level of cost was brought down. t was much too much. we had done some of that with some success. there are some areas where you have stuff that we are spending too much money for. but in terms of the amount of competition that we have, we passed the competition in contracting act many years ago, which was very important. but also this acquisition reform act. we led the way in the senate on a bipartisan basis. it was a very important reform and we have to keep trying to get rid of the waste that xists in the pentagon, in an operation that size there will be raced but you have to keep fighting it. >> when you want to go have dinner, who are some of your friends here? who do you call? >> i don't want to pick on

anyone. i resist on that, totally. we don't go out to dinner very much with people. that part of our life seems to have dwindled. much more when we came here over the years, whatever the time pressure was, whatever the reason, there is less of that hat goes on. i have too much respect for too many. and oh i will regret it and kick myself and say how could i have mentioned him without mentioning her. >> let's go to presidents, then. it was the president that you have enjoyed working with and haven't enjoyed working with? > i've worked to a degree with ll the presidents.

i haven't had a bad relationship with any president, for starters. i think president obama is very, very thoughtful, very careful. does how to weigh pros and cons and gets along very well. i thought president clinton was unusual in terms of his ability, not just a think through issues and he has got a heck of a great mind, but he also had the ability -- has the ability, still very vigorously -- to connect with people on a personal way. people will tell you, if you are in a room with 100 people and bill clinton and you go from person to person, you will think he is the only one in the room that is aware of you. that is the kind of unusual

ability that he has to connect with people. he is sympathetic in a very genuine way, the underdog, which i have always liked and admired in him. he has a sensitivity to people and their basic needs. again, i have gotten along with all the presidents to varying degrees. i don't want to say anything egative. i disagreed with the second president bush more than anyone. i disagreed very strongly on he iraq war. it was a policy issue, not a personal issue. i voted against going to war because i thought it was based on misrepresentations, particularly by vice president cheney, these allegations which were untrue at the time, known

to be untrue by the ntelligence committee. there was some connection between al qaeda and saddam hussein. that allegation was not true, and it was repeated over and over again, particularly by vice president cheney. that, i thought, was really wrong. they created some real tension etween us. i won't say it was physical, particularly, but i have been very critical and very hard on vice president cheney. i think you really was the main leader that got us into that war. it wasn't the weapons of mass destruction issue, because i thought saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction. you don't attack people because they have weapons of mass destruction, or else we would have attacked the soviet union

or they would have attacked us, for pakistan, or india. just because we had a -- we thought he had weapons doesn't give us the reason to attack him. it is only if he is threatening to use them or has used them against you that he would then say, ok. what was presented to the american people before the iraq war, which gave them the greatest heartburn in a second bush administration, was representations to the american people, including at the u.n. unwittingly, by general powell, who tried to get rid of the stuff. it was not supportable. he still ended up with statements in their which were not accurate. but at least he made an effort efore he made his presentation

to the u.n. i am not as critical of general powell as i am of vice president cheney. >> is it tough to understand what members of the house have to deal with? it gets pretty complex. >> oh, yeah. you have staff to help you hrough it. i get involved with banks and tax codes and wall street because of the permanent subcommittee on investigations. there are a lot of issues and the defense area which i can't expect too many of my colleagues to really know in-depth. they are involved in energy issues or other issues which

are technical that would be a mystery to me which i have to get up to snuff on when the staff comes to say there is a vote tomorrow. yeah, i would say 70% of the things around here are things you are not in the middle of, that you have to become familiar with and take a position on. that is where the fabulous staff comes in. you really rely on staff, heavily. >> has it that hard to have your brother in the house? >> he is my lifelong best buddy. he has been my best buddy for 53 years. we got three kids and six grandkids and my brother -- he has been an amazing brother, an amazing member of the house of representatives. and boy, his colleagues just raise about him and love his demeanor, is reaching out to his colleagues on both sides of

the aisle. he is a really nice guy. a nice, thoughtful guy. best brother anybody ever had. >> come january, what is your advice to the new senator from michigan? >> its gary peters. i don't think i have to give him too much advice on the house of representatives. he knows where the traps are. t would mainly be, i think, to remember that this is the house of representatives. majority doesn't rule in the senate. of minority rights which exist here, for a good reason, can also be abused. they can be abused by some of the filibuster threats some of our team party members are using in order to get their way on something where they shouldn't have their way. t needs to be protected.

the rights of the minority also need to be used with some discretion so that the majority doesn't react by trying to restrict the rights of the inority. that is what is the problem here, that because there were some abuses, excesses, by some of the republicans, just some, he had to do what he did in ways which created roblems. this is not the house. whoever the minority is next year, to raise issues, debate issues at length, to bring it to public attention. >> senator, moving back to your apartment in detroit -- what

are your retirement years? what is your plan? where are all your personal papers going? >> they are going to michigan. we don't know what i will be doing. there are a lot of opportunities, and we are not focusing at all on that now. i have got to and a half months of hard work ahead of me. we are going to save the hard decisions for later. we know we are going to go home, know we have a lot more time with three kids and six grandkids. >> senator carl levin, democrat of michigan, retiring. > thank you.

he's serving his last term after losing a primary runoff in may. congressman hall sat down for an interview. this is 35 minutes. >> can congressman ralph hall, you've been in the house of representatives since january of 1981,aged you'd hoped to be here for one last term. the voters thought otherwise. how are you processing your departure? >> well, everything that i checked on during that that i was 10 to 12 points ahead. it told me one thing, don't listen to people who tell you you're ahead and you're not. i really thought i had it won. come back that night at 3:00 in the morning, i had to think as i was driving back out to my house how it happened. when i got home i pulled out old elections and checked to see how i did there. looked at robert's rule. i figured it out finally.

the guy got more votes than i did. i got beat. that's all there is to me. it didn't bother me but it hurt me because it hurt some of my friends. >> how are you feeling about leaving? >> well, when i wanted a doughnut this morning, i went down and get it. i've been a member of congress for 34 years and to finally get beat, if i was a manager for a be able or football team and i had 34-1, i'd be in the hall of fame, so doesn't bother me. and really it didn't bother me to get beat, because i wasn't just set on going. i had 18 co-chairman who were chairman of my 18 counties in my district that were supporting me and wanted me to run, and i did. it's -- better judgment was it

-- it's hard toe get elected if you are 90 or 91-year-old and they don't tell people that you run two miles every morning, that you vote 99 plus percent of the time. there's a difference between that and old people. that wasn't brought up by the dallas morning news because they're not in my favor. >> what's your secret, how are you running two miles a day? >> i was told once, i was in the cattle building, if one of your he was has a bull calf. go out there and lift the bull calf every day over the fence, day after day after day until e's a full-grown bull. then when you can still lift him over the fence and throw him over the fence, you can throw the bull enough, you can run for congress. that's what they told me. so that's how i got into the congress, i left the cattle business and came here.

