o be underrestrictions. and how it relates to the sanctions that still remain. under this eighth-yoor time period, the iranians have to go to the joint commission for any nuclear-related items. the resixes are restrictions are going to remain in place. so they have to submit itself to end-use verification checks to ensure their going where they're supposed to be going. in this instance it's both a restriction on the iranians as well as still being utilized as part of the sanctions regime that will be in place. the procurement channel itself will extend another two years beyond this eight-year period until the u.n. security council's requirements are canceled in 10 years' time.

there will be at this eight-year period though, modifications to other parts of the security council infrastructure and other legal instruments, including the united states and e.u. these primarily deal with proliferation related items and potential sources of concern. it's notable though, that if you look at the text, what's put in is not iran will get to incorporate whatever -- import whatever it wants to import from whoever it wants to import. rather, from the u.s. perspective, iran will be treated like anybody else. which means they're subject to export controls and could still be subject to u.s. sanctions if we find things we have concerns about. that's basically it. the iranians don't get anything until they implement their nuclear obligations. that will take between four to six months after the 90-day period.

nothing april -- until april of 2016. the question is is, what's left? there are a number of restrictions that remain in place with their -- with regards to their ability to acquire nuclear related items. but that's not the limit of it. u.s. sanctions with respect to terrorism and human rights will remain in place. the u.s.' primary embargo will remain in place. with the exception of some very specific licenseable trance actions involving, for instance, the sale of commercial planes. however, even in that provision, it's very clearly stated that they have to be used for civil uses. so if the united states were to find, all of a sudden, that a brand new boeing that arrived in tehran was now funneling arms into assad, we're talking if assad is still in power many years from now, that would be cause to terminate the licensing as clearly stated in the text. this also means, therefore, that the iranians have to be on their best behavior with respect to these planes because they are

quite obvious. as we've discovered, the united states has the ability to detect what kinds of planes are being used for what kinds of purposes and then to identify them back to the international community. the iranians are also going to have to deal with the continued sanctions. they have a number of people including the iran revolutionary guard corps which will remain under sanction, and others who will remain under sanctions. there's been a lot of talk about this i'll take a moment to describe it about what's contained in the deal. he will be delisted by the u.n. and the e.u. because he was delisted by both of those. in the yeats he was designated for terrorism. that means he stays in place as a sanctioned individual until such time as he stops engaging in things we consider to be terrorism. i don't really think that's a likely event. this is also important because the united states is not

removing the infrastructure it uses to make these residual sanctions impactful and that includes the conference of iran accountability assessment act. it's in a this provision that the united states has exerted a lot of pressure on international financial system with respect to designated entities. basically, the law provides for the united states to sanction those who conduct transactions on behalf of u.s. designated people. now the list of u.s. designated people is going to go down when the nuclear related targets are removed but it will not go away. particularly for terrorism, human rights and other related targets. so the iranians are still going to be under the pressure of having to face financial sector cutoffs for all those entities and individuals who remain on the list which means that institutions like the bank

that's a u.s. designated bank for terrorism related purposes are going to remain and the financial impact on that bank is going to remain as well. this means that any additional targets the u.s. identifies as involved in terrorism or human rights related violations also are potentially subject to the same sort of cutoff. so the iranians still are going to have to learn about what could dosh worry about what could happen to their financial sector if they use the banks that we're delisting now for different purposes. i think it's important at this juncture to note that the sanctions relief will not be this end all and be all restoration and renaissance for iran. it's going to do a lot. but the very point that some sanctions remain and the fact that there is going to be reputational and business risk attached to doing business in iran means that the sanctions relief is going to take a long time to mature. now, from one perspective this is really good.

because that means that for those of us who are concerned about iran's ability to do awful things in the region it means that there is a way of pacing and controlling and modifying iranian behavior because if we continue to identify individuals and entities as involved in terrorism, the iranians will have to deal with the consequences of that. this is not u.s. unilateral sanctions disarmament. period. this is a step to provide iran palpable useful relief but they'll be under the same threat with respect to these institutions that they were yesterday, the day before that, 10 years -- not 10 year, but at this point, five years ago. when you add that to the fact that a lot of businesses are going to be concerned about the possibility of snap back, i think you can see that there is going to take a long time for there to be a resurgence and a lot of really long-term trade in iraq. my own expectations is that the iranians are going to see a lot

of short-term business deals purchases of their oil things that people can do and then get out of iran if they need to, for the initial couple of years. this is simple prudence on the part of international businesses. it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to do multibillion dollars' worth of investment in the country when you have the risk of snapback or some other concern that could get you in hot water both in washington as well as with your stockholders. there may be some businesses that are willing to do this. but i would bet that they're going to build force majeure clauses into their contracts to allow them to get out quick. -- quickly. so the business operating environment will be different than it will be in other countries in the middle east. this is not withstanding the sanctions because iran is a difficult place to do business itself. the bureaucratic tape in tehran

is as difficult to do business with as anywhere in the world. a numb of oil companies have said that they don't find the current contract the iranians are starting to be about with respect to oil services is all that good and they're looking for better terms. it will take time for iran to get through their bureaucratic process and get over the nervousness for companies to plunge back. in but iran will get something. i think the real threat to the longevity of the deal is that this is too slow in coming on. i think it's a -- there's a risk the iran yavens say, we're not getting what we need. at that point you can see them say, we need to reconsider the terms of the deal. i think the sanctions picture in iran is favorable to the p-5 plus one. favorable to the united states. it will provide iran some advantages but is not something that overnight will change the iranian economy, it's going to

take time and there are ways to control it still further. thank you. >> thanks, richard, that was very helpful. now we'll turn to allan who will take about the regional dynamics. >> thanks. i thought i'd talk about the three major actors in the agreement. the first being iran, the second being saudi arabia and the gulf states around it and the third beingsrael. i should start from the position that because of the nonproliferation benefits of the agreement, i very much agree with my colleagues up here that this is something that is in the national interest of the united states and we need to be pursuing. but the regional ramifications will be much more complicated and mixed. there's going to be some negative downsides and we'll have to manage especially with our traditional partners over the next few years. that doesn't mean we should be

letting the tail wag the dog and not doing something that's in america's fundamental national security interest but this is something we have to deal with. so starting with how we expect the deal to shake out in iran over the next few year, you hear these two schools of thought and theories. one is president rouhani the prime minister these are pragmatists. they're not democrats, they're men of the revolution. i don't think they're looking for liberalism wen style to break out tomorrow in tehran but they are more pragmatic when think weigh the economic benefits and the benefits international engagement versus support for terrorism and the nuclear program and are more interested in those first set of interests for iran. are they going to gain more influence and then be able to reflect into a more pragmatic iranian foreign policy? there's a strong case to be made that's the case. rouhani was elected based on the fact and allowed to come to power also by the supreme leader

that he would get this nuclear agreement. he's going to have tremendous credibility and leverage. we have parliamentary elections in iran next march. it will be an interesting time in terms of the sanctions relief calendar that richard just laid out to see if the pragmatic faction can pick up more seats in the iranian system. i do think rouhani now could have more influence in other areas of iran -- iranian foreign policy. on the other hand, you could make the argument that the hardliners are going to double down. that they'll want to batten down the hatches, they'll not want to see this deal lead to more liberalization. they'll take a harder line. they'll use some of that money that comes in to increase their support for some of their activities in syria and iraq and yemen and elsewhere in the region. that's going to happen too. i would argue that most likely scenario is, both of these

things are going to happen at the same time. what you're going to end up with in iran, very likely for the next few years is a very intense political competition amongst the various factors who ultimately makes the final decision. he's skeptical of the united states, not left iran in years but he's also somebody who rules by consensus. so if all the key factions come to him and say this is what we should do, he usually goes in that direction. i don't see him pursuing a major rapprochement with the united states in the years ahead but he's going to pass from the scene at some point, i think before the expiration of this deal, given his health and his age and at that moment we'll see what has this agreement and what has the aftermath in terms of the political debate inside iran done? who is his successor? what kind of system comes after him? we haven't had a transition of

