforcement, but retired air force officer, not a certified law enforcement officer. he was not sworn. just a good citizen helping the sheriff out. the sheriff and citizen went out that traffic stop on the ighway and there the sheriff was murdered by the man and woman in that car. was carrying his berretta handgun with a 17-round fired all 17 e
5:04 am
rounds as the murders attempted escape and one of the rounds hit the tire of the escape and stopped it. o the murders ran off on foot into the foothills. over the next month 200 law officers from all over came to participate in the people and so se did 100 other citizens, ordinary roam ns performing their as the posse coming to the aid voluntarily f bringing their even firearms of owned at the time nd participated in the manhunt searching buildings and remotes areas until one months later the found -- murders were found in a remote cabin here they had committed suicide. if house bill 1224 were in effect 20 years ago that good went have had a 17-round magazine.
5:05 am
he would have had 15 rounds and murderers would have escaped. bill is a deadly danger to law enforcement and all the public in colorado. applause] >> this lawsuit is not one of that bumper sticker things says what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand. something that contends that all gun controls are unconstitutional. regarding the background check bill passed by the legislature isch we are suing and saying unconstitutional, we don't take a position one way or the other constitutionality of background checks on the private firearms. what we say is certain if that be constitutional you have to have a functioning system for that to happen and house bill dysfunctional order
5:06 am
the people do the background without in a practical way being able to do so. they have to bring the guns -- neighbor or ranch wants to sell a firearm to his neighbor door, they next both have tag to wherever they wherever they can find a firearms retailer who an perform the transaction but that licensee is only allowed to $10 for filling out papers of paper work and serious legal liability for mistakes and waiting for hours or days it the colorado bureau of investigation to complete what is supposed to be the instant check.ound so few if any firearms dealers this.e willing to do that means in practice the citizens that want to comply with the law won't be able to do because there's no way to do the transfer without going to retailer.al firearms
5:07 am
even worse, and clearly is that the bill not only background check bill to the actual s sale of firearms but to the which y use of firearms, includes loaning firearms to someone else on a temporary basis. that is what people in real life in the united states and they use firearms. and these bills were not written respect who have any for or knowledge of the way real use real firearms. so, what this means is say after ou friend from kansas who is coming to visit and he is going elk hunting a week. comes and spends the night with you and realizes there is a alfunction in his rifles so he can't use it and of course taken to the gunsmith they don't do as service. it will take a while to fix it. lend him your hunt be
5:08 am
ifle and he goes favor days hunts and returns the rifle. under colorado law, the new bill, both of ck you are criminals subject to up 18 months in jail and lose your right to possess any for a year. that is not rational or reasonable. i will give you another example the direct harm to law enforcement. it is common in law enforcement police iff deputies or officers that their duty handgun and sometimes the rifle in the shotgun is something they buy with their own money from an of suitable firearms created by the chief officer.rcement but it is also true most law nforcement offices have armories where they supply firearms to deputies. so, if you are a sheriff and you
5:09 am
a supply of ar-15's in a safe in your office and you have promoted from working s a jail deputy and will be a patrol deputy, you hand him the keys to the car and say here is you are off duty take the car home and up have it to be ready to respond in case emergency where we needs you right away and here is rifle with 30-round because you dekeep may need a rifle for all kinds of different possible situations that could develop and we expect to keep the rifle in the car and of course when you are off duty and you have the car parked home you secure the rifle and take it inside. been does agazine have a law enforcement exemption bill, the or of this magazine ban and background bill written by representative ron did fields so
5:10 am
law enforcement exemption into the magazine ban and it is there. no law enforcement exemption in the background check bill. hat means when the sheriff gives the ar-15 to the deputy and says you are going to have next six e for the months, according to house bill both hey are supposed to go down to the local gun store and ask for a background check the deputy and the deputy can registern store has to that firearm in its own inventory books as if it were out of its own inventory. so, the bill has criminalized ordinary operation of how law enforcement works. the same with returning a stolen to its owner. that's not a bill that is a sensible, common sense, reasonable gun control law. opposite.t the it is an unreasonable bill that was jammed through the
