tv U.S. Senate CSPAN November 21, 2014 10:00am-2:01pm EST
all lost on the negotiators on the iranian side. i know our team over there will disabuse them of that notion as you in the final phases before november 24. last thing, just a thought, and i'm overtime but hey, i'm the last guy with questions so i can easily do this. something i'd like to respond to. we focus our energy as we often should come as we should on the problematic areas, you know. ..
so i would encourage that and if you have any thought of that type of glove to hear your response. >> i appreciate that you did the spotlight on a number of positive developments where we have been working behind the scenes and giving advice in just those ways we have seen the qs in the relationship you've just pointed to. it started with me and the clinton administration and now we had a successful visit to the united states and in agenda that is working across virtually every issue of importance to us so there again is something i think we could work together in the months ahead.
latin america as well. we have seen countries make the beds of important decisions about their macroeconomic policies that have been to their benefit, improving governance, dealing with security challenges including in colombia and other places so you're exactly right we shouldn't lose sight of the good news especially because if we can make sure that it actually gets deep-rooted not only will that consolidate the good thing where it's happening but as you said it can serve as a model and inspiration with other places. >> one other brief point if you have an additional round one of the things i've been struck by
its american foreign policy we were worried about europe, the soviet union, china even when we have a policy in the americas is than to worry about the munro doctrine. the concern in latin america is they are a source of attention upon a crisis. we work on the numbers and the attention moves away but the reality of the facts on the ground right now is canada is the number one trade partner. you can see foreign-policy going around but if you look at our economic activities probably much more north-south and east-west and if you look at who comes to the country of people living the languages or cultural
traditions are so oriented around the north and south axis. we will have meetings with heads of state of south american countries that will tell us about the deep engagement interested in natural resource deals that we don't see the level of engagement so i would put that on your shelters going into that position. the flow of people was running south if something of saint augustine florida but we don't make that a primary focus of the foreign-policy and take advantage of the opportunities that seem to be low hanging script. >> if i couldn't say a brief word to address it because first i know from my conversations
with the secretary this is something he is personally focused on and we have a very dynamic secretary of state. in chile and el salvador, guatemala, he visited mexico and the vice president has been a human dynamo and constant engagement. we worked to advance free trade agreements with colombia, panama on and established economic dialogues with countries that are emerging in a big way. mexico, brazil, the caribbean
security initiative which is important to bear and of course the response to the crisis as well end and then the other company to children. and then there's another important component, there is a dynamic exchange component. we have 100,000 strong in latin america and 72,000 student from the region studying in the united states today. that's an increase of 8% over the previous year to you and we had 43,000 studying america and that is an increase so we think you're exactly right and we want to work on all these different lines of effort to maximize the relationship and strengthen them and when you look at the countries like chile, through, mexico and others there's an extraordinary progress.
when senator cruise gets accommodated he will be next and then depending upon whether any member shows up we will be closing. take you for holding this hearing and for your long and honorable service to the nation. six years as a staff director on the committee and your very capable and dedicated service in the obama administration to my own home state vice president joe biden. i also want to thank the words who served very well as the deputy secretary and accomplished the foreign service officer and we thank him for his service to the country. it's interesting because i chaired the africa chair the africa subcommittee and because of its strategic importance as
the concern about failed states and i will mention somalia where we had for nearly 20 years complete collapse of centralized control and the regional and global security and the other where there is an ongoing significant humanitarian crisis. tell me how you think we might take it or get ahead of the issue of the states around the world. it's a failed states in the region of the world. >> thank you for your leadership you've identified one of the challenges we face because we see again and again where we face problems one of the thing
is at the root of the problem is a failure of the state and of governance and of the institution. we've seen the incredible help generated by the arab spring but then translating those of the street to the institutions that can guarantee their rights and opportunities to the people is a huge generational challenge because this doesn't happen overnight. so what we have tried to do and you can go across the board we talked about tunisia and we have now the greatest challenge in yemen i think what you pointed to is the essential we have to take and we are taking a comprehensive approach. often there is a military component because there may be a challenge from an insurgency we
have to help these countries develop the means to do the problems but that is not sufficient unless we are able to help them develop the institutions that give a sense that they can advance it isn't going to work. it gives them the means to move forward. it's not going to work. i think what you he alluded to is the need to look at these problems comprehensively to bring all of the different components of the government to bear on these problems and to do it in a coordinated way. after a country has been engaged
with the forces that some people see me this is a time to be a little bit less engaged and i think the answer is that it's not. it's a time to be more engaged but the question is how and how can we be engaged in a sustainable way that can actually help lift up some of the countries that are under challenged i think that for example the large-scale indefinite deployment of american forces is something that would be a challenge to sustain, developing the capacity of our partners to work on these problems is a more sustainable way to do it. similarly as we look at the development agenda we have the goals but now need to be brought forward beyond 2015. the bush administration created an extraordinarily powerful mechanism the millennium
challenge corp. that has done remarkable work and this is something that we have continued. so it is a long way of saying that as we think about our engagement we have to address this question into ways to do it do with our sustainable that it that are sustainable that we ckd bring all of the to bring all of the government to bear and of course i should add the private sector and other actors are critical. this summer something you played a leadership role in the summit we brought to washington as you know an extraordinary gathering of leaders and we worked with them to he unleash more growth in africa and also to deal with security challenges institutional challenges and a key component was bringing the private sector to the table in helping to strengthen those relationships. power africa is a wonderful example of the government and the private sector working together to help people in a
meaningful way way in to help economies develop a foundation that could care even forward and present field states and so forth so there is a broad agenda into this committee has done extraordinary work to date. if i move over to the state department that is something i would welcome. >> as you know last night with the millennium challenges event. i had an opportunity to visit half a dozen states in africa where they made a difference and i think bringing the energy and resources to the partnership are the future to bear making progress is critical. i also just want to make sure that you are keeping in mind and we all keep in mind democracy and civil society there are at least a half-dozen countries leaders are seeking to change the constitution to extend the term to avoid the accountability of the free and fair elections
and that's something we have to balance as well. although i have many questions and i'm confident he would answer them what we ask asked the last question if i could get in your role having served significantly here and now in the executive office and going to the president and the state department how can we improve communication relationships between this committee come come up his body, the spotty in the senate and the white house? >> i think that it's pretty simple indigos and it goes to something that the chairman talked about and something i feel very strongly about and that is giving meaning to the word consultation. i heard the chairman loud and clear and i heard from the ranking member corker. i think we can always do a better job and i'm determined to do a better job if confirmed in
making that words mean what it means just not informed that actually comes holt, work together, have a dialogue to develop the policies together created there will be places we disagree as any executive but it's my conviction having spent six years here, having spent 13 years in the executive that it works better when we are working together and it doesn't work if we are not communicating and communicating in a meaningful way. so i heard the chairman loud and clear and i'm determined to do that if confirmed. >> i agree whether it is the conflict in the isis and the concerns about the vital ally israel and our safety and security all of these we are much more likely to be successful. thank you for your testimony and for making it possible for me to come and question.