pow for the iran since 1989. this is going to be a major moment to indicate if we're going to see a fundamental shift nigh ran's foreign policy. whether the fundamental shift happens or not, the deal is implementable, the agreement still happens. this is a potential huge benefit we have to watch over the next few years. the second challenge is israel. what happens there. now obviously, the israelis are close partners of ours, and i spent years at the pentagon working in iran where one of our primary interests was in dealing with israel and reassuring israel and talking to them about the nuclear program, especially the time where speculation was much more rife that they might consider taking things into their own hands. what i found from those exchanges was a couple of things. one, the israelis, it's a small country, surrounded by a lot of unfriendly neighbors in a tough part of the world. the approach that they take,

they assume the absolute worst case scenario. it's the joke, american foreign policymakers we do our contingency planning based on worst case scenarios and we do our policy based on most likely scenarios. israelis do their worst case plan -- their contingency planning and policy on worst case scenarios. part of this is the difference in personal styles. and part of it is the difference we've had with israel in differing risk perceptions. going forward -- well, one thing i'll say, one of the unfortunate side effects is, i always found engaging with israelis was useful when you were doing things like negotiating with iran. they would come in with smart people who spent all their time working on this and give you the worst case scenarios.

they would red team it for you in some aways. really effectively. you could say, we don't believe that's credible, but sometimes you could say, that's something we haven't thought about. then it helps improve american policy. i think it's unfortunate we've had a splate and divide that's limited that over the next few months. what happens next there? prime minister has made very clear that he's going to oppose this agreement and try to undermine it in congress. i think that's a big mistake. because i think at the end of the day oklahoma it's likely he'll succeed and what he's doing by doing that is really taking a boish issue and turning it into support for israel into a wedge issue inside the u.s. congress which i think is damaging for israel's long-term interest. i think there's -- look, there's a lot of people, the political establishment in israel is against the agreement because prime minister netanyahu set conditions where it's impossible to be for the agreement. even his political critics will

say, i don't like your approach on how you're dealing with americans but i hate this deal. the security establishment is different. they're much more subtle about it. i think because they also take that lower risk perception they're ultimately uncomfortable with some element os -- elements of the agreement but they don't see it as the exiss ten rble threat the prime minister does. what they do also, are concerned about is the way the prime minister decided to handle himself with this very public confrontation with the president, going to the american media, going to congress on this. and trying to circumvent the executive branch. and that's something that i think causes a lot of anxiety -- anxiety for israelis because iran might in many of their sues be an exiss ten rble threat. but fraying of the u.s.-israeli relationship is a huge threat and is a threat to israel's security for many of them. i think the big question is what happens after the 60 days? what happens after the

congressional vote? do the israelis finally say, does the prime minister, which is being encouraged by many to do, finally say, i'll take my disagreement quiet and we'll start quietly engaging with the administration and seing if the united states can find ways to fill this security gap that we now feel and these insecurities through american reassurances which is what we've traditionally done or does he decide to write off this president and spend the next year and a half publicly confronting him? i really hope that he chooses the former and not the latter and i know that there's a lot of people in the security establishment in israel that hope to see that too. we're going to have to wait and see. the president has already reached out. president obama reached out to prime minister netanyahu in april and tried to bring him back into the fold and said, let's take our communications privately and consult in closed rooms as opposed to this public status. he was rejected at the time but let's see if the view changes in

september. we'll have to wait and see about that. there's the third element here, saudi arabia and the gulf states. they view things differently than the israelis. they have some overlaps and some differences too. israel really is focused on the nuclear program and cares about iran's regional behavior. saudi arabia really is -- really is focused on the regional question. they care about iran's support for terrorism, they view what is happening right now in the region as iran picking up influence and syria and iraq and yemen and elsewhere. that's the major anxiety. -- anxiety. people speculate saudi arabia will respond to this by tarting to build out its own nuclear infrastructure. i don't think that's the problem. i think that's unlikely. that's expensive, takes time there are costs to them in materials of international reactions, in terms of their reaction -- relationship with the united states. i think the real concern is that they're feeling, they have this concern that the united states is pivoting to iran.

and rearranging the alliance dynamics in the united states. which i don't think is what the obama administration is intending to do. we still have a lot of things where we disagree with the iranians. feeling that concern, the saudis start to lash out in destabilizing ways and take steps that are against our interest and against their interest in the region and i think the best example of that might be what they've done in yemen recently with this intervention without a clear strategic plan about what happens after you start putting a blockade on yemen with no end game in sight. so that's, i think, the more fundamental question for the saw -- saudis and one that the united states is going to have to wrestle with, so it's this president and the next. the reality is it's going to be hard for this president to do it. any president who is the one who cuts the deal with iran, which i think we needed to do, is going to take a big hit in the gulf

and in israel as president obama has done. it's almost the next president who has to come in and start to do the big hug with some of our partners. so what do we do going forward to address these challenges? there's three or four things we need to do. first, take advantage of the fact that we actually have this channel of communications with the iranians for the first time in 35 years. that's meaningful and important. the fact that they have email addresses and phone numbers and there is a channel. i can't tell you how many times we'd run into at the pentagon, find ways to communicate with iranians. whether it was find ways to avoid conflict here, or knock it off, you're going in the wrong direction. talking is always better than not talking and seing if there are ways to start working together on some discrete issues, our interest in afghanistan, maritime security and avoiding potential escalation in the gulf,

inadvertent escalation in the gulf are two things for pursuit. more things like that. but even as we do that, especially as the sanctions are coming off, it makes sense to push back more forcefully on some of iran's destabilizing activities in the region through joint efforts with our partners, showing up in saudi arabia for example with a high level dell fwation led by ash carter and john brennan saying we're here to talk not about the nuclear program and not about how to deal with isis, we're here to have a serious and strategic conversation with you about how to deal with iran in the region. let's talk about steps we can take together. more aggressive interdiction. more -- potentially more serious efforts to train sunni opposition in syria and in iraq. partners we can work with in both those countries. things like that that will signal to our partners that we

mean it when we say we're going to push back on this behavior we don't find acceptable in iran. and also important signals to the iranians that we're going to that the nuclear deal doesn't give you free range over the region to pursue these opportunities. we're going to push back. when the united states pushes back against iran, iran backs off. iran has no interest in a fight with the united states. sometimes you have to flex your muscles as a deterrent. another key thing we have to be doing. the third element obviously needs to be reassurance of other forms beyond those two. which for our partners, i don't think we need to be selling the saudis s-35's. they already outspend the iranians dramatically. it's not about big weaponry. it's about the small stuff. training them to actually counter some of this low-end asymmetric warfare. but the security assurances, to some extent, there's things we could be doing with our partners

and activities with the israelis, that can signal to them that we're sticking around that this isn't the fundamental strategic pivot, that we're going to push back as we engage, and we can do both. i'll close by saying, you know, it's a very complicated balancing act to pull something like that off, send some mixed messages. this has worked on iran's nuclear program. we spent the last five or 10 years using a combination of praise and pressure. if we apply that to problems with iran in the northeast i think you can get there with this -- in the middle east, i think you can get there with this combination of tools. >> thank you very much. as i said at the beginning, this process is complex. it's consequential. and i think we've given you quite a bill to contemplate. it's now your turn to ask us a

few questions and we're going to try to answer, i'll start with some of the journalists who are here. virginia there's a question up here in front. if you could bring the mike up and just identify yourself and tell us who you would like to answer the question. >> mike, "new york times," i have a question on the sequencing of sanctions relief. a technical question but just to clarify. in the 150-plus page document. the broad conclusion to be issued by the iaea is not going to come for a period of years but director -- but the director general on the day the agreement was promulgated put out a road map to lead to an assessment by december 15. he articulated a number of steps that are to be taken. as you understand the agreement what sanctions relief can be

provided prior to this december 15 assessment of where iran stands on possible military dimensions and what sanctions relief can only be provided after this assessment is completed and if it's a favorable resolution? >> that's a great question. it's especially complicated because we've now got two processes that are working simultaneously here. i would say very simply i don't see any sanctions relief happening before p.m.d. has been laid to rest. that's in part because the obligation on iran is somewhat different than the obligation the ai -- the iaea has taken unto itself. the timing of the obligation the iaea has accepted is it gets iran's compliance by the 15th of october. well based upon the structure

of the implementation phase of the deal, there's zero chance that any sanctions relief can happen before that cooperation has been given, right? it's written into the document as an obligation of the iranians to have done this by adoption day. and so as a consequence of that if they didn't provide the cooperation, the united states and p-5 plus one partners would be in a position to say we don't have to fill in the terms of the deal. they could walk away altogether, you could go to the dispute resolution process so on and so forth. bottom line, because of when iran has to take its steps, i don't think there's any chance additional relief could be given. now, there is potentially a theoretical world in which adoption has taken place, the iranians speed through implementation and the director general has not issued his report by the 15th of december. i can see that -- i concede that as a theoretical possibility.

