technical understanding of this nuclear agreement in the making. she is the director for the non-proliferation policy for the arms control association and provides research and analysis on nuclear programs on iran, north korea, and pakistan onkelsey joined the arms control association in 2011 as a herbet scoville jr. peace fellow. prior to that she worked in a think tank in jerusalem. she may have interesting things to say about the israeli attitude toward these talks. and john limbert. a member of our task force and so much more. he is the class of 1955 professor of middle eastern studies at the u.s. naval academy. he had a 34-year career in the foreign service, mostly in the middle east and islamic africa. in 2009 and 2010 he came out of retirement to be the deputy

assistant to the secretary of state for iranian affairs during an earlier effort during the beginning of the obama administration to get this nuclear deal. before joining the foreign service, he taught in iran as a peace corps volunteer. for 444 days from 1979 to 1981 he was a guest of the previous ayatollah in tehran when he was held hostage. john will have a lot to say on what this means for u.s.-iran relations. without further ado, we will start. cliff, i will start with you. i want to get your general impressions of what has been announced and the likely obstacles that might be on the horizon. mr. kupchan: so far so good. any deal will be an ugly deal.

it is not a pretty deal. there are some technical problems with it, there's a lot we don't know, but it meets the basic structure of a deal that curbs iran's access to nuclear weapons and provides state sanctions relief. obstacles? there are a lot of obstacles to the deal. the first, to me, is there are a lot of substantive gaps between the two sides. if you read the dueling press releases from yesterday, there is no agreement on how sanctions relief will work. the iranians think it will happen up front in the u.s. things it will be in phases. that jumps out at you. the iranians don't mention in their press release that they will give up all but 300 kilograms of enriched uranium. the u.s. makes a big deal of that.

there are other discrepancies. the second obstacle is iranian domestic politics. in 2009, the deal fell apart because khamenei could not sell it at home. is the leader going to get cold feet? the pressure is going up. the hard line is already coming after him. this is not a saddam hussein situation. he runs the country but does not call the shots. he is just a central guy, but not the only guy. then we have the israelis and saudis, but the saudis have been relatively quiet, the israelis have been screaming. my own view, bibi's way out in front of the opposition. most of the israelis were willing to listen privately. this deal is worse than they expected.

i don't take they thought fordow would remain open. the number of machines is higher than expected. they are unhappy. four, then, is the u.s. congress. i don't think that congress can, or will, bring the deal down. i know it is early, and provocative and bold to come out with, but after talking to the republicans, i used to work on the hill and know a lot of them, i don't think that they correctly don't think that they have the votes to override a veto of a bill to bring down the deal. a lot of obstacles. in the end, i would say that if the president gets a deal it sticks, let me rest my case. ms. slavin: kelsey, let's talk about the details as released in the fact sheet at the white house put out yesterday. a lot of detail as opposed to the vague comments of foreign minister javad zarif.

what struck you as important, positive, and are there areas you are concerned about? ms. davenport: the details laid the groundwork for a strong deal that delivers on president obama's pledge to block the uranium and plutonium pathways to the bomb. what struck me about the uranium elements is that it addresses the package about concerns about iran's uranium enrichment program and taken together will roll back the program, and ensure the international community that iran cannot get a significant quantity of weapons grade uranium within a year. if you look at the numbers, it is stark. iran has 20,000 centrifuges now. under the deal they will have 6000. the enrichment capacity will be cut in half.

as cliff noted, there will be a reduction in the amount of enriched uranium they will keep in the country. ms. slavin: do we know what will happen to the centrifuges that won't be installed? will they be taken out of the facilities? ms. davenport: that is a key point. they will be removed and stored. that answers one of the biggest concerns that has persisted about iran's program. of iran's 20,000 centrifuges only 10,000 have been operating. that has left many critics concerned that iran could turn the machines on and begin moving to enriching uranium to weapons grade level. removing the centrifuges from the equation is a huge bonus from a nonproliferation perspective. they could not reinstall these centrifuges without the iaea noticing. they will be removed and stored by the iaea. getting back to the question cliff is right. it is not clear what will happen to the additional stockpile of

enriched uranium. in the last international atomic energy agency report, iran had 8000 kilograms of low enriched uranium. they will only have 300. we heard controversy last week if that would be shipped to russia. iran said they did not want to do that. in my view, whether or not it is shipped to russia or blended down, there is not a big difference. what is important is it is removed from the equation, that iran cannot use that to quickly enrich up to weapons grade. it is a detail that need to be worked out, but establishing the level below 300 kilograms is what is important. on the plutonium side, the deal is even stronger. there is an indefinite commitment by iran not to reprocess plutonium. that is how you take the weapons usable plutonium out of spent

fuel. that is very important. iran will not produce any weapons grade plutonium at its heavy water reactor. that will be modified. iran pledged for 15 years not to build additional heavy water reactors. that removes the plutonium route from the equation. from a nonproliferation perspective, this is a strong groundwork. ms. slavin: john, foreign minister zarif went home to a hero's welcome. the iranian government allowed president obama statements in the rose garden to be broadcast live. iranians were taking selfies with obama behind them. i saw one posted on twitter where an iranian was pinching obama's cheek on the television screen in a most loving way. people are having a little alcohol, which is technically forbidden, but goes on all the time in iran. it seems there is a tremendous

popular upswell of support for this agreement. do you think, given the relationship between zarif rouhani, and khamenei that this is really going to have smooth sailing in iran? mr. limbert: it is a good question. whatever you think of the deal and whatever the details of the deal, it is clear that what was agreed to and the process over the last two years has represented change within our two countries, which has been one of almost uninterrupted hostility going back to 1979. there were some efforts to change that. barbara, i think you described those as two teenagers trying to figure out who would invite whom to the prom.

when one side was ready, the other side was not. we go back to the clinton administration, the inability to get together. we have to say that president obama -- or candidate obama, senator obama, made very clear that he did not talk about a nuclear deal. he talked about changing the relationship into something that was more in line with american interests. in other words, that the 30-some years of hostility had not served american interests and that he was advocating change. it turned out that that effort was much tougher than he thought, than anybody. it has taken seven years since he became president to reach the point that we have. it is clear that, judging what he said he wanted to do, and i

think he was sincere, the possibility of moving beyond this rather technical deal. khomanei was asked about why doesn't iran willing to negotiate with the united states, his answer was why does the wolf have to negotiate with the sheep? they don't want to negotiate with us, they want to eat us. that statement set the tone for a lot of what followed the ascension of hostility. now, what is interesting, is people are discovering that an agreement can be in iran and washington and be good for us. this agreement is neither

munich, as it is described here, nor as it is described in tehran, turkmanchai. does anyone know what turkmanchai is? every iranin knows. it was an an agreement where iran surrendered in 1828 to czarist russia. it was a great humiliation. the opponents of the current deal, they will use the metaphor of turkmanchai. given the metaphor that barbara referred to, and the support that the supreme leader, who is termed a leaders of a hard-line, has given to the whole negotiation process -- there is a great change in the dynamic. i anticipate, if this goes