>> well, you've switched parties during your time here. you've seen the parties change so many times. what's your handicap, let's start with the democrats what do you see when you look at the democratic party? >> well, the democrat party was a two-party party, democrats and liberal democrats. i wasn't really liked any better by the republicans than the democrats, because i voted in my district. i had the sam rayburn district. go up there and do a job and tell them you're doing a good job. i'm not a golfer. i don't hunt. i don't fish. i campaign when i have a day. i go walk a building out or something. i've campaigned all my life. i think that's the way i stayed elected ed. >> staying with the democrats, today is it still split between the liberals and the

conservatives >> oh. yeah. there's three or four conservatives over there now. >> that's it? >> yeah. >> so its changed. >> they'll slowly become republicans, probably. of course it would make sam rayburn if he were alive. he was our kind of emocrat. because when he looked back over his shoulder as he went to bonham texas to die, he left a balanced budgets, so he was a onservative. >> when you look at the republican party, your challenger was a tea party member. is the republican party -- >> i don't know if he's a tea party member or not. you can't direct mail them. we don't know who they are or where they are. i always tell them to look at my record. >> are you seeing the party split the same way you described the democrats between fiscal conservatives and --

>> well, we have different types of conservatives as republicans. we have those that are hell for leather, republicans, you know, and it's got to be a republican if you're right. you have to be a conservative if you're right, and that's what we're beginning to learn, i think. >> other members that we've talked to have talked about how the congress has changed in the past during your tenure to an institution where people used to do things together off hours, which played out in more compromise. do you find that the place has changed in that regard and, if so, why? >> well, pretty much. when i got here i was a conservative democrat. i didn't really fit. republicans really didn't want me and the democrats didn't like me. for example, the bushes were dear friends of mine. i flew with the old bush. he flew torpedo bombers. he was of a famous family. he didn't know me until after

the war was over. i knew those people and add mired them. i had good luck with the bushes and good luck with reagan. i have a picture on my wall made with reagan, looking at our boots at camp david. the first six months he was there, i thought i'm going to be at camp david for the rest of my life. that was 30 or 40 years ago. i haven't been back. i don't know if i participated correctly out there. i asked him some questions about marilyn monroe. he was a good guy and easy to talk to. ronald reagan came here when a man, one person could make a difference. i doubt that they can today. >> why so ? >> i don't know. he came here accepted as a conservative democrat or republican, but he'd been a democrat like all the rest of

us, so he was in between -- he was a in-between deal there. somehow we felt like you could trust him. i got called the first 30 days he was here, because when he hit here, he hit here with a plan to increase pay for the military and yet cut the budget. that was his goal, and he had enough folks to get it, do it. when he got here about 19 or 20 of his fellow republicans came to him and said, if you don't hang the way you're voting on funs and on abortion, we're not going to support your bill. of course, you know what they told them, to go jump. but then he had to have some help out of the democratic party i was a democrat there. billy townsend was a democrat. we had some strength over there. jim baker could tell the president, call one of those guys and they'll help you. they said, well, i know ralph

hall better an i know any of them. we'll have the president call him and maybe he'll pick up those votes that he lost. they needed about 10 votes. they told me he was going to call me. so i was ready for him. he called and said, this is ronald reagan. i said, yeah, i believe that. martha, come over here. he thinks i'm reagan now, but -- i want you to hear him. he said, no, i really am. another guy came over and no, it's really him. that's the funny type things that you don't forget. >> sure. >> when i knocked on the door he told me to come over there. i need some time. i had a program like he did. i always wanted to put a president on hold. i put him on hold about two minutes and i said, well, i can come over there today, tomorrow, or the next 30

minutes. what you want me to do? he told me to get my you-know-what over there. i knocked on the door. he said one question, what is it going to take for you to elp me pay for the budget? i had an answer for him. >> as you look across the president's ha you've served under, served with, which of them have been the best at working congress to get their legislative -- >> i'd probably have to say reagan. he was so believable, and he had been a democrat, you know, pretty much, but the two bushes were easy for me to work with because i knew them. during world war ii, i had flown -- been at the same base a time or two with the old bush. he was a famous father. i knew who he was. he didn't have any idea who i was. i supported him for some statewide race.

i think he got beat the first time. but bushes have always been favorites of mine. because i knew little george when he was nine or 10 or 12 years old. i knew he was never going to be president. but that's what a good woman can do for you. she changed him. you can have me or you can have jack daniels and he made the right choice. that woman probably saved the guy. >> ronald reagan was the best at working congress many >> i think so. >> yeah. >> i think he handled them better. he even went over and tear down that wall and brought cheers rather than jeers. he knew what to say and when to say it. he came when one person could make a difference. i don't think one person can make a difference now. >> a person that you have on your wall. lyndon johnson. what was your impression of him? >> he landed a helicopter many

our football field and i got to know him then. i went to work for him and i think they were paying me $3 a day to put up his placards, but what i had to do, i had to bring them three placards of the guy they were hiring me against. they really were hiring me to tear the other guy's placards own. i got to application later because he was a good -- politics later. >> you left politics for a while and worked in private industry but decided to come back and make your bid for national elected office. who drew you back in after your time in private life ? >> i was in business and i was buying and selling land.

i was -- rockwall county's the smallest county in texas, 254 counties and my little county is the smallest. dallas spills over on us and as they spilled over on us, it increased the value of our land and the counties next to us. i bought a lot of land and bought it and sold it at that time right time. during the 80's when every hit bottom, i was running for offers and i was trying to come up here. if i had been doing what i'd been doing, i'd have been broke. but i wasn't. all through the 1980's i was trying to stay -- keep my head above water because i knew i was coming to congress. >> why did you want to come to congress? >> well, sam rayburn and my mother were schoolmates at mayo college, a little college before east texas teachers state college at commerce, texas. now it's texas a&m at ommerce.

they elected a good friend. she wrote a letter to sam rayburn when world war ii broke out and asked me to help me get an officer, get officers training school. he didn't call her back or write her back. he came to her breakfast table. he said i can't hire him because of his grades. i graduated in a class of 38 but i graduated number 38. i always have been able to make it some way. somebody's been good to me. >> was it sam rayburn that made you want to come to congress? >> yeah. because my mother spoke to highly of me. a bunch of republicans came to me one time when i was a county judge in rockwall and was going to put up money for me to run

against sam rayburn. my mother asked me, if you do that, where are you going to get breakfast, you know? i wasn't going to run against sam rayburn. he was a great man. i think sam rayburn could still be speaker of this house or could be -- i think, oh, joe dimaggio could still hit the fastball, the pitchers of today. i think those old guys could still operate the way they did, because, you know, when -- like i said, when ray burn looks back over his shoulder, he left a nation here that had a plan for it and had a balanced budget and had had one for 10 years when he was there. >> your office is in the ray burn building. did you do that intentionally? >> no. i always wanted to get here. the first year i was here, we drew for offices. there were 9 of us and i drew up in 9 . >> last again? >, the last again --

>> i drew number 630 when there was 62 votes. so i stayed where i was. finally, i stayed here so-long had my choice and i picked this place. this is the best office on the hill. >> why is that? >> you're closer to the elevator, the views, and you think about that when you're an ld guy, rest r5078s. got everything an old guy wants. >> you're surrounded by lots of photographs. >> so proud of all these people. they're all friends of mine. i don't know what i'm going to do with all these pictures. i have neil armstrong who came to my home and supported me when it looked like i might get beat. he came and worked for me. he was a good guy. buzz aldrin's been to my home several times, and in rockwall, you know, they weren't sure who buzz aldrin was, but they knew he was somebody.

and of course i took him to the schools. you know, seniors vote. this guy, neil armstrong and buzz aldrin came on one of my election action -- elections. he called me from new york. i have tickets, you come pick me up. he said the dallas morning news is knocking around. first thing i learned is you on't fight people. he came here and it helped e. they helped me through the campaign. i've had good luck and all kinds of help. to be in politics and stay, you have to have some ability but you have to have a little luck every now and then. i've always had that and had people who helped me. the regulation -- when people were going to run against me, the regulation were republicans

and they'd tell the people in my district that they weren't going to get any republican money, the money would go with e. wasn't too good be some of the real hard wing left democrats up there but they're still my friends. >> what are you going to do with your pictures and papers? are they going to a university somewhere? >> i'm told they're going to take all the pictures to texas a&m, reproduce them and give these back to me. hope they do. >> your papers are going to texas a&m? >> yes. everything i have are going to texas a&m at commerce. my grandson went to school there. my wife, when i was in the office here started school there and went all the way through and got her degree from there. so we're east texas state teachers college people. didn't know there was another school anywhere.