5:11 am
without re in 41 days the careful consideration of the sheriffs that asked for it. said let's have some study committees over the summer and think about it and hatever we are going to do, let's do it right and thoughtfully and instead just law pposite hands and now enforcement has been by the recklessness of the language in the bills. shivers -- sheriffs are the genius of the american political system where we divide the power between the federal and state local levels and whenever any one part of that system the people essive, can appeal to the other levels. here are the sheriffs locally elected appealing to the ational constitutional rights guaranteed by the seconds and amendments to protect us from unreasoned, dangerous
5:12 am
enacted at the state level. their belief is that law enforcement and law and order important. and if you believe that you have to believe the first priority of to be obeying the supreme law, the constitution of america.d states of so, what the sheriffs are doing standing up for the public you y and law and we hope will stands with them. thank you. with them. thank you. applause] much.ank you very > i would like to introduce my
5:13 am
friend cam edwards. he ve known cam since when was just a concept. [laughter] >> back after the censorship law passed congress with a number of eople who voted for it saying that they were voting for it in part because they wanted to political speech of the national rifle association. the bill class included an exemption for media. the president of america's oldest civil rights 1871, zation, founded in spoke at the annual meeting that year and said fine, if those are new rules, we are going to be the media too and we are own radio art our nration and program and soon ews came into being and at the
5:14 am
inception was cam edwards who been e host of it and has every day since then. one of his great contributions, knowledgeable and providing people with three and important of information every day, is the constructive and positive attitude he brings to it. some people in the gun issue on either side or other whose main emotional energy is negativity and wanting to be angry and upset all the time. concerned and angry a wayu can still do it in that is constructive and has positive energy and makes the a nicer and happier place. o, i would like to introduce c cam. thank you for making us all
5:15 am
etter tphfrtd and for make -- informed and making the world a little nicer. >> thank you so much. forgo the minute of screaming i was going to with today.eech off let me put my stuff down. much stuff as christopher hudgens had a few years ago. i have to say it really is great to be an adult, isn't it? know. wouldn't >> but i have to say wouldn't like an adult summer camp we could have a right?ong event, i definitely think so. john, david and everybody for inviting me today. fun.was a heck of a lot of i clearly need to hit the range more often. time in the studio than on the range and that was obvious today. is a privilege to be here because we have been covering on
5:16 am
n.r.a. news what has been going on here in colorado, so to talk laura in person and david and sheriffs and shake their hands for doing what you are doing, can you give yourselves a round of applause? because i know you are not thanks enough and thank what each of you is doing, and will continue to do colorado. this state is a flash point. his state, at the beginning of the year, was on a list. here are we going past gun control? there were a lot of obvious places. onnecticut, new jersey, although we have seen governor christie veto some bills. some awful e have bills coming. but new york state and the safe act. these were expected places, maryland.
5:17 am
nobody has seen maryland as a gun state any more. colorado was supposed to be the surprise. all of these politicians who controls ese gun proposals were told not by policeman in colorado but people , you guys on, d.c. are going to be heroes. hey are going to have parades for you guys. it is going to be awesome. happen, didn't really did it? more of a recall than a parade. dave and john and the sheriffs a very good think, job of going over the recent history but i do want to offer a highlights of some of the things we covered during this debate in colorado. we had joe biden calling on the legislative floor and we had politicians elected officials take joe biden's call but don't
5:18 am
take the call from your constituent. what the hell! you run for re-election? i know i didn't take your call important. we have elected officials offering incredible advice on avoid sexual assault, right? e had an incredible display of in fan the part of one person when she was talking to collins. amanda collins was a college nevada at university of and concealed carrier, she was 2. everyllege denied her and other conceal holder their right to carry. ne night out of class she was walking to her car, walking with a group of people, doing everything they told her to do. she was 40 feet from the campus police department.
