he time for the same old same old establishment politics. now is the time for millions of working families to come together to revitalize american democracy, to add the collapse of our middle class, and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy -- to end the collapse of our middle class and to make certain that our children and grandchildren are able to enjoy a quality of life that brings them health, prosperity, security, and joy. and that once again makes the united states the leader in the world in the fight for economic and social justice, for environmental sanity, and a brave world of peace. [applause]

senator sanders: my fellow americans, this country faces more serious levels today than in any time since the great depression, and if you include the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that the challenges we face now are more dire than at any time in the modern history of our country. and here is my promise to you for this campaign. not only will i fight to protect the working families of this country, but we are going to build a movement of americans who are prepared to stand up and fight back. [applause] senator sanders: we are going to take this campaign directly to the people in town meetings, door to door conversation, on street corners, and in social

mediums. this week we are going to be in new hampshire, we are going to be in iowa, and we're going to be in minnesota. that is just the start of this campaign. [applause] senator sanders: let me be clear. this campaign is not about bernie sanders, it is not about hillary clinton clinton, it is not about jeb bush or anyone else in this campaign is about the needs of the american people. and the ideas and proposals that effectively address those people. as someone who has never run a negative political ads in my life -- [applause]

my campaign will not be driven by political gossip, or reckless personal attacks. [applause] senator sanders: this is what the american people want and deserve. these are serious times, we need serious debate. [applause] senator sanders: politics in a democratic society should not be treated as if it were a baseball game, a game show, or a soap opera. and i hope the media understands that as well. [applause] senator sanders: let me take a minute to touch on some of the issues that i will be focusing

on in the coming months. and then give you a brief outline of an agenda for america, an agenda which in fact will deal with these serious problems and lead us to a better future. today we live in a nation which is the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. but that reality means very little for most of us because almost all of the 12 is owned -- wealth is owned by a tiny handful of individuals. in america, we now have more income and wealth inequality that any other major country on earth, and the gap is growing wider and wider. it is the great moral issue of

our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, it is the great political issue of our time, and we will address it. [applause] senator sanders: let me be very clear. let the top 1% understand this. there is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% of owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%, and when 99% of all new income goes to the top 1%. there is something profoundly wrong when in recent years we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at

the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have shamefully, the highest rates of childhood poverty of any country. there is something profoundly wrong when one family owns more wealth in this country is the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of inequality is immoral, it is economics, it is unsustainable. this type of rigged economy is not what america is supposed to be about. this has got to change, and as your president, together we are

going to change it. [applause] senator sanders: but it is not just income inequality. it is a tragic reality that in the last four years and great middle class of our country, is disappearing. despite its exploding technology and increased worker productivity, the median family income is almost $5,000 less today than it was in 1999. in our great state and all over this country, people are working one job and two jobs, three jobs, trying to cobble together some health care. that is not acceptable, we can and must do better.

the truth is, real unemployment is not 5.4% which you read in the papers, it is close to 11%. youth unemployment is 17% african-american youth unemployment is off the charts. today, shamefully, we are 45 billion people living in poverty, many of whom are working low-wage jobs. in america today despite the gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans still lack any health insurance. my friends, that is the reality. of the middle class in america today. and that is the reality not just for us, but for our kids and our grandchildren -- that we are going to change.

[applause] my fellow americans, let me be as blunt as i can and tell you what you already know. as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision of citizens united, the american political system has been totally corrupted and the foundations of american democracy are now being undermined. what the supreme court said, essentially, was that it was not good enough for the billionaires to own much of the economy, they can now own the united states government, as well. and that is precisely what they are trying to do. what i learned in school, and i think what the men and women put their lives on our line to

defend, american democracy is not about buying candidates or elections. it is not about the koch brothers and sheldon adelson to elect candidates to make the rich richer and everyone else pooerer. according to media reports, if you can believe it, the koch brothers and this election cycle are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic or republican parties. that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. [applause] in vermont, and our town meetings, we know what democracy is about. that is one person, one vote. and that is the kind of political system we are going to

fight for and are going to achieve. now when we talk about our responsibilities as human beings, there is nothing more important than leaving this country and the entire planet in a way that is habitable for our kids and our grandchildren. the debate is over. the scientific community has spoken, and a virtually unanimous voice. climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. [applause] and let us be clear, if we do not get our act together and have the united states lead the world in combating climate change, there will be more drought, more famine, more

rising sea levels, more floods, more ocean acidification more extreme weather disturbances. as human beings, we look out over this environment to appreciate the beauty we have on this planet. we are not going to allow the fossil fuel industry to destroy this planet. [applause] brothers and sisters, it is no secret. that there is massive discontent with politics in america today. in the last mid-term election, some 63% of americans did not vote including 80% of young people. poll adter poll tells us that our citizens no longer have

confidence in our political institution. and given the power of money in general, they understand that their pain is not being heard in washington. people in washington and elected officials are much more concerned about the lobbyists and the billionaires than the suffering of ordinary people. combating this political alienation, this cynicism and this legitimate anger will not be easy. that is for sure. that is exactly what, together, we must do if we are going to turn this country around. that is what this campaign is all about. [applause] and if we are going to bring people together, we need a

simple straight-forward progressive agenda which speaks to the need of the american people and provides us with a vision of a very different america. and what is that agenda ? let me tell you what i think. the agenda begins with jobs, jobs, and more jobs. [applause] if we are serious about reversing the decline of the middle class, we need a major federal jobs program which puts millions of people back to work at good-paying jobs. [applause] at a time when our roads, our bridges, our water systems and rails and airports are decarying, we must rebuild

our crumbling infrastructure. and that is why i have introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our country's physical infrastructure. legislation that would create and maintain 13 million good-paying jobs. [applause] and as your president, i will lead the efforts to make sure that that legislatio is passed. i will also continue to oppose our current trade policies. for decades, presidents from both parties have supported trade agreements which have cost us millions of decent-paying jobs, have costed america, and

shutdown plants and moved jobs to low-paying countries. my policies will break that cycle of agreement which enrich the few at the expense of many. [applause] let us also be honest and acknowledge today that millions of american workers are now working for totally inadequate wages. the current federal minimum wage of seven dollars and $.25 is a starvation wage and must be raised. [applause] the minimum wage in this country must become a living wage. which means, which means raising

it to $15 an hour over the next few years. [applause] our goal, this is not a radical idea, but our goal must be that any worker in this country who works 40 hours a week is not living in poverty. [applause] further, we must establish pay equity for women workers. [applause] it is unconscionable that women earn $.78 on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. we must also revise hour overtime standards so that people making $25 and working