through, what the president said he wanted to do, which was to redefine the relationship, we will be looking for ways to do that. ms. slavin: cliff, i want you to pick up on that on how it will affect u.s. policy toward the rest of the region. the president has a selling job to do with israel, the saudis, and others. he has invited the heads of the gcc to come to a summit at camp david sometime this spring. i've heard the israelis talking about how they do not want to lose their qualitative military edge. i would assume that some of this can be smoothed over with arms sales and grants. would that be sufficient to calm their jitters? mr. kupchan: it will take a real effort. previously, i said the saudis are not making much noise. last time i was in iran the degree of anti-iranian

effectives were worse than anything that i've ever heard in israel. the israelites are concerned about bombed, the saudis, it is a blood feud that is not going anywhere. the administration faces a tough challenge. i think, the first point, and again if we agreed on everything everyone would be bored, i don't think we need to do that. i don't think the u.s.iranian relationship will change that quickly. i think the supreme leader was very sincere that a nuclear deal does not mean -- to the united states. his constituency is the pious, poor, and conservative. what does a conservative do for a living if there is a detente with the united states? he looses the constituency. could we get more cooperation on isis? i think so. afghanistan? with the low hanging fruit, the

obvious ones, yes. is iran going to stop what we call terrorist behavior, i would say definitely no. respect human rights as we understand them, i would say definitely no. i think they have got to nurture and make sure the relationship is implemented which involves keeping an even keel in the atmosphere around iran and keeping containment, of discipline, of constraint on broader iranian behavior that i think will continue to be a hard-line government. ms. slavin: obviously, and i will go back to john, one of the things we get out of this is an extraordinary channel of communication with iran that will not go away just because they are not spending night after night in switzerland trying to negotiate a framework. we have our secretary of state

and their foreign minister on a first-name basis, cell phone numbers, emails, they're giving each other gifts when someone becomes a grandfather or someone's daughter gets married. this sort of intimacy is mind-boggling for folks like you and me who has been following iran for long time and when simply having had contact with an american official could get you thrown in prison. i remember condi rice had a meeting on iraq. she wanted to talk to the then iranian prime minister. she went after him and he ran away. he did not want to be caught in the same photograph frame with the secretary of state from the united states. how different is that now. there will be channels. if they will be protective channels, that is to be seen.

mr. limbert: the differences are still there. the differences are not going to go away. the difference might be, how do we deal with them? can we deal with them? we have differences with a lot -- what is diplomacy? making in perfect agreements with people you neither like nor trust. with iran, until now we have not been able to do that. that, in itself -- not that disagreements will go away, not that they will become a jeffersonian democracy tomorrow or respect human rights -- i wish they would. that would be wonderful. if it happened. but that will take time.

now we have some things that we have not had for over three decades, which is the ability to talk about issues that we both care about. and may disagree about, but now we have the ability. maybe now john kerry or condi rice does not have to run after zarif to talk about the issues. they have a forum. ms. slavin: kelsey, one more than i will open it to the audience. this is about the non-proliferation implications. one argument we hear from critics is that leaving iran with essentially so much infrastructure is going to spark an arms race, a nuclear arms race in the region. the saudis and the others will want similar programs. i heard the former saudi ambassador to the u.s. say that if iran gets a fuel cycle we want a cycle. what do you think the impact of the agreement as we see it emerging will be on the

liberation in the region? ms. davenport: it will be a close look at the details the monitoring regime imposes. from what we see in the parameters laid out, it looks like it will be intrusive, continuous monitoring of many of the supply chains, intrusive monitoring of the enrichment facilities, access to the undeclared sites, and many other provisions will be permanent. that sends a clear message to countries in the region that this deal will block the covert pathway to nuclear weapons. certainly, the saudis and other countries in the region have made noise about moving toward their own fuel cycle. i found the saudi announcement interesting that it did not reference the uranium enrichment program. i think the united states still has policies that it can employee that will dissuade the saudis from moving quickly

toward enrichment. certainly, thinking about fuel supply guarantees for future reactors, nuclear cooperation that does not allow for enrichment or reprocessing are important avenues that are important, as well as the security elements. i think the camp david meeting will be quite critical. for other actors in the region particularly prime minister netanyahu, i think he had an unrealistic expectation from the onset about what this deal could achieve. he talked about the complete dismantlement of iranian facilities. that would be requiring iran to capitulate. that was not something that we were going to see happening. from that perspective, it is important to realize that what you get in this deal -- a limited iranian nuclear program that is highly monitored, versus what you would get that if it is without a deal, an unrestrained

nuclear program with less monitoring. that is a bigger threat than what netanyahu is saying. that the deal is not good enough. the alternative is far worse. ms. slavin: president obama talked to king salaman and talk to him before he made the announcement in the rose garden. and talked to netanyahu after the announcement. you can interpret that as you like. say your name and ask a question. >> i am a senior fellow here at the hariri center. thank you, barbara, and thank you to the panelists for a superb presentation. i have a question about the regional implications. as recently as three days ago, our permanent rep to the u.n.,

samantha powers, suggested in kuwait that because of its support for the assad regime in syria, iran is an accomplice in mass murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. my question is kind of a technical, political one for these negotiations. if the united states decides to take some action to protect syrian civilians, how would you envision actions for a protected area -- how might those actions affect this process? ms. slavin: my view is that it makes a no-fly zone more likely. mr. kupchan: i think the two sides have been effective at building a cement wall between politics and nuclear

negotiations. i think when you begin to add in syria, the worst of our disagreements and where iranian policy is truly worrisome, there would be no agreement. we would not be here. if he gets mixed in the future it is trouble for the agreement. what i would expect, no one is making this agreement because they are nice guys. they're making this agreement because they perceive it to be deeply in their own national interests. if the u.s. moves to establish a protective zone, which i hope they do, i think the iranians will swallow hard and look the other way. i don't think it will have a significant, is any, effect on this agreement. the iranians want to their economy back.

getting involved in a no-fly zone will answer that question. mr. limbert: it is a good question. the hard part, what has sunk previous efforts for the u.s. and iran to get talking about things are the kind of things you talk about -- external events. and what is remarkable is that this time it did not happen. there seemed to be an implicit agreement that events in yemen syria, statements on both sides the congressional letters, statements about israel, we are not going to let those things sink the negotiations where in the past they have. ms. slavin: i'm going to ask a provocative follow-up. do you think the israelies will

start assassinating iranian scientists again to blow this up? or do something else? trying to reinfect the centrifuges with stuxnet or son of stuxnet? mr. limbert: no, i don't. bibi is ahead of the israeli body politic. they don't like the deal. the israelis don't like the deal. but this rejection, the no enrichment, that is bibi's shtick. they know the gig. iran will not unlearn what they learned and get rid of everything.