it's highly unlikely almost impossible, because of how long it would take them to do things like removing centrifuges but that's something that theoretically could happen system of what are you going to get out of the report from the inspector general? only two conclusions could come out of it. iran had a weapons program, iran didn't have a weapons program. we already think we know the answer to the first and we think it's the first. there's nothing that's going to change the timing of relief and the timing of what goes forward because we already know the answer to it and the transparency to verify it's not ongoing will have begun. i don't see in reading the documents that there's an explicit sanctions tied to the explicitted by of -- bit of p.m.d. but enge the way the sequence works, what the requirements are on each party of this, means that there won't be any relief until iran has done its part and then the report itself will be icing on the cake. >> let me ask you, richard, and

kelsey, to clarify one aspect of this. when we say iran does it its part with respect to the iaea investigations, that means what? as i understand it i'm reading it, that means the iranians need to provide the cooperation, the information, the access that the iaea believes is necessary for it to close out its investigation but not necessarily the timing it -- the time it would take for the agency, which can take a long time, to draw conclusions from that information. is that correct? or what is your -- am i wrong on this? kelsey: according to the road map, iran has to provide the international atomic energy agency with the information, access, answer all of the concerns that the agency laid out in the annex to its november 2011, report and it needs to provide that information by august 15.

then iran -- or the iaea will evaluate that information and by september 15, if they want to ask iran any followup questions then that information can then -- then iran can have some time to followup with that information and ideally this process is cob colluded by october 15. then by december 15 the iaea will issue its assessment about the, sort of the full system of iran's past p.m.d. work. so that's according to the separate road map that the iaea and iran agreed upon and announced the same day as the deal which was tuesday. >> all right. other journalists with questions? yes, ma'am. thank you. >> hi, jessica "huffington

post." this is mostly for richard. is there any concern about a kind of contradiction or contradictory message that could be sent if congress imposes new sanctions immediately after the deal? there was a thought to extend the 1996 sanctions. what kind of message would it send to extend sanctions under the guise of it being related to terrorism or human rights in the region? richard: i would definitely say there's always a risk of mixed messages here and i think there's a risk that acting to some degree precipitously with respect to imposing new sanctions is a real problem. let's be clear. the iranians are not agreeing anywhere in this that they won't engage in things that look to us like terrorism or violations of human rights or other actions we've got problems with. they aren't changing their

fundamental behaviors either. what i think will have to happen is navigating attention -- navigating a tension between iranians doing bad acts in the region but not pursuing nuclear-related bad appings that cause us to walk away from the keel. us addressing this iranian bad acts but not doing so to such a degree the iranians say forget it, we're going to get our nuclear weapons program back because we think the deal is coming unhinged through the back door. i think the text, it's interesting, tries to deal with this a couple of different ways. that the parties agree not to do things that are at variance with the purposes of the jacoa, that the parties agree not to back door things in regulation. i think there's a tension here. i think it would be better to let the deal ime. -- implement itself and get started before anybody on either side starts trying to rock the boat. i think the true test of the deal will be can we keep it going?

can we keep this arms control arrangement and this nonproliferation arrangement together not withstanding the fact that we've got all these other problems? we were able to do so with the soviet union we were able to do so with the n.p.t., you think about it in a broader sense. i think we can do that here but we have to be careful about what we do. >> other questions? over here on this side. >> i'm russ, with federal foreign relations, minority side. kelsey this is not a perfect deal but are there significant loopholes in the monitor regular jet stream in your opinion, maybe specifically with regard to secret facilities or perhaps undeclared nuclear efforts or are there no significant loopholes? kelsey: i don't see any significant loopholes in terms of the monitoring and

verification. and that's in part because of the flexibility granted to the international atomic energy agency under the additional protocol. also, i think it's important to remember that with this accelerated timeline of the p.m.d. investigation the agency can still use the information gathered to inform its future decisions about what it monitors what it looks for and where it goes. because when you consider the entirety of iran's nuclear program, with the expanded declaration under the additional protocol, the iaea will now have much more regular access to every element of iran's knew leer program, but far expanded from what it has access to now. that includes the mines and mill the heavy water production plants for the iraq reactor. all areas that the iaea has had

little access to in the past. there also is an element that will be put in place, modified cose 3.1, to the iaea safeguards agreement, that ensures early notification of the iaea to design changes of facilities or if iran decides to build any new nuclear facilities system of when you consider early notification, when you consider the expanded declaration and short notice to all the facilities in the expanded declaration, when you consider the flexibility that will allow the iaea inspectors to access sites if concerns arise within 24 days, and then you layer on top of that the continuous monitor, the use of advanced technologies to check enrichment levels on a regular basis, to you know use radio seals an then you add on top that u.s.

intelligence the intelligence of other countries including israel, i think you have a system that is so layered that even if no one element is 100% guarantee, an alarm bill will trip at some point because iran would need to recreate the entirety of its process in order to covertly pursue nuclear ep wes. so i raily -- knew leer weapons. so i really think this is as strong as it needs to be to provide the highest guarantee that there will be no ill list activities. or if they are that they will be detected quickly. then the u.s. and international community will have time to respond. >> that's a very good explanation. it's ea are -- it's a reminder of one of the fundamentals of monitoring and verification that i think people lose track of. there's no such thing as 100%

certainty of compliance with an agreement. and one of the major purposes is to increase our confidence into the high 90's that we can detect militarily significant noncompliant activity. what does that mean for the cheat her it means the potential cheater is looking at a high 90% chance they'll get caught. that means they have to weigh the benefits and costs system of in that sense, it can serve as a deterrent. especially when you factor in what the losses are. so you know, there are going to be critics who are going to say this could be better here. that could be better there. and those may be valid criticisms. but as a whole, as kelsey said, the system needs to be considered as a whole and when you consider what monitoring and verification is designed to do, it's not 100% certainty but it is getting to the high high 90's that we can catch major violations. >> i would just add, before this

deal was reached before the interim deal was reached a representative said with high confidence that the united states would be able to detect, would be able to detect any iranian attempts to divert material for a nuclear weapon before they were eable to accumlit -- accumulate enough material for one bomb. that is before all of these additional measures being put in place. so i think that really does speak to how much the u.s. could do in the past and when you add all of these other elements on top of that, it provides an even stronger guarantee. >> we had another question up front here. wait for the mike, please. thank you. >> nancy gallagher, university of maryland. one of the issues that became a public controversy in the end game in the negotiations was what was going to happen with

u.n. sanctions on ballistic missions -- missiles ancon ventional arms and some people in effect said iran tried to reopen something that had been settled at the very last minute. other people say, no, this was an open question all along that wasn't settled. given that the la san framework itself -- the lasa -- lausanne framework was never released and they both released differing statements and both agreed not to say anything that was completely against it, was that genuinely a -- an open question at the time? >> "the new york times" has an interesting account of that issue just this morning. richard? richard: you'd have to talk to the negotiators themselves.