60 hours a week, get time and a half. and we need paid sick leave and guaranteed vacation holidays for every worker in this country. [applause] this campaign, starting today is going to send a message to the billionaire club. and that is, you cannot have it all. [applause] you can't get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. you can't continue sending our jobs abroad while millions are looking for work. you can't hide your profits in the cayman islands and other tax havens while there are massive

unmet needs on every corner of this nation. [applause] to the billionaire class, i say your greed has got to end/ . you cannot take advantage of all the benefits of america if you refuse to accept the responsibility. [applause] and that is why we need a tax system which is fair and progressive, which tells the wealthiest individuals and the largest corporations that they are going to begin to start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] when we talk about power, we talk about wall street. in my view, it is time to break

up the largest financial institution in this country. [applause] wall street cannot continue to be an island unto itself. gambling trillions in risky financial instruments, while expecting the public to bail it out. if a bank is too big to fail, that bank is too big to exist. [applause] if we are serious about a progressive agenda that speaks to the need of working families, that talks about climate change and the needs of our kids and the elderly, we must be focused on campaign-finance reform and the need for a constitutional amendment to overturn this

disastrous citizens united decision. [applause] i have said it before, i will say it again. i will not nominate any justice to the supreme court who has not made it clear that he or she will move to overturn that disastrous decision which is undermining american democracy. [applause] we need to go further and establish public funding of elections. [applause] as i look to our future, it is clear to me that the united states of america must lead the world in reversing climate change. we can do that by transforming

our energy system away from fossil fuels to an energy efficiency and such sustainable energies as wind, solar thermal, and biomass. brothers and sisters, the united states of america today remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. despite the modest gains of the affordable care act, 35 million americans continue to have no health insurance, and even more are underinsured. yet, despite that pathetic record, we end up spending almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. in my strong opinion, the united states must join the rest of the

industrialized world and guaranteed health care to all as a right. [applause] and we must find medicare for all, a single-payer system. [applause] at a time when millions of americans are struggling to keep their heads above water economically, and a time when seen your proverty is increasing, at a time when kids in this country don't get enough to eat my republican colleagues as part of their recently passed budget are trying to make a terrible situation even worse. if you can believe it, this is the truth. the republican budget throws 27 million americans off of health

insurance, makes drastic cuts in medicare throws millions of low income americans including pregnant women, off of nutrition programs, and makes it harder for working-class families to afford college or put their kids in the head-start program. and then to add insult to injury, the republican budget provides huge tax breaks for the very richest people in this country while they raise taxes on working families. [booing] well, let me tell my republican colleagues that i respectfully disagree with their approach. [applause] instead of cutting social security, we are going to expand

social security benefits. [applause] instead of cutting head start and childcare, we are going to move to a universal pre-k system for all of the children in this country. [applause] as franklin delano roosevelt reminded us, a nation's great ness is not judged by what it provides to the most well-off, but how it treats the people most in need. that is the kind of country we must become. [applause] and when we talk about education, let me make it very clear. in a highly competitive global economy, we need the best educated workforce we can create.

it is insane, it is counter-productive in the best interests of our country that hundreds of thousands of bright young people cannot afford to go to college, and millions of others leave school with a mountain of debt that burdens them for decades. [applause] this is not what a great country is about. that must end. that is why i, as president will fight to make tuition in public colleges and universities free. [applause] as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans. [applause] the young people of our country

are the future, they have to get the education they need. [applause] as everybody knows, we live in a difficult and dangerous world. and there are people out there who would do us harm. as president, i will defend this nation. but i will do it responsibly. as a member of congress, i voted against the war in iraq. and that was the right vote. [applause] i am vigorously oppose to an endless, perpetual war in the middle east. [applause] yes, we must be vigorous in

combating terrorism and feeding isis. but we as a nation should not have to bear the burden alone. we must be part of an international coalition led by the muslim nations that cannot only defeat isis but begin the process of creating conditions for lasting peace. [applause] >> we love you, bernie. senator bernie sanders: as some of you know, i was born in a faraway land called brooklyn new york. my father came to this country from poland without a penny in his pocket and having dropped out of school at a young age. my mother graduated high school in new york city. my father worked his entire life as a paint salesman, never made much money. my parents, my brother and i

live in a small, rent-controlled apartment. my mother's dream was to move out of that small apartment and get a home of her own. she died young, and her dream was never fulfilled. as a kid, i learned in many many ways every day in my house what lack of money means to a family, and that is a lesson i have never forgotten and never will forget. [applause] i have seen, i have seen as many of you have, the promise of america in our own life. my parents never, never, never would have dreamed that their son will become a united states senator, let alone, run for president. [applause]

but for too many of our fellow americans, the dream of progress and opportunity is being denied by the grind of an economy that funnels virtually all of the wealth and the income to the top. and to those who say, we cannot restore the dream, i say, just look where we are standing today. as some of you will remember, this beautiful place was once an unsightly railyard that serve no public purpose. it was an eyesore. i worked with the people of burlington to help turn this waterfront into the beautiful people-orientedit is today. we took that fight to the courts, to the legislature, and to the people, and we won.

the lesson to be learned, and it is a profound, political lesson is that when people stand together, when people are prepared to fight back, there is nothing that cannot be accomplished. [applause] we can live in a country where every person has health care, a right not a privilege. we can live in a country where every parent can have quality and affordable health care. and where all children can get an education regardless of their income. we can live in a country where every senior can live in dignity and security, and not be forced

to choose between food and medicine. we can live in a country where every veteran who has put his or her life on the line to defend this nation gets the quality health care and benefits they have earned and deserve. [applause] we can live in a country where every person no matter their race religion, their disability , or their sexual orientation realizes the full promise of equality that is our birthright as americans. >> we will have more road to the white house coverage tomorrow on c-span. hillary clinton talks to them credit women's groups in columbia south carolina. our live coverage gets underway at 1:45 eastern on c-span. later in the day, former

pennsylvania senator rick santorum will announce his presidential intentions in his hometown of butler pennsylvania. he ran for the gop nomination in 2012. that is live at 5:00 eastern. the united states currently has the highest number of people in prison in the world. a recent report look at the causes for the high incarceration rates. the national academy of sciences host of the hour-long event. >> i am honored to join you today as we are about to present

you the findings of the report we think is very important. my name is heather thompson and i was privileged to serve as a member of this consensus panel. that was convened by the national academy research council to address one of the most pressing issues facing our nation -- how do we explain the rate of increased cursor ration, and what is the implication. i'm joined by larry who will ask the presentation and will be available to answer about the findings of our report. our panel was convened, just a you can get some background, but it was acting through the national resource council. it was chartered by the congress of the united states in 1863 under the administration of lincoln. the intent was to serve advice

to the government and society. the committee on law and justice was committed as a standing committee on the national research county to provide expert advice on crime, law, and justice. in early 2012, the national institute of justice and the macarthur foundation offered funding for independent review on the influence of high rates of incarceration and on the unprecedented increase on the use of prison as a response to crime. in deliberating with the committee on law and justice more broadly with the national academy, there is a strong sense that this is a very important time to look at this issue. in particular, it was time to reinvestigate or investigate for the first time, the vast body of literature that have been developed on the topic. a broader community of scholars and experts joined our sponsors

in the belief that the voice of the national academy is the voice of science, speaking on critical issues facing the nation. to make an important contribution on the larger issue of prison in society. the national research county convened a group of 20 scholars, we were all part of that group. you can see the list of the rest of the members, which is also listed in our book. our panel was charged with answering four crucial questions. first, what changes in society drove the rise in incarceration? what consequences have these changes had for crime rates? what effect does incarceration have on those in confinement? on families and children, on neighborhoods and communities from which they come, and to which they return, and on the economy, politics, and culture of society. finally, what are the implications for public policy on the evidence of cause and

effect on high rates of incarceration. a report addressing this question was subject to anonymous external review by a group of experts following the rigorous, and i do mean rigorous review procedure of the national research council. following revisions made response to the external review, the report is now ready for you to view. we do have copies along with issue briefs here. the committee focused on state and federal prisons, and to a lesser extent on the nation's jails. in carrying out our charge, we did not examine incarceration on juvenile or immigration facilities, nor do we take a copper hits a review on the effectiveness of alternatives to incarceration. and concentrating on things federal, we were focusing on states punishing individuals by depriving them of their liberty. if this decision is consensual,