>> many of these pictures and memorabilia are from the space program. will you talk about what you think your legacy of the space program has been? >> well, when i came up here, when i was first elected to congress, kim wright was the speaker. he'd been in my home and he and i were good friends. i'd referee a fistfight that he had with a guy that's one of his best friends even today. i knew people who later were somebody. he called me in and said what do you want to be on. i said i want to be on something with energy texas is an energy state. i want to be something with that space station. i've gone to some of the liftoffs with some of the older members. i think i belong on some kind of space program. he put me on both of them. it would take you 10 years to get on either one of them now days. i got lucky.

>> what are you proudest of? >> well, i'm proudest that we -- i was that one street we name and kept them from killing the space station. they came down to one vote on that. and i got dr. debakey to walk the floors with me. we had that same vote and we won by a hundred votes. i think that helped preserve that. later they tried to take space out of science and technology. i was a one-man army that taught them to leave space where it was because that's where it belonged? >> why? >> going to the moon? is that transportation? i think that's a little licked. -- a little ridiculous. but it is space, you know, and it's been space forever. why change something like that? what benefit would it be? >> what do you think of this

state's commitment to the space program today? >> well, we're hurting. we're in trouble. and it's a lack of money. i have a book over here was written by -- what is his name? he's been before all the committees saying how bad we need the space program. 've asked them to give money and it took too much money for them. they wouldn't do it. so we're at russia's good will by -- we started out giving them $50 million for a seat to go to our own space station. we need to keep going back and forth to that station. we made a mistake when we didn't put up the amount of money that it would have taken, because the space program is just not even 1% of the overall budget. and space is so important.

every youngster in the world would be affected if we lost the space station. we'd lose all our international partners if we didn't do our part in keeping the space station open and available to them. it's just important. we may have to defend the next war out of space. who knows? i told dr. debakey himself, if you ever leave that space station, we'll lose the cure for cancer. and what's more important than a cure for cancer? it's important. >> i want to go back to your ilitary service. in recent decades, fewer and fewer members of congress have served in the military. does it make a difference, considering that members have to make that important vote about -- >> yes, it does and it made a lot of difference that i was a veteran when i came here. sonny montgomery was the only general i knew that i could call sonny, but that was his real name.

if he lost four votes in the entire congress he'd go grab them by the tie. what do you mean voting against space, what do you mean voting against my bill? he was strong and it was a strong push that day and time and still should be. >> what about members of congress with military service when you have to vote on things like sending people to war? how important is that? does it matter? >> it matters if you've been side by side with someone or you've gone to your buddy's funeral or you have a grave named after you. as a joke i always kid and say when i die, do i want them to say he was a good man or he really was a good to his family or he was a good member of congress. no that's not what i want to hear them say. i want to they're them say "i thought i saw him move. so i'm glad to be alive and stay alive.

i'm 9 is years old. i don't hurt anywhere. i'm not on anybody's wait list or anything like that. i still run a couple miles a day. i vote 99% of the time. i do most everything everybody else can do. i run two miles every day. i don't run it every day but there's never three days goes that i don't run it. i ran this morning. >> one thing that's changed is media coverage of congress. you mentioned ink by the barrelful. he people working in ink are hurting nowadays. it's all the internet and social media. how do you think that's affected things? the social media and the press? >> there's been some good and some bad. i've popped off and said things to people but i've said things i wished to hell i hadn't said, you know. i think we're more aware when

we talk to you folks of what we're saying that, it could be in the paper in san diego tomorrow or in tv. i think you stop and think a little bit more so than we used to, you know. a lot of these politicians, they shoot at everything that's that flies and claim at anything that falls. they'll be fruit their knees sooner or later you got to have some common sense and have some view of the future and remember what happened in the past before you pop offer here and stake take a stand on anything. >> do you have any allies in the senate? >> we have two good senators? i've always liked the senators over there. got along with them fine. never wanted to run for the senate. i was in the texas senate 10 years. >> why wouldn't you want to run for the senate? >> anybody would like to be in

the senate, i always thought if somebody dies over there, they'd appoint me to finish the senate term and if that never happens, i think -- he's still got it. he won't run against anybody. so i'd be standing there. i'd be -- lot of times i've been lucky just because i was standing there. >> so the senate itself, though, and the house of representatives, what can you do here that you can't get done in the senate? >> pass a bill and you have to really have the votes over there. and you have to raise so much money. the cost of running for office is a major issue up here. it's why i could never run for senate. i couldn't raise that much money. >> you've had to raise increasing amounts of money to run for the house. what do you think about - >> i've been here so long, it came easier for me. finally, this last time i ran but i was spending money on surveys.

they were telling me i was 10, 12% ahead when probably i wasn't. and i -- i guess i thought i was, but it was -- it didn't turn out right, but it didn't hurt me but it hurt my people so much. i had grown people crying there. i had one guy that's 6'8" that drives me places i go. i felt water hitting my head and i looked up, this old guy was crying. i said come on, you're 6'8", you're a grown man. it's nothing to cry about. i'm not hurt and please don't y'all be hurt. it hurt my friends and folks more than i could -- more than it hurt me. i could seat it coming. i'm ok. i think i'm pretty lucky to be 91 years old. i got a job until december 31st now. how many guys have that? very few. >> what are you going to do with your time after? >> i will keep working, i have to. i have expensive grandchildren.

my little grandchildren are going to texas a&m. i'm going to teach them -- i'm a texas guy but i'm an aggie now. they kiss me on the face, every kiss costs me a hundred dollars. it's worth it. they were kissing me good-bye and i had a girl who worked for me before. she was strange. not unattractive but never had any boyfriends. she was going to open the door for them. i said are you going to kiss me? she said, no. i said why not? she said, well, when you were 19 or 20, would you want to kiss a 90-year-old women? i said that's the greatest answer to any question i've een asked. that i've heard. i think that's something people ought to hear. >> if you were asked to tell a

story from your service here, the best -- helps people understand what it's like to be a member of congress, whether it's a funny story or a story of power or whatever, what would that story be? oh, i don't know. john connolly was by far the greatest politician i ever knew. he was governor of texas. should have been president but they only had one delegate and couple million dollars wasn't nearly enough. i've had so many things that people helped me because i was a democrat and then when they helped me because i was republican. but i've always got along with - neither one of them were in love with me, but neither one of them really hated me. >> did it give you some bargaining advantage that you -- >> i think so. i've had to knock on the door of the white house and imply -- one time, i said that i think

the president wanted me to vote a certain way, and i said, well, i got a brother that always wanted to be a federal judge. he turned and the guy who was standing there, he said hall, this isn't a place to ask him for this. i said hell, he's asking me for something, i said i'll ask him for something. while he was thinking about it. he turned and asked them if he could get confirmed. i said wait a minute, mr. president. he's not a lawyer. that brought a big laugh. every time i saw him after that, he laughed because he liked him because he wasn't a lawyer. those are some of the things you remember. >> so any regrets? >> no, not really. hat i've done, i've had -- whether i was a democrat, if a republican would run against me or announce against me, whoever was president up here, whether it was one of the bushes or a reagan, that's most of the time