i haven't been in the room since december. i don't know to what degree he was agreed in la zahn. -- in lausanne. i do think there probably was a notional or provisional agreement on this point. i think that the way that it erupted as a problem, particularly with the russians coming in as they did in support of the iranian position, it struck me as something that was being reopened or if it wasn't already closed, it was pretty close, people were pretty confident it was going to be closed and then it came back open. but that said, the fundamental principle of this negotiation was always that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. so i am quite sure that the iranians probably described it to themselves and to the americans, if in fact it is true they tried to reopen something is that, no, other part theefs deal necessitated us coming back on this point. so in the end, it's certainly interesting to know the back and

forth, i kind of look at the end result. keeping a five-year conventional arms embargo in place against iran when it was only adopted by the u.n. because of the nuclear related issue is pretty good especially when you have the complementary u.s. sanctions that will permit taos impose pressure on people providing those systems to iran going forward until whenever. >> let's go here on the left. >> i'm steve with the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. i have a question but i'd like to make a brief comment first. i think one of the things we have that's going to be in the discourse is hope versus fear, right? hope versus fear. as a person of faith, of course i'd like to speak for hope a little bit. i think we should not underestimate what implementation, painstaking implementation of this agreement

will do to transform international relationships. particularly the u.s.-iranian relationship long-term. to build trust. through verification, not just through good feeling. but my question is this. we keep talking about the date by which iran could rush to enough material for a bomb. and that's one year. and it seems to be the assumption that then in a year they could have a bomb to threaten their neighbors. well, they have to test it. they have to deploy it. presumably you'd want to have more than one bomb if you're going to become a nuclear power because after you use the first one, you're kind of out of luck. so what is the realistic -- i mean, it seems we have a great deal of time even after that material is acquired before this becomes a genuine threat to the u.s. or anyone else. >> real quick on that, the reason why the one-year breakout timeline has been used as a

measuring stick for the success of this, one of then are -- one of the reasons is that once a country has enough fissile material for one bomb, it's difficult to keep prack track of what they're doing with it. but you're exactly right. that you know, 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium does not a nuclear arsenal make. there are many other steps to be taken. it has to be fashioned into a workable device. the country would like to test it to make sure it works. it would have to be mated with a delivery vehicle, delivery system. there's more time that would be necessary and of course one nuclear weapon doesn't do you too much good as a strategic weapon, maybe as a terror weapon. so -- but what's clear in this agreement -- is this agreement does block all the pathways to acquiring even that much material so iran can't do it in less than one year. and we mentioned the plutonium

route in the beginning but the plutonium path to the bomb is for all intents and purposes completely blocked because the iraq reactor is going to be modified with chinese assistance so they can't be producing a significant amount of plutonium in the spent fuel. this is very strong in terms of preventing iran from amassing even that amount of material. we have a lot of questions here system of let me try to get to a few of you. we won't get to all of you. why don't we go with, try toe back, if you could, virming, the gentleman on your side, near the middle row. thank you. >> my question is to mr. nephew.

several headlines have been, the concern is the sanctions, as well as sanctions against the central bank. in your view, what would happen to those entities mostly the central bank and local banks in iran, how would that work out? and the second question -- what do you make of the comments that the president made yesterday about the example of --

[inaudible] what do you make of that comment? >> so the terms of the deal basically removed sanctions that are the most pressing on the central bank of iran and permit iran, generally speaking, to have access to the swiss system with respect to institutions that were previously designated. this will allow broader financial ties internationally as well as accessing iranian money located in banks around the world. >> on the question of syria, i would say that, i would argue that probably syria is not where we want to start in terms of cooperation with the iranians. it's probably the area where we have the most tension. if you're trying to overcome 35 years of this taboo of not talking to each other, this seems to be an area where our

interests are fundamentally opposed unless they want to move to a political solution where assad, where they accept the transition awaugh from assad. at the same time i think if we were to go tomorrow to the iranians and say let's talk about syria, it would reinforce the saudis and the rest of the region's minds our plans to sell out ashe interests and cut a deal with iran. i think it probably makes sense to start with issues that are less raw and also to think about if we're going to first spend time push back in syria and building up american leverage an investment and then coming to the negotiating table at the end of the day civil wars only end three ways, one, an outside power comes in and sitz on the whole thing, not happening. two, one side wins. again, very unlikely at this point in syria. and three a negotiated political solution. iran will have to be part of that negotiated political solution but i think first

expectations on the ground, their calculus needs to change. our sue nu -- sunni partners' calculus needs to change and we need to have a policy of pushing back against iran while finding ways to reassure our partners. >> i see jessica matthews a former president here at carnegie. why don't you go ahead. >> thanks, darryl. i wondered from all four of your points of view what are the opportunities for one side or the other to fail to clearly meet their obligations that will lead to the kind of muddle that led to the unraveling of the north korea deal for example. well, you violated first, no you fell short first no, you did -- you know, where are we likely to get in trouble in that respect? >> that's a good question. i hadn't thought about it deeply since i woke up at 4:00 in the morning to look at the

agreement. but why don't we ask each of you to give your take on that. that's a good question. starting maybe with richard. richard: i think the biggest threat is because of the regional issues and terrorism related issues we have to continue on active -- an active sanctions policy that eventually chips away at the benefit prossvided and relief. when you combine that with iranian fiscals me management and inability to do with their economy what they could do, either because of corruption or just because they screw up or because oil prices remain low or investment doesn't flow as fast if the iranian goth says we're not getting what we're supposed to get. this might be honest that they're not getting what they're supposed to get because of other sanctions. it may be just a front to cover what is a bad economic policy on the igranian part. but that could make the iranians, and certainly a pop

ewist figure like ahmadinejad, or who knows who the next president of iran will be, could say, it's rouhani that's causing the problem. >> and the fact that the sanctions relief might come after parliamentary elections as a major problem here? >> i don't see it as a major problem but it -- but certainly from an iranian rouhani political stance, it would have been better for him and his guys to have it before. the celebratory mood in tehran is, he's going to get a boost in the parliamentary process. it would have been worse for him if the relief was already six months in place and they hadn't seen money coming in. the timing might be ok for him. ilan: i agree that's the greatest risk of the deal but there is an american policy solution to it. a lot of times we have multiple

tools to go after terrorism, some of which are the intelligence community, some of which are deployed by d.o.d. and some by treasury. the treasury approach, let's sanction something because that's the lowest risk approach. it involves the least risk of military escalation, things like that. it might actually be the given paradoxcally given we have this nuclear agreement, the sanctions to respond to iranian terrorism might be the riskiest approach because it undermoo -- undermines a broader interest we have in perpetuating the nuclear deal. maybe d.o.d. and the intelligence community need to be thinking more, and those tools need to be used more aggressively in some of the steps we take because there's risk associated with that, too obviously, but it's a way to compartmentalize and try to separate and protect the agreement and our nonproliferation interests and other interests in the region.