what we conclude? i like to summarize our bottom line conclusions and recommendations, and then go a little more slowly little bit more slowly through how we came to that. we found the incarceration rates have quadrupled, a phenomenon that is unprecedented. the current rates place the united states outside of western democracies and the increase was the result of policy changes. the higher rates of incarceration's evidence is uncertain and the crime reduction effect is small, at best. the growth in the incarceration rates may have had significant negative consequences for

communities, families, and for broader society. finally, we find the effect of the policies have fallen heavily on blacks, hispanics, and those concentrated in neighborhoods experiencing significant social disadvantage. given the investment of resources with uncertain benefits and public safety benefits the panel recommends that policymakers take steps to significantly reduce the reliance on incarceration. it strengthens the communities that have been most directly impacted by the rates of incarceration over the past decades. i want to walk through the conclusions and turn it over to my colleagues and answer questions. the first underscores the growth

in incarceration. it remained stable from 1925-1972. in 1973, the rate began to rise and rose steadily. and slightly declined after 2012. over the four decades, the rise in the rates in cart -- in incarceration quadrupled. 200,000 in 1973 to 1.5 million in 2009. a sevenfold increase. only add the 700,000 held in the

jails, it is 2.2 million individuals. nearly one in 100 adults is currently kept in prison or jail. as the next lines illustrate the rate of incarceration is outside the experience of other western nations. most of them have incarceration rates now including 70-150 per 100,000. ours is 707, 5-10 times higher than other democracies. these are the facts that lead to our first conclusion, the growth of the incarceration rates is historically unprecedented and internationally unique. the comparative international perspective gives a comparison to the questions we were asked

to address. what explains the unprecedented use in the rise of prison? we look at this as a historical question. reviewing historical evidence before the increase in the incarceration rates. by the time it started to increase, the nation had experienced intense change. the crime rates increase significantly in the 1960's and continued to rise through the mid-1980's. there was a lot more going on. the civil rights movement, changing social mores, political protest, it provides a context for political campaigns say to restore law and order. campaigns in cities contributed to concentrated drug use. they were also simultaneously

experiencing racial segregation. this rise in crime, social change, urban unrest, created the environment in which officers embraced more punitive responses and more. if justice policies, in general. the calls for severe responses to crime were often not subtllyy put in racial terms. the philosophy of the sentencing policy that emphasized rehabilitation and have control boards -- had parole boards started to be challenged and it led to a change in sentencing policy across the country. indeed, i can refer you to the document where we outlined the

way the sentencing happened across all 50 states and the federal government. some of you may be familiar with the three strikes law and the mandatory minimums. the assessments of the shifts in policy determined how much the increase cannot be earned -- can be determined by the factors. about half of the increase is attributable to the increase of incarceration for arrest and the remaining half is for longer sentences being imposed for -- they share a feature of legislative, judges, and the parole board. the legislators have determined prison sentences are required

for crimes that previously were not. others have determined that longer prison sentences are appropriate for individuals who have arty been sentenced to a prison term. this finding will become important when we discuss the recommendations. to reiterate the panel did not find the increase in incarceration was because of increase in crime rates. we did note the rise in crime rates creating the environment in which the punitive policy could be advocated. the longer view them as chris that

and then rose again here they fell sharply until the early hears of this century and have since remained relatively flat. yet, from 1973 two 2009, incarceration rates, nevertheless, increased steadily year after year. in short, our panel concluded that rising incarceration rates, again, mostly reflect policies. i want to wrap up my speaking to the third question posed to the committee, one of the consequences of high rates of incarceration, and i will turn to panel members to flesh this out. needless to say, these high rates of incarceration have not been equally distributed across the population. as a footprint of the penal system expanded, correctional supervision became an everyday presence in poor minority communities. incarceration rates for african americans have been about 4.5 times to 6.5 times higher than whites during a time of rising incarceration rates to incarceration rates for hispanics have been two to three times higher than for non-hispanic whites.

the committee found that incarceration stressed by -- incarceration had to do with education. there are very high levels of penal confinement among minority-aged men with little schooling. in 2010, men aged 20 to 39 incarceration rates for black high school dropouts is estimated to be 35%. for white men of the same age who have been to college, the incarceration is .3 of 1%. those, the incarceration rate for black men with very little schooling is more than 100 times higher than for white men who have been to college. we also calculate the chances of the percentage of people who have ever been to prison at some point in their lives. on the next slide, we can see that for a of men born in the late 1940's, about one in seven men who dropped out of high school served time in prison by the mid-1930's. the following slide shows those born in the late 1970's and growing up in an era of high

incarceration rates, for african american men who dropped out of high school, it is estimated that two-thirds served time by their mid-30's. for young black men with little schooling, prison time has become a regular life event. so as a result, and unsurprisingly, prisons have become more overcrowded. and we talk about that in our report, as well. what can we say about specific policies though? first, in terms of effect on crime and then on people, is suggest there is also impact impact on the incarcerated community. the committee found that although high rates of incarceration have been driven by long sentences, particularly in the 1990's, there is little

evidence of a strong deterrent effect. long sentences have little incapacitated effects. long sentences have the effect of incarcerating older people who tend to be much less criminally active, with long sentences, penal severity has come to focus on those who no longer present much of a threat to public safety. with little evidence supporting a very popular belief that crime is reduced by high rates of incarceration, there is also much evidence indicating that long sentences, in particular, do little to reduce crime, either through deterrence or through incapacitation. in addition to the effect of incarceration on crime, the committee also considered the effects of the social and economic life of amylase and communities of the incarcerated. research shows men and women released from prison a very low earnings and high rates of unemployment. experimental evidence points to the extreme reluctance of employers to hire people with criminal records. the negative effects of a criminal record have been found

to be about twice as large for african americans as whites. it also means numbers of children with incarcerated parents. in 2007, 1.7 million children in america had a parent incarcerated in prison. perhaps unsurprisingly that the research bears this out, incarceration is associated with weaker family bonds, lower levels of child well-being. incarceration is also associated with economic in security for the family and housing instability. at the level of communities for admissions and releases, mostly from disadvantaged neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, concentrated incarceration has had a dire impact on these communities, which tend to suffer from high rates of violence, unemployment, racial segregation, and social problems. to be sure, it is difficult to isolate the community-level of fact of incarceration and isolation. still, we know clearly from the data and ethnographic research

that incarceration itself has a negative impact on the country's already most vulnerable communities. the high incarceration rate is not characteristic of living in a very specific neighborhood that is already battling joblessness, had schools, etc. finally, we considered the wider consequences of high rates of incarceration for everybody else, society at large, and we noted it has an impact on things such as access to opportunity -- if you have a criminal record -- incarceration and the criminal record that follows it can limit access to jobs, occupational licenses, student loans, veteran benefits some other governmental benefits, and in many states for the right to vote. previous collateral consequences of incarceration has created a type of second-class citizenship focused disproportionately on african americans and hispanics from the poor segments of society to high rates of incarceration and have also shifted fiscal priorities. $53 billion on corrections in