5:19 am
police d see the campus cars and a stranger grabbed her pulled her to the ground and held a gun to her head and sexually assaulted her. after that happened, amanda told she could carry er concealed firearm in kansas as long as she didn't tell anybody. because the second other women and say r about there whoa, i want to take care of yself, this guy is still out here amanda would lose her right to carry. incredibly brave woman. i had the honor to meet and interview her. politician say thanks for coming out but i have to that ou, statistics say gun wouldn't really have helped you but here is a pat on the merry way. on your thanks very much. we will see you back in nevada. type of disrespect, this
5:20 am
type of -- i don't know the word for it. it is arrogance. ut it is not directed just at amanda collins but directed against every one of you. because you understand that you want your firearm for your rights, whether it is your right self-defense or enjoy a great day at the range or hunt. exercising your right to keep and bear arms. there are legitimate reasons for these exercises of these rights. it.the opponents don't see i have to say, too, i wonder if omewhere in the state of colorado there is a gathering of violent criminals who are won r how do we comply with the new laws? what are we going to do? to dramatic can i impact us. gun?epcan't have a
5:21 am
i don't know what i'm going to do. the criminals don't care. already shrugged off our laws. society.e rejected they operate outside the bounds of society. yet we he law abiding, are the ones they are targeting. million n.r.a. members in this country and think of all of the ink that has over the last few onths about the n.r.a. and its membe members. there are 1.4 million gang country, and s about half of that population, individual 0 mericans are responsible for a preponderance of violent crime. aren't we talking about them. why are not the gun control about them?lking i think because it doesn't suit
5:22 am
their purpose. december, there were these three democratic came out firms that with a message guide for antigun activist he is. it came out on the internet a released.ago and got it is called preventing gun violence through effective messaging. by the way, as opposed to any like a guy with with a gun, yeah. long.80 pages i won't share everything with you. tells s a section that the antiguners how to respond tragedy like the shooting in aurora, or a sandy hook. want to share these tips for you if i can. don't hesitate away.eak out, like right
5:23 am
express concern for the victims "use language where our message flows from the expression of concern into the argument." hich means when people are aggressive, when people are in shock and horror think about how segue from gosh this is awful to we need more gun control laws. they don't assume the facts and them.wait for camera, dohe nearest our best chuck schumer impersonation. ask hard questions. one way they say to link our to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is have questions point to approaches and policies we favor but have emotional power at the time of a high profile shooting.
5:24 am
data or about fact or what happened, it is about what they feel. they say.ogize, they offer specific examples fascinating. i know this is a time for mourning but they say don't say that. silence.e the n.r.a.'s don't wait for the facts to be exhibit what we would consider to be common decency, right? respect for those who are grieving. political issue as quickly as you possibly can. course, they say if someone is silent, then attack for that. of t turns out, the night sandy hook i actually did a show for three hours. and i have to say i'm pretty
5:25 am
every one oke almost of these rules that the anti-gunners offered. thank you. e didn't talk policy that night. we all knew a gun control debate can wait. but it we didn't bad-mouth anybody that night. i explained how i learned about sandy hook. taoul hractually had just comen lementary school where we were giving our kids a tour. we were in the process of moving and we had gone to a mcdonald's i looked up at the tv and saw what was going on and y kids were sitting right underneath. i talked a little bit about what i felt. show e just opened up the to messages of support and sympathy from all around the country. nd i wouldn't change a thing that we did that night.
5:26 am
you don't have to be quiet right away. ut you can show respect for your fellow americans and those grieving. you can show the common courtesy you can have that human decency. at least i think that they can. i thought that they could. maybe. because we sure didn't see that. and we really haven't seen it. and it's been there way maybe longer than we think. you another example. author with essays on villains and he has an essay talks about he was on twitter when the news of the broke.g at tuscon and he was getting ready to weet about a football game so he was not able to figure out what was going on and he was trying to figure out, he there's been a shooting and he realized there are a lot f people in my time line who
5:27 am
are excited about what this eans for sarah palin and apparently meansed about things for her. why were the people pretending that sad about something was clearly making them euphoric? it was the map. emember the map that sarah palin's pac had and they thought palin was ah responsible. so while there were people rying to figure out what was going on and people grieving here were these people who were that a politician hey hated was going down and politics and policy meant more than their common humanity. is not helping. a t is not the actions of healthy mind. in terms of ping how it can benefit your agenda
5:28 am
on i don't think we do that our side. by the way, if you see that, please.out, gun control er really shouldn't be and is not more. who cares we all care, all of us as care about violent crime in our communities. right? except the people who are it, the rest of us would like to see violent crime go down. right? about whethat works. chicago ntrol worked would be mayberry right now. applause] > and el paso county would be thunderdome. you would have tina turner and mel gibson running around. it would be horrible. but that's not real life.