>> i appreciate your time. i have follow-up questions i understand you've already spoken about the issue of venezuela and my understanding is just to clarify on the sanctions against government officials responsible for the human rights violation or connection, the administration's position is now willing to cooperate or be helpful in terms of the sanctions legislation. can i ask what the administration considered doing some of those strictly, they do have the authority to take some of those actions and now they already have with regards to the visa is that something that is being contemplated? >> as you know we took the actions we took this summer and heat consulting with you on that in terms of the restrictions we did and we had an opportunity to
discuss we have been focused on trying to see if our partners in latin america could actually get results in terms of the oppositions of the agenda and getting people out of jail and advancing progress and i think to date the effort hasn't borne fruit which is why we think that working with you on what you've been proposing is something we should do so certainly if confirmed and even if not in my current capacity i welcome having that conversation and working with you. >> on the issue of columbia there've been negotiating over a potential peace agreement but of course has been suspended because of the kidnapping of a colombian general one of the issues that arose during my recent trip is that there may come a point where as part of the negotiations people currently in custody in the united states be released early. can we rule that out now to make sure it's understood that isn't something the administration would support doing?
>> we are not a party to the negotiations, so we would have no requirement whatever they negotiated to send anyone back. we strongly support the process and as we go forward if they call on us to play a role because we are not part of the negotiations is nothing we would be required to do, obviously i would commit about anything they may ask for in the future if something actually materializes in the final deal. right now you know as well as i do the very unfortunate kidnapping of the general this week and we are strongly supporting their efforts to carry this work but it's something that if they've asked things of us we will see what should be done. >> my last question as you know the current distinctions that exist have been codified in other previous pieces of
legislation that have passed and have been enacted in the past. absent meeting the requirements of the legislation do you anticipate there will be any unilateral change or any change in the u.s. sanctions were conditions against cuba absent a meeting of conditions of democracy, human rights and so forth? let me say a few things, first i think that we share an understanding and one that you have first-hand of the nature of the regime. if ben and imprisoned prisoner all my life by parents had been able to visit in the 1950s before it became and imprisoned island and we know the detention and harassment i think the question is coming and we had a brief opportunity to discuss
this we all believe that change almost by definition will come into the question is how do we best help the cuban people prepare. and it's in the most effective way to do that in terms of getting that information and resources etc. but to cut to the chase we have to be consistent with the law and anything in the future that might be done would be done in full consultation with the real meaning of the word consultation that i just eluded to with this committee. >> there's been some chatter that happens over the next couple of years at the next term the president may seek to make some changes and perhaps even unilaterally towards the sanctions and policies towards cuba. is that being contemplated ever since the opening?
>> i think you know the president has abused on how to try to move cuba in the direction to help support people moving in that direction and if he has an opportunity that's something he would want to pursue but it depends on cuba and the actions they take and what we have seen as i just eluded to our actions in the wrong. they talk about wanting to improve relations. you know the american citizen who is now in his fifth year of detention. when you say you want to improve its usually problematic. >> the only thing that concerns me is i haven't heard you say point blank that absent the democratic openings we are not going to see actions on the part of this administration to weaken
the current sanctions against cuba. >> at least in my judgment unless cuba is able to demonstrate that speaking meaningful steps to move forward i don't see how you move forward in the relationship creates panic when you say move forward on democratic reforms not just on simple economics. >> let me thank you and say on this last topic which i have a fair amount of interest going ahead to buy is the only country in the hemisphere that violated the un security council resolutions and in sending military equipment to north korea if we were relatively silent about that. any other country would have done it and we would have been driving out to the un a different set of circumstances.
cuba doesn't meet the standards that the summit of the americas leaders set for 27th maintenance the rule of law and strict respect for the democratic system are an essential condition of our presence at this end future summit clearly cuba doesn't meet that standard. cuba has an american citizen held hostage who did nothing but try to help the jewish community communicate with each other and yet it wants to hold him hostage and return for cuban spies who were not denying spies. they were spying against our defense department one of which integrated the defense department. so i could go down a long list in addition to the human rights which sometimes i think we have a legally say yes there are the
detentions. there are arrests in which people are detained for long periods of time simply because that's what which we enjoy in america they seek to exercise. speech, protest. there are individuals like diabetes and white food every week march peacefully to church dressed in white protest peacefully that their sons and husbands are in jail for no legal reason and they are savagely beaten. so we gloss over all this and my administration when it started the speech talked about opening up the hand to those who are willing to take it. the administration has unilaterally opened up the hand
in putting more including more visits, more money flowing to cuba cannot just families of u.s. citizens but anybody can send money to cuba. the regime has received that because they are the control the economy and the command and control economy on the island and at the end of the day the regime hasn't reciprocated until it has become more oppressive. i could go on and on. so, i understand senator rubio's concern because i have heard him as well and talk about the whole question of consultation process notification this is the academy of notification without consultation. and there will be a very significant response is what we have is notification and not consultation at the end of the day. >> i appreciate your answers before the committee. i have one or two i'm not going to delay going to ask you to respond in writing. i'm concerned about turkey and
its presence which is a belligerent move unnecessary and to the detriment of the negotiations where. but i will allow you to respond to that in writing. this record will remain open until the close of business tomorrow and i would urge you if you get questions which undoubtedly you will to answer them as expeditiously as possible so that when we return from the thanksgiving recess there can be a meeting to consider your nomination before the committee. with that, the hearing is adjourned.
we spoke with evident almost those who wonder almost knows who won the booker award for nonfiction this week for his book age of ambition chasing fortune, truth and faith in the new china. he describes the rising conflict between the individual and the chinese government. he spent eight years living in china as a correspondent for the new yorker. tonight we will have an encore airing of that interview.
british predecessor david cameron appears before a parliamentary committee to take questions on britain's relationship with scotland following the independence referendum. on september 18 scotland voted in favor of staying in the united kingdom and now the nations will begin transferring authority of issues such as social security, health, transportation and public financing. this is 90 minutes.
>> we will start with scotland. we made a commitment that in the event scotland wanted to remain in the kingdom shortly after the results there seemed to be suggestions that it would be linked inextricably to some of the organizations. do you accept that they would be entirely separate in scotland was freestanding and shouldn't be tied to anything else? spinet yes it is important and i'm very confident of that which is that there should be further
fiscal devotion to scotland to pass that and spend money and then there's a program for delivering that and so we already have the paper and shortly we will get the reports next week and that will be turned into the clauses in january next year and all the parties have said that would be legislated on so scotland has a guarantee of the further devolution. i think that he's right and at the same time. shouldn't there be a way of making sure that when it affects england.
you get the scottish devolution and the proper answer to the english question. another part is what they will do but i'm very clear that if you give me we get both. >> we started it by saying effectively yes. >> you can see exactly what you get. one isn't dependent on the other. while the commissions recommend this or will there be a process of further consultation discussion? >> we received this report in the commission and they spoke publicly for the work that they are doing. and i don't see any reason why
we will not receive and accept the terms and turn them into articles. everybody has to speak for themselves. but during the referendum campaign they published the report that sets up the out the case for the further fiscal devolution. to meet the timetable and the substance. >> they will be based on. if you're not happy or the enthusiasm is less.