i think it is that sort of over-the-top way of thinking which could lead to out of bounds, off the chain, type of behavior murdering iranian scientists. bibi is under real pressure in israel. that bounds them. if he goes even further, he could face elections before he thinks again. he barely squeaked by this time by tripping the right wing. how many times he can pull that rabbit out of a hat, we don't know. i think netanyahu has constraints within israel and politics from doing something like that. >> thanks, from the atlantic council, and thanks for a useful presentation.

the question i will ask is, what you think the white house needs to do to make sure this deal works? i want to put it in context. john kerry had a conversation with a number of former secretaries of state and national security advisers of both parties. the unanimous consensus was they were impressed with the deal and surprised we were able to get what they got. having said that, the obama administration has proven incompetent in terms of execution. you go back to the afghan-pakistan stratedy affordable care act, etc. i think the first steps are good, but i think there are stumbling walks. i think the right wing and the republican party will be a problem. the sunni-shiite split in the gulf will be a problem. what advice would you give to the administration, because it will be a tough fight? how should they begin the rollout of selling this deal publicly here and abroad?

barbara, if you could jump in that, too. ms. slavin: what kerry did was an excellent first step. i hear a public welcome to secretaries of state to the atlantic council. they were coming and saying how much they like it. i think that would be very helpful. kelsey, what do you think in terms of non-proliferation? david albright, i have not seen him quoted. have you? do you think the gatekeepers the nuclear experts, will provide some backing? ms. davenport: in terms of the non-proliferation element, these numbers don't lie. we are moving from 2 to 3 months to break out to over 12 months

to break out. the conditions on plutonium do not lie. i think what we have seen is that the numbers do not line up to the promise. there are details that need to be resolved, but based on the parameters how they have been laid out, you can tell that the p5+1 is discussing this. there is a plan forward. i think the u.s. congress is a significant obstacle. less from a sanctions perspective, but i am concerned about defining the role of congress moving forward, such as the corker legislation which would require congressional review of an agreement. actions like that seem more innocuous on the surface. but when you're talking about passing legislation that delays implementation of a deal, that requires the president to

certify additional conditions beyond what is required in the agreement to grant sanctions relief, that sends the wrong message to congress and the international community about the u.s.'s willingness to implement the agreement. the obama administration needs to focus its energy on congress, explaining the parameters of the deal. and then encouraging congress to wait until after june 30 to see if an agreement is reached and then determine what the appropriate role in the future is. i think there is one. overseeing implementation, requiring the president to certify iran is following through. that is a more appropriate role. they should evaluate the agreement, first. a senator king said, many of the measures were a surprise. it was better than he expected. senate and the congress should wait until the 30th to see if

the entire deal is better than expected. mr. kupchan: first, i think the administration has been really resistant to a congressional role. congress should have a role. there are ways to tweak the corker legislation. i think they're open to tweaking the legislation. and that should move forward. secondly, they need to come up with good answers to questions. first, i want to point out we are talking about the u.s. fact sheet. what about the iranian fact sheet? it has none of this stuff in it. almost none of it. those are u.s. numbers. why do we spin out these fact sheets? there go the americans with the fact sheet. the only thing i put faith in is the joint statement. that i think it's true. those are broad parameters.

i don't know how much of this the iranians agree with. 10%? 9%? ms. slavin: in 2013 it was the same general fact sheet. in the end, a month or so later when the implementation came out, it was exactly what the white house said. mr. kupchan: i hope the same thing happens this time. i have one other comment. there are worrisome things i want to point out that the administration better have answers for on the hill. after 10 years, iran can develop advanced centrifuges and implement them after 10 years. a one-year breakout time expires in 10 years. one of bibi's main complaints is that after 10 years and one month iran can have a bomb.

they need to answer to that. secondly, and unrelated, their 1000 machines that will stay inoperative. what happens in 10 years? can they replace those machines with other advanced machines? i think the administration should have an answer to what i call the 10-year problem. ms. davenport: i would agree there are some unanswered questions. the centrifuges that forgo, it has been made explicit, will not be used to enrich uranium. a monitoring verification will need to be clear to make sure the 900 machines cannot be used for that purpose. it was of important to the iranians to make sure that the nuclear facilities remain opened. that is something highlighted in the press conference.

this i see as an acceptable compromise, leaving a small number of machines that can be used for medical research, isotope production, if they are configured in a way that ensures uranium cannot be introduced. if the reports that come out of the media talking about using these for zinc enrichment, if that is the case, i think that ensures that uranium will not then be introduced. as for research and development end, i think that we will see, coming out of a deal, more details about how advanced centrifuges can be introduced into the equation. the p5+1 does not want iran to go off of a cliff in 10 years. that is why we have seen multiple timeframes employed. much longer timeframes on the constant monitoring of particular elements, some up to 25 years. a timeframe on limiting the

uranium to reactor grade, 15 years. and a longer timeframe, as well, about what research and development can be achieved up to 15 years. they are preparing for that, and we will see more detail to resolve some of those concerns. mr. limbert: we are seeing debate at two levels. one is among arms control professionals, who say, what about this part or this time or the centrifuges? that is fair enough. people can have differences of opinions on whether that is good or a bad thing. there is another level of debate where the objections to the deal have nothing to do with its content. everything to do with the fact of a deal. a deal to me means that i give up something and you give up

something and i gain something and you gain something. what many of the opponents seem to be talking about is not a deal, not an agreement, but a surrender. the other side has to give us everything we want. let me make one comment about executive agreements. i'm a big fan of executive agreements without congressional oversight because that is what got us out of tehran in 1981. ms. slavin: indeed. mr. limbert: if there had been congressional oversight and congress had decided, no, no this is not right, would i have had to get on a plane and go back to tehran? and i have noticed that the wording seems to be, the people are being very careful. one side seems we talking about oversight, the other about consultation.

as we know in this town, these are very different things. ms. slavin: indeed. the lady right here. i'm so glad we got the executive agreement that got you out of tehran. >> we talked about how there is a bit of a cement wall between the syrian conflict and that nuclear negotiations, and how the administration seems more amenable to saudi concerns than israeli concerns. would that same wall exist for the kind of conflict in yemen between the saudis and the iranians? is that going to be a similar wall, or that be more difficult to negotiate in terms of saudi concerns within the nuclear agreement? ms. slavin: i think that syria is a much more serious crisis. yemen has been a failed state for a very long time. what is happening right now is the effort of the former president to come back to power.

the iranian angle there is very small. i've been told one of the reasons the iranians supported the houthis is because they practiced a form of shiism that is different than what is practiced in iran is because they interfered in bahrain. the iranians think we will get the saudis on the other side if they couldn't get them in bahrain. i think, and perhaps others know more, we are headed for some sort of diplomatic negotiation. at some point when the saudis have flexed their muscles enough and they decide that they can come up with another president, perhaps. what do you think? mr. kupchan: no. yemen is trying to figure out what the iranians are giving. in my conversation with the iranians, they don't care that much.