i've been there, they would get in the race with me and tell them they weren't going to get any republican money. i stumbled into it because i got along with everybody. i don't think i have an enemy in the entire congress. a guy that says well, that's his bill. let's vote against him or that's his bill so let's vote for it. i don't have an enemy here. i run -- don't run the thing. i'm the oldest member of congress to ever stand on the floor and cast a vote. you'd think that ought to buy me something. maybe that ought to buy me more money or maybe i shouldn't have to run for re-election. but doesn't change anything. i'm just like everybody else. >> but you made it into the history books. >> but i'm there, and they call me at first over here to talk to me about like egypt, should they arm the people that were

out in the crowd there throwing rocks at their capital -- or arm the people that were in the capital that were mistreating the people who were in the streets. my suggestion was on both of -- arm both of them. they both hate is. well, they haven't asked me back over there since so -- i still think i was right. both of them hate us. why would we help either one of them. >> when you lost your bid, did you hear from anybody? >> everybody i know has a copy of it. >> was it george senior or -- >> it was george jr. >> what did it say? >> he said i was a good man, a good man, all that kind of bull. i've been honored ever since. i've had about 10 entities, republican women, and i'm going home friday. f i'd known they were going to deify me like they did all this time, i would have quit a long

time ago. >> congressman, i don't believe that. >> well, it's true. i don't really have any enemies. i have -- bruise easily. i never won a fistfight in school. i was 6'2", and looked like ichabod crain. i didn't have any girlfriends, but i didn't have any fist fights either because i wasn't much of a fist fighter. but i've always been fortunate to be in the right place and the right spot. and you have to have that kind of luck if you go where i've gone. in years as a county judge, the smallest county in texas. i was the youngest county judge, i guess, in the state of texas. then 10 or 12 years in the senate, texas senate to pass some very important legislation in the senate, legislation that saved jobs at texarkana there, when you feel -- you work

together with them you save 500 jocks, it gives you a good feeling. all right, if you can get a good boy in guam that wants to be stationed at fort worth because his grandfather because he's dying, it's a good feeling to be able to do things like that to help people. that's what i've got out of being where i was, because i got to do things to help people that otherwise you can't do. i even see a little difference now. i'm a defeated candidate now. i see some difference out there now as to how people treat me. or they don't need me because i'm not going to be here after the 1st. i'm going to be at my grandkids. i'm going to go hunting. i haven't been hunting in so ong that i don't even know where my gun is.

one guy in the depression said he ate so many rabbits, he freezes on dogs. i'm not that bad. i'm going to travel some. le i'm going to help some people who need help. i'm going to look after grandchildren as i've maybe not looked after as i should have or had time for them but i'm going to have time for them. >> thank you for spending time with c-span, >> thank you. it's been a honor to be here ith you. >> on the next washington journal, an update with general todd semonite. and then the pentagon's response to ebola and historian david pa trusea. "washington journal" begins live at 7:30 a.m. eastern on -span.

>> this week on c-span c-span is featuring the departing members of congress. >> congressman tony hall who was my best trend in congress. we had been in a little group together for 32 years. he asked me to go to ethiopia during this family in. just got up and had on proirpgses and said could i go to ethiopia. they said sure. it was a very bad family in. i got to a camp and the didn't r -- embassy want me to spend the night. one said if you spend the night, i will spend the night. we spent the night in a little hut and it rained the next day

and the plane couldn't come back. that was life-changing experience. e saw people die and it was -- in 1985, took me to romania. you may remember churches and i saw people persecuted, and those two trips were kind of bookends. the poor, the hungry and religious rights and freedom. and since that time -- >> and also on thanksgiving day we will take an american history tour through native american tribes. that's following "washington journal" then at 1:30 enjoy the groundbreaking ceremony with former secretaries of state and clarence tomas, judge alito and

sown i can't sotomayor. for a complete listing go to c-span.org. this week international talks thoses with iran, policies talked at or about odds of signing a treaty before the june deadline. this is an hour 1/2. >> well, good morning, everybody. my name is bob einhorn from the brookings institution. i'd like to welcome you to this panel discussion, the iranian nuclear program, and on recent developments in the last few

days in vienna, and as you i'm sure all know yesterday in countries and the reached an agreement to extend nuclear negotiations for a second time. hey agreed to seek political arrangement, a political agreement within about four agreed to they finalize details of any agreement within seven months or approximately by late june. the arrangements under a deal called the joint plan of action. so iran's nuclear program will

remain frozen. and all -- in all criminal respects, and the modest including the enyes mental repatriation of a small amount of oil revenues that have been held up and restricted. banks mostly in asia. but during this period, the st impactful of the economic sanctions, those on banking and oil will flame place. secretary of state john cary gave a press -- had a press event yesterday in vienna. and the secretary made the case for an extension of the negotiations. he said that real and

substantial progress had been made even in the past several days. new ideas had been put on the table. what he was indicating was for the first time in a while, there was some momentum in the negotiations. the talks were not dead in the water, and i'll quote him. he said, we now see the path toward potentially resolving some issues that have been intractable. e went on to elaborate how the interim deal had constrained iran's nuclear program and said that as a result the world was safer today than it was one year ago. he indicated based on reports by the international atomic agency that iran had complied

with its obligations under the interim deal. he pointed out that the most powerful sanctions remained in place, and that they provided continuingest? for iran to come to terms on a comprehensive agreement. in general he made the case that a continuation of the interim deal was very much in the interest of the united states and he saided that considering how far we had come , it would have been a errible mistake to walk away by the time of the november 49 deadline. other parties in the talks! expressed similar views. the president of iran indicated sterday that he was moreless

pleased with the extension. a xpressed confidence that deal could be completed. other u.s. partners in the p 5- plus one expressed similar views. even the israelis expressed similar relief that a hasty yet still agreement had not been released, and they seemed kent with an interim deal at least for the time being. but at the same time while indicating that progress had been achieved, secretary john ry was very frank in insisting that -- gaps on secondary issues but gaps on some of the fundamental issues, he made it clear that he

considered success to be far from inevitable. and subsequently administration pokesman have noted that while iranian me the negotiators had demonstrated some greater flexibility than they had previously demonstrated that ran had yet to demonstrate the realism tired close the deal. anticipating critics on critical. former colleagues of his on critical -- on capitol hill. secretary john cary called on the critics on the hill to give the obama administration the benefit of the doubt and to hold off on additional sanctions. the white house spokesman reiterated this relief that

such additional sanctions would not be helpful and in fact would be disruptive of the further negotiating process. congressional reactions have been mixed. some have indicated they want to hold off and others have indicated they want to achieve a deal. it's important that we obtain additional leverage, and we can only do that by enacting additional m sanctions legislation. and they are calling in the new congress, perhaps even in the lame duck session but more likely in the new congress where republicans control the senate for additional sanctions.

so what is the likelihood in the coming months a comprehensive deal will be achieved? what are the gaps that need to be closed in what kind of deal would be in the best interest of the united states and of its partners in the middle east. we have an excellent panel today to provide answers to these questions. we have on my right, gary, who is executive director for search at the harvard belfour center.