>> i hope that isn't the case because what we are trying to do is reach the consensus between the parties. the good thing about this process is that all of the parties are taking part and he's trying to bring together a consensus that everyone can accept so that's what i anticipate happening. >> if it is among the people on the commission would have been spent? do they get the majority view? >> i hope that doesn't happen and i don't think that is going to happen. i don't really want to speculate. i don't think that it would be helpful. this is a process of bringing the different parties together. who in the government would be responsible for the proposals
and seeing it all the way through? >> i take responsibility for this you have to take different parts together to deliberate in terms of who had the lead responsibilities william hague has been chairing and examining not just the issues around scotland but also the issues around the devolution to the neighborhoods and cities and also he has a big responsibility and the government but of course we've also got the scottish secretary as well but the lead responsibility with making sure that we take this forward. >> is it inevitable -- before we
dive into the details are we trying to do here in the process and to me it's very simple which is we want to make sure that the united kingdom finds a good settlement where there is respect and that we feel happy and content in together in the united kingdom and we haven't reached that yet. it's good that we have a well-established assembly. i don't think that we have reached that point where this is a settlement that people really find you and that matters because i think it's a bit unhealthy anyway if we spend a
lot of time having the discussion that we are having today. >> there are two parts to it. there is the idea of wales having a sort of tax raising powers and tax raising devolution of scotland has already had where legislators thought for the assembly to have a match should they so wanted the future so that is stage one. stage two is to look at whether there are more powers over the
justice and what should be divulged elsewhere and as you know the secretary of state is in the process. >> if i'm the kind mr. after the next election but you will get is a solution to the english votes which i'm sure would come onto and the scottish devolution because the source is turned into the bill and in my view i hope that there will be some further moves on the devolution but that is very much going to depend on the government because i personally believe that it would be good to have a referendum on the tax raising powers and i say yes to a referendum and that is good yes
they have those powers. i would like to see that happen. but requesting that referendum in the timing as for the further devolution of powers in policing the justice. i can see arguments on both sides and i have some concerns about policing because there is a connection. what is going to make the united kingdom a strong cohesive political entity in the system that coheres the missile actually in the end.
>> it is a very good choice and says he will remove the lockstep mechanism as far as the tax so given that i certainly strongly supported the lockstep this might be a little primitive. >> i can see that strong argument for it and i think that given our party had a report that recommended not having a lockstep in scotland i think it makes sense not to have one in wales. i understand the concerns of people about tax rates and the
argument here is do we think that giving the institutions tax raising powers and spending powers, do we think that is going to answer the question on how to settle down the united kingdom i think it will put a good reason that i think at the moment since it doesn't work because we dive off the parties rather than raise the money and you get that extra responsibility of raising and spending and that enhances the respect. >> you said in the past reform is the 30-year-old we have to await the stabilization on the finances. given the finances do you not
think that the time has come now to understand the 300 million pounds per year? >> first i think that i would say it's been stabilized but still a lot more work to do to eradicate the deficit and start paying back money in the good years and that will require further public spending inefficiencies so the work isn't complete. the second point is if we go for this process of developing the tax raising powers, then the importance would reduce because these institutions would have smaller backgrounds and larger tax bases and so the importance of the environment would be less. what i said is i don't think that it is on the horizon.
and i would say to those who complain about the effect i don't know if there is any magic for that of how you would work out the distribution between the relations in the united kingdom. i don't think there is because remember you've got 55 million people in england and 500 scotland and fewer in wales so i think the best thing to do is to press ahead with introduced is the significance of the formula and to build the institutions of wales and scotland in that way. >> i want to draw the evidence that we got where he said to
take the simple ensemble let us say that the rest of the united kingdom decides to increase the income tax debate if the income tax were default it would be completely unaccepted however the increase in spending on the health service would feed through more money going into scotland. in respect if we get the controller for the income tax and we take the formula we than then raise the tax in the uk to pay for the extra health-care they could be gaining an unfair advantage in the settlement they
would benefit from the increase through the formula without having to pay for it to increase the tax. so i think we have got a difficulty in taking forward the commitment that you all made maintaining the formula giving a commitment to the tax raising powers without disadvantaging english taxpayers and i don't know how you are going to square that circle. >> i think i followed all of that. he's right technically because a way that it works is if you decide to spend more money on the consequences and they get extra money and once you do the income tax that is something that would then be raised so your point is you increase the spending and that gives scotland
the haven't had to raise the taxes to pay for it so i understand the point i think the only thing that i would say is you would have to have another formula for working out how much money to give england and scotland and it would be needs based so they would get money for those needs and they have worked in that when you you're addressing the need to spend the money. >> also remember the importance gets less because the share of the total spending in scotland funded will get smaller switch not a perfect answer but again getting into the big picture why
is it so completely did to get this right and one of the reasons is because our united kingdom unlike some systems is a very large and quite a lot smaller so you can't do that sort of logical thing which is the federal state of the equally sized nations so we are living in a world where you have to treat to find a solution that works for the day that they are shaped in the different sizes and i think my argument is working on having the tax devolution we can make our united kingdom work. >> the big picture only be met if the details seem to be felt. >> but i think it is fair to say that.
>> if they decide on the services and scotland it was added to the expenditure and if you wish to stay in the expenditure they may have to take a further cuts in public spending while the scottish counterparts have the freedom to raise money and protect scottish citizens. how are you going to cope with that. >> you have to believe that the scottish parliament wants to spend more and raise more money into the consequence of that would be too put out the total spending across the uk. as a result of that we have to cut because no government would
do that for the consequence of scotland freezing more taxes and spending more money is to add it to the public spending in the total united kingdom. there would be more of a problem if this scottish parliament was able to spend lots more money because at the end of the day you would then be changing the physical position of the united kingdom and possibly putting pressure on interest rates but what we have decided is yes scotland should have more borrowing power but there are limits to those powers and the borrowing should be for the capital spending. so if they decide to spend more and attacks more to have the consequence for the united kingdom but it's not costing my constituents in english taxpayers any money or any problems and it's not adding more borrowing in an irresponsible way so i don't think that is. >> on the current settlement on
the forthcoming settlement they pay for both capital and it is a change. it brought the total public expenditure and it doesn't matter to the government anymore but it's not going to add it to borrowing. >> it is a very important discussion they are not going to -- they can only add to borrowing as much as they exercise the cover to borrow some money but it is a consequence if scotland wants to tax more and spend more that is it's part of the new settlement. and going back to the scale of things the scale of the official public spending is paid for through excess.
>> they made a limit on how much they can race through the income tax. >> that would depend on the spending and look at how this is going to work but again there will be limits in the political actuality if they decide to spend huge amounts of money and raise huge amounts more taxes that would be damaging to their economy and we would start to get people thinking business and thinking about relocation and all the rest. but to say to the scottish parliament i think that we should commend you have to be able to raise some of the money that you spend and that won't affect overall matters. conducted a big picture why are we doing this it is to find a settlement of respect and understanding that makes the united kingdom even stronger in the future than it has been. >> in northern ireland who have
a lower corporate tax rates and in that context looking at scotland as having a lower corporation tax rate and my own personal view on that -- [inaudible] >> what you said so far is you are not going to tear the environment and if we did and we would didn't we would have another need of enforcement and you used the word need. don't you think there is merit everyone has agreed that it is overgenerous. there isn't a single analogy that is concluded otherwise. don't you think there is at
least the need for a grand commission to look into the question according to the needs. >> it's something that does get examined by experts and commissions. i'm just saying i made a commitment and i'm sticking to that commitment and i think most important is to deliver in and of itself it is important and it decreases the relevance but i'm sure people will argue about it. >> i would like to ask one question and this is a proposal.
one other issue we are picking up you would agree i presume that a more fiscal evolution there is therefore the likelihood in the taxes spent and whatever you do in which case isn't there a case also for increasing the scope of margaret alluded to? >> it's almost as if nothing has happened and it's been the
biggest act in 300 years but it is important for people to know that it is being dissolved into the dilemmas are being increased to 2.2 billion. >> the short answer is yes. >> for the purpose of the scottish borrowing, which may result in the increase of the scottish borrowing, would you agree that in practice the uk government will end up as a lender of last resort? >> effectively in the unitary system of devolution and limits on borrowing in the end of the
sovereign entity is the uk government. >> so we we would've remained a would remain the lender of last resort. >> we are not creating a system in which the parliament can spend and borrow that would be in my view dangerous idea what borrowing power to give that sensibility to make the system makes sense. >> and it is accepting to the extent they view that increase leading to the lender of last resort facility into the risk is not negative and there would be an increase in the uk borrowing as a whole other consequence of any increase in the scottish borrowing.