5:29 am
gun control not working in chicago and failing new jersey, and in oakland, california, and a lot communities. when i met my wife she was living in camden, a single mom two. we had a decision to make. i was young, just starting out, like four diagnose an hour and she was not making a lot of money. kids, instant family. was i going to try to move to into the ia and break philadelphia media market or she move to oklahoma. ought i should move to philadelphia but i have to live in camden. no. this was an easy decision. they were moving to oklahoma. would, all things considered, we were still poor, we werestill dirt poor, still going to live in a crappy neighborhood.
5:30 am
all things considered, why would one move from camden with the eally good gun laws to keep us safe to the wild west of oklahoma? it is because oklahoma was safer camden, new jersey, bugs the gun control laws don't do a stop the bad guys but they do stop single moms in being able to afford to exercise their rights. law abiding people in exercise theiran rights to carry a pitch. they have hundreds of dollars in fees because they say it makes the city safer. mayor bloomberg blames the crime on the state of anyway. live. is where i now i can't win. i just move from place it place. i keep moving se to places that have lower
5:31 am
criticism rates than new york city. it is weird how that works. against push become this-back against this? it is not just gun control. it is about the soda bans and your salt intake and about don't get that you diabetes. ipod. about the e-6, the it is about control. it is not about gun control. may be about fun control. mostly i think it is just about control. -- now they e the are getting fancy. coercive paternalism. that.e that is fancy. which have nudging sounds so nice like they are not pushing or poking me. me a nice nudge. at the end of the day it is the same thing. restrict your sphere of liberty and tell you
5:32 am
you used to that be able to make are now off limits to you. reasoning behind all of this seems so suspect to me. to gun control it is because what we need to do is go after your rights and that trickle down to the commits don't commit vicinity crimes. to bloomberg's sewed did ban -- i didn't know this but apparently the number fight diabetes is it tell people you can't have a restaurant orin a gulp at ith ybut get bill seven -- 11 and in new york 20-ounce coca-cola is a problem but if you pour a alcohol in nces of it you are good to go. it is legal. new york s this is legal. [applause] here's to you, mike.
5:33 am
pushing back are against these attitudes. we are pushing back with the lawsuits. with the hing back phone calls to our legislators even if they don't take them. by electing g back elected officials and supporting officious who actually do listen to us. ut aware also push -- we are also pushing back by being grown-ups and being ok at it. by having hundreds of people show up at a range and shoot of shotgun shells and ok.rything is and now we are enjoying cigars nd drinks and we will all get home safely tonight, right? because we can control our lives. lives.manage our it is not too difficult. we are not perfect, right? eat a little too much dessert now and then, may not be
5:34 am
one bad habit e like smoking cigarettes, whatever. more are a heck of a lot capable than our government gives us credit for, aren't we? yeah! applause] well, i think we are more capable than our government. say, if that is the attitude, we have to put our is.y where our mouth we need more capable people running for office. are in any candidates the office? >> how many candidates are in here? candidates?any there we go. thank you, guys. applause] say i hobbnestly debated returning for or mayor of my new town and i
5:35 am
fail.d i would i have only lived there for even months, i wouldn't guy vote for a guy living there seven months. years from now i will run for mayor. it is in virginia. >> where? right on't want to say now, but thanks. that is all right. in four years it is ok. would i give bloomberg's consultants four years to in a tiny town of less than 1,000. then.uld buy them off by no, no, no. we can keep me, doing things like this. we can take people to the range the for the and show them, ook, all of these scary horrifying stories you have heard about firearms, you are enough, youponsible can do this. i will show you. it is safe.