gary, until a while ago was the most senior white house official in response to both weapons of mas destruction. and was intimately involved in the iran negotiations. to my immediate left is david all bright whom you know is founder and head of the -- titute for science and and -- of the institute for the ience and isis not the bad isis but the the good isis as you know it's all up to them to ecide the iranian -- we also have ed lavin whom i've known for many, many years. ed is a former senior staff member of the senate foreign

relations committee. he knows the hill and how the hill approaches the these sanctions. better than almost anybody else. so i'm delighted ed is joining us today. so without further adieu i'm going to ask each of the panelists to make some opening remarks. i will then ask a few questions and provide a few comments and k a few questions then respond. >> thank you for coming. first i -- it involves consoling our nervous middle east allies and most difficult

of all it involves direct negotiations with the iranians. now, the failure to reach an agreement over the weekend is entirely iran's fault. i think it's important to understand that the u.s. through the p 5-plus one put and a very reasonable -- eventually build up to a larger capacity as part of its nuclear e power program and to defer -- all of this in exchange for raduated sanctions relief. but the iranians as far as i can tell have continued to take unrealistic and extreme positions. they refuse to give up a single one of their operating centrifuges and insist on a . id buildup

and maybe this is just sharp bargaining tact i cans. maybe as we approach the new deadline, we will start to recognize iranians showing they need to exercise more flexibility. but the other possibility which i fear may be true the supreme leader does not feel compelled to make fundamental concessions in giving up or limiting iran's efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. because in his view an iranian economy is stabilized under a joint plan of action and under the new economic team and the extreme leader may believe the ukraine crisis and the rise of isis gives iran a much stronger

bargaining position and makes it more able to with stand the conscience jenses if the joint plans of action -- if that's the case, in 11 months, we'll be exactly where we are today. so what can we do to put pressure and persuade him to change some of these extreme positions? well one thing we can change is for not to offer any new proposals until the iranians make a serious counterproposal. second, i think we need to going talk to our allies. both oil consumers and produce, about the need to prepare for the possibility that the joint plan of action may collapse, and we may want them in the case of oil consumers like japan and india, we may want

oil producers like the saudis continue to to supply. the iranians will know we are beginning to make these preparations and that may help them understand they need to make concessions. i think we need recognize that getting rarba and china onboard will make these sanctions not possible especially in the case of ukraine. but right now the ones that really bite are the ones that that the u.s. and its allies ve imposed, and i think we ought to prepare to go back to the sanctions tract. and third, i why would like see congress work on threags would increase leverage to authorize the president to impose new

sanctions without at the same time giving the iranians an excuse to walk away from the talks and blame the united states. sed going to talk about this? more detail. will this work? i honestly don't know. it may be that supreme leader hominy is determined not to budge. that case i believe the process for extending the joint plan of action past july is going to become very, very difficult. and that would be unimportant to. that would return us to the status quo where presumably things, and i me think we have to accept and recognize that even if we resume the sanctions campaign, this is not going to immediately force reason to capitulate. it may over time, but in the meantime they will be creeping forward with their nuclear program. i don't think iran is close to getting nuclear weapons,

because i think their options are constrained by the near it would protect a military attack. but they can continue to build up their stock pile of centrifuges. i don't think the u.s. is close to attacking iran or even israel as long as they continue to look at these constraints. but i think our best chance of eping it going >> thank you. i'd first like to say i agree with gary in that iran is not wanting to make concessions and

the u.s. i think in come cases has been willing to go too far in order to try to find an acceptable deal. unfortunately, i think it was true in july. i was in vienna at the end of he negotiations. iran was not willing to make the concessions there, because they didn't seem to have instructions that would let them make these. the same was true over the past weekend. so i don't know what it's going to take. but i think from my technical point of view, it's going to require a very high level political decision in iran in order for this to work. now, what i'd like do as bobal suggested, just go through some of the particular provisions in a deal. but i'd like to first start with the interim deal itself. we've been scrutinizing the i.e. reports for years.

and it became afirnte us a month ago that there's a little bit of fraying on the edges of this -- of the concessions iran's made on the interim eal. i think my group isis would say it's certainly iran pushing. things on current the deal there has to be -- ter-defined centrifuge it also makes more sense that there's a blending down of 20% or as pioneered in the july deal that more than 20% ends up in the fuel for the research reactor. again, that hasn't gone that well. as expected. i expected the deal would have

25 kilograms of 25% of enriched your rain yum in the -- but it's not more than 5 milligrams because of the ambiguities and what it means to use 25% in the fuel assemblies. so i think that is another ing -- place where you could now the sort -- of core issues of did iran have a nuclear weapons sflam are parts of that program possibly continuing? will iran build nuclear weapons in the future?

that's what i've always heard is the u.s. position. they would have to staff i.a.'s views. but i think now that we have seven months, i think it's important to return to the position that iran should satisfy the i.a.'s concerns before there is a deal. and i think it's very hard to argue that seven months is enough, and i would say it's dangerous not to do that. i followed the i.a. activities and worked with them during the iraq inspections in the 1990's and history matters. you have to know the history nord know what's going on noun. and i think that's true in any area. you're going to be very limited in your ability to understand what's going on if you just turn your back on the history. but it's more important in this case because the i.a. spts some of these activities may possibly be ongoing, so it's

not just a itself question but a question of what could be happening today? and gets right to the issue of verifyibility of this democrat. if it's not addressed, one of the things iran would slearn if it could stone twal i.a. and i.a. is to -- the going to be the principle mecknoism verify any long-term deal. so it doesn't make sense to undermine their ability and in a sense encourage trorn defy the i.a. after a deal is signed. so i think with seven months, there's plenty of time to settle this, but i do think it's going to rely ever require iran high decision from to do that. now they differ on a number of centrifuges. eative ideas to shift -- out

of iran and but i don't think there's been an agreement on ow far they would. and also the primary goal has to remain getting the number of centrifuges down and down, the u.s. has put on the table to -- but the 0 i.r. 1 u.s. wants to strength thisen that by then having the l.i.u. stocks come down significantly. another is what's going to happen centrifuges that would be declared zphess iran has

declared their dismantlement and destruction. how do you deal with that? you're talking about 15,000 or so i.r. one os or i.r. two's staying in place. so how are you sure those can't be operated quickly? and we don't have a good answer if you want iran to need six months or more to restart them. and i don't think the u.s. has a good answer. and iran doesn't seem to be willing to -- so i think there's quite a few issues, and let me just stand on the verification side. the i.a.e.a. is going to have to do more than it normally does. iran has been years in non-compliance with the safe

guarding practices and they have to use the absence of -- and in those issues, they are well defined what's needed and iran has not been so willing to engage on these measures that would be supplementry to what's alled the additional protocol. >> ed? >> they have approached it roughly the way you have heard the first two speakers approach it. with a fair amount of concern, sometimes cynicism. not really believing.

the problem that they face is their options are not very good either. o if you look past most of the proposalals that have been made in the last year or so. they have died in subcommittee. they have not even got on the full committee. even on the house side of the republican control. so when you hear people say at harry reid has bottled up sanctions, don't believe it. everybody has bottled up sanctions bills. and the reason they bottled and it gets much better

publicity to come out and say, we need to have the iranians and -- end all enrichment. we need to destroy or dismantle all of their illicit infrastructure. well, if you could get a complete surrender on these issues by iran, that would be very nice. it's just that nobody -- literally nobody is predicting that iran is going to do that. and so if you want a piece of legislation that would help our me the negotiators rather than antagonizing our allies and ending the negotiations you have to come up with something lse. it isn't easy, as i say.