2012, up from $6.7 billion in 1985. and more data to that affected in our report. in short, after nearly 40 years of growth, the penal system has such a large footprint in american society, with little clear evidence of the growth in incarceration produced reductions in crime to yet indicates significant social and economic costs. the final question facing us, as i wrap up -- what are the implications of all of this for public policy? after assessing the evidence on rising incarceration, our consensus now can to the overarching recommendation -- policy makers at the state and federal level should take the necessary steps to significantly reduce the rates of incarceration in the united

states. in our view, the policies leading to high rates of incarceration are not serving the country well, and we're well past the point where the numbers of people in prison can be justified for the social benefit to the criminal justice system has made less use of incarceration can better achieve aims in a harsher, more punitive system. there are commonsense practical steps that we can move in this direction. arriving at this policy recommendation, our committee was guided both by our assessment of empirical evidence and by reference to long-standing principles governing the roles of prisons and democratic societies. in our report, we trace the scholarly lineage and of four principles for providing useful framework for our deliberations. we suggest that these principles should guide the national conversation we hope to spur, as well. the principle of proportionality requires that criminals should be sentenced in proportion to severity of their offense. the principle of parsimony requires the confinement should not be greater than necessary to achieve a legitimate social purpose of the committee

observed that many of the statues enacted over the past four decades failed to observe these long-standing jurisprudential principles. the principle of citizenship which would require humane treatment of those in prison and has been embraced by associations of correction professionals, international standards, and federal court decisions have been strained by the current correction policies and practices. finally, the committee reaffirmed the principle of social justice, which would require that prisons should be viewed as important institutions that promote, not undermine, the well-being of members of society. this would require greater attention, oversight, and transparency regarding the role of prisons and society. these guiding principles are from empirical findings and strengthened our overarching recommendations that the u.s. it reversed course and reduce the level of incarceration.

we have more specific recommendations for policymakers and three domain spirit sentencing policy, prison policy, and social policy. i believe those up there, those recommendations. again, we have issued briefs and have the reports themselves. we can look it is in more detail. i have time to turn this over to my colleagues. thank you. and now we will turn it over to glenn loury who will tell us a little more detail on this. glenn: heather has given a very good overview of the work we did in this panel and the significant findings of the report. i was charged with underscoring some of what we did in this work having to do with racial differences and implications for communities. let me do that briefly in the interest of allowing time for some back-and-forth here. you have the issued briefs and they report in hand.

i will not try to comprehensively summarize the statistics. but heather has already pointed out the fact that the disparity and incidence of incarceration i race is quite large. 6.5 times the rate per 100,000 is the population for men. for poorly educated african-american men born in the late 1970's and coming to maturity or in a time of rising incarceration rates, two-thirds will spend a year or more in a state or federal penitentiary before reaching the age of 35. these are very large numbers. and they raise questions, some of which we pursue in the report and some of which i think are not so readily amenable to scientific analysis. very large numbers. they raise questions -- some we pursue in the report and some that are not readily amenable to scientific analysis, even though they are very important questions politically and morally for us as a society to take on board. this racial disparity takes place against a backdrop of racial inequality, discrimination, segregation in

society as a whole, and to some degree flex the consequences of that history. it has huge impacts, as has been mentioned, on the community from which the persons who are incarcerated come, and to which they will, inevitably, return. roughly one million african-american children and incarcerated parent. in some communities, the rates of incarceration in terms of the proportion of the young male population are quarter, 30% in some well-defined urban enclaves. the circulating populations of inmates in and out of the institution causes the nature of social life in the institution and community to be in some kind of symbiotic relationship to one another pair the kinds of behavior, ways of carrying oneself that are necessary -- another. the kinds of behavior, the ways

of carrying oneself that are necessary in the ones in the broader community. some criminologists have argued -- this is controversial and we call attention to the controversy in our report -- the variability of the communities to employ informal means of social control that are crime-reducing to discipline young people, for example, and maintain order through informal regulations, are undermined by the high level of imprisonment characteristic of those populations -- men coming in and out of prison in large numbers makes it harder to sustain an environment in which it is possible to socialize young people into a more law-abiding pattern of behavior. the implications last beyond the time the racial inequality -- the inequality implications, i am talking about, last beyond the time of a person being confined.

again, heather made reference to the studies that that -- ss the impact on wages and employment after release confinement. the data is good. audit studies have been carried on by social scientist who sent confederates to employers to apply for jobs with either being black, white, latino, having a criminal record or not, and the findings are consistent to the effect that a criminal record suppresses and put, particularly so for criminal -- people of color that come with criminal records. it has also been mentioned the extent to which collateral sanctions of one kind or another -- impediments upon full citizenship participation that follow a person after they have a deleterious effect, and negative effect on the people

subject to these voting prohibitions or licensure, or residency in public housing, or availability for educational pell grants and other such work be limited to people -- other such support being limited to people. the negative consequences that i've been calling attention to for children, families communities, and individual persons, will also be significantly disparate by race. so, the system of social control that relies so heavily upon incarceration has the effect indirectly, of exacerbating and extending the extent of racial inequality more broadly. i think in closing here i should address the question of the extent to which incarceration differences by race are a reflection of terminal participation rate, -- criminal participation race by rate --

rates by race. it does account for some of the differences, but not close to county all of them. one example would be in the area of anti-drug enforcement, where the data from surveys are that african-americans are on the whole no more likely to be the users of for the sellers of drugs, yet african-americans are substantially more likely documented in a report to be arrested and confined for participation in illegal drug trafficking. these can be explained to some degree by reference to discriminatory behavior in policing and various kinds of subtle bias, and to some degree by differences in the social ecology the case of drug markets, urban and open-air markets being easier to detect people violating the law in markets that might be more private and less susceptible to

public observation and so on. i would like to close by observing that whereas we think about just as and we think about i would like to close by observing that whereas we think about just as and we think about law enforcement is having to do with individual offenders doing something wrong and being held to account for what they have done, once we construct a system as robust and as profligate, i can say, as the one we have come to construct, the consequences can spill well beyond dealing with individual offenses in holding people accountable for what they have done. you can be punishing entire communities through the net effect of what you do, notwithstanding the fact that many of the people in those communities will have done nothing wrong. thank you. heather: thank you, glenn

lowery. i will turn it over to larry mead from new york university. he will share information on one particular chapter, chapter four, that we direct your attention to because it is a historical roots chapter that we found to be really important for understanding the breaking the pattern of incarceration to see what had come before. larry: thank you very much. i was honored to serve in this committee and i wanted to describe some of the thinking behind chapter four and draw some brief conclusions from that. chapter four is about the political forces behind the prison boom, the reason why we have the sudden break in previous rates of incarceration, when we see a sudden increase in incarceration. our analysis shows that the crime issue emerged as an important national question in the 1960's, intertwined with earlier issues that were

related, particularly civil rights. i do not mean that there were earlier discussions of crime in american history. it became an issue again in a somewhat new way in the 1960's. whereas civil rights had been a liberal issue that was oriented to assuring equal rights for blacks, crime became a much more conservative issue. the reason for this is one crime began to increase in the late-19 60's, a number of factors conspired toward a reliance on prison as a main response. one of them was, at the time there was not much alternative to prison, at least not in the minds of those involved in criminal justice. there was a period when rehabilitation programs were in disrepute. it was the they were not effective. our view is somewhat more positive today.

it looked like the human response you could make, really, was to lock people up. -- it looked like the only response you could make, really, was to lock people up. crime rates increase, and prison rates go up. the problem was that in that period, a political reflex got established where the public is alarmed about crime, particularly at the local level, and the politicians respond with hard-line policies on incarceration, and a dynamic it's entrenched. it became -- gets entrenched. it became politically convenient and ordinary for politicians of both parties to express hard-line attitude towards crime. after 1980, we see a break in the pattern were crime rates start to fall, go up and down, not consistently rising any longer, but in part because of this reflex that has been established, incarceration rates go on rising, even though crime is not going up consistently. after 1990, crime rates begin to fall, yet the incarceration rate continues to climb. so, it is obvious, just from this, that the social advantage of locking up more people was clearly no longer served by this, and the prison boom overshot. it is a good way to think of it.