they just take guns, money maybe a few -- but it is not a major priority. it pales compared to iraq and syria. iran could recede on that and the saudis could have their own way, and this will pass. i don't think it's a threat to the agreement at all. >> although the importance to iran might be minimal, due you think the saudis view it as something that is more of a threat than might be reflected? mr. kupchan: absolutely. the saudis have extreme tentacles out as to what is a threat from iran. if the hot water goes off, the iranians did it. it is my view the saudis have their way with yemen. i don't think the iranians care very much.

the iranians got a lot of time more than the saudis do. iran is not unstable. they will make it more stable after this deal. ms. slavin: no other experts? >> one of the things about the agreement is that the double-digit timelines -- 10, 15, 20, 25 years. that raises the question, what will iran look like in 15 years? presumably khamenei will no longer be among us and there will be a generation that is very plugged in, this cohort moving up, and there will be a new successor generation, though one presumably no longer schooled in united states universities. john, my question, can you define anything about assuming

an agreement, a faithful and limitation of the agreement, what kind of iran will we be dealing with in 15 years? mr. limbert: it is funny you asked that question of me. my record on prediction on things iranian is about three in 10, which of the great if i was a baseball player, but not as a political analyst. we have all gotten it wrong. i'm not alone about that. but i think a couple of things are clear. first, the clerics, the ruling clerics, tend to live a very long time. the story goes that one of the senior clerics, the head of the council of experts, i believe, is so old they checked his telephone book and he had cain

and abel's number in it. [laughter] there are all kinds of stories about these people. clearly, the place is changing. the dynamics that we have seen that rouhani could go back and get the hero's welcome having negotiated and been so friendly with a representative of the great satan, that in itself represents a change. you have to look for changes in places you may not expect them. small, symbolic, but they're there. i would say this. is iran going to go through some great change tomorrow? i don't think so. i don't think so. but the current situation, where you have a society that is well educated, creative, savvy,

dynamic, particularly among the women of iran, who are doing women of iran, who are doing remarkable things, and a state a government, that is out of touch, frightened, rigid -- that contradiction, i don't think it can last. and over the next five or 10 years, as people pass on, even our cain and abel man, the situation will change. the situation will change. and that the society, the separation, the differences in state and society will grow so vast it can't remain. and if the islamic republic, the current system, wants to survive

it will have to change. otherwise, it will follow the way -- the lessons of the arab spring, for better or for worse. i will say one more thing. these changes in iran are not about us. we should've learned by now to stay out of iranian domestic politics. every time we have gotten into it, we have seen things like iran-gate, or worse. these are going to be iranian processes. we would welcome changes. we would welcome the society opening up. we welcome a society that treats its people decently. particularly its women. but the idea that somehow we can

shape it or influence it or bring it about, i don't think that is the case. i think the dynamic is already there. i agree with you, greg, that in five or 10 years we will see a very different place. ms. slavin: can i add a little? i've been going to iran since 1996 every couple of years. it is already a completely different country from the one i started going to 20 years ago. if you look at the women, i write for website called all monitor, and they had a story about iran's first fashion week. they have had shows, but this was the first fashion week. they had men and women going down the catwalk in the latest islamic chic. you can imagine the women of

this country wearing these outfits except without a head scarf. i have met women mountain climbers in iran many women entrepreneurs. 70% or 80% internet penetration. iran has more bloggers than any other country except the u.s. people are on social media despite the filters. they find a way. they have the latest technology. the apple phones. it is a society that has evolved enormously. i would say in some cases because of repression. how do you fight a system like that? you fight it by changing your personal behavior in a way that you are living, as if the government was not there. as if the restrictions were not

there. you follow the letter of the law in public to the extent necessary and do what you can in private to live the life you want to live. one of the reasons, obviously, the government has been reluctant to do this deal is because they know it will encourage people to ask for more. iranians are very smart. they have been repressed, put down, 2009, you know what happened. they will be cautious about what they try to grab out of this. we will see more interaction. here at the atlantic council we are supporting u.s.-iran exchanges. we are having people going back and forth. more american tourists will be going to iran. they would be less frightened, not that they should have been in the first place, it is very hospitable. i expect more iranian students will come. you know it happened with detente with the old soviet

union, the opening of china. there was a fascination about the other. a lot of people that been everywhere else on the planet decided i have to go to this country. we will see the people who used to go to the great wall of china will be going to isfahan and the big mosque in the middle -- half the world. how do you say it in farsi? that will be happening next for the american express crowd. watch this space. >> i was curious about how significant the discrepancies are between how the agreement is understood on both sides. we have seen that zarif on twitter was criticizing the u.s. fact sheet as a spin. the press tv report this morning about the deal was presenting

the terms a little bit differently. ms. slavin: i find this normal. he will stress sanctions relief and no concessions or few concessions. we will stress concessions and the limits on the program. what matters is what is signed in june, right? >> to add on, while the iranians did not sign off in support of this fact sheet, foreign minister zarif's press conference had nothing to contradict the terms. the broad statement that he issued followed the same parameters, just not an as much detail as the fact sheet. if you look closely at zarif's tweets, what he is critical of is the united states has spun this solely as a victory for the

united states, which is normal given domestic politics, but does not emphasize that it is a win-win solution. if you look at the deal, you do see a lot of balance and a lot of what in iran wants, not closing facilities retaining research and development. he is pointing out that the united states is not necessarily demonstrating this is a deal that is a win for both sides. ms. slavin: i listened to what zarif had to say yesterday in farsi and english. he said there would only be one enrichment plant. arak will be redesigned in such a way that weapons-grade uranium will not be produced. we will agree to the actual protocol and provision 3.1 that requires early notification on nuclear facilities. there will be corporation regarding nuclear safety and security. he said all that.

then he said the e.u. would terminate sanctions and u.n. sanctions and u.s. sanctions will also be lifted. a new resolution by the u.n. security council will be issued and the previous resolutions regarding iran will be null and void. he also said that this is a great achievement for the u.s. government as well. he said -- sorry, was a press tv analyst said that. noting for the first time the u.s. did not listen to israel. i thought that was interesting. ok. you know, these were the main points. he did say that in fordow the centrifuges would continue to

work, but we would use it for isotopes or other things. he called it a win-win. he told the iranian people. he said a great deal of what was in the white house fact sheet even if it was not put out in black and white. mr. kupchan: i feel like darth vader here. there was a document published in every iranian press outlet. it stated that all sanctions relief would be immediate. it was unequivocal. it stated that iran was free to pursue industrial-scale enrichment to fuel its own reactors. unequivocal. it stated that iran was unhindered in its ability to

conduct centrifuge r&d. i don't get ahead of ourselves. there was no agreement on how sanctions would be phased in. there's a big gap. they want it upfront, we don't. we want the infrastructure to stay, they don't. i think it is important to be objective about what we have and what we don't have in the obstacles still facing us. i don't think we are out of the woods. i think there are very difficult issues that were not resolved and we will have to resolve them. it will be tough. i think there is an expectations management game that we have to contribute to, to be realistic about where we are. we are not home. we have a long way to go. ms. slavin: you had a question? wait for the microphone.