>> on the issue of the corporation tax in northern ireland who did indicate a number of months ago that you would look at this after the scottish referendum. i know we touched on some great briefly during the questions yesterday and they wonder if i wonder if you could perhaps get some indications to what you're considering giving in this respect. >> what i said is in the economic pact that we came to the evolve in the powers were to seek greater economic resurgence we said that we would set out a path on this which is coming up in a couple of weeks time. it is worth asking why is this
an issue in the case the parties makes which i think is strong is that there is a difference on the two grounds. one is with the republic of ireland different way of raising tax and that makes it unique in the united kingdom to corporation tax and the second thing is because of the troubles and the difficulties over many years is the public sector is absolutely huge and we need to find ways to generate the private sector and what's interesting is you get this as you do from -- it's absolutely right for the government to consider this. obviously there are all sorts of considerations taken but i do think the argument is one that we should properly engage with.
>> there are a number of reasons to do that and creating jobs is one of the issues you've touched on in the more general points you've made and i'm not quite sure any assurance that whether it's going to happen and when it's going to happen. >> said there is a process and i think it's important that we stick to that particular approach but sometimes it just sounds like you have this tax power. the evolving a tax power has very serious consequences for the authority because of course you've got to work out how much you take away as you give this power and for the future consequences are so there's a lot of difficult work. ..
in northern ireland force local reasons we don't have that situation. the system was setup to bring about piece, not efficient decision-making. i hope getting agreement on very many issues in northern ireland assembly i hope is not going to be the thing that prevents any devolution of corporation tax because the assembly is not set up to make decisions efficiently but it set up to bring people together. it's very different from westminster. >> laurence, you belong record of working with and supporting the default institutions of northern ireland. i know how much you care about this. as prime minister i want northern ireland to be a successful, prosper -- roscoe bartlett united kingdom. at the moment they're been real issues in northern ireland as you know with sorting out budgets. it's difficult to argue you should have more responsibility in terms of tax raising powers if you're not evidently sorting out the current budgets for
northern ireland and making sure the government is delivering for people in northern ireland. we should be discussing with them how best to do that. and so i think there is a link between these things. >> thank you very much. >> we move on now from discussing scotland, wales and northern ireland to include. i think there is general agreement that devolution should happen in england, but we don't want to create another level of political organizations created so devolution is going to happen to local authorities or combinations of local authorities, the recent deal with manchester authorities. but so far the manchester deal, i'd assume the sheffield and lease deals that are going to follow shortly has all been about devolving spending powers. for scotland we're talking about defaulting spending and taxation. why are we going to rule out evolving fiscal powers in england as well?
>> i don't want to get to party political but i would say you have missed out a piece. they should be devolution to scotland and wales and then you do need equivalent devolution in terms of english votes for english lost issue. i don't think we can have a situation in which we forever ignore this question. >> we are going to turn to that. >> good. i hope that we are. in terms of should we give lots of new tax was imposed to local authorities -- >> and or combinations of authorities. >> in the interest of candor i've tried to give straight answers so far. my answer to that would be no. i think we have enough taxes in a country. i don't want to see reams of more taxes but i'm proud to work this comment has done to devolve real spending power and real powers to local authorities through the city deals. the devolution of some decision-making and spending to local partnerships are through
the local growth of deals is a good move. i'm delighted we're going to see a new greater manchester metro mayor, as it were. this is great news but don't see the need for a lot of extra powers -- taxpayers. i'm a bit skeptical about that. >> the reality is in england is that less than 5%, around 2%, of total taxation is controlled by local councils. can we have real devolution powers to local communities that lets those communities have some say over the taxation that is raised, the rate of in the amount? can the people of england be treated like the people of scotland? >> if you take away the system works now, what have you as a government is to make sure that there is a better connection between decisions made locally and finance. for instance, things like the new homes bonus, if you build
homes and you should get the money that goes with those homes to help provide the infrastructure. if you attract business to your area to keep a greater share of the business rates. and councils are still responsible for setting the level of their council tax. so i don't accept that there's no connection between the decision made locally of the money that local councils get. >> just declared, we, we have moved from a situation years ago when a very large proportion of councils expenditure was met from the revenue they raised to the situation mr. betts has described. >> yes, but what i'm saying is that over the last four nephews we have moved to a situation which the consequences of local councils decisions and the money that flows to the link than they have been in the past. >> do you accept that actually our major cities in this country are in a far more constrained position than any other counterparts in europe, which have much more power determined
out local level the taxes they raised and how they are spent? isn't that the real freedom we should be looking for? >> i think we should be looking for is what we are doing which is city deals. which would welcome up and down the country by labour leaders of local authorities, liberal leaders of local authorities. conservative leaders. everyone says real money and willpower to cities are thoroughly welcome. >> apart from power to raise taxes. that was welcomed by the mayor of london, the leaders of the london boroughs, cross party, and although leaders of the core cities who all said that to enable them to the powers to develop growth in their areas, to enable or see sigourney future in the way we want them to, they need the same taxation powers their counterparts in europe have. this cross party agreement in our report seems the government is the odd one out here,
resisting. >> i think you're being a bit churlish. i think this government have done more than of the predecessor to go through whitehall. if you listen to the simulators birmingham, manchester liverpool, they will say that this government is really engage with them at the time austerity difficult budget how factual is transferred powers and money to the city deals to go ahead. look, if you uphold different plan for how you want to cities to walk up council tax bills and all the rest of it fine. put it on the table. i'm telling you what this could have done which i think is good. >> no one is saying we don't welcome the transfer spending powers. that's only half the story. the leaders of our major cities have concurred with the. the communities in england, the people of england, the voters in
the cities of england can't be trust with their own taxation. >> the only party leader who is prepared to say to the people of england you should have some of the rights in terms of rights over legislation that are being given to scotland and wales. if i might say your parties are happy to have discussions with other parties about devolution in scotland. you are very happy to have discussion with other parties but devolution and wales and in northern ireland. somehow when it comes to england the labour party seems completely unwilling to have any discussion about english votes for english laws. i think what's important is -- >> order. order. 's. what's important is that -- >> order. i think those remarks belong in a different venue. >> they don't actually. >> they are not an answer to the question. >> they are an answer to the question. what clive is saying is why don't you get to the seed of england which are given to the people of scotland and wales?