kelsey: i agree with what they said and also add another concern about any party intentionally exploiting the review process and the ability then to go to the u.n. security council with the intention of not resolving the dispute but actually trying to kill the deal. because essentially if a party does not think, if any one of the states does not think that an ambiguity or concern has been resofted in the joint commission or then through the ministerial level or going to an arbitration panel they can go directly to the u.n. security council and for the permanent five members, vetoing the resolution will start to put sanctions back in place. that could be deliberately used, i think, to prevent the agreement from moving forward. and that option will remain open past this administration and when you hear some of the presidential candidates explicitly talking about wanting

to unravel the deal, there certainly is an opening there. that gives me some concern. >> one other quibbling thought. this is not so much a big threat to the implementation of the agreement but it's something that i think everyone needs to pay attention to, including the congress and the other governments involved in the negotiation, p-5 plus one, which is that the iaea will need additional resources to do added work. the iaea has a rotating team about 50 people on the iran file. they do a very good job. but they're going to need they're going to need more resources. and there is a zero budget growth policy affecting all u.n. agencies and so it's going to require voluntary contributions additional contributions from key states, the united states, to give the agency the resources they need. that's probably -- we'll probably be hearing from the director general amano now that

he knows what the terms are and what they need to know, we'll be hearing more from him about what kind of resources he needs on an annual and ongoing pay sis. it can be done it's just going to require governments stepping up and providing those resources. >> one small point. one other key, i think, vulnerability to this that kelsey got at. what happens with our presidential transition? and i don't think that, even if it's a republican or somebody who opposed the agreement, if it's implemented for the next year and a half, i think the next president will continue to implement it. but will they implement it holding their nose? will bit the innovate eunited states and secretary of the state or senior level envoy who has direct access to the president of the united states, or will it be some deputy assistant secretary of state deep inside the state department that nobody's really listening to? and in that keas i think the agreement falls apart by

neglect. we have lot of cases, one example is north korea. another example of that different levels of prioritization of the iraq issue in the bush and obama administrations. obama executed the bush drawdown plan but the level of senior level engagement, nobody watched the issue for a few years. this matters a lot. it's -- another example is the clinton-bush and handover on al qaeda. this is a problem with the u.s. that we have and we have to deal with. >> i just need to point out one other thing too. richard: we talked about risk coming from the p-5 plus one. the iranians have cheated on their treaty obligations for 30-odd years. it is not at all outside of their capacity to either cheat intentionally, have some guy do something he's not supposed to do and have it become a much bigger problem there are a variety of things on the iran

side that could mange this deal fall apart too. it should be noted, we were thinking about our own perspective but we have to make sure the iranians do their part too. >> that's part of our concern and we simply weren't expressing it because it's quite obvious. there will be problems. i think there is this is a long-term agreelt. there are going to be disputes. and there are mechanisms available to deal with them. but it's going to take continued good judgment, political leadership and good faith efforts, particularly on the part of the iranen -- iranians so we don't have a major blowup along the way. we are almost out of time. i want to see if there's one more quick question we can answer and then we're going to be closing. why don't we go with this gentleman on the right side. if you cou over to him. right there. your mike is right in front of you sir. >> ok.

i'm with the embassy. i was going to ask the same question as jessica first of all, but i think that's pretty well answered so the second i have is very specific since richard was there is there anything inconsistent at the u.s. state and local levels, the federal government will do whatever it can to ensure that. could you clarify where that could be possible where you could a local or state government that could put in their own iran sanctions and if you see that as a stumbling block? >> there are. there are state and local di vestment campaigns. primarily that deal with iran, that could be and i think are considered to be sanctions both by the people who came up with the idea as well as by the iranians. under our federal system of government, there are limitations as to what the federal government can do here. that's why the language will stay as it is.

there is no commitment on the part of the united states federal government to force the states to abandon di vestment strategies and things like that. there are laws on the books in the federal system that basically give cover to di vestment and say it's something that state and local officials ought to be able to do. i think you could see some attempt to modify that. but i think more broadly there's going to be two things. one is a general statement of advocacy that di vestment decisions that are inconsistent with the terms of the deal are not helpful under the foreign policy authorities given to the federal government. there should be -- the supremacy clause should grant that to the federal government and state and local governments shouldn't do things inaccident with that. but there's concern about the overuse of federal authority by local jurisdictions including sanctions that may be suspected. i think what this is intended to say is if you're a financial regulator and the federal government has suspended a sanction covers you too. what this may set up in the future is legal challenge.

frankly. between the federal, state and local levels to deal with particular cases. especially if the iranians were to plain that a particular case is inconsistent with the deal. we have to see how the courts will deal with that if and when it comes up. >> as we said, it's complex. there's a lot to this agreement. we hope we clarified a good bit about how the agreement is supposed to work. what's at stake. what are some of the other considerations down the road. an also we hope we provide some insight into why so many believe this is in the -- on balance in the u.s.'s national security interest and a major step forward for the nuclear nonproliferation efforts especially in the world's most volatile region, the middle east. i want to thank everyone who came here today in our audience. i want to thank the audience on

c-span. more than anything i want to thank our speakers for the presentations. the transcript of this event will be on the website without a couple of days. there's more about the agreement, the negotiations and please join me in a round of applause for our great speakers today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> we are adjourned. thank you. >> c-span gives you the best access to congress. live coverage of the u.s. house congressional hearings, and news conferences. bringing you events that shape public policy and every morning "washington journal" is live with elected officials

policymakers and journalists and your comments by phone, facebook and twitter. c-span. created by america's cable companies and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> he was killed and three others wounded. president obama talked about the shootings earlier today. president barack obama: i just received a briefing from fbi director comey, as well as my white house team, about the tragic shooting that took place in chattanooga today.

we don't know yet all the details. we know that what appears to be a lone gunman carried out these attacks. we've identified a name. and at this point, a full investigation is taking place. the fbi will be in the lead, working closely with local law enforcement. we've also been in contact with the department of defense to make sure that all our defense facilities are properly attentive and vigilant as we sort through exactly what happened. and as details of the investigation proceed, we'll make sure that the fbi, as well as local law enforcement are providing the public with all the information that's involved. my main message right now is obviously, the deepest sympathies of the american people to the four marines that have been killed.

it is a heartbreaking circumstance for these individuals who have served our country with great valor to be killed in this fashion. and although the families are still in the process of being contacted, i want them to know that i speak for the american people in expressing our deepest condolences, and knowing that they have our full support as they try to overcome the grief that's involved here. i also want to say that there are reports of injuries to chattanooga local law enforcement officials. thankfully, as far as we know at this point, they have survived the assault.

and we want to make sure that they know that we're thinking of them. they're in our thoughts and prayers. we take all shootings very seriously. obviously, when you have an attack on a u.s. military facility, then we have to make sure that we have all the information necessary to make an assessment in terms of how this attack took place, and what further precautions we can take in the future. and as we have more information, we'll let the public know. but in the meantime, i'd ask all americans to pray for the families who are grief-stricken at this point. and i want everybody to understand that we will be thorough and prompt in figuring out exactly what happened. >> coming up tonight, we will have more from president obama as he visits the l3el reno

correctional facilities. after that, the arms control committee on the iran agreement. and vice president biden on his activism. with 18 months left in office, the president has marked on a new initiative for nonviolent offenders -- to make it easy for them to enter society. by cracking down on inmate rape overcrowding, and solitary confinement. he spoke about his plans for reforming the criminal justice system. his remarks are about eight minutes. president barack obama: hello everybody. i want to make a very quick statement. i want to thank the folks who

are involved here in helping arrange this visit here at el reno federal penitentiary. this is part of our effort to highlight both the challenges and the opportunities we face with respect to the criminal justice system. many of you heard me speak on tuesday in philadelphia about the fact that the united states accounts for 5% of the world's population. we incarcerate 25% of the world's inmates. that represents a huge surge since 1980. a primary driver of this mass incarceration phenomenon is our drug laws, our mandatory minimum sentencing for drug laws. we have to consider whether this is the smartest way to both control prime and rehabilitate individuals. this is costing taxpayers across

america $80 billion a year. as i said on tuesday, there are people who need to be in prison. and i do not have tolerance for violent criminals, many of them may have made mistakes. but we need to keep our communities safe. on the other hand, when we are looking at non-violent offenders, most of them growing up in environments in which drug traffic is common, where many of their family members may have been involved in the drug trade we have to reconsider whether 20-30-year life sentences are the best way to solve these problems. here at el reno, there is excellent work being done inside the facility to provide job

training and college degrees drug counseling. the question is not only how do we sustain those programs here in the prison, but how do we make sure the same institutional support are there for kids and teenagers before they get into the criminal justice system. are there ways for us to divert young people who make mistakes early in life, so they don't get in. we have an opportunity to make a difference when overall violent crime rates have an dropping. at the same time, incarceration rates dropped for the first time in 40 years. my hope is that if we can keep on looking at the evidence, the facts -- figure out what works. we can start making a change. we can save taxpayer money, keep our streets safe, and most important late, keep families