one other proposal that's been made in the past, and you can expect to see more of these in the future is a requirement that any agreement with iran survive a process similar to hat which is used for arms saltse or peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements under which congress would have the ability to pass a resolution of disapproval. and you might a ask, can't they always do that? the answer is oh, yeah. they can always do that. the difference is that under ose other two bodies of law, congress sets up expedited procedures so that they actually can get a vote on a resolution of disapproval. and they don't allow

implementation of an agreement to begin until congress has had 30 or 60 days in which to try to pass one of those resolutions. of course, such resolutions can be vetoed. and so congress would still need to have a 2/3 majority in both houses in order to impose will l on -- impose its on the president. but you can imagine giving -- continued iranian unwillingness to compromise that eventually they would get those 2/3 already, if they had something good to propose. so what is it that they could propose that might actually be useful? and here i'm talking only for myself. i may talk with others, but i

haven't foundor -- found others willing to get down to this level of detail just as perhaps our me the negotiators haven't found the iranians willing to get down to this level of detail. you can imagine a sanctions bill that was taylored to what to e offering -- tailored what we are offering so that the bill would say, we won't invoke more sanctions unless we cannot get some of the things we're willing to sign a deal on with iran. that would be a very difficult piece of legislation for would , because it involve giving up on more max mallist goals. excuse -- excuse me, my voice

does sometimes give out. but it could help the negotiations if we backed up our me the negotiators to the extent that they could say, here is how far we can go. and we can -- implement a deal that goes this far. but if it goes further, we may not be able to get congress to upport it. our me the negotiators are able to say that in principle. you can imagine legislation that would enable them to say that more precisely. the problem with that legislation would be that it assumes iran wants a deal. if iran doesn't know whether it wants a deal, then all of that

legislation won't do much good. but it's a possibility. other possibilities, you can beef up verification. you can give more help to the iaea. you can give more direction to u.s. intelligence and other agencies. you can set up reporting requirements that require the executive branch to report to congress on a regular basis. what's going on. you can set up exceptional reporting requirements that say, if iran does x, the administration has to report to congress on what it's done, what we are doing about it, and why we shouldn't give up and just cut off the money that's going to iran.

there are precedents for legislation of that have sort largely in the realm of resolutions and advice to consent arms control treaties. so congress knows how the write provisions of that sort if it wants to. beyond that, you could give the president -- and here i'm stealing from gary. you could give the president ore sanctions of forji without necessarily requiring him to use it. and so you would give him more stwords hang over people's heads. but it would still be up to him whether to cut the hair. so there are things you could do. i don't think either in

congress or in the administration anybody has sat down and said, let's work together on what we could come up with. i think it would be very interesting as a staff exercise to have them work on that, and see if they could come up with good legislation that might be enacted some time in the spring time. my friends tell me that they don't expect anything to happen in the lame duck session. so we are looking at the end of next year rather than the end of this year. >> that's it for now. >> thank you ed. i'm going to ask you a couple questions then open it up to the audience. first, i agree with gary that the main reason we don't have a deal yet or the outlines of a deal is because iran has taken

a rigid position, an unrealistic position. it hasn't been prepared to reduce its operational enrichment capacity, and it's insisted on, you know, very early lifting of sanctions before it's even demonstrated ompliance with its obligations to the iaea. and i agree with some of the reasons why they haven't shown flexibility. perhaps they believe that the obama administration needed them on regional issues to defeat isis. perhaps they thought the president was in a weak position and perhaps they thought they could muddle through with their economy. there could be a number of reasons boucek taxpayer john cary says there seems to be a

difference. i wonder what you think, gary. what's the likelihood that the president and his me the negotiators will go to the supreme leader and say, look, boss, this hasn't worked. the americans are not going to cave. we need to show greater flexibility. do you think domestic politics in iran would permit that? >> that's really the key question, because it is supreme leader who is giving the instructions to his negotiating team, and it was his public red lines that iran won't give up any of their existing capacity and insists to building up to 190,000 what they currently video by 2021, which his me the negotiators are operating with. so you're not going to get is a deal unless the supreme leader authorizes more flexibility to

the foreign ministers. and it's hard to -- obviously the supreme leader hasn't whispered in my ear what his views are. but i believe based on iran's behavior over the last couple decades since the supreme leader has been the supreme leader, that hesitate committed to the nuclear capabilities to defend iran against enemies, and as well to assert iran's dominance in the region and its ability to intimidate its neighbors. but at the same time he has shown sensitivity to the risks at pursuing a nuclear weapons program. and we know when the threat and risk has been high enough, he has been prepared to accept limits. so he froze the -- in 2003 after the u.s. invaded iraq and

afghanistan and didn't unfreeze it until it became clear that the u.s. was bogged down in both areas, and he calculated how safe it was to resume. most recently i think president obama's campaign has been effective inform iran accepting at least a freeze even though they have not fulfilled other rules. i'm sure they would very much like a deal. the president of iran campaigned on getting the sanctions lifted. if they recognized the only way to get the sanctions lifted was to meet some of the american demands, they would lobby the supreme leader. but i'm sure they have lobbyists saying the americans are weak. we're strong. we can afford to stand firm.

up until now the supreme lead editor has tended not to side with the -- my thoughts are to the extent we can -- i think we have to convince him that we are prepared to walk away from these negotiations and go back to sanctions. >> gary's issue touches on an issue i'd like comment on briefly. that's the issue of whether iran is bound and determined to have nuclear weapons. to build nuclear weapons. i think it's clear that at least until 2003 they had a -- what the iaea calls a structured program to do experimentation and procurement and research to rest the design of nuclear weapon. but something happened in 2003,

and i think we have pretty good information, and the iaea does at they suspended a pretty important element. the design of the nuclear explosion device. and the community has held ever since then that while iran has insisted keeping the option open to acquiring nuclear weapons, it has not yet made -- ecision to >> i think the purpose of an agreement needs to be to deter any future decision by iran's leaders to make that choice. to decide to go from a capability, which they have, and will never get rid of, to the actual acquisition of nuclear weapons. and i think an agreement can do that.

an agreement can do that by mayocking the process of eye hoiring nuclear weapons very detectable and having very good monitoring arrangements and making it very risky and very clear that if they are caught breaking out of an agreement, they will be l pay a very hard price. so in my view, an iranny decision to go for nuclear weapons is not inevitable, and i think we can effect -- affect that choice. but this question of breakout time. this is not the only criteria the u.s. administration uses to judge the value of an agreement, but it's an important one. it's important in large part because david all bright has written so extensively and persuasively on the issue. and that is to increase the

amount of time that it would take iran from the time it makes a decision to break out of an agreement to leave an agreement to the time it would produce enough highly enriched your rain yum to actually fabricate a first nuclear device. and in the past, david has that we should seek a breakout time of somewhere between six and 12 months. the administration has said publicly that it is looking for a breakout time of around 12 months. now my question to david is, whether we are headed toward a breakout time. one of the recent developments that has given some people optimism in this regard is the report that iran seems to agree at it can send a substantial

amount, even most of its low-enriched your rain yum out of its territory to russia. and according to david's analysis, although i'm going to let him speak for himself, is if you reduce the amount of your rain yum stocks, this gives you flexibility to agree to a higher number of centrifuges and still maintain a significantly long breakout time. is, how are things shaping up? do you think this is acheeable? >> i think it is. e don't feel at isis, the good isis, we were originators of this idea. it flows from discussions with gary and others that really centered down on what kind of reaction time do you need in order to respond to an iranian