the people who should b be gettg that are the people of england. that's the comparison. i don't accept the argument he's putting. >> all i would say is a we talk about agreement and cross party, the select committee report was cross party. it is the mayor of london as well as the labour leaders on the major cities who are all saying that real devolution has to involve fiscal devolution as well as devolution of spending powers. the idea somehow devolving powers to english mps at westminster is in the devolution as far as the major cities of england -- >> that's not the point i'm making present when making is that you want equipment for england as for scotland and wales. we all could get cross party agreement. i find it rather mysterious why the labour party won't engage in this debate. >> in 2016, scotland will retain
10 pins of income tax. that may change to the smith process. it's not a new tax that every allegation of existing funding for it will be a reduction in the blockade for scotland so it's a balance. all parties past attacks in the house. the treasury seemed quite happy with it. if the hague process and dolores smith process indicate that this could be possible as part of a broader solution on devolution on england, would you accept income tax assignment as part of the answer on english evolution? >> it's very good question. i think that is quite difficult. i'm sure we will come onto the whole english votes for english laws issue. i think the wrong answer would be an english parliament and in english executive so that we effectively had a sort of fully
federal system but the last thing any for constituents want is another parliament for the piece and all the rest of the. i think want to try to make the westminster parliament work better so we can address the english question. i don't think assignment is the right answer. >> for england. >> for england. i think the right answer is to address the issue of legislative powers, which i'm sure we will come onto. i think we need to address the issue of how we vote on financial issues where, for instance, the local government block grant, once it's decided for england, then it should probably be english mps who played a leading role on that. then have a question of how you handle budgets which i think is very difficult. i would put it like this. if you give the power to the scottish parliament to change income tax rates, i think you need to have a way in the westminster parliament we're english mps are able to avoid
tax rates being set by members of parliament whose constituent parts of our devoted for scottish tax rates, if i can put it that way. >> do you need a way of enabling people represent england or parts of england to decide how much tax they want to raise in order to spend the money they think needs to be spent? >> look, i think it's a very good question. i think assignment any system where you're not going to go to english parliament, is quite difficult to deliver. i think this question of english votes for english laws come english and welsh votes for english laws i think is soluble. i think there's been lots of work that's been done over recent years. >> we will come to that. >> i think these are soluble but to answer your question i don't think assignment for april is the right answer. >> it can be done through the
normal existing mechanisms of the department of commerce -- community a local government. all you would be doing would be reducing the block grant to local government and increasing, or allow them to see transparently -- >> ic. star trek i think i got the wrong end of the stick about what you're saying -- >> that an element of all our income tax act because current account to local government. >> i thought you were saying should you have an assignment for england of income tax in the same way we give an assignment of income tax to scotland. why not give an assignment to local authorities of what eventually get an income tax? is that what you're saying? >> but properly equalized through the dcl g. without any change in the numbers are all you would be doing such would be changing the numbers for the localocal authorities, but it'sy the same amount of money that people would see that this was
actually a income tax come readily scotland in 2016 there will be no change unless smith changes it but for scottish people see an element of their income tax is retained in that country. english local government as a whole would see an element of income tax is retained through the dclg, not done by the local authority. >> i'm not quite sure i see the point of that. >> clarity and transparency. >> if you can't change it what are we devolving? there are some complicated issues. the point about what we're doing in scotland is saying not all here is an assignment of income tax revenue, we are saying and here is the power to raise or lower that depend on the decision want to make in scotland. i don't quite see the point of a slight revenue and less you gave the power to -- you can argue can be dangerous because if you sent income tax revenue to
birmingham city council, if economy as a badger, income tax and goes down in birmingham's revenue would be reduced. you get into all sorts of other problems. >> i am suggesting is assignment. you currently assigned block grant and given to local government. why don't you do it directly so the electorate can see that they pay an element of that to fund local government in england? that's transparency. >> we've done this thing a transcript of sending every taxpayer a chart of where the money goes and that shows how much goes to local government, how much goes well for and what have you. i think i fit in of which were saying but this is a two-way exchange of ideas so i will take that away. >> you just happened to imagine welfare, and there have been a number of suggestions about aspects of welfare which would leave themselves being default to scotland to which areas the
poverty think code or indeed should be devolved? >> is difficult and to because we're in the middle of the smith commission process i don't want to say thanks that make my team on smith to make their lives more difficult or indeed your team on smith. i think the basic principle is right. and again it comes back to how we try to settle the united kingdom into a settlement where we feel it's working for every part of the country. i think you want to go to which of those parts of welfare on a uk wide and about the solidarity of being part of unit unit can . i would identify the pension system. for everyone in our united kingdom you know you have the right to basic state pension when you retire and that a whole of united kingdom hackers behind you. that is something i would want is a default. in the referendum campaign and debate that taliban of solidarity on the uk wide
pension came through very strongly. i can't get particularly religious about other aspects of welfare. i think the arguments about things like housing benefit and what have you, there's a strong case to say you can give all those and a greater local decision-making. >> if you devolve housing benefits, then that would mean there would be a critic and scholar would take a different form from that in the rest of uk. are you quite relaxed about that? >> this is where we have to let smith do the work. clearly given the universal credicredit is taking with it sy different benefits, that's the whole point of it, i think you can't rule out anything. you can't say anything involvedg universal credit cannot be subject to devolution. if you are saying my universal grid were different in to the rest of united kingdom and that would be a consequence to that.
i don't want to go any further or i will put stones in the bond and create problems. >> you mentioned pensions. is there anything else but welfare you would say is sacrosanct and should be a ucubed -- a uk wide responsibility? >> to me pensions is the most fundamental. i think you can make arguments about others both ways. >> you would be quite relaxed if you're welfare reform agenda was slightly derailed and it's only aspects get devolved? >> i hope not because i think that the welfare reform is necessary. i think it's been successful. the number of people are not about benefits has radically reduced in scotland and in the rest of united kingdom. that country is getting back to work. unemployment numbers are down in scotland and the rest of united kingdom. the welfare bill, it's important that we get that under proper control.
working age welfare is still a very large bill and there are still ways we can better allow people to keep more of their own money to spend as they choose, rather than taking office in and giving it back to them interest welfare payments but we have to let smith do his work. >> that's in arguing for keeping everything in westminster. >> i've tried and to question by saying to me, the pension is absolute cornerstone. what does it mean to be british? as well as the shirt institutions, a shared history, the place in the world, the things we did together. there's a solitary aspect to the union which i think is terribly important. if scotland has a badger, the whole of united kingdom is behind scotland. if england has a bad -- a solitary i think particularly extracts itself to the argument about pensions. >> identifiable spending per head on health is 203 pounds
higher in scotland than in england. you set out in an earlier answer that as a result of bor barnett consequentialist, that gap could get wider. yet you've told us that reforming barnett isn't on your horizon. could you set out how to puzzle the right that someone is living with heart disease, dementia, arthritis or cancer on one side of the border, there should be so much less of a pot to spend on health care than it would be if the sabres living on the other side of the border? >> i don't think there is so much less of a pot. as i said earlier, if we didn't have the barnett formula we have to come up with some other format that would be stupid but according to need. we would sit around and have a debate about that. what we have with barnett is a system where if we spend more in england, it has a consequence for scotland and that leads to the overall level of health spending money that is available
in scotland. the scottish government has to complete power to spend less than that amount of money, more than that of money, were exactly the same. it has that choice. i sort of repeat myself but as you increase the amount of tax revenue that scotland raises, so you increased -- decrease the skill of a block grant, so you decrease the relevance of the barnett formula. >> it comes as an accident of geography with your living five miles south of the border or north of the border. it doesn't history but that funding according to need, deprivation or were rowdy. all the things that are important for health have nothing to do with the. it's purely an accident of geography, and that seems so unfair. >> that's a good point. what barnett determines how much block grant goes to scotland how much stays in england. then it's up to the scottish government to decide not only how much to spend overall on
health but also how toshiba health spending as per need was in scotland. that's a decision they rightly made. that's the default decision as his public health. so of course there's a difference between england and scotland because you have a form of between the two nations as it were. up with any two nations we have devolved authorities, department of health and public health in england how to decide the money and scotland has the equivalent authorities to decide how to spend its money. >> i agree but isn't the issue of barnett the size of the cake is so different. that's something you can't get around it. that is purely an accident of geography. >> the distribution of money between england and scotland, and england, scotland and wales is determined by the barnett formula.