there was a reason at the outset, but it overshot any possible social rationale. another reason for this development is that in american politics, compared to european countries, those involved in criminal justice, the prosecutors, and often the judges, are more exposed to popular opinion than is the case in any other countries. they are exposed to public fears and they respond with what seems like an immediate necessity, mainly to lock people up, and didn't not in the same discretion to consider -- do not have the same discretion to consider other alternatives. there are two conclusions i draw

from this history. one i would call the perils of populism. the upsurge in crime along with other disorders in the late 1960's produced a panic among the public and that was the initial impetus for the run-up in the prisons, but it produced this overshooting where the prison boom goes on beyond any possible social rationale. so, this is what happens, it seems to me, when readers advocate, when they allow public views to take charge and refuse to apply perspective. collective leaders should hear and respond to public fears, not avoid them, but also give the public the best judgment of what a real solution requires. in the case of crime, a more measured response involving a wider range of options than just

imprisonment would have been better for all concerned. our leaders should have explained the need for this to the voters. that is still what they need to do today. the political scientist c.o.p. once wrote -- co -- theo key once wrote those that shook the responsibilities are misfits that cannot understand the duties of the job. some have taken a lead in calling for a reassessment of incarceration. it is great pair doing this, but it is late in the game. we have to have alternatives to prison that are less tkapbling to the offenders which are still effective. there are some developments actually in that direction which are encouraging. so the reports speaks of the need to build up re-entry programs for the ex-offenders many of whom will be living in the community rather than behind bars. we need alternatives. it's not just to liberate people to set them free from

incarceration incarceration. we have to help them reintegrate into the community and become contributing members. in past experience developing programs for these men is going to be difficult. it's going to take a while. but these programs are not yet ready for primetime. so, stay tuned. the task of prison reform has only begun. let me stop there. >> thank you, larry. i wanted to add one thing i should have said at the outset and we'll open it up to questions. which is to give you just a tiny bit of action on the actual process by which these conclusions were arrived -- how we arrived at the conclusions. i mentioned the word literature and i just wanted to clarify when we made these policy recommendations this was the end product of two years of intense deliberations to arrive at those

consensus conclusions. to do that we had to comb through and really take a very serious look at multiple literatures, multiple studies so we feel confident these conclusions that we've come to are based on the absolute top and best literatures and that this report has been vetted. the reason i say that is because we know that many people particularly here in washington are seeking guidance as to how they might propose bills or do something legislatively, so we hope this is a tool not necessarily weighing in on what those decisions would be, what a certain legislature would propose but to say this is ammunition and information and so, for example, i was also part of the chapter four with larry and for for example, when we say this was a decision we made that it was not necessary, in that chapter you'll find evidence for that. i mean, notably, for example,

the murder rate was higher during the great depression than it was when we actually embarked on this massive war on crime. that gives us that pause but information we can use as we imagine new policy solutions. >> the labor department recently called for new consumer protections for retirement plans. white house economic counsel director jeff science will talk about it tomorrow. that's live at 10:00 a.m. eastern from the bipartisan policy center here on c-span and later on joe biden on the russian-ukraine conflict and begins at 12:50 eastern. this summer book t.v. will cover book festivals from around the country this weekend we're live at book expo america in new york

city where they showcase their upcoming books. we're alive for our lit fest. with laurence wright and your phone calls. near the end of june, watch for the roosevelt reading festival from the presidential library. in the middle of july we're live at the harlem book fair with author interviews and panel discussions. and at the beginning of september we're live from the nation's capital celebrating the 15th year and a few of the events on c-span's two book t.v. next, the french british and german am bass is bass tkors how countries would handle potential future sanctions with iran under a finalized agreement. from the atlantic counsel this is 90 minutes.

the atlantic council launched the task force in 2010 to provide insight into the complex issues related to iran and to explore all possibilities for peaceful solutions. the task force has produced ground breaking work on the intelligence related to the program and impact of sanctions iran's regional role and internal politics and published on these issues and reports and held more than 50 public and private briefings. in 2,013, the task force released a series of recommendations for u.s. iran policy that foreshadowed the

negotiations that have been discussed today. negotiators from the united states, britain, france, germany, russia and china p five plus one and iran are in vienna. the negotiations particularly the joint efforts of the p5 plus one and the e3 here today showcase the critical role of the partnership in addressing the most prominent global challenges. we're especially delighted to be joined by the ambassadors from the aoefplt -- e3 nations which began with the efforts and persistence of their nations over a decade ago. i now like to invite up senior fellow who leads our iran task force here to introduce each of

our esteemed guests and she's guided all the work here at the council and can be credited for bringing together this discussion today. let me invite barbara and our guests here to the stage here, please. >> thank you very much and thank you all for coming this morning. i'm delighted everybody has returned from the holiday with an interest in this subject. we've been trying other at the atlantic council to bring the e3 ambassadors here for some time because i think their role and the role of their countries has not been recognized in the negotiations. it's fair to say that the aoefplte3 invented diplomacy back in 2003.

the u.s. administration at the time the george w. bush administration had a policy of no acknowledged diplomatic context with iran. there were some but they were secret and they were not substantive. so it was britain, france and germany that took it upon themselves to try to deal with the issue of iran's nuclear program after various facilities were revealed in 2002. and, just a quick note before i turn over to our excellent speakers and introduce them, the bush administration policy toward iran at the time and toward the nuclear negotiations, according to phil gordon, who was an official in the clinton and later obama administrations, was one of pha tphef lent anything. i was told by a european negotiator that john bolton once

fell asleep or pretended to while hosting members of the e3 who were giving him a briefing and john bolton was the under secretary of state at the time in charge of non proliferation. speaking first willing the ambassador of france who has held numerous positions within national development including director for strategic affairs, security and disarmament and political affairs and security and permanent secretary to the

u.n. he has specialized knowledge to the middle east and pertinent for our purposes he was the french negotiator from 2006 to 2009. seated next to him is peter witig, the ambassador to germany. he was private secretary to the foreign minister and director general for the united nations and global issues at the foreign office in berlin and sir peter has been britain's ambassador since 2002 and second posting in washington and previously served in the mid 90s and britain's am ambassador to france and turkey and postings in tehran and brussels. i've asked each of the three

ambassadors to speak briefly. i think he'll start with a history of the talks especially as he lived through it. he'll talk about how we went from monovalent neglect to active participation and ambassador witig will talk about the understanding of april 2nd and where that leads us and then we'll look at the regional depressions of this nuclear agreement in the making. >> good morning. actually when i was told i was supposed to speak about it my intention was to start but i was told two a bit too long. let's talk in 2002. when major iranian program was

revealed which didn't have any identifiable civilian significance we and my mother also told me don't speak saying i, but actually i was the director i drafted the letter of the ministers the european ministers. to tell you what was our goal i have to say that at the time we had a choice between having the signature of the u.k. or the signature of russia. if we put in the text we were asking the suspension of enrichment we had the russian but not the u.k., and if we put in the letter stopping the enrichment we have the u.k. but not russia. you remember it was the spring in 2003 after the iraqi invasion

we decided we wanted to have the u.k. because we knew that there wouldn't be an agreement if at some moment we couldn't have the confidence of the united states. at the time john bolton was the secretary for strategic affairs and came to paris and we presented the letter that was also with the israelis we had the same consultation and got it. that we were totally transparent is and we were. actually was the channel to inform the israeli authorities of where we were, what we wanted and i think it was extremely productive productive. the negotiations started in the fall of 2003.