intact. keep families, particularly families of color that are so prone to end up in the criminal justice system, that makes it harder for them to ever get a job. and forever be effective. since of this country. i want to give a special shout out to our prison guards. they have a very tough job. and most of them are doing it in an exemplary fashion. one of the things we talked about is how we can continue to improve conditions in prisons. this is an outstanding institution. within the system, and yet they have enormous overcrowding issues. i just took a look at a cell because of overcrowding, typically we might have three people housed in a cell that

looks to be, what? 15 -- 9 by 10, three grown men and a cell. there have been some improvement, now we have two. but overcrowding like that is something that has to be addressed. as i said the other day gang activity, sexual assault inside the prisons -- those are things it have to be addressed. we will be consulting with resin guards owardens, to see how we can make critical reforms. a lot of this goes back to the states. my goal is that we start seeing improvement at the federal level. and they weren we we are able to see states across the country

pick up the baton. we are seeing states make moves to see what works. and build off of that. thanks, everybody. >>visiting with these six individuals, i've said this before. when they describe their youth and childhood these are young people who made mistakes that are that different from mistakes i made. and a mistakes that a lot of you guys made. the difference is, they did not have the kind of support structures -- the second chances, the resources that would allow them to survive

those mistakes. and i think we have a tendency sometime to almost take for granted things that are normal, so many young people end up in our criminal justice system. it is not normal. it is not what happens in other countries. what is normal is teenagers doing stupid things. what is normal is young people making mistakes. and we have to be able to distinguish between dangerous individuals who need to be incapacitated and incarcerated, versus young people who are in an environment in which they are adapting. but if given different opportunities, a different vision of life, could be

thriving the way we are. that is what strikes me. there but for the grace of god. and that is something that we all have to think about. alright? thank you. >> the president speaking in oklahoma. on tuesday, he spoke in-depth during an address at the naacp's

annual convention in philadelphia. he carved out about 45 minutes. president barack obama: hello, naacp! [applause] ah, it's good to be back. [applause] how you all doing today? you doing fine? audience: yes! president obama: you look fine. [applause] alright, everybody have a seat. i got some stuff to say. [applause] audience member: we love you! president obama: i love you back. you know that. so, see, now, whenever people have, like, little signs, you

all got to write it bigger because i'm getting old now. [laughter] president obama: and i like that picture of me. that's very nice. let's get something out of the way up front. i am not singing today. audience: awww -- president obama: not singing. although i will say your board sang to me as i came in for the photograph. [laughter] so i know there's some good voices in the auditorium. let me also say what everybody knows but doesn't always want to say out loud -- you all would rather have michelle here. [laughter] i understand. i don't blame you. but i will do my best to fill her shoes. and she sends everybody her love. and malia and sasha say hi, as well. [applause]

i want to thank your chair roslyn brock. i want to thank your president cornell brooks. i want to thank your governor, tom wolf, who's doing outstanding work and was here. the mayor of philadelphia, michael nutter, who's been a great friend and ally. [applause] governor dan malloy of connecticut, who's here today. and some outstanding members of congress who are here. i want to just say thank you to all of you for your love, for your support, but most importantly, for the work that you are doing in your communities all across the country every single day. it's not always received with a lot of fanfare. sometimes it's lonely work. sometimes it's hard work.

sometimes it's frustrating work. but it's necessary work. and it builds on a tradition of this organization that reshaped the nation. for 106 years, the naacp has worked to close the gaps between the words of our founding that we are all created equal endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights -- those words try to match those with the realities that we live each and every day. in your first century, this organization stood up to lynching and jim crow and segregation. helped to shepherd a civil rights act and a voting rights act. i would not be here, and so many others would not be here without the naacp. [applause] in your second century, we've worked together to give more of our children a shot at a quality

education. to help more families rise up out of poverty. to protect future generations from environmental damage. to create fair housing. to help more workers find the purpose of a good job. and together, we've made real progress -- including a my brother's keeper initiative to give more young people a fair shot in life. including the passage of a law that declares health care is not a privilege for the few, but a right for all of us. [applause] we made progress, but our work is not done. by just about every measure, the life chances for black and hispanic youth still lag far

behind those of their white peers. our kids, america's children, so often are isolated, without hope, less likely to graduate from high school, less likely to earn a college degree, less likely to be employed. less likely to have health insurance, less likely to own a home. part of this is a legacy of hundreds of years of slavery and segregation, and structural inequalities that compounded over generations. it did not happen by accident. [applause] partly, it's a result of continuing, if sometimes more subtle, bigotry. whether in who gets called back for a job interview, or who gets suspended from school, or what neighborhood you are able to rent an apartment in.

which, by the way, is why our recent initiative to strengthen the awareness and effectiveness of fair housing laws is so important. [applause] so we can't be satisfied or not satisfied until the opportunity gap is closed for everybody in america. everybody. but today, i want to focus on one aspect of american life that remains particularly skewed by race and by wealth, a source of inequity that has ripple effects on families and on communities and ultimately on our nation -- and that is our criminal justice system. [applause]

now, this is not a new topic. i know sometimes folks discover these things like they just happened. [laughter] there's a long history of inequity in the criminal justice system in america. when i was in the state legislature in illinois, we worked to make sure that we had videotaping of interrogations because there were some problems there. we set up racial profiling laws to prevent the kind of bias in traffic stops that too many people experience. since my first campaign, i've talked about how, in too many cases, our criminal justice system ends up being a pipeline from underfunded, inadequate schools to overcrowded jails. [applause]

what has changed, though, is that, in recent years the eyes of more americans have been opened to this truth. partly because of cameras, partly because of tragedy, partly because the statistics cannot be ignored, we can't close our eyes anymore. and the good news, and this is truly good news, is that good people of all political

persuasions are starting to think we need to do something about this. so, let's look at the statistics. the united states is home to 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. think about that. our incarceration rate is four times higher than china's. we keep more people behind bars than the top 35 european countries combined. and it hasn't always been the case -- this huge explosion in incarceration rates. in 1980, there were 500,000 people behind bars in america -- half a million people in 1980. i was in college in 1980. many of you were not born in 1980 -- that's ok. i remember 1980 -- 500,000.

today there are 2.2 million. it has quadrupled since 1980. our prison population has doubled in the last two decades alone. now, we need to be honest. there are a lot of folks who belong in prison. [applause] if we're going to deal with this problem and the inequities involved then we also have to speak honestly. there are some folks who need to be in jail. they may have had terrible things happen to them in their lives. we hold out the hope for redemption, but they've done some bad things. murderers, predators, rapists, gang leaders, drug kingpins -- we need some of those folks behind bars.

our communities are safer, thanks to brave police officers and hardworking prosecutors who put those violent criminals in jail. [applause] and the studies show that up to a certain point, tougher prosecutors and stiffer sentences for these violent offenders contributed to the decline in violent crime over the last few decades. although the science also indicates that you get a point of diminishing returns. him and but it is important for us to recognize that violence in our communities is serious and that historically, in fact, the african-american community oftentimes was under-policed rather than over-policed. folks

were very interested in containing the african-american community so it couldn't leave segregated areas, but within those areas there wasn't enough police presence. but here's the thing. over the last few decades, we've also locked up more and more non-violent drug offenders than ever before, for longer than ever before. [applause] and that is the real reason our prison population is so high. in far too many cases, the punishment simply does not fit the crime. [applause] if you're a low-level drug dealer, or you violate your parole, you owe some debt to society. you have to be held accountable and make amends.

but you don't owe 20 years. you don't owe a life sentence. [applause] that's disproportionate to the price that should be paid. and by the way, the taxpayers are picking up the tab for that price. [applause] every year, we spend $80 billion to keep folks incarcerated -- $80 billion. now, just to put that in perspective, for $80 billion, we could have universal preschool for every 3-year-old and 4-year-old in america. [applause] that's what $80 billion buys. for $80 billion, we could double the salary of every high school teacher in america. [applause] for $80 billion, we could finance new roads and new bridges and new airports, job training programs, research and development.