if you didn't have the formula would have done something else. it would still be an action of geography if your living just one side of the border or just the other side as to which pot your money was coming from. you have the national distributions and then you have the distributions within each nation which should be done by the relevant authorities. >> i keep coming back to the package of a larger cake per head of population in the first place and that's ahead of population. it's very difficult to make adjustments for that which seems there across borders. i think -- >> know, virtually important because -- >> you've already answered this question. >> i want one more go, because it so important. if scotland and england was at the same size and scale and there was a radically different distribution, that would have won more power, i would say english colleagues who say, the barnett formula is so unfair, it's too much extra money. if you took all the extra money
that scotland gets from the barnett formula and distributed it among the 55 million people in england, it would not be a pot of gold. look, if you believe in united kingdom as passionately as i do, you have to find arrangements that seems there between the countries. we shouldn't kid our constituents that they're some pot of gold call the barnett formula and that if we only get rid of the scots having all that money we could distribute it in england and we would have all that more money. that's not true. don't overestimate the size of this thing. and also as i've said recognize that it will shrink in its significance as we devolved fiscal powers. >> i take your point of the washington significance. this came up during the referendum campaign. could you set out to what extent uk government are actually able to influence health policy and scotland? >> this is really important. it's a pity there isn't someone from the s&p here because we could have really good fight
about that as we did earlier. .com is very, very clear. this penny, the block grants is dependent on the barnett formula. once that money has gone to scotland it is actually up to the scottish government, it is up to the scottish countryside whether to spend all that money can less than that money or more than that money. it is their decision how to spend it, which hospitals get the money, which doctors, what public health programs. the idea that the continuation of united kingdom could damage the scottish health service is nonsense. i think he s. in p. new because they thought -- i think ultimately the scottish people saw through that. it is up to scotland. >> you said a lot about health and the direction that you want
to have health service go into what you say this not apply to scotland, wales or northern ireland. and yet it's often central to election campaigning? >> there's a problem we all got, we just need to better explain to people which powers are operated where and by whom. i think that because it is a national health service people think some of all believers are pulled in westminster, whether health service in scotland but that's not the case. part of the reason dedicate them reverse, trying to get this settlement more clear so that people in scotland know they pay the taxes, whether taxes go, was responsible for spend the money. at the end of the day there is no harm. we have a lively debate about health service in wales and england. we shouldn't shy away from comparing our systems and how we are doing, how much money we're spending, the decisions we take, transparency we have, the
performance of the health service in england versus wales or in wales versus scotland. and in education. our politics should be robust enough we can have a debate about the performanc performs ac service in different parts of the united kingdom. >> for those who live in border areas presumably you would expect the management of its services to make as is it possible for people to still cross borders. >> yes. that's right. i think perhaps probably even more of an issue in wales that it is in scotland because of the nature of the border. and all the things we do we need to make sure we reflected that because a lot of welsh mps will have an interest in the english health service because their constituents use it. that applies across the board. >> i'm all for comparing our systems. the uk system is the most centralized system i've come across in how you raise attacks.
clive said even if you look at council tax frozen. everything is controlled. one of the arguments if you want a sustainable and fairest settlement that everybody can buy into overtime, is this devolution of tax raising powers. as the london mp around the table, i look at, for example, crossrail. that was an issue when i first got involved in politics over 40 years ago. we needed to build crossrail one. everybody now recognizes you need crossrail 2. it cannot be another four years until that is incremented. yet the ability to raise the money in london today for the infrastructure simply is not there. i don't know how you think we can sustain a fair, transport
system. it's not solely -- solely about the vote on laws. it's about who decides the votes on taxes, where the arrays and pakistan. i think you've got to grasp this and think about devolution of tax raising powers around property taxation. a lot of work being done around that so that decisions can be taken in big city regions such as london without having to wait for agreement across government and without having this massively centralized system that we currently experience in the uk. >> i think you should take it away and think about it. >> no, let me give an answer. i'm very proud of the fact that as prime minister i gave the greenlight to crossrail and its on-time, on budget, a fantastic piece of infrastructure for our nation. >> it took 40 years. >> yes, i agree with that. but the point is, remember that cross with is the biggest construction project anywhere in europe today.
the idea that any system london would be wholly able to invest in that literally on its own without the rest of uk. no one would say that what you need is a sympathetic government understands the long-term needs of infrastructure and london authorities had to have ability and financial muscle. i would argue that is not what we have with the mayor blunt in who has the ability to help bring together that money, and that's why it's gone ahead. of course there are arguments for further powers in london, as in other cities but i think, london is doing extremely well. a model o of a successful, hard-working, effective mayor and a government that understands the significance of our capital city not just for itself but for the whole country is delivering. london is going. its economy is doing well. the infrastructure like crossville is superb, and we're about to extend the northern line. it's working. >> i don't wantprive you
of the opportunity to answer mr. walker's question. >> prime minister, how to think things are playing out at the moment has forced the discussions are going? expectation was very high post within the. we have to remind ourselves that the snp were on the losing side. we are at the tail end of the parliament. these are really big issues. this is the future of united kingdom that we are talking about. i hope you don't feel any need to rush things. want to get provide a settlement not something that takes the boxes in advance of a general election but proves to be unsustainable -- unsustainable. >> there's no need to rush but we have a timetable. it's setting of the steps for scotland with draft clauses in kenya. legislation is always going to be for the next government that is good at all the parties have committed to taking it forward. i don't feel uncomfortable with it at all. for our part, his work is exit i
think the center around about what the devolution should look like. i feel comfortable with it. as with th english question, agn no need to rush, but a lot of work has been done over a lot of time over how to answer the question and come up with an answer that works. andrew tyrie and ken clarke did some very good work in opposition. we had in the cave report since then. lord norton did a very good report so there's many out there of options to make the system fairer. i don't think -- we got to make decisions about what is the right combination but i think it can be done. >> you said you don't want to greek and english legislature. you don't want another tier of government. there's ideas after about how you could about english members apartments to make up their
minds on english laws. one of the suggestions made i think by our party a year ago was the idea of a fourth reading of a bill, which would mean that they would finally get voted on by english members of parliament to make sure that they were happy with the content of the legislation before the house. how would you feel about that? >> the way i describe this, i will not undertake too much time over this, but the lord norton a proposal was perhaps the purest and simplest which you should designate a bill applies only to england or to england and wales and in every stitch of the bill is carried out in this parliament by english and most mps. that's the purest form. mckay is probably the gentlest form that mckay introduced principles that you just enunciated, matters that affect england or england and wells shouldn't be done without consent of english or english and welsh mps. so you have this concept of a legislative consent motion. so that's mckay.