the iranians really suspended the enrichment activities. some people say that opportunity was missed at this point. i don't know. it would be to the historians to say but everything actually started in 2005. basically the negotiations stopped there. like i say, between though to you 5 and 2012 there was no negotiation whatsoever. we went to tehran in 2008 and we made really a lot of different proposals to try to avoid the

question of suspending everything. but at no moment between 5 and 12 the iranians even entered the negotiation. they never told us there was no negotiation negotiation. so that's the reality. in 2006, the americans and chinese joined us which led to the first resolution. july 2006, they were to suspend the enrichment and they didn't do it. so there were sanctions.

it's very so we reach the point of 2012 and i think that's the first conclusion we have to draw in 2012 iran took the decision of negotiating. the negotiation started or restarted in 2012. and i stop here. bashyou say 2012. he was not elected president until 2013 of the what changed in 2012? >> 2013 sorry. >> okay. obviously we'll go more into this in the q & a. 2013 he comes in and a new team that speaks english does not

dredge through past grievances. interim agreement. >> they talk english in 2006 also. they spoke very good english also. >> you got the interim agreement 2013 and then the understanding. tell us what you can about that understanding and where we are right now and the negotiations we have right now about four weeks to go. >> yes. thank you, barbara for having me here. it's great to be here among the council. on april 2nd we concluded after lots of months of very intense negotiation a political agreement, a basic political agreement on the perimeters of a potential final deal with iraq.

the framework is a big and i would say potentially helpful step forward but i have to add right at the beginning a notion of caution here. the most difficult path might lay ahead of us in the coming weeks, so are we sure that we will get this final deal? no. we're not sure. but we conduct those negotiations with a lot of determination in ernest yet without any naivete and very clear. the task is to negotiate a comprehensive solution and the challenge is to transform basically political statements into reliable -- i also would say water tight, waterproof provisions that leave no doubt

about the duties of the parties involved. as you know, in this kind of endeavor the devil is of course in the details and therefore details matter. we have come up with a comprehensive agreement with a lot of annexes so it's also not only a political but a very technical negotiation. so far since the second of april, the negotiations have been proceeding at a rather slow pace on an expert level. there are a lot of gaps and records, gaps to be filled and brackets to be removed in the documents. not surprising to you two issues are in the particular focus. first the timing of the sanctions relief for iran and

the details of the verification and monitoring mechanisms, those are a major topics. we believe the groundwork was laid for three major goals vis-a-vie iran. first limitations of enrichment for the first ten years. iran agreed to reduce the centrifuge of two thirds, agreed to not enrich beyond 3.67%. and reduce for 15 years and reduce the stockpile of low enriched uranium from roughly

10,000 kilogram to 300 kilogram for the next 15 years. on top of that iran would have no other or no new enrichment facility for the duration of the agreement. second goal, the modernization of iraq would effectively seal the plutonium path. they provide the possibility to modernize the existing heavy water facility in iraq, rebuild it redesign it so there could not be no production of weapon's grade plutonium. third goal and key really to an agreement is iran would be submitted and subjected to unprecedented transparency and

monitoring regime to make sure that any program that iran might be engaging in would be detected and strong procedures for in trucive inspections in accordance with the addition would ensure that the international community knows what is going on in iran. what would be the duties for us in this agreement if it happens in return for iran's compliance, there would be sanctions relief of the u.n. sanctions of e.u. sanctions of u.s. sanctions gradually and it's very important. it would happen gradually in the fields of economy trade and finance. iran needs some time to start

the implementation of this agreement. in the best case sanctions relief would not happen before the end of this year. in addition, this agreement would provide guarantees that sanctions be put back in place if iran violates the agreement, the so-called snap back mechanism. what are the prospects that we see for this deal? for iran, this would be a significant shift. iran would be deprived of the possibility to produce a nuclear weapon at the same time it would give the opportunity to adjust its relations to the international community. and we believe it could also prevent a nuclear rpl's rpl's raeus

/* /* arm's race in the region. do we think we can trust iran with an agreement? i think the answer is no and the motto would be distrust. trust has been broken in the past and needs to be restored. that's why we can only accept a regime with a long lasting monitoring mechanism. now do we condone iran's behavior in the region? absolutely not. we maintain sanctions that are not immediately related to this agreement. let's give an example. the arms embargo and of course we would continue to urge iran to play a very constructive role on all of the regional conflicts on our minds syria, lebanon and

yemen. in concluding, we believe that the alternative to our diplomatic approach are not very attractive. if diplomacy fails then the tensions regime might unravel, the universal sanctions regime and we would probably see iran once again enriching as it has done before negotiations started. it's clear that the problems that we had with iran will not go away immediately with a deal. but it has potential to engage in a phase of constructive conflict resolution with iran, so we believe it serves our security interests and serves

the u.s. security interest and regional interests. in a nutshell a satisfactory deal is the best option we have. >> ambassador, i'd like to ask you the regional dimension and if you could comment i was surprised that you say sanctions relief wouldn't come until the end of the year. and i wonder is that because it's going to take iran that long to implement the key steps. iranians say sanctions relief will be immediate upon implementation of the key steps. do you want to pick up. >> thank you, barbara, and thank you council for giving us the opportunity. i wouldn't say like the three monkeys but like the three colleagues that needs to be

together. of course when you're talking to iranians the history is always an important part of it. there is a certain irony who liberated the jews from babylon and a story we were reminded on when he came for a state visit from washington and other u.s. cities a little over a year ago. they're conscience about history but i think we should be conscience of it as well. the regional dimension and the points at which barbara picked up i'd like to echo what he says on where we think we are now and the importance of the framework that we have got and the quality of that deal. but i would add that of course between now and the end of june there is still a great deal of details and work to be completed. it's not yet in the bag and we're all very clear that if we can't get the right deal then there won't be a deal. but this is significantly better

the framework we've got in the moment, the judgment of our governments than any of the alternatives out there from preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. it's a piece of diplomacy which has taken a long time to get this far. the regional dimension of course this was a big part of the g-seven summit happened. it it is clear that a number of the sunni arab regional governments are concerned about the implications of this deal. i would say that none of us are doing this on the basis of blind trust as peter says. we will distrust but verify. this is the best of the options and this represents the best framework we've been able to come up with for ensuring for at least a decade there won't be any iranian break out towards

nuclear weapons and iran will be subject not only to the provisions of the m.p.t. but the protocol. so we think this gives us a chance for minimizing the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons and introducing a degree of stability. at the same time we need to see the regionals. there will not be if you like a cart blanche for the iranians through the use of properties or through other areas of activity. it is our hope but we're not naive on this if we're able to finalize this nuclear deal with the

iranians that will be a spinoff in terms of other areas of regional concern. we would like to see iran doing less in terms of supporting groups which destabilize governments. that would be a significant prize. the fact we are working on the nuclear thing does not mean we are closing our eyes to the other aspects of what is going on in the region and which concerns us. regional reassurance on security issues and full implementation of the deal, if there is one which we conclude by the end of june. barbara, on your question of what about implementation, i think it is clear that sanctions lift will take place when there is a limitation of the agreement. that depends on how long it takes for there to be the understanding that iran has full compliance. we do not know what day that will be.