[applause] we're about to get in a big budget debate in washington -- what i couldn't do with $80 billion. [laughter] it's a lot of money. for what we spend to keep everyone locked up for one year, we could eliminate tuition at every single one of our public colleges and universities. [applause] as republican senator and presidential candidate rand paul has said -- and to his credit, he's been consistent on this issue --

imprisoning large numbers of nonviolent drug offenders for long periods of time, “costs the taxpayers money, without making them any safer.” roughly one third of the justice department's budget now goes toward incarceration -- one-third. and there are outstanding public servants at our justice department, starting with our outstanding attorney general loretta lynch. [applause] and we've got some great prosecutors here today. and they do outstanding work -- so many of them. but every dollar they have to spend keeping nonviolent drug offenders in prison is a dollar they can't spend going after drug kingpins. or tracking down terrorists, or hiring more police and giving them the resources that would allow them to do a more effective job community policing. and then, of course, there are costs that can't be measured in dollars and cents.

because the statistics on who gets incarcerated show that by a wide margin, it disproportionately impacts communities of color. african-americans and latinos make up 30% of our population. they make up 60% of our inmates. about one in every 35 african american men, one in every 88 latino men is serving time right now. among white men, that number is one in 214. the bottom line is that in too many places, black boys and black men, latino boys and latino men experience being treated differently under the law. [applause]

and i want to be clear -- this is not just anecdote. this is not just barbershop talk. a growing body of research shows that people of color are more likely to be stopped, frisked, questioned, charged, detained. african-americans are more likely to be arrested. they are more likely to be sentenced to more time for the same crime. [applause] and one of the consequences of this is, around one million fathers are behind bars. around one in nine african american kids has a parent in prison.

what is that doing to our communities? what's that doing to those children? our nation is being robbed of men and women who could be workers and taxpayers, could be more actively involved in their children's lives, could be role models, could be community leaders, and right now they're locked up for a non-violent offense. so our criminal justice system isn't as smart as it should be. it's not keeping us as safe as it should be. it is not as fair as it should be. mass incarceration makes our country worse off, and we need to do something about it. [applause] but here's the good news.

>> alright, good news. president barack obama: good news. don't get me preaching now. [laughter] i am feeling more hopeful today because even now, when, let's face it, it seems like republicans and democrats cannot agree on anything -- [laughter] a lot of them agree on this. in fact, today, back in washington, republican senators from utah and texas are joining democratic senators from new jersey and rhode island to talk about how congress can pass meaningful criminal justice reform this year. [applause] that's good news. that is good news. good news. that doesn't happen very often.

and it's not just senators. this is a cause that's bringing people in both houses of congress together. it's created some unlikely bedfellows. you've got van jones and newt gingrich. [laughter] you've got americans for tax reform and the aclu. you've got the naacp and the koch brothers. [applause] no, you've got to give them credit. you've got to call it like you see it. [laughter] there are states from texas and south carolina to california and connecticut who have acted to reduce their prison populations over the last five years and seen their crime rates fall. [applause] that's good news.

my administration has taken steps on our own to reduce our federal prison population. so i signed a bill reducing the 100-1 sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine. [applause] i've commuted the sentences of dozens of people sentenced under old drug laws that we now recognize were unfair, and yesterday i announced that i'm commuting dozens more. [applause] under the leadership of attorney general eric holder, now continued by loretta lynch federal prosecutors got what he ich is refocusing efforts on the worst offenders, pursuing mandatory minimum sentences 20%

less often than they did the year before. the idea is you don't always have to charge the max. to be a good prosecutor, you need to be proportionate. and it turns out that we're solving just as many cases and there are just as many plea bargains, and it is working. it's just that we've eliminated some of the excess. and recently, something extraordinary happened. for the first time in 40 years america's crime rate and incarceration rate both went down at the same time. that happened last year. [applause] so there's some momentum building for reform. there's evidence mounting for why we need reform. now i want to spend the rest of my time just laying out some basic principles. some simple ideas for what reform should look like. because we're just at the beginning of this process and we need to make sure that we stay with it. and i'm going to focus on what happens in three places -- in

the community, in the courtroom, and in the cell block. so i want to begin with the community because i believe crime is like any other epidemic - the best time to stop it is before it even starts. [applause] and i'm going to go ahead and say what i've said a hundred times before or a thousand times before, and what you've heard me say before. if we make investments early in our children, we will reduce the need to incarcerate those kids. [applause] so one study found that for every dollar we invest in pre-k, we save at least twice that down the road in reduced crime. getting a teenager a job for the summer costs a fraction of what it costs to lock him up for 15 years. [applause] investing in our communities makes sense.

it saves taxpayer money if we are consistent about it, and if we recognize that every child deserve opportunity -- not just some, not just our own. [applause] what doesn't make sense is treating entire neighborhoods as little more than danger zones where we just surround them. we ask police to go in there and do the tough job of trying to contain the hopelessness when we are not willing to make the investments to help lift those communities out of hopelessness. that's not just a police problem. that's a societal problem. [applause] places like west philly, or west baltimore, or ferguson, missouri -- they're part of america, too. they're not separate.

[applause] they're part of america like anywhere else. the kids there are american kids, just like your kids and my kids. so we've got to make sure boys and girls in those communities are loved and cherished and supported and nurtured and invested in. [applause] and we have to have the same standards for those children as we have for our own children. if you are a parent, you know that there are times where boys and girls are going to act out in school. and the question is, are we letting principals and parents deal with one set of kids and we call the police on another set of kids. that's not the right thing to do. [applause] we've got to make sure our

juvenile justice system remembers that kids are different. don't just tag them as future criminals. reach out to them as future citizens. [applause] and even as we recognize that police officers do one of the toughest, bravest jobs around -- and we do everything in our power to keep those police officers safe on the job. i've talked about this. we have to restore trust between our police and some of the communities where they serve. [applause] and a good place to start is making sure communities around the country adopt the recommendations from the task force i set up -- that included law enforcement. but also included young people from new york and from ferguson,

and they were able to arrive at a consensus around things like better training, better data collection. to make sure that policing is more effective and more accountable, but is also more unbiased. so these are steps in the community that will lead to fewer folks being arrested in the first place. now, they won't eliminate crime entirely. there's going to be crime. that's why the second place we need to change is in the courtroom. for nonviolent drug crimes, we need to lower long mandatory minimum sentences -- or get rid of them entirely. (applause.) [applause] give judges some discretion around nonviolent crimes so that, potentially, we can steer a young person who has made a

mistake in a better direction. we should pass a sentencing reform bill through congress this year. [applause] we need to ask prosecutors to use their discretion to seek the best punishment, the one that's going to be most effective instead of just the longest punishment. we should invest in alternatives to prison, like drug courts and treatment and probation programs , which ultimately can save taxpayers thousands of dollars per defendant each year. now, even if we're locking up fewer people, even if we are reforming sentencing guidelines, as i've said before, some criminals still deserve to go to jail. and as republican senator john cornyn has reminded us “virtually all of the people incarcerated in our prisons will eventually someday be released.”