>> with the middle east institute. i wonder if we could talk more about the iranian opposition. what are they likely to do? last time there were charges that the supreme leader had not been briefed properly and other sorts of twists. what is the strength of it? one of the assumptions of most of us who are not deep in iran affairs, if there is a deal the supreme leader has agreed and he can control the opposition, is that likely to be true or are we looking at this again who might have -- that might clear the deal? how about a few more insights into what you think the iranian opposition might be? whoever. mr. limbert: we used to say the strongest political party in

iran in persian is called -- the party of the wind. that is, whichever way the wind blows. that is the way the party goes. i think everyone -- right, left, center -- is going to be looking at the way the wind is blowing on this. if the reports are true about zarif getting a hero's welcome when he came back, about cities being illuminated, celebrations, and this kind of thing the leadership, including the supreme leader, is not immune to that. for now, the wind is blowing in a certain direction. so we will take it.

what is clear is that this process would not have gone as far as it did -- and i agree with cliff that there is still a lot to do, but it would not have gone as far if there was not a decision at the top that we are going to let this go. you contrast that to what happened in 2009, when undersecretary burns thought he had an agreement and it blew up. that can always happen again. that always happen again, of course. but for the moment, for whatever its own reasons, there seems to be a directive that this is a good thing for us, and we are going to paint it as a good

thing, as a victory, win-win, or where ever whatever it is. but it is a positive accomplishment, and the the underlying text is via talking to the united states which we have never done -- never really done before, we can achieve something that is in our interest. mr. kupchan: what does khamenei say? what does the head of the supreme national security council say? these are the guys that run iran. rouhani doesn't really run the place. these guys do. i kind of agree with john here.

i think they will be modestly positive, encouraged by this. those are the rainmakers. let's see what they do. mr. limbert: don't be surprised. i haven't seen the friday prayers or listened to them today, but don't be surprised to be here some traditional anti-american rhetoric coming out of that. that's not going to go. the slogans, the rest of it, those are not going to go away. ms. slavin: another question? >> i want to ask the other side my question and that is in this country there will be opposition, vocal opposition. if you want to be this agreement by june 30, what do you think that opposition will do? what is the opposition likely to

do to defeat this agreement? ms. slavin: anybody want to touch that? we don't want to give them ideas. judging from what is coming out of some of these statements, what do you think their tactics will be? ms. davenport: following the lines that the deal isn't good enough. when you look at places where we don't have much detail and poke holes in what has been accomplished. they said there is still not necessarily a clear path forward after the 10-year limitations end, that iran could transition to an rich uranium. what does criticism what does criticisms

if the deal is based properly to be mutually reinforcing and a romney sees a much higher benefit from moving forward, the presumption they intend to exploit any weakness becomes far less of a probability. i think opposition will try to poke holes aware we don't have the full details of the agreement yet but it ignores these very strong arguments that around sees this deal in its best interest and if that cost-benefit analysis holds true, they will continue to move forward. mr. lambert: you could always count on the old resident to say something provocative o'er outrageous that would make it easy. now, it is harder. what do you focus on? maybe you focus on what some of

these groups have said which they keep talking about how bad the islamic republic is. they say how all of the talking about all the terrible things it has done and all of the terrible things it does -- but the problem -- that is known. that is not new. we made a policy decision rightly o'er wrongly to say, we put that aside for a moment. the human rights violations, the terrorism, and focus on this particular issue. the debate could be, was at the right thing to do? can you make any agreement with a state that has done the things the islamic republic has done? ms. slavin: john bolton has said

he thinks that more sanctions are not the answer and obviously diplomacy is not the answer, we should just go and bomb the place, right? he sets up a very stark choice. the white house is also been trying to set up that. they say it is a deal, a negotiated deal where iran resumes its program and eventually we have the military option. i don't believe it is that binary but john bolton believe steve. mr. kupchan: iran's economy is teetering. we could have gotten a better deal, we should seek a better deal. i run is going through a time of their low growth but growth of reduced inflation. it is very fragile. the corporate side of the economy is a mess. there is something to that.

i think the main point is that the opponents of the deal are vastly in worse shape this morning than they were yesterday. once you have got a bunch of numbers in front of opponents of a deal, they get really scared. remember menendez -- 59 votes. he was almost in a place to get the majority. then, senators said, i will not sponsor that. we have seen this. i think these guys will have a tough time. ms. slavin: any other questions? i can point out about sanctions a lot of critics say we can impose more sanctions, make them bleed more but the united states might be able to impose more sanctions but the rest of international community will not follow us now, certainly not while there is a potential deal.

the europeans are eager to get back into the iranian market. asians are eager to be able to buy iranian oil again. there maybe some in the energy industry that may be worried about the old prices post -- the impact on oil prices. it is a fantasy, i think, on the part of republicans in congress to think they can somehow increase the pressure on iran at a time when these negotiations are so far advanced. mr. kupchan: absolutely. mr. lambert: maybe what the opponents need to do is to somehow break that narrative of this agreement or war. it is very clear that this presidents big positive is to

keep us out of a war in the middle east. if opposing this agreement will lead to war in the middle east that is not a strong argument. they have to somehow make this argument that there is a third way, another way, and it is somehow better. so far, i have not seen them make that argument very effectively. ms. slavin: let's go back to the question about what will happen in internal iranian dynamics. a friend of mine, a colleague is still in joe, the longest of any iranian american journalist. six months now? more. . there are two other iranian americans that have been held for a long time. other iranian political prisoners, some have been let go but there are still others in joe. john, what do think will happen on the humans rights front?

i have are different interpretations -- heard different interpretations. mr. lambert: the best explanation that i have heard is that this is all part of the power struggle. those in charge of the security services want to flexed their muscles and show that all of this -- all of these smiles and handshakes have not changed the fact that we are dealing with an enemy and we are going to treat these people as enemies and it is a reminder of who is in charge. the same thing happened under a previous president. there were these serial murders going on in tehran of intellectuals, translators anyone they did not like.

the president and his ministers so-called government, were powerless. they cannot do anything to stop it. the best i can tell is that it is a test of wills between the two sides. poor jason. a wonderful reporter, a wonderful young man. he is unfortunately the victim as are some of these other people. that, again, is one of those issues that we should be and have been discussing with the iranians and not let them off the hook on these things and i understand that when kerry and zerif met one-on-one, these came up. ms. slavin: there are important elections coming up, which

choose the next supreme leaders. those are coming up in february of 2016. on of the interesting questions for analysts is what will this nuclear deal it assuming it is completed, for reformists? there are some who are still in the system and a lot of function. there are two presidential candidates from 2009 who are still under house arrest. are these guys ever going to see the light of day or do they have to wait? mr. kupchan: i think there's a connection between what we are seeing now and domestic issues. romani has been very weak on everything but the nuclear issue.

three or four of his ministers of higher education were rejected. he has lost a lot of internet cases of the judiciary. not succeeding and widening social freedom space. it is extraordinarily likely an idea that if there is a final deal i think that guarantees nothing but makes it more likely that we will see slow, hard-fought progress in other areas. it has been startled -- stifled by the hardliners. ms. slavin: a couple of things have improved. book publishing. there are more books published in iran. a number of professors have been kicked out of their professors, they have come back.