each side is busy explaining why what it agreed to so far is a good thing for its own public opinion. that is what negotiations are about. everyone has to return with something there are proud of. no one will return home and say -- the important thing is to focus on what is going on in the negotiations themselves, which have to remain largely confidential for the moment to ensure we get the right deal and ensure there is full compliance and as a result of that, you can move to suspension of sanctions and so on. of course there are different elements of sanctions. there is a u.s. one, european ones, a u.n. one. the one thing i would add, we need to keep in mind, the reason we have come so far is because there has been an extraordinary degree of transatlantic unity on

application of the sanctions. it had been more effective than many had predicted. we had gone this far on that, we now need to make diplomacy successful. ms. slavin: let me ask more about unity, not just with the united states but also among the e3. ambassador araud, your prime minister has a certain tension -- pension for revealing details of the negotiations at certain times that perhaps have not always been helpful. the other day, he said iranians are insisting on a 24 day waiting period before any allegations of cheating can be investigated. is this helpful to the negotiations to reveal these little bits and are you always on the same page in terms of the negotiations? ambassador araud: of course it is helpful because it is my minister. [laughter]

ambassador araud: i think in any country, and especially this country, one's country takes an initiative. it is supposed to be based on a good analysis of the situation. when this country, one's country says a mistake, it is out of good intention. one another country commits a mistake, it is out of cynicism or for reckless reasons. i am going to tell you to your utter disbelief, i will tell you a secret. the french foreign policy is neither more or less -- it means that what we are doing is a very technical and political issue, based on our own analysis. in the negotiation, even our technical experts disagree from time to time. you have the ministers and the

diplomats and the nuclear , experts discussing the issues. the ministers and diplomats do not understand a word of what is exchanged, of course. but basically, there is a disagreement. the negotiations are extremely complicated technically. they are also complicated because you have a lot of different issues which are linked. the number of types of centrifuges are linked to the stockpile you will announce. i could multiply the examples of that. it means it is likely we will not have an agreement before the end of june or even after june. the iranians at the moment are obviously not negotiating to get an agreement shortly. they want to push the issues to the ministers the way they did previously. we agreed to have a drama at the end of june. ministers not sleeping doors

, slammed, i am leaving to iran, no way, and so on, to try and get the best deal. even if we get the best deal after words, you have to translate into the technical annexes. maybe we could have a sort of "the end" to the negotiation. peter: can i add something to the unity. it is hard to exaggerate the cohesion we as europeans have on every level. our experts meet on a weekly basis or on a phone, sometimes on a daily basis. our leaders need on iran. as you said, the three europeans were at the genesis, the inception, of this whole process. i want to add two things, i think it also deserves mention that russia and china were very constructive partners over the

last 17 months or how many months it was. since the beginning of negotiations in november of 2013. that may be came to the surprise of some, because you could have feared that the ukraine crisis would have contaminated those negotiations around iran. that did not happen. there was unity among the five plus. another element in the genesis that deserves mention is that is, as i would say, there was a courageous step by the american administration to engage directly with iran. that was the catalyst for progress. it was not self-evident that after those long years of a vacuum in relations with iran, the administration would engage with iran directly. i think those elements helped

forge that unity and make that progress. ms. slavin: any thoughts on the unity of the three? ambassador westmacott: i agree. ms. slavin: one other and then i will open to the audience. that is, the impact of the sanctions on european economies. as you pointed out, ambassador westmacott, it is a fact that the europeans agreed to stop buying iranian oil, by and large, stop investing in iran, cutback trade drastically, to impose sanctions on the banks. that got us to where we are in many respects. how much of an impact has that had on your economies? if for some reason, there is no deal, can you hold the line on sanctions? can they persist in the eu given the eagerness of many of your companies to go back.

gerard the u.s. companies as : well. ms. slavin: they have other problems. ambassador araud: not more or less than the european companies. ambassador westmacott: i think iran is a country with immense potential, and lots of areas. people say to me, i cannot understand why you guys are negotiating with those iranians. that you do not seen many iranian shiites that she has -- you do not see many shiites stepping onto planes and blowing them up. but your onions want to come with a green card and make $1 million. i think there is a great deal of potential of that sort. if you go to iran today, you find that there is an appetite for a lot of western products. they have to pay a high price

because of the things -- the way things like that operate. things come across seven borders. it is not surprising that a lot of companies would like to do business in iran. it has great potential resources, and natural wealth. at the right moment, hopefully not at the wrong moment, companies will start looking again at that. it is hard to be clear about what happens to sanctions in the event of no deal. if there is no deal because the iranians simply will not live up to or implement the broad parameters we agreed to in the framework, then i think we carry on with the sanctions regime and in certain areas it may be right to try to raise the level the sanctions. at the same time, if we were to walk away or if congress were to make it impossible for the agreement to be implemented or whatever, the international community would be reluctant to contemplate a ratcheting up further of the sanctions against iran. my sense is that we are not far

away from the higher watermark of sanctions against the iranian economy. exactly what happens next depends on what happens. if it is clear that this was done on bad faith and the iranians were not appear to have adequate inspection of sites and transparency and so on we are in , one territory. it becomes much more, located if it is the other where we say we do not want to do this. we have seen countries that do not respect the embargo. but russia, china, turkey and so on for buying certain things from iran, we will probably see more sanctions breaches, unless the deal collapsed because of reasons that were visibly clearly iran's responsibility. ms. slavin: the impact on germany has been significant. ambassador wittig: yes, we have long, traditional relations with iran pre-khamenei.

we had strong economic ties. the sanctions regime was hurting our businesses a lot. many of the companies especially , the big companies just pulled out of iran, like the automakers. or siemens. so it did hurt. that is a fact i echo what peter has said. the potential for an agreement is of course also a potential for all of our economies. it would benefit our economies -- not that we would rush back into iran. we would be cautious. the government advises our companies actively to hold back. but it could be -- carry a huge

potential, not only for us but also for the young iranian generation. they are looking to the west. it might entice or trigger some internal change in iran. ms. slavin: it is my understanding that what comes off from the u.s. side initially are the secondary sanctions that inhibit foreign companies from investing in iran. you say american companies are eager but they will be largely shut out? ambassador araud: like in dubai. the automakers, we were providing 50% of the iran in -- iranian market. all of the gears were made in one small city in france. the city was devastated by the sanctions. a small city in the east of france. also, our oil company had made the strategy choice of investing

in iran. this company was, of course, lost its investments. it hurt, but we held firm the last 10 years. there is no reason we will not do it in the coming years. barbara i will open. : please wait for the microphone. state your name. we'll start here. ask a question. >> thank you for putting on this excellent event and thank you to the three ambassadors for being here. barbara: introduce yourself. >> i am from the national in running counsel. it has been mentioned there was unity and they e-3 and with the u.s. that is difficult to doubt. i want to ask you about a hypothetical. let us assume there is a deal

late june. the president has to then report it to the senate in five days. the senate has 30 days to review and cast a vote. say there is a resolution to reject the deal and it passes. the president has the obligation to veto it. what will be eu three do between the resolution of rejection passing and the president putting in his veto and facing a challenge to that? ms. slavin: who would like to take that? ambassador westmacott: i will make a brief comment. forgive me for saying this but you're getting ahead of the game. what we focus on now is trying to get this deal. we are not there yet. when we get there, we will see what the different elements are to follow. my government has not yet worked out what the answer to your hypothetical would be, but we have to take this in stages.

the important point for the moment is to bear in mind the long journey we embarked upon. can we now get this over the finishing line at the end of june? we hope so, but it depends on different elements. the president's commitment has been very clear to sending this to the dnc's congress and the -- to the united states congress, and to the american people and so on. , we take of us in one stage at a time. it may well be that at the state we get a deal, there is something the rest of us can do to help explain this is not just a u.s.-iran deal, but something the international community in general and the p5+1 in particular, the three representatives here, our party to, fully involved, and what it -- and want to see it made into a success. but i cannot go further into the area of hypothesis you want to lead us at this stage. ms. slavin: did you have a question?