and that's why the third place we need to reform is in the cell block. so on thursday, i will be the first sitting president to visit a federal prison. [applause] and i'm going to shine a spotlight on this issue, because while the people in our prisons have made some mistakes -- and sometimes big mistakes. they are also americans, and we have to make sure that as they do their time and pay back their debt to society that we are

increasing the possibility that they can turn their lives around. [applause] that doesn't mean that we will turn everybody's life around. that doesn't mean there aren't some hard cases. but it does mean that we want to be in a position in which if somebody in the midst of imprisonment recognizes the error of their ways, is in the process of reflecting about where they've been and where they should be going, we've got to make sure that they're in a position to make the turn. and that's why we should not tolerate conditions in prison that have no place in any civilized country. [applause]

we should not be tolerating overcrowding in prison. we should not be tolerating gang activity in prison. we should not be tolerating rape in prison. and we shouldn't be making jokes about it in our popular culture. that's no joke. these things are unacceptable. [applause] what's more, i've asked my attorney general to start a review of the overuse of solitary confinement across american prisons. [applause] the social science shows that an environment like that is often more likely to make inmates more alienated, more hostile, potentially more violent. do we really think it makes sense to lock so many people alone in tiny cells for 23 hours a day, sometimes for months or even years at a time?

that is not going to make us safer. that's not going to make us stronger. and if those individuals are ultimately released, how are they ever going to adapt? it's not smart. our prisons should be a place where we can train people for skills that can help them find a job, not train them to become more hardened criminals. [applause] look, i don't want to pretend like this is all easy. but some places are doing better than others. montgomery county, maryland put a job training center inside the prison walls. to give folks a head start in thinking about what might you do

otherwise than committing crime. that's a good idea. here's another good idea -- one with bipartisan support in congress. let's reward prisoners with reduced sentences if they complete programs that make them less likely to commit a repeat offense. [applause] let's invest in innovative new approaches to link former prisoners with employers and help them stay on track. let's follow the growing number

of our states and cities and private companies who have decided to “ban the box” on job applications -- [applause] so that former prisoners who have done their time and are now trying to get straight with society have a decent shot in a job interview. and if folks have served their time, and they've reentered society, they should be able to vote. [applause] communities that give our young people every shot at success. courts that are tough but fair. prisons that recognize eventually the majority will be released and so seek to prepare these returning citizens to grab that second chance. that's where we need to build. but i want to add this. we can't ask our police, or our prosecutors, or our prison guards, or our judges to bear the entire burden of containing and controlling problems that the rest of us are not facing up to and willing to do something about. [applause]

so, yes, we have to stand up to those who are determined to slash investments in our communities at any cost. cutting preschool programs cutting job-training programs, cutting affordable housing programs, cutting community policing programs. that's shortsighted. those investments make this country strong. we've got to invest in opportunity more than ever. an african-american man born roughly 25 years ago has just a one-in-two chance of being employed today. more than one in three african-american children are growing up in poverty. when america's unemployment rate was 9.5% when i first came into

, office, as it was going up, we properly recognized this is a crisis. right now, the unemployment rate among african americans is 9.5%. what should we call that? it is a crisis. and we have to be just as concerned about continuing to lift up job opportunities for these young people. [applause] so today, i've been talking about the criminal justice system, but we have to recognize that it's not something we can view in isolation. any system that allows us to turn a blind eye to hopelessness and despair, that's not a justice system, it is an injustice system. but that is an extension and a reflection of some broader decisions that we're making as a society. and that has to change. that has to change. what the marchers on washington knew, what the marchers in selma knew, what folks like julian bond knew, what the marchers in this room still know.

that justice is not only the absence of oppression, it is the presence of opportunity. justice is giving every child a shot at a great education no matter what zip code they're born into. justice is giving everyone willing to work hard the chance at a good job with good wages, no matter what their name is what their skin color is, where they live. 50 years after the voting rights act, justice is protecting that right for every american. justice is living up to the common creed that says, i am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper. justice is making sure every young person knows they are special and they are important and that their lives matter. not because they heard it in a hashtag, but because of the love they feel every single day --

[applause] not just love from their parents, not just love from their neighborhood, but love from police, love from politicians. [applause] love from somebody who lives on the other side of the country, but says, that young person is still important to me. [applause] that's what justice is. and in the american tradition and in the immigrant tradition of remaking ourselves. in the christian tradition that says none of us is without sin and all of us need redemption, justice and redemption go hand in hand. [applause] right before i came out here, i met with four former prisoners four ex-offenders.

two of them were african american, one of them was latino, one of them was white. all of them had amazing stories. one of them dropped out of school when he was a young kid. now he's making film about his experience in the prison system. one of them served 10 years in prison, then got a job at five guys. which is a tasty burger. [laughter] and they gave him an opportunity, and he rose up and became a general manager there and now is doing anti-violence work here in the community. [applause] one of them, the young latino man, he came out of prison and was given an opportunity to get trained on green jobs that are helping the environment but also gave him a marketable skill.

and he talked about how the way he's staying out of trouble is he just keeps on thinking about his two daughters. and i could relate to that because you don't want to disappoint your daughters. you don't want to disappoint those baby girls. and so he says, i go to work and i come home, and i grab that little baby and get a kiss, and that's keeping me focused. and then one of them, jeff copeland, was arrested six times before his 38th birthday. he was drinking, using drugs racked up dui after dui, sentence after sentence. and he admits that the sentences he was getting for dui weren't reflective of all the trouble he was causing, could have been worse. and jeff spent so much time jogging in place in his cell

that inmates nicknamed him “the running man.” and he was literally going nowhere, running in place. and then, somehow, jeff started examining his life. and he said, “this isn't me.” so he decided to hold himself accountable. he quit drinking. he went to aa. met a recruiter from the re-entry program at the community college of philadelphia, enrolled in classes once he was released. made sure to show up every day. graduated summa cum laude -- [applause] with a 3.95 gpa. and this fall he'll graduate from temple university with a major in criminal justice and a minor in social work. [applause] and he volunteers helping former inmates get their lives back on track. and “it's sort of a cliche,” he

says, “but we can do anything.” and just two years ago, “the running man” ran his first marathon. because he's going somewhere now. [applause] “you never look at crossing the finishing line,” he says of his journey, “you attack it by putting one mile after the other. it takes steps.” it takes steps. that's true for individuals. it's true for our nation. sometimes i get in debates about how to think about progress or the lack of progress when it comes to issues of race and inequality in america. and there are times where people say, “oh, the president, he's too optimistic.” or “he's not talking enough about how bad things are.” oh, let me tell you something, i

see what happens. my heart breaks when i see families who are impacted. i spend time with those families and feel their grief. i see those young men on street corners and eventually in prisons, and i think to myself they could be me. that the main difference between me and them is i had a more forgiving environment so that when i slipped up, when i made a mistake, i had a second chance. and they've got no margin for error. (applause.) [applause]

i know, i know how hard things are for a lot of folks. but i also know that it takes steps. and if we have the courage to take that first step, then we take a second step. and if we have the courage to take the second step then suddenly we've taken 10 steps. the next thing you know, you've taken 100 steps. and that's true not just for us as individuals, but that is true for us as a nation. we are not perfect, but we have the capacity to be more perfect. mile after mile, step after step. and they pile up one after the other and pretty soon that finish line starts getting into sight, and we are not where we were. we're in a better place because we had the courage to move forward. [applause] so we cannot ignore the problems that we have, but we can't stop running the race. [applause]

that's how you win the race. that's how you fix a broken system. that's how you change a country. the naacp understands that. [applause] think about the race that you have run. think about the race ahead. if we keep taking steps toward a more perfect union, and close the gaps between who we are and who we want to be, america will move forward. there's nothing we can't do. thank you. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪

>> house speaker john boehner talk about criminal justice reform during his weekly briefing, saying he would allow the bipartisan bill to move forward in the house. here is a look. >> speaker boehner president obama is visiting a prison today. the bipartisan bill, on criminal justice reform, will you allow that to move forward in your house? speaker boehner: absolutely. there needs to be reform of the justice system.

last year, i put together a working group that had a recommendation. i support those recommendations by and has with mr. scott. i would like to see it on the floor. >> what are the things you think are important in criminal justice reform? where do you differ? mr. boehner: i do not want to get into all the details. i am not the expert on these. we have a lot of people in freight -- prison that do not need to be there. it is expensive to house prisoners. some of these people are in their are there for