effort to go for the bomb? i think wendy sherman captured it best in september when she said we must be confident that any effort by tehran to break out of its obligations will be so visible and time-consuming, the attempt would have no chance of success. and so, if you then start saying, ok, what does that mean in terms of things like a century huge program, then you come up to the concept of breakout. what breakout allows you to do is convert a desired reaction time into the number of centrifuges, and it involves fairly sophisticated mathematical modeling in order to try to be more realistic, and you end up with numbers if you want reaction times of six to 12 months, you end up with numbers that you want to get down to the 2,000 to 4,000 levels. and those are driven by limiting the stocks

particularly of 20%, which, again, is still there. it's quite a large stock of 20% enriched uranium. people mistakenly say, well, we got rid of the 20%. what happened is you converted the 20% to oxide form. it's still there. there's been some amount blended down, and that's gone. but more than enough for a bomb in terms of netanyahu's way of thinking about this. that amount still is there, it's just in oxide form, and therefore, it takes longer, and that's good. you'd have to go back to hexafloor i had. how much will be there in the final deal? we think there's going to be some, and we look at 50 kilograms, and that can affect breakout. you do want to drive down the amount. the level of driving down the amount of 3.5% can have a very positive impact on the breakout times. and it gets -- i think it's one

of the reasons why the u.s. raised their numbers from 2000 up to in 4,000. they feel that if they drive down the stocks significantly, then their breakout time will remain at 12 months. but they can go up to a higher number of centrifuges. i think my group in u.s. government agree that you can't let it go up to 10,000, 8,000, because, again, these centrifuges are making this 3.5% all the time, and so these limits become somewhat meaningless when you get to numbers like 8,000 because they're going to be making so much every month that it wouldn't take them long to stockpile enough to be able to have enough for a much more rapid breakout. but again, i should also say that there's a debate under this, why focus so much on the

declared program. going back to what wendy said, part of the reason is you want to limit them across the board. of course we're worried about a covert breakout, but we think there's an interrelationship. they have lots of centrifuges, 10,000 centrifuges or more. they have a fairly robust manufacturing complex. very hard to monitor that, even with these additional supplemental air measures, the i.a. is expected to get under a deal. you'd have a hard time that could then go off to a secret ite. up to the reduce stocks and that strengthens whatever you get. >> thank you, david. you suggested some very constructive ways that the

ngress could contribute to the negotiations through additional legislation. that's not going to be the initial instinct of many members of congress, especially in the new congress. i would assume that a number of senators would want to reintroduce some of the legislation that they've introduced before that would, you know, require the administration to achieve some unrealized objectives, and failing that, to impose sanctions that are very far reaching. i would also assume, especially based on what secretary kerry said yesterday, that the administration would strongly oppose further, any further sanctions on the grounds that it could be disruptive of the talk and that it could lead to

divisions within the international sanctions coalition, which is necessary to put continuing pressure on ran. i think that might be the initial confrontation, draconian sanctions versus no new sanctions. what are the chances that from that initial confrontation will come a real negotiation over trying to get legislation that serves to reinforce rather than to undercut the negotiating process. notice, everybody, what we've just switched from the question of negotiating with one foreign country, iran to the question of negotiating with another foreign country, congress. they are not that dissimilar.

i would say that you are correct, bob, in your guess as what will happen first, and that is perhaps a kabooki that must be played out, and it will put pressure on the marshal ation to democratic forces in the enate. passage of a draconian bill. now, all of you who are used to complaining about republican obstructionism, remember, in six weeks, it's going to be democratic obstructionism, and that's going to be good obstructionism rather than bad obstructionism if you're a democrat. the democrats will have a lot

of ways to block legislation if they choose to use them. what the administration has to worry about is a situation in which democratic senators give p on the administration. not so much giving up on iran, but losing confidence in the administration's ability to negotiate well or to handle them well. assuming that the administration is able to convince democratic senators that it will do the right thing with iran, what it probably so, i would think should do, is say to democrats, look, you have to work with us to kill the bad bills. we will work with you in

private to see if there is a good bill that you could come up with afterwards or that you could come up with to pull out of your pocket when you're in floor debate, but in some ways to show that we are not averse to any deal with congress, we are merely averse to bad deals with congress. so i would think there would be some pressure to talk, to explore possibilities for useful legislation. s i say, they won't be easy. but it is amazing how, if you try, you can come up with something. one of the things that has been impressive about u.s. negotiators with iran is how many good ideas they have come up with.

i would simply note to our audience that even david has come up with very interesting ideas that he slips in in the middle of paragraphs in his testimony. for example, when he testified last week for the house, he said a sounder strategy involves including disabled steps with the destruction of a limited but carefully selected set of equipment. for example, the deal could include the destruction of ertain key equipment such as pressure or flow measuring equipment. what he was saying was to the house committee was that if you want to reach a deal with iran that lowers the number of

functioning centrifuges, that doesn't mean that you have to destroy the centrifuges completely. rather, you can destroy some critical parts of the centrifuges, while leaving the shell and much of the inards still standing. that was the very interesting proposal. it's the kind of thing that i would guess, although i don't know, our negotiators have been discussing with iranian negotiators. one of the things i would hope for in the coming months is hat if iran does not show more willingness to work out a deal, he secretary kerry would relax his determination to keep

everything secret. and would instead be a little more open about how creative the p-5 plus one has been in he offers it has made to iran. so that iran will realize if the negotiations fall apart this spring and summer, it won't look good for them. and i think we have to prepare the world for the possibility of accepting that we are the good guys. >> i agree, especially with that last point. if talks break down, there's oing to be a blame game. and what we've seen over the last year is the current iranian team is very good at public diplomacy. many of them are western educated. they speak very good english,

and negotiations are carried out in english these days. they are going to make a strong case, and they've been making a strong case, that they're the reasonable party. i don't think they have been the reasonable party, but i think much of the world has the impression that it's the p-5 plus one and the u.s. in particular that's been the intransigent party. i really do think that's wrong, and i think it would behoove the administration to begin getting the word out especially if the iranians continue to be rigid, but so far, the administration has taken the understandable view that we don't want to negotiate in public. let's not put all our ideas out there, even if they're reasonable ideas that the iranians should have accepted. so this is -- this is a problem potentially in the future, and i think the administration will need to develop a good public

diplomacy strategy. well, i think our panelists have put some interesting material before you, given you plenty of thought for questions. so let's open it up now. please wait for the mic, identify yourself, and ask a very concise question. our hand was up first. >> thanks very much. i write the mitchell report. dr. albright's decision reminds me of daniel patrick moynihan's way of doing gun control, let them keep the guns and stop producing bullets. i wonder if -- there are two very quick questions i'd like to pose because i want to make sure i hear the answers.

the first is, has anyone actually seen and read the fatwah from the supreme leader, and second, given the supreme leader has spent the last quarter century creating a foreign policy that is focused is merica as say tan, there, has there ever been consideration given to have negotiations as they get to this point between iran and hers that take place without u.s. at the table so that he doesn't have to give in to say tan. -- give in to satan.