i compare it to bears coming out of hibernation. a lot of these people who were very private -- prominent have come back into circulation and can be quoted by the western press and not have to be worried about being thrown in prison. they are small things. there is a newspaper called shark which would have been there and - banned but it came back and is an important voice for the reform movement. you have to look for these small victories there as well. any other questions? over here. >> sputnik international news. i would like it if the panel could discuss a little more what sanctions relief will look like and also as far as even possible weapon sales.

ms. slavin: there was a report this morning the russians will now sell the s3 hundreds. i don't think so. that kind of technology will remain in place. mr. kupchan: it is clear the plan is to lift the resolution and replace it with a new one that prohibits the export of illicit material to iran. i think one of the great unwritten stories is that the russians have been arguably the most innovative and constructive member of the beef i plus one -- b5 plus one. we need to factor that in. these tensions relief -- the sanctions relief -- we don't know. what the iranians want up front

is oil back on the market, a reconnection of some major banks. they want access to foreign reserves about $110 billion. i guess they will get a lot about up front. what they will not get up front -- a lot of that up front. anything that is reversible. you can always take oil back off. you can relock reserves. if you have large american companies going in, if you start to prohibit fdi and you are nailing an american company, that is not what we want. sanctions will focus in the first three years on very economically meaningful provisions of money and oil. but, not on quick infusions of

foreign direct investment. ms. slavin: i would draw your attention to two papers we published last year on how sanctions will be used. iranians are looking for relief from the secondary sections, which -- sanctions. a few companies will be the last of the party. i wanted to ask you about the contribution of the secretary. i was on a conference call with a number of white house officials yesterday evening wear one of these unnamed senior administration officials talked about how over the course of the last few days, their hopes would rise and dash. somehow, they did not get there. the senior administration official talked about the technical creativity of the secretary saving the day at the

last minute. i don't know what the particular hitch was. i assume my colleagues are kind to figure out exactly what the senior administration thought of but we know the secretary had a mary layer -- an extraordinary relationship with an m.i.t. graduate. ms. davenport: i heard the secretary -- the involvement of the secretary in the department of energy from the beginning of these negotiations, even though they have been less visible, has been quite important because he and the department of energy will be of extremely important technical validation for this. the department of energy has played a critical role in

analyzing money of the proposals when it comes -- many of the proposals. looking at the research and development and making that available to the public, that level of expertise. i think it certainly will be helpful. as much as there is a political component to this, i think it really did come down to politicians being able to make very difficult and painful concessions. ensuring the technical details are in place is extremely important. you see some of that innovation laid out in this agreement allowing centrifuges to operate but in a way that ensures they are not enriching uranium. a dedicated channel that will allow around technology it may need for its program but do them

-- to ensure it is not impose a threat. it is extremely important here and the relationships you develop with his counterparts, he added to that. we do have a little bit of a clear picture of where the un security council sanctions are going. i would be see the lifting of those sanctions will be tied to iran completing the investigation into past weaponization work these matters will not be lifted until the agency completes that investigation and they ensure the program is entirely peaceful. those security council measures to the investigation will make incentives to iran. originally their file is

different to the security council because it was not cooperating with the agency. laying out those parameters is key and i was glad to see agreement and that in the white house. ms. slavin: i did want to mention another point. there's also going to be nuclear cooperation, civilian nuclear cooperation between the international community and iran for the first time. because iran needs a new laundry a --other technology that will -- they did not mention the reactor. a have a lot of second-rate, old technology that they use for civilian purposes and this opens the possibility they were going

to renovate best and do it in a safe way for the iranian people and more proliferation proof. ms. davenport: some of them as vital cooperation we will see will probably have to do with the reactor. that is there so operating nuclear power reactor run by the russians. there are concerns about the safety of that reactor particularly where it is located in relation with our earthquake faults. i hope that happens early on in agreement with the other measures you mentioned cooperation on the provision of water reactors will be important because iran have placed a great deal of emphasis on producing its own medical isotopes. i think you can add to these insurances that the nuclear

program is progressing in a peaceful directory and not in a way that could be used down the road for weapons development. mr. lambert: an interesting story indicative of me of the difficulty of this relationship and also perhaps how far we have come according to my iranian friends, it was obsolete when they bought it in the 70's it was finally completed 40 years later.

40 years later, again, my iranian friends, tell me it should have been scrapped long ago, but for reasons of national pride, they completed it. when they did, the then secretary of state heller clinton was asked, what do you think about this. she said, we are not concerned. we know what this is, we know the safeguards involved, we know what this does, and is it is not an issue concern to us. then, they went back to an iranian official, maybe barbara you remember who it was, i don't. they asked him, what do you think about the secretary statement? his comment was, we are not sure what it is, but we know there is a trick there somewhere. [laughter] we know she is up to something. why would the american administration make a seemingly friendly statement like that? there had to be a trick behind it. that was the environment that we have been operating in for 35 years.

maybe, just maybe, what we seeing now is a chance of breaking down those particular walls of mistrust. ms. slavin: i think you get the last question. wait for microphone. >> thank you. one of the reasons that iran was reluctant to do this deal is they were concerned that iranians would lose more. if we do have a deal in june what are the expectations, and given the support, will the government be in a position to deliver on those? ms. slavin: that is a fabulous question. i think the sanctions release will happen slowly. i'm not sure about the exact sequenceing, but officials are clear that i iran have to do many things before they get

relief. they have to do something about the esto stockpil, they have to move up the centrifuges before they see any relief. it will be slow. already, i'm sure, i don't think the iranian -- well, the currency traders are obviously operating today -- i'm less interested in what they have to say that the comparison of the real to the dollar. i would bet the iranian stock market will go up. i would bet that eggs pgi iranians are going to go home, look around, and see, what can i buy for cheap. nash x patriot iranians are going to go home, look around, and see, what can i buy for cheap. maybe put money away. the chinese the diaspora started returning after normalized relations as with the united states.

a lot of good things can happen. companies have gone to iran on exploratory missions. now, those memorandums will be signed. also, just psychologically. this is a huge shot in the arm for iranian people. i think we have the keep that in mind as we look at this. this is not just about centrifuges, and you know, heavywater reactors. this is about human beings and a country with amazing potential that has really been squelched for all of these years. for that reason alone, we should hope that things go well. i think that can be the last

word, unless someone else wants to add on. mr. limbert: there is a danger that this could be oversold, and people think, now the sanctions will be lifted, and everything will be fine. the story that the iranian government has presented very often is that our economic problems are the result of the sanctions. well, they might be, some of them, but there's also many people who say -- analysts who say, no, it is the result of their own mismanagement of the economy. what happens when the sanctions go and the economic problems are not solved because mismanagement is still there. it is much easier to blame your troubles on what outsiders have done to you then your own mismanagement which has been a crowd when it chronic problem. ms. slavin: thank you so much

for coming out today and please follow us on twitter and come and see us at our next events. we will be very active in the coming months on this issue. thank you. [applause] >> today, the president of iran said iran would fulfill its promises announced in yesterday's nuclear agreement. he said his country is not seeking deception or hypocrisy. he spoke with english translation. the speech is courtesy of press tv. president rouhani: salutations to the prophet of islam and his household and his progeny.