>> i want to ask about the -- [inaudible] ms. slavin: bring the other one over, if you would. >> is this better? i will ask a question which will give you the opportunity to get in trouble with your governments. obviously we have to be thinking about what if. 's. assuming the deal does not go through and blame can be laid legitimately in iran's door what do you see as viable options? you know in israel and the congress, there are going to be loud voices calling for some sort of military action.

and alternatively, if the deal does go through, and can be verified what opportunities do , you see traded in the middle east, much of which is in chaos, but could benefit from this agreement? gerard: in a sense, the sanctions would remain enforced. the questions would be to increase the role of sanctions even if, as peter said, we are close to the high mark of the sanctions. as for what would happen after an agreement, in a very hypothetical way, looking at the crystal ball, my personal bet is that the iranians will want to prove their regime does not mean a change in policy. we could have an outburst of anti-american rhetoric a few

months after the agreement. the second element is we have been careful to disassociate the nuclear negotiation from other issues. it is very important. if you start to make a big deal -- it starts to be very dangerous. the nuclear issue, as such. after that, you have the other geopolitical issues. i am not sure if those are linked to the nuclear issue. they are linked to the fact all of the region has been geopolitically destroyed first , by the invasion of iraq. iraq has played a major hold for saddam for -- 1000 euros. the crisis in the sunni world. which means that basically nature abhors a vacuum.

iran is moving forward because there is nothing to stop it. i do not think there is a linkage between the nuclear issues and the geopolitical crisis of the middle east. but that is personal. >> elise with cnn. thank you barbara. i would like to follow up a little and tie in what you talk about the unity of the p5+1. obviously, you have gone to great lengths to keep a lot of the geopolitical issues out of the discussions, but i wonder if you could talk to the extent that this long baggage between the united states and iran whether it plays into it at all. at the beginning of this process the u.s. was really, even before , your current governments, the u.s. was the one being so tough. i have heard diplomats from one or more of your countries speak

privately about how the u.s. is the one that wants the deal the most. given all that, given that president obama definitely wants a deal with this government, the trial of washington post journalist jason rezaian, how does that play into the negotiations and tone of the room? ms. slavin: does the u.s. want it more than you? peter: we all want it, but not at a huge price. if we do not get a satisfactory deal, there will not be ideal. we are focusing on the four or five weeks ahead of us. and then all the hypotheticals afterwards. i want to elaborate a little on the connection to other issues. you can kill this deal if you link it to extraneous issues.

what iran does in yemen, does it cease to support hezbollah, etc. if you link it to these issues you can kill it. no linkage, but there is a potential in a successful deal to improve relations with iran and to encourage iran to be a more responsible stakeholder in the region. that potential we want to explore once the deal is done. ms. slavin: i am going to go to the back and then come up front. wait for the mic. >> thank you. dale kimball. ambassador araud, i am glad you went into the history.

i once asked you question about the history to clarify the purpose of the resolutions that were passed at the security council regarding the suspension of enrichment. there is a perception that those resolutions were designed or intended to wired iran to stop -- to require iran to stop uranium enrichment. as i understand, the purpose was to facilitate a long-term solution that respects a peaceful program. could you elaborate about the purpose of the resolutions which is something many in washington i do not think understand. this is an issue for the future of negotiations -- updating the resolutions. could you give us an update on whether that continues to be an issue? are you confident that will be resolved in time to facilitate a solution? ambassador araud: when we started the resolutions or sanctions, the first in 1737

what we were doing was to change the calculation of the regime. really, basically, to convince the regime, for its own survival in a sense, that the program was becoming too costly. you have to understand, the iranians have spent billions of dollars on these programs. on the program which does not have any civilian meaning. when we went to tehran in 2008 the five political directors, we met a lot of iranians. basically the sanctions were only starting to work, but the economic situation was so inept that the situation was serious. afterwards it has only worsened. we do think that of course,

there is no evidence that the sanctions have changed effectively the cancellation of the regime. for the enrichment personally from the beginning, i have always been convinced that, at the end of the day, we would have to keep some enrichment capability in iran. as peter said in negotiation , each side has to be able to come back home saying i am the winner. considering the investment of the iranians into the enrichment financial, but also symbolic. after that the challenge is to , make it innocuous in terms of nuclear proliferation. that is what we are trying to do during these negotiations. >> good morning. i am a french senator.

i have a question regarding the amount of mistrust between iran and the international community, how do you think the international community would be able to reset the machinery? because with such a mistrust, it is almost impossible. peter: one key element of this possible deal is a very intrusive mechanism. a regime of transparency and verification. that is key to the whole deal. we will have eyes. international atomic energy organization will have eyes on what iran is doing. we are confident a regime can be devised that would detect any

covert operation that iran is engaging in. the regime of verification monitoring, is key to any agreement we conclude. >> laura rosen from the monitor. , ambassador wittig, you mentioned it is going slowly do you think they are trying to dominate the process to other nations? are the iranians waiting for the u.s. to send the secretary? ambassador wittig: it is going

slow because the substance of the issues are difficult. they are technical. the second point is there is a dynamic in negotiations. you need the pressure of timelines in order to facilitate the heavy lifting of issues. both factors are at work here. but i am not particularly worried. i think this is fairly normal. as i said before, we have a difficult path to walk on. we have tremendously complicated technical issues to clarify. so small wonder we are not making a lot of fast progress now. but it is not a prediction on what will happen by the end of june. it is a feeling of the pulse now.

i am still confident we can overcome those divergences of views that we have now. ms. slavin: i am going to go here, but before we take the next question, i neglected to mention at the beginning that i wanted to thank the ploughshares fund for their generous support of the iran task force. also, our regret to stuart eizenstat, ambassador to the eu and chairman of our task force was not able to be here today because he was in europe. >> jonathan, with mcclatchy newspapers. we heard new statements from iran that senior scientists would not be allowed to be interviewed. we heard that military facilities will not be open to inspections. that links back to an issue way have not talked about, which is the possible military dimensions

of iran's program and the iaea aspect which seems to have gotten no process whatsoever -- progress whatsoever at all during the negotiations going on separately. there is some concern among some that that issue, whether or not the iranians were, in fact designing a missile-borne nuclear warhead will be papered over. there is some kind of calculation will be made, or equation will be made that will allow them not to have to make the admission about what they were doing in order to set a baseline for the inspection program you are talking about. can you talk about how the possible military dimensions aspect of this and how it feeds into the talks? because there is no progress on that aspect right now. ms. slavin: i will add to that

-- the deputy negotiator said something about managed access to nuclear facilities, which was in direct contradiction to what the supreme leader and other iranian officials said. gerard: after all of these negotiations, if you're writing an article about what is the negotiation, really. at the beginning of the negotiation there is chest , banging in the negotiation. each side says i am not going to cave in and that is my demands my absolute demands. of course, after that they compromise their absolute demands. i do not think we have to attach much importance to the declarations. at the beginning, the iranians say we demand an absolute , immediate lifting of the sanctions. it will not happen. and there will be an agreement.