5:36 am
you can do this. and in a lot of other ways we are pushing back as well. n new york city we are pushing ba back, gosh, withed if trucks trucks he -- with food around the country. we know aware capable and ompetent and they hate it when we're competent so we're making our own bacon and bourbon and right?w, we are making our own bullets. can i -- -wards b-words can i think of. we are making becauustiers or something. i'm not, you understand, but someone probably is. we are pushing ourselves and do these hat we can things that we didn't think we could do before. a lot of us are doing this. bow hunting in the suburbs. i have a friend who is learning is awesome and it and it is fantastic. we have people keeping chickens
5:37 am
putting rk city and dippers aapers and i'm weirded chickens t but i have wander.now they like to but you don't tell me what to do with my guns, i won't tell you do with your chickens. i'm a live and let live guy on that. pushing not just ourselves but we are pushing we at these nudgers and need to. because the role of government, as i understand it -- and i am a bumpkin -- the role of government as i help us to t is to create a more perfect union. back to the declaration of independence, it rights of ensure our life, liberty and of the pursuit of happiness. happiness, it
5:38 am
means we are going after it, right? goingout there and we are after it. we arere is no guarantee going to get it but it is our right to pursue it. what we have is this army of nudge-nicks trying to us to body check us out of the way. didn't mean to nudge you so hard there. and knock us off our path and our goal. you want to be a farmer? well, we are not going to let you sell raw milk. owner.nt to be a gun we won't let you own a magazine over 15 rounds. to pay hundreds of dollars. you want to be a mom or dad. you are ell you that of yours, they belong to all us. it is weird. they never come get my kids when freaking out. they are all mine then.
5:39 am
you in this room are an to all of us because you is every one of pursuing your own individual happiness. i know this is a loaded term you have stood your and you have turned around and stopped and put out you have said no, closer.ome any i've got this. and we all need to be able to do this. this is happening all around the country. there's one other component i want to talk about. and howabout competence it drives the nanny state crazy to be they want us little man babies and little
5:40 am
omen babies and incapable of helping ourselves. they want to diaper us like we chickens. so we have competence and self-control. of shells shot he here, lots of drinks being everybody braving themselves so far john. we are watching, but so far. self-control is the antidote to other people wanting to control us. because if we exercise self-control we don't need their help. right? a few months after i moved to and i were -- e did i ever see the show pickers"? we were at this total american pick are place and there were and husband oman with four buildings full of stuff. big, big i walk away with this little
5:41 am
ecome called "the american citizens handbook" published by he national education association in 1951. things have changed quite a bit. 1951.is a lot of things that i have a problem with in her including piece that was written in 1916 called the code of the good americ american. this was a book that was esigned for high school students, middle school students. good e code of the merican is a citizens who are -- this entire piece will make you cringe. and try to become strong usef useful. worthy of their nation. ow many people think this nation is unworthy of us these days on the other side?
5:42 am
that our country may become ever greater and better and therefore obey the laws which the best americans have always obeyed. the number one law is the law of self-control. that's it. he good american controls himself. those who best control themselves can best serve their country. i will control my tongue and ill not allow it to speak mean vulgar or profane words. i will think before i speak antigun messages guy which says happen out there. > i will tell the truth and nothing but the truth. i will control my temper. control any thoughts and i will control my actions. will be careful and thrifty and insist on doing right. we used to teach this. we used to teach this in our schools to our kids.
5:43 am
we don't. but we have to learn self-control. thing.s the the more you do it the better you get. aren't learning it in school, we have to make sure we are teaching it. even if you as a grown-up don't think you have a you can lf-control always try. i realized about a year ago like man, i'm fat. i had a moment where i'm a lot mirrorthan i look in the and think pretty good. no, i look fat. so i started exercising some elf-control and said maybe i don't need those cookies. maybe i should not have a doughnut for breakfast. the weirdest thing, i started losing weight. it was crazy. to do a diet. i just needed to exercise some watch how much stuff i was shoving in my mouth.