>> my understanding is nobody has seen a written version of the fatwah, but i'm sure iran will produce one for you at the right time if it's part of the deal o. your second question, the only way this negotiation will succeed, if there's a deal between washington and tehran, there's no other possible formulation that will lead to an agreement, because those are the principal antagonists on this issue. there's no proxy for the u.s. that could step in and negotiate a deal with iran. i think one of the positive developments since the joint plan of action was agreed is that we see more and more that most of the real negotiations are taking place in a bilateral context with the u.s. representing the p-5 plus one and convincing the other members of the p-5 approximate plus one to support the initiative and idea, but you can't negotiate at seven or eight. it's just simply impossible to

sit around the table with all those parties and do the kind of give and take that's ecessary for negotiations. so if you're looking for a positive side, it's that the iranian have finally got over the huddle of meeting directly with the united states, expert to expert, and working on text. for most of president obama's first term, when bob and i were directly involved, the iranians refused to meet with us. we offered many times to sit down and actually negotiate or discuss the issues, and they were under instructions to not meet with us. they've at least persuaded the supreme leader to allow the direct discussion take place. of course, he says in public i'm very skeptical that a deal is possible because i don't think the americans will accept our nuclear program. and you know what? he's right. the united states won't accept iranian's nuclear program. >> i'm told there were even secret bilateral u.s. talks,

even when ahmadinejad was president. also, you probably remember that between 2003 and 2005, the so-called e-3, britain, france, and germany, met with iran without the united states, but those talks didn't get very far, which supports, i think, gary's point that the u.s. needs to be a key. >> i must admit that reading today's posts, i'm not as optimistic about the next seven months as people on the panel might be. but given that, if during the next seven months nothing happens further than what has happened so far, what does the

just think beyond the we've talked about sanctions and so on, but there is another party, namely israel, who could take some sort of action, and what does the panel think would happen if we progressed to next seven months, have not gone any further, and what would the u.s. and what would israel be doing at the end of that seven months. >> i want to make a general point that applies not only to your question, but some of the comments of my fellow panelists, and that is the best answer to a lot of these uestions is we don't know. we are operating under

conditions of uncertainty. we would be better off accepting that uncertainty than trying to make predictions when, frankly, we don't have the basis on which to make them. but your question raises an interesting point that we haven't quite covered. which is, could the joint plan of action become a steady state that exists into the indetermined future, and would that be good or bad. my guess is my more expert colleagues, if pressed to the wall, will say we're not sure. it's certainly a better state than we had before to joint plan of action.

but there is the risk that it will impede progress to a real , al because it's such an easy econd-best solution. i think that some of our talk of increased sanctions is oking for a way to force a decision on tehran's part that this ve us off of surprisingly comfortable dead center. >> gary, you wanted to say -- >> so i would say most of our partners in the p-5 plus one with the possible exception of france are quite comfortable with the status quo. wove succeeded in freezing most elements of iran's nuclear program, and yet we prepreserved the sanctions

regime. i hear the same thing from some of our israeli friends. they recognize that the status quote, while not solving the problem, at least had stopped the clock or slowed down the clock on iran's nuclear program. i think there's an argument to be made that the extension of the joint plan of action is at least holding the issue steady. but my sense, and ed can speak to this as well, my sense is, in this town, there's no patience for an endless extension into the indefinite future, unless you can demonstrate that you're really making progress toward tackling some of these tough issues. so i think the obama administration is operating in a political climate where it's got to show forward movement. it can't just play out the clock for the rest of this administration, keeping the status quo in place. as i said, i think many israelis would not that be averse to continuation of the status quo.

>> i think one thing, in sense to reinforce what ed said, i don't think any outcomes are inevitable. i don't think it's inevitable israeli will strike mill tailor. washington is very polarized, and you hear comments that if the deal breaks down, it's war. you know, i don't think those are true. i think the deal has some benefits to both sides. both sides have some real incentives not to see the escalation getting out of control. so i think it's more likely that things will kind of, if the deal ends, that there will be something that replaces it that is neither war nor a situation with extreme sanctions. >> and i think israel, you should look deeper into the israeli government and netanyahu to see what they're really thinking. i don't think they want to go to war. they know that if they strike, they can strike once, and that's it. iran can simply build back.

they know the dilemma, if you are going to pursue military strike, it has to end the program. they can't deliver that. i don't see a great incentive here in this country to back them up. >> i might as well chime in too. you know, if talks break down at the end of next june, discontinued, what will the israelis do? it will depend on what iran does. if they ratchet up their program aggressively, that will lead to a lot of israeli concern. but if they play it smart, which i think they will, the iranians have given every indication of playing it smart, they'll be very slow. maybe they'll turn on some machines that haven't been fed with gas. maybe they'll increase at the margin. but i think they will avoid highly provocative actions.

and if they do, if they're smart enough to do that, i think the israelis will be frustrated, but i don't think they will see a compelling need to launch a military attack. >> i'm from nuclear intelligence weekly. twoif questions. rst, i think for you, bob, how much attention do you think the united states might take towards working with the russians to try to work out more details of their agreement with the iranians, if we're assuming that the goal here is to try to regularize the iranian nuclear sandram give them some justification for some sort of commercial enrichment going forward. that's number one. and i mean both the reactor

deal, but more importantly, i suppose the fuel deal, end of that deal, which was pretty vague when the announcement was made. and secondly, how much scope is there in your view for the united states, if the iranians, i mean, in my own opinion, if they were smart, they would kind of say, look, we have terrible machines. we need to get better machines, so let's focus on r&d. we don't need the capacity right now, so give them that. and look further into the, but his has become such a point of symbolism that it's hard to do it. but let's say they were finally willing to concede on capacity. how much scope is there for our side to concede on the duration f the agreement? >> i'll take a quick whack at it, and the others will try. i was in moscow last weekend, so i had an opportunity to speak to the russians about

this. i think despite the real difficulties u.s. and russia are having in their bilateral relationship, the russians have played a constructive role in the iran negotiations. it's been in their interest to lay constructive role. the russians don't want the iranians to develop an industrial scale enrichment capacity. russia would like to provide fuel for whatever nuclear power reactors that it sells to iran. in fact, its recent deal a couple of weeks ago, the russian strong belief is that for any additional reactors, russia should provide the fuel, and if that is to be agreed by iran, this would seriously undercut the iranian argument that it needs to have a

large-scale, indigenous enrichment capability. also, you've seen reports, and i mentioned it earlier, about the shipment from iran to ssia of most of iran's low enriched uranium f. that materializes, and my understanding is details have not been worked out, quantities and so forth, but if it does work out, then this would be very positive step, because as we've discussed, the lower the amount of enriched uranium stocks, the more leeway you have to accept a higher number of century huges. so i think the russians have played a constructive role in heir own interest. well, this is to be worked out. they have to figure out the costs associated with that, with the transport of the material to russia. you know, there's a question whether this is technically suitable to be used in the

fuel, and there could be additional costs associated with that, so lots of details have yet to be worked out, but i think the russians have played a scrktive sandrole will continue to play. in terms of if everything else works out, the u.s. would be more flexible on duration of an agreement, i believe the duration is very, very important, and i think that's one of the issues where the u.s. has remained very firm. the iranians have talked about a pretty short duration, you know, five years or something like that, because they would like all constraints to end so they could ratchet up quickly to an industrial scale enrichment capability, but that would drastically reduce the breakout time line. nd this would be unacceptable. i think the constraints have to last a long time. my preference would be 15 years or so, and this would provide sufficient time for iran to

demonstrate a track record of compliance with its obligations and begin to restore confidence in its peaceful intent. i don't know if any of the others want >> i think the centrifuge rnd is a separate issue. with -off ot a posed sic -- the problem by centrifuge r&d is that they have brake for thursday, then have much more capable machines. with maybe ld get by fewer machines if they did decide to build a covert plant. [inaudible] yes, but that does not mean anything. but the iranians try to play, you know, it offers a very productive way. it is a little