the middle ground, users we can correct me if i ever wrong, is the tiny record proposals, which is we have a second reading of a bill, he of the committee stage and report stage where the mps s affected discussed today and in it but then you give all of house of commons a sort of the green and everyone votes. negotiation between in which mps. i think it's got a lot of attractions. my view is there are three good models. we might want to take a look at taking comments from each of them but there is a way of comprehensively answering this question while maintaining the integrity of our parliament, the integrity of our system that i think can build proper support. >> are you satisfied that all parts are playing a constructive part in these discussions? i know you're fully committed to finding a way forward but are
you happy that other party leaders are engaging as solely in this process as your? >> as i said earlier to mr. betts we all got a bit heated, no, i'm not really satisfied with that. i would understand if i thought this question did not have answer but i think it does. there is a cabinet committee that is conservative and liberal democrat members and it's working well into the good stuff. we've invited them to take part but they didn't want to take part. i hope they will still engaged in this debate. i think decision time is coming pretty soon. if we're going to have something available on a summertime scale to scottish devolution, they needed to set out proposals just as we're going to have draft clauses for scotland. you will be proposals for how we answer this before the election in the early part of next year. every party will put in its manifesto what is going to do.
i will have a clear plan for how to address this issue. >> you've described the mckay proposals as requiring english consent to legislation but that's not correct, isn't? the mckay commission did not propose that spent the proposal provides for mps from england and wales to voice to consent to the final bill after report but before the third reading. it's not quite as we're discussing. >> is so easy to provide a voice which may then be overruled by the uk parliament, just to be clear. >> that's right. you can correct me. i think your proposals that you and -- >> i just want to clarify. >> i want to make sure i understand your proposals. >> let's go back to my proposal in a moment if you want to just clarify what mckay says. >> case is england or england and wells mp would voice their consent to the final bill after the report but before the third
reading. a motion would be put after report to agree with with that debate which could be voted on by england and wales and easily. that's the way mccain would work. >> so it's a voice. he provides a voice for the english which can then be overruled on third reading. >> any of us can go back and find the answer to the question in the documents. >> what i was trying to say is that norton is the most full throated. tyrie-clarke is in the middle and mckay is probably the least strong but introduced some important principles. i'm sure that we can come to a combination. >> it's the principle i want to get onto, prime minister. i want to stop the principles that should guide where are
which he described as a spectrum whether or not it is between all these measures, where you would want to end up. do you agree that the phrase, english votes for english laws will be taken by english voters, and probably scottish voters, welsh voters from everyone else, to be that the english ultimately can veto, can prevent the imposition of a piece of legislation? >> basically has. hold on, i want to get this right. where there's a separate and distinct effect in england, the consent of english mps should be required. i think that is to answer question that is yes, you've got to be able to put that principle into practice. >> it might be helpful, much
quicker, if we just photocopied the very good guide that you could have in front of your. >> if you could read my handwriting. you would be pushed to understand my scribbles. >> in which case what does that, what is required to deliver the consent? that is the question. do you agree that whether or not we use what is called legislative consent motions or whether we just give a simple power to the english at report stage, animated english and welsh for certain bills, the decision about that in the 43 proposal was made a moment ago has to be taken at least on our after report? >> i think that there is very strong argument for that.
i do think that that is the effect that you want to achieve. again, trying to stand back from the details for a second -- >> when you say you, is that you are many? is that the effective that you want? >> that i believe we should achieve. >> excellent. >> i hope that we are on the same side. >> my select committee is very involved in all these issues. we can see lots of ugly one of income tax assignment. i think many of us and perhaps millions of people out there thought on the back of that brilliant democratic adventure in scotland that it would be a supreme court and an opportunity for serious devolution throughout the union. including things like attacking the sclerotic and, frankly, hated over centralization that this is hot refer to, giving freedom to english localities by evolving to english councils --
devolving, bringing in elected element from the nation's formation of the union. probably also may be clarifying or even, dare i say, codifying relationships within the union so that this could last for 100 years of? do you think we have missed or perhaps you and the other party leaders have missed a turn this opportunity to bottle-fed enthusiasm and actually go forward with a serious program of devolution throughout the human? >> no, i don't think so. i think we have to take this in stages. we have a very important legislation for the people of scotland that must be delivered, and that will happen. we have a process of welsh devolution which we shouldn't underestimate. in this parliament we've gone from a welsh consultative estimate a lawmaking body having a referendum. we are not legislating for the option of a tax raising assembly
in wales. we have all the things we've done already in terms of local authorities but we need to sort out the english votes issue together with scotland and wales. i think there is a process. i talk about a process of civic engagement to look at how we empower our great cities and approve governance across the uk. i think there's an opportunity to look at some of the questions that you raise, but it don't think we are missing -- i think we have to take it in stages. there's this england, scotland, wales issue that we need to sort out first and then there are other issues. >> you seem very chilled and relaxed. we, nine weeks ago we were within 400 thousands of union dissolving. 23 million people did not participate at the last general election. and extreme party of the right has, from virtually nowhere and is on about 25% in opinion polling.
isn't devolution part of the answer to some of those questions? engaging people, letting people own their own democracy locally, clarifying some of the roles so that people understand where we are. don't you see that devolution presents the opportunity? will history judge quite harshly if you miss this opportunity? >> i will make a couple of points but for so i was anything but relaxed about the referent in scotland. i care passionately about united can do. i could not have been more clear about my own views on how much i cared about this. i could've taken the view of standing back and saying, it's nothing to do with me. i'm not going to get involved. i went up and said they would break my heart if scotland left the united kingdom. i felt increase strong about and i want t to do i was not relax r a moment about that. i think was right thing to do. i don't regret holding a referendum. scotland voted for scottish national party government.