salutations to the infallible demands, peas be upon them. -- peace be upon them. we are going through the occasion marking the anniversary. next week, it will mark the birth anniversary. today is the day that will remain in a stroke of memory of the iranian nation. today is a day that, from my point of view, is a day of appreciation and gratitude to

the great nation of iran. the iranian nation, through its resistance and steadfastness took another step towards attaining the sublime national goals. i have to thank the iranian nation since the people, in order to safeguard their interests and today, they will remain resistant and steadfast and the people will tread this path.

the government and this administration had offered some promises to the people and we have always made efforts in order to fulfill those promises in the framework of our national interest. one promise was that the centrifuges have to spend and at the same time, people's lives should go on smoothly and it will be valuable for us to see the centrifuges spinning provided the economy would also move forward. today, we have got closer to that objective compared to the

previous months, weeks, and compared to the past days. during the first hundred days of this administration, the government took the first step forward and reached an interim deal regarding the nuclear issue. in negotiations. since that time, till today, we have been making efforts in order to take the second step. efforts were made for several months and i can refer to the efforts made in the past few days and last night, we managed to reach our objective. we managed to take that second step forward and we have managed

to protect our nuclear rights and at the same time, we have taken steps for the lifting of sanctions and at the same time, constructive interaction with the world. this is of great significance for us based on the framework that we reached last night it means with respect to the upcoming agreement that will be the third step and we hope that until june, we will be able to take the third step and the third step will be the final agreement and before the step that will be later taken will be achieved several weeks later. that will be the implementation

of the divisions of the final agreement. based on the framework that we have obtained, they set enrichment is a threat for the region. today, they have accepted that enrichment of the uranium soil is not a threat and i explicitly wish to announce that enrichment of the nuclear technology is all aimed at the development of iran. this enrichment process and technology is not against any country of the region of the world.

today, the world has admitted that iran is seeking peaceful objectives within this framework. based on more modern technology from. there will be more than 1000 centrifuges installed and there will be other activities in the field of physics and within this framework of the financial sanctions. they will be listed on that day

of the implementation of the agreement. also sanctions related to the banking system. all of these resolutions against iran. he six resolutions will be revoked and eliminated and there will be a new cooperation in the nuclear field and other sectors. this will in fact open a new chapter in cooperation with the world. wouldn't this framework that we have ahead of us see that the approach adopted by this administration has been effective. in today's world threats by others are worthless and pressures by others are worthless and all of us should be after an agreement to the benefit of all parties based on

a win-win approach. mutual respect, common interest, and obtaining common goals. some think that we should fight with the world or give in to the powers. we believe there is a third option. there is a solution for this. we can cooperate with the world. of course, they say that negotiations have been due to the pressure exerted by the sanctions. they know very well that such an approach is baseless and their sanctions were not aimed at negotiating. they imposed sanctions in order to make us surrender but when they realize we will never surrender and that there is a united and steadfast nation, courageous nation, then they

said that sanctions were in that negotiations. but, we were negotiating with the world prior to the sanctions and we had been negotiating in the course of the sanctions. the approach by this administration was that if others do not impose sanctions, they will actually receive the same respect from our side. they have realized this fact today that there should be respect in order to receive respect. sanctions and pressures are worthless. this indicates the fact that the administration's approach has been a courageous one. the second point is that the objective that we have achieved

today that has been due to our unity and solidarity, we have consulted with all of the officials and authorities and we have always benefited from the guidelines of the leader of the islamic revolution and the leader has also provided generously is guidelines. id meant necessary to appreciate the leader and the heads of the three branches of dollar the officials who helped us in order to be able to take this step forward and in the next system,

we do need their support and this is not just about the new your question, this is true about all of the other issuesountry's affairs. we are in need of the guidelines by the leader and also the unity of solidarity. we should be thankful to god. and the prophets progeny and may peace be upon her. all of the other infallible they have always supported us. we have chosen the right path. today, our nation has shown to the world that in spite of

pressures, the nation has put on display its massive turnout in the course of the presidential election. in addition, they always put on their display of unity and solidarity, enabling us to overcome the difficulty. i wish to seize this opportunity and mention some points. the first point is that in the course of the nuclear negotiations, what ever promise we have offered to the global community, we will fulfill our promises and we are not after deception, we are not after a biography, we are giving

promises. the promise will be in the framework of our national interest. provided that the other party that fills their promises. up to this point, and also in the future in respect to the final agreements, it will be a balanced one. if the other party fizzles it promises it some days they decide to choose the different caps -- cap's. -- paths. we will be able to choose other options. the second point is that in a nuclear negotiation, it has been the first steps for constructive interaction with the world. we not just addressing the

nuclear issues it is not just a nuclear issue that we are after. we are negotiating with the global community and this issue will come to an end. this is the first step in order to reach the highest point of constructive and are action with the global community and in today's world, security and stability will not be achieved without cooperation. we seek core operation interaction with all countries that are willing. he world countries that respect us, respect the arabian nation and countries that work with us on the basis of neutral respect. with all countries we enjoyed cordial relations, we are after

closer relations and in cases of strengthening relations, we are after improving relations. if we are actually have any sort of tension or hostility with any nation, we are after putting an end to such hostility and tension. interactional beauty to the benefit of all. the last point is that in order to eliminate hurdles in foreign relations, we have taken a step forward for eliminating the hurdles as we should take new steps forward in all fields. the government is of the you but -- is of the view that we welcome efforts by all investors

and people. we should take steps toward creation of job it and it is for young people and improve business and also promote non-oil exports so that the people would actually witness improvements. i wish to request the irani and people to actually promote unity in order to improve business and economic condition and also have sound political competitions. hopefully, we will be able to --

hopefully this year will be better compared to the past year and hopefully, we will be able to take steps for the prosperity of our nation and the progress of this nation. i also deem it necessary to appreciate all those 11 effective -- all those who have been effective. the negotiation teams, the head of the atomic energy organization's, the legal team, and all of those who have made efforts particularly in the past few days. i wish to appreciate them all.