5:44 am
like ant to make it seem self-control is so hard and impossible and that is why we need them. because we can't do it on our own. even if it is tougher to do it we need n doesn't mean mayor bloomberg. we have each other. we have organizations that can competence, our self-control. we have the n.r.a. independence institute. may be the first time this has happened on c-span we have the website that a lot of beautiful women and cool things but this community, the people who go to website have started henge others. they have the khaoeuf charities. people say there is a family had help. your a family with a kid with lots of
5:45 am
medical problems, two hours have raised $60,000 not se they come together because their family told them o or a nudger demanded it but because they like to. because it is fun. t is fun to be a responsible adu adult. it is good to be a responsible adult. i think all of us as pursuing our own individual happiness, coming groups like this to this is other's back, how we win. so, please keep fighting, please keep pushing, and don't be nudged. thank you. applause] >> let me ask dave it come up shiver -- sheriff
5:46 am
cooke. we have time for a few questions. the way is sexy. chicks dig it. meantime, we have a microphone if anyone has a question. let's start over here. sir. the attorney general has made these new accommodations for the but what will stop him from rescinding all of the things the bill and go back to where it started? >> nothing. that is why we argue that these which we talked about are maybe temporarily taken care of resolved and why we ultimately need the federal district court to issue a injunction against that language. >> a question. way in the back, sir. stand up and speak up. >> i want to make sure i didn't
5:47 am
laws because on the range i borrowed a shotgun a couple of times. can you expand on that a little bit? >> don't give them my name now. shotguns.wed two >> the requirement for background checks on temporary magazines does have some sensible exemptions and one shooting rs at a range. >> i will meet you in the we will take d care of that. please stand up. >> what is the status of belt weapons? >> you mean like machine guns? change the them. they are hail regulate and legal
5:48 am
n colorado as long as one complies with the very strict federal licensing requirements. back you could put yours in your pants, please. next question. sir. > do you think that there's going to be strict scrutiny for these laws? >> well, it does call for a yeah.conclusion, so [laughter] increments.nute that's one of the issues we will be briefing on of what the standard of review is, whether intermediate scrutiny versus trict scrutiny simply a categorical prohibition. outlawed a ent particular religion you wouldn't resolve that under strict
5:49 am
scrutiny. you would say that government action is categorically prohibited by the first amendment. so we argue bans on commonly possessed arms typically used by citizens for -- law biding citizens is categorically outlawed by the second amendment. >> that is mcdonald, right? heller, yes. >> if you mean enforcement by there will be no in ourment on these laws county. [applause] >> let's not mistake a sheriff's work as a doing any success. that is just how they do it in well county. >> why don't you come up and john?, my deputy is waiting for you. but since i made that statement, with the 23 me out edicts that i was not going to help the federal government
5:50 am
the state m and when passed the laws i said i'm not going to enforce them i put out procedure so if any deputy charged somebody with disciplined ld be and maybe terminated. e also did a training -- >> [applause] >> we also did some training for everybody in the agency to say why these laws are unenfirst elieve and unconstitutional so every deputy knows that they are not to enforce it. and i have to admit every single of my deputies that i know of that have had the guts to talk to me about it agree with me. now i kaepcan't guarantee in de the enforcement rules are. >> big question. in the history of machine governments have killed more so we than anybody else are talking small ball. the big discussion is government killed more people than anybody else. >> that sounds like a talk
5:51 am
kind of w host question. talking small ball? educate the population when government goes bad they like to kill you. >> let me ponder this for a second. dave, go. back. come >> the nice thing about mayor bloomberg, to his credit, there no indication that he has any lans to perpetrate general any side. -- genocide. soda.eed my what we are working on here in saving lives of ndividuals in colorado through them being able to protect themselves and through those who come to the aid of law having the appropriate resources and the
5:52 am
in er of people who live colorado is smaller than the genocides ed in many but we tonight save lives one at do that isthe way to get rid of these dangerous laws. >> i will take one shot at that. about amendment is not duck hunt beiinhunting. sheriff talks about how he is empowered because of the people through a set of codes him the authority through rule of law, there is society.ges our when the government has more firepower then civilians i begin it worry. it is worth remembering how we ecame this nation of the free because citizens owned firearms and when called upon they use them. hear about duck hunting or even when i hear bout self-defense i wonder about the full second amendment. here is a question become --
5:53 am
back here. >> i understand that the a riffs have like constitutional power in the state of colorado that other law enforcements don't have. is that correct? what is the extent of that? office.onstitutional our authority and power -- derived. they are appointed by a mayor or our authority t comes from the constitution of the state of colorado. here.ck >> my question is for the sheriff. it is kind of a practical one. to enforce ot going state laws what sort of practical problems might that for your department or you personally or other sheriffs that path? i'm sort of asking as a citizen collateral be the damage that is caught between a sheriff who is not going to
5:54 am
and a a set of laws state who wants to see them enforced. >> there is no will you in the that says i rado have to enforce laws of the colorado. i can kinds of compare it to miles an hour two over the speed limit. i don't think anybody ever enforces those laws. can't imagine any law enforcement agency pulling somebody over for one or two limit n hour over the even though it is the law. we don't enforce it and i can't police department that enforces it. it is a matter of priorities and enforce being the laws are not a priority and i doing pend resources on it. >> just a statement, not a question. most street cops are on our side. that is in denver and other big chiefs are under the thumb of the mayor. >> absolutely.