if you have a system of respect, you have to respect that. >> but you almost breathing a sigh of relief rather than capitalizing on that momentum. >> i don't accept that. if we were breathing a sigh of relief why would we be preparing for further scottish devolution. why would be legislating for wales to tax raising powers? why would we be considering some of the issues that you raise? i do think that giving people more power and influence locally can make a difference to civic engagement and voting, but i think the real argument comes out of scotland is when there is an encoded important decision people turned out to vote. we have to explain in her own ways how important the next election is and what a difference voting makes. i argue that this government has been a government of extraordinary devolution. biggest act of fiscal devolution in 300 years to scotland,
referendum on wheels. huge amount of devolution tour cities and also more powers to, for wales and scotland, quite apart from the other devolution. people can drop plans for a. devolution involved in the lead people to set of free schools and academies. devolution into people in my view as important to devolution to assess the politicians. >> final point from mr. allen. >> i don't didn't hear from any of the achievements and congratulate achievements petitions delivered a mobile or we can ask for take this further in a way that probably many of us never thought was possible. there are threats now such as highly significant toward democracy. do you feel that a constitutional convention, starting to me before the general election or indeed looking at codification might be one of the ways in which we can
capitalize on the opportunity and oppose some of the very serious risks that i listed? >> first on codification compact ever been a great -- look, i think their arguments written constitutions and all the rest of the. i don't think that will light the blue touch paper of public participation in politics. in terms of conventions, what i said is we get a wider civic engagement on a pretty governments and have to look at different ideas and models. i hope we will not let parliament out of this. when we talk about conventions we forget we have an organization with the country is divided into 650 ports and we all stand, have elections, people choose representatives. i hope we will not write out parliaments role in discussing how we improve governance. >> you would like my paper for my selected on how you can run a
constitutional convention and the old civic society. >> i can hardly wait. my christmas reading is backing up. >> transport is it key part of existing devolution and devolution being offered. it's well-established and scotland, wales and northern ireland and referring to what you said, it might be extended there. london has a transport for london which is much admired. when we look at what is being offered now within england, it's very, very piecemeal and unclear. transport for the north, radial north and the combined authorities are all being offered something different. is the also devolution with transport in england? >> yes, there is. we are doing it. you don't have to do everything exactly the same but in the country but what we are proposing in terms of -- i think it's significant if you have a
new body like transport for london, transport for the north. that's a big change. you have the concept of the northern powerhouse and high-speed rail across to link our big cities. you have changes in greater manchester where you'll be moving to a metro mayor with significant powers and funds under the command to really drive progress in that vital city. this goes back to clive betts argument, but a lot of devolution and decentralization taking place including powers of money and transport is a key to this. >> but none of the danger spoken about are clear in what they actually mean in terms of powers. let's take rail north. that started off as a grouping of local authorities across the north having developed responsibly to work out the best rail service. it is now described as a partnership with the department for transport will take final
decision. it's not really devolution at all. everything seems very unclear about just what powers are being offered. are we satisfied with that situation? >> i don't recognize -- if you are saying why don't you scrap all the existing organizations and bodies and come up with a complete shiny new set that makes perfect logical sense, i don't think that's right way to run things. i would rather build a which have and to default and give greater powers to transport for the north is exactly in line with that, as is what we're doing with the manchester metro mayor and the city deals we are doing right across the country. when i talk to the leaders of manchester, liverpool or birmingham, none of whom are in my party, they all welcome the city deals, the greater powers to have a chance for, the greater inability of to put forward the transport projects they want integrated funding they're getting. i don't recognize the picture. it may not perfectly neat and
symmetrical in every sense but our cities are very different. >> but rail north is something new. it is change from the way it was presented what it is now. how are your post is going to affect the gross differentials and disparities in spending on transport and investment in transport in different parts of the country? london has greater needs, now preparing for crossrail 2 in which i know it's a very, very strong argument. but already government figures show that spending on transport in london is at least three times as much per head as it was in other parts of the country. the recent ippr report shows a plane infrastructure spending, clean transport is about 24 times higher per head in london than in other regions. how is this going to be addressed? >> we do have a plan to if you look at the city deals, you'll see city deals in birmingham, city deals and manchester.
they are in some cases two or three times larger than the city deals in london. so we are in the look of investment there whether it's hs2, hs3, electrifying the transparent nine ally, elect to find a midlands mainline, these are all about trying to shift the balance in our country and rebounds between london and the rest of the country. the london figures are affected by crossrail which is the biggest infrastructure project anywhere in europe. it's not surprising the figures tell the story they do because of the scale of crossrail which is a large. the whole impetus of this government of the long-term infrastructure plan, you hear more about in the autumn statement, and in the city deal is to default that power and the spending and to go the other regions and great cities of our country. >> the city deals are certainly very much to be welcomed but they don't address the gross imbalance of spending. you still cannot crossrail but
london always has needs and they're continuing. these figures are not just plucked out of the air. it's a trend that have been going on for their longtime. are you saying that city deals on their own are going to correct that? high-definition the city deals are separate entities speedy's i see your point. i think a combination of things. if you look at government and infrastructure plan, first of all the city deals i think start to address the issue because you're devolving money and powers to those cities. if you look at the infrastructure we're planning, things like the completion of the northern hub, electrification of the line, hs2 particularly north of birmingham committee will get you will see very large projects built in the northeast, northwest side what you do think a rebounds our country. and i think the plan is very clear there. >> i think that all those
projects are very much welcome, but they don't correct the imbalance that is there. while this is going on christian is happening elsewhere and that is an impact on the economy, on regional economies and having a stable entity in the way that you describe that you wanted it to be. >> done in such as the city. it's the capital city. transport needs are huge and it has an enormous effect on the rest of the country. some of the projects like crossrail, the tide wait for huge, and the issues we have over river crossing. these things are progress. i would say the look at the overall program, progress, the biggest investment in railway since victorian times are huge about is outside limited to repost the economy. that is the aim, any comment that is not so reliant on london
and the southeast to the whole concept of the northern powerhouse is linking cities which on their own are significant entities but together can be even stronger. that i think has cross party support that ethical make a real difference to our country. >> it does have cross party support and enthusiasm, but are you looking in at the way that spending the money rss and getting as much weight to potential economic regeneration powers as to pressure population? i think that's an underlying issue. >> i completely agree with it. the way the city deals for supposed to work, is that what we do is why it all works out where the money that we could put into the pot with birmingham or with manchester. then in response manchester, birmingham are supposed to do these questions. one of the projects we funded? what is the brownfield land we can make available? you put that together in a deal which results in massive
investment, growth, jobs and land supply be made available. that is a good -- we been talking today about how mechanisms make things work. in our system this is quite a good mechanism for building a proper partnership between central government and city government. >> i think should stronger distinction rather important distinction there between following growth as in london at promoting growth. we have to wait for the autumn statement to see a font that applies. >> i have taken enough flak over hs2 but as a signature project that is about trying to link our country up, linking eight of the 10 biggest cities, a massive public infrastructure project back in woul will have an impacn economic geography of britain, and funding that at a time of difficult national decisions, i would argue we are putting the rebalancing of the country first. >> during the independence campaign if there was a huge amount of concern being expressed by the science
community about how things would work out should devote have gone the other way. developing this discussion this morning, i am with you that jobs and growth should be at the center of our discussion in the science areas where we will create a lot of our future jobs. there are some structural problems within this area. research council allocation, if you have various levels of company tax, r&d tax credits will very up and down the country. how do you find international projects, astronomy, oceanography and so on? what's your vision for solving those problems? >> i was very struck in the independence debate, as you say how strongly the science committee came out and said, look, the current system does
work on the uk basis and works well. the uk research council and the way they fund research at different universities is an effective system. it would be tragic if that were broken up. i think in the own way they made a very powerful argument for keeping the united kingdom together. added to that, the default authorities can backsides, projects and universities in their own ways as well. i don't think this system is fundamentally broken. i think it is fundamentally quite strong. i think we should try to build on it rather than replace it. i'm happy, if you have particular suggestions about how we could make that happen, i am happy to entertain them spent in the context of just looking within england, there have been some attempts, the chancellor has been quite outspoken on this, which is welcome, to try to get some of these significant science investment across england and across the uk rather than focusing everything on the golden triangle.
within a default environment, how would you see that happening? >> i think if you think of some of the things government -- >> it has to be led by good science. >> yes, it has to be led by good science. look, if you think abou that the government has been approaching investment in science, as well as the uk research councils, you have that part of scientific endeavor that is closer to the market. things like the catapult centers which are about taking biotechnology and turned into inventions and growth and jobs. those we very consciously have distributed in very different parts of the country. we try to make sure the science infrastructure but we really do want to back whether it's science park, the bank, expertise there is an oxford and cambridge, the brilliant work being done in life sciences in
but