hopefully, the support by the leader and the nation will be of great help to them in order to attain a final success. >> tonight on c-span at 8:00 bill clinton moderating a panel of young entrepreneurs in the health industry, including a patient safety advocate. mr. clinton: what do you need to happen that is beyond your control for your business model to have a good chance to succeed? >> great question. i think it is mostly about incentives. i think there are a lot of

things that we are doing that are very differentiated. and just to go back to the question you asked before, how does technology impact our businesses? i am of the believe that if you are not a technology company in the next decade, you will not be a company. i think this is an unprecedented change in the world where everyone needs to adapt or move on. there is so much that we can do for example, amazon and google know when a woman is pregnant almost immediately based on what she is searching for. health insurance company doesn't know until the claim is paid three months after birth. [laughter] yeah. [applause]

so, our ability to understand what is happening in the system in real-time enables us to actually take something that is real. we cannot prevent by giving away free medicine. if someone is sick, they will be sick. we can understand what is happening and point them in the right direction. >> i remember when the institute of medicine reported 100,000 people were dying from preventable causes in u.s. hospitals every year. i was shocked. a lot of smart people jumped in and i thought, they will take care of this. i went on doing what i did making noninvasive monitors. a few years ago, the new data can out that over 200,000 people -- came out that showed over 200,000 people were being killed in our hospitals from preventable causes. i realized maybe it is time i step up and do something about it. i got to know a lot of companies

in the medical technology space. a lot of amazing people like you, president clinton. i thought if we brought everybody together bring in the med tech companies, the hospitals, government, the patient advocates that provide a powerful voice. when you think about 200,000 people dying every year, it is a number that runs through your head, unfortunately. one death is a tragedy, one million, a statistic. when you think about that one life, how it impacts the family left on come it grabs you -- left behind, it grabs you. >> you can watch the entire session tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. here are some of our featured programs or this holiday weekend

on the c-span networks. on c-span saturday at 8:00 eastern, former texas state senator wendy davis on the challenges facing women in politics and easter sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern, jack nicholas receives the congressional gold medal. on the c-span two at 10:00 p.m. eastern, cornell west on the radical political thinking of martin luther king jr.. sunday at noon, our life three hour conversation with the work times best selling author ronald kessler. he has written 20 books. on american history tv on c-span three, saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, easter lenny university

professor charles calderon on the capuchin is made by you will assist us grant -- by ulysses s grant. historian patrick showed her takes us on a tour of appomattox courthouse, the site of the confederate surrender in 1865. >> the most memorable moment of this week was hearing the senator say you need to be firm in our principles but flexible in the details. i think it reflects the harsh polarization we see across our country. if all of the senators congressmen and women, state legislators can about, we can come together as a country and solve many issues. >> my favorite quote in -- came from julie adams. she said never to be humble and have a strong work ethic because the people you meet on the way

up, you meet them again on the way back down. >> in congress, we have a lack of true statesman. senator john mccain did something very impressive last year. he committed to the veterans affair reform bill. reading the senate report at maintaining how staying away from torture is essential to the character of our democracy, the point where we have people who are willing to cross the aisle make these decisions with people who they may not often agree with, that is essentially what we need to maintain the security companies, integrity of our nation. >> high school students that rank in the top 1% of their state were in washington dc. >> the u.s. economy added 126 thousand jobs lost month, the first month in a year that the

economy added fewer than 200,000 jobs. in employment rate remained at 5.5%. those numbers were announced this morning. president obama: good morning, everybody. it is wonderful to be in the beautiful state of utah. i want to thank the general and colonel and everyone here at the air force base, one of the most outstanding facilities we have. every single day, your work keeps our air force ready to meet the many threats that are out there. threats like isil. the work we are doing in iraq,

you support our troops, humanitarian missions around the world, and keep the american people safe. all of our folks in uniform and civilians who support them thank you for the incredible work you do every single day. i think the american people want you to know how much they appreciated. i had the opportunity to take a look at the solar installation on this base and to meet with some of your representatives. and leaders in the solar industry as well as our community college system. we're talking about your commitment to renewable energy, its impact on jobs, business, the environment and climate change. since i took office, solar electricity has gone up 20 fold.

our investments in renewable energy had not just helped cut carbon pollution, they have made us more energy independent and they have helped us create a steady stream of high wage, good paying, middle-class jobs. this morning, we learned our business created another 129,000 new jobs, that adds up to 3 million jobs over the past year more than 12 million jobs over the past five years, the longest stretch of private sector job creation on record. we have to be relentless in our work to grow the economy. part of the globe have seen their economies weaken. europe has had a weaker economy, asia has been slowing down. we have had the strongest economy but we are impacted by what happens around the world and that is why we have to redouble our efforts to make sure we are competitive, to make

sure we are taking steps needed for us to be successful. i think everybody here understands that one of the most important aspects of national security is strong economic security. we can maintain the best military the world has ever known. a lot of our men and women in uniform will transition at some point into civilian life and we want to make sure after they have taught for our freedom, they had jobs to come home to. that means that working together not only the private sector has to work but government has to work to take the steps we know will grow our economy. i am hoping that working with congress, we can get some things done this year. rebuilding our infrastructure across the country, those are jobs that can be exported and not only does it put people to work now it makes us

competitive over the long term because businesses locate where they have top-notch infrastructure. investing in education and job training to boost growth here in the u.s. because businesses will locate where they have a trained workforce. making sure we are passing trade promotion authority. utah is one of the leading exporting states of the country. heart of the reason this state has been so successful and we are very grateful -- part of the reason this state has been so successful and we are grateful senator hatch is working to make sure we can get that deal done. what i'm doing here today is to highlight the fact that the solar industry is actually adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. they are paying good jobs. they are helping folks in the middle class. we will try to build on the

progress already made. i am announcing a new goal to train 75,000 workers to enter the solar industry by 2020. we are creating a solar ready program modeled after some successful pilot initiatives already established over the last several years. it will train transitioning military personnel for careers in this growing industry at 10 bases, including here. we will also work with states to enable more veterans to use the post-9/11 g.i. bill for solar job-training. it is one of the many steps we are taking to help nearly 700,000 veterans and military spouses get a job. 30% of the federal workforce is now made up of veterans. i have said it before and i think employers are starting to catch on, if you want to get the job done, hire a veteran. hill is leading by example.

it is getting about 20%, maybe a little higher than that, of its overall energy through renewable energy sources, including this installation. dod, our military across the board is becoming more and more efficient because that saves money. it means we have got more money for personnel, training, equipment, making sure our fighting forces are able to get the job done. what is true for dod has to be true for the entire country. it will provide anonymous prospects or jobs and careers for a lot of folks out there is we can continue to make this investment. we will invest in the future train our workers for good, new jobs in the clean energy economy. that is how we will keep our economy growing and create new jobs and more opportunity. we are also going to make this

country safer and the planet more secure. we'll make sure the environment we are passing on and the incredible beauty of this remarkable state is passed onto future generations. thank you very much all of you for the great work you are doing and thank you to the state of utah for your wonderful hospitality. i was telling the governor yesterday as we were ready from the airport that i'm going to make sure i come back next time where i don't have to do so much work and i can visit some of these amazing national parks and have a chance to visit with some of the wonderful people here in the great city of utah. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

[indiscernible] >> thank you guys. [applause]

[applause] >> next, bill clinton moderating discussion with young entrepreneurs and the health care industry. then a discussion on women in afghanistan. after that, former astronauts testify before a committee on the future of space travel. >> the clinton foundation held it mouth -- health matters conference. the opening panel on health innovation featured events in -- a capitalist that opened his own company, and a dropout that sounded a blood testing company. she is the