5:55 am
you know what? absolutely right. most of the street cops and most do he chiefs in this state not support these gun control laws. the chiefs association which went down and testified in favor the bills are dominated by the metro area chiefs. chief jerry gardner is adamantly pposed to the laws as most of them in well county. there was a debate several downtown denver here it was called the cell debate and the mayor was the moderator and he was supposed to they artial but they had pro gun control people and three anti-gun and before the debate street denver cops came up to me and said thanks that position paper. we agree with you 100%. we agree e fight and but don't tell anybody. weause our chief is here and don't want him to know. i have had chiefs of police and
5:56 am
for nd staff say thanks what you sheriffs are doing. so the police chiefs and law are backing us and one.com which lice is a trade magazine and they surveyed 15,000 police of them wered most street cops. the ones in the streets working you iolence and whatever want to call t. and 90% of them is that a magazine ban ineffective and would have society.damage on our they also said a more armed stop most of these mass murders. and would also limit the number casualties. the line level police officers support us.deputies applause] you the comment, sheriff or my sheriff in elder our y, you are the law in
5:57 am
county. if a federal agent comes in am i correct in assuming they have to go knew you legally? do stuff the feds illegally. >> remember, c-span is recording. >> well, the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of county. federal agents are allowed to enforce federal jurisdiction or laws inside. we have a good working with the ionship as do most of sheriffs so they call us. i can't think of a time when the agency came into our county without talking to me first or calling me. know our county i sheriff is call upon citizens to come support him. go.ill we will support the sheriff. >> every sheriff in the state of , posse does that comitatos. >> i want to thank our guests.
5:58 am
dave, cam, shiver. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] house lawmakers have a number of briefings by obama administration officials to situation in the syria. lawmakers face a potential vote militaryize the use of force against the syrian regime for having used chemical weapons citizens. later house lawmakers are expected to take up a short-term spending bill to keep the federal government funded past september 30. leaders hope an the bill will give them enough time to reach a broader democrats ith senate and white house on fiscal matters including whether and how much to raise the debt ceiling. you can watch live coverage of the house on c-span. senators return to what is to be a week-long debate on whether to authorize syria.y action against they begin with general speeches, taking a pair of votes nominations at 5:30.
5:59 am
you can watch the senate live on kpapb -- companion network, c-span 2. >> this week on "q&a," pulitzer prize-winning author a. scottberg discusses "wilson." >> a. scott berg, in your 818-page book on woodrow wilson, you start it all. you wrote it all in the first paragraph this way -- dawn broke that day on a new epic, one that would carry the name of a man whose ideas and ideals would extend well to the next century. when did you write that?
6:00 am
>> i wrote that about 13 years ago. when i started, i had this feeling about wilson that he is still very much with us. and it's one of the reasons i wanted to write the book and i long had a fascination with wilson. i thought of all of the presidents of the 20th century, he lingers the longest and the most. >> why? >> i think there are several reasons. one is so many of the programs wilson initiated are with us to this day. i think the foundation to our economy, the federal reserve system, that goes back to wilson. certainly, our foreign policy is rooted in a speech woodrow wilson gave in 1917 on april 2 when he said the world must be made safe for democracy. and he was calling for american entry into world war i. really, all of our foreign policy decisions since then for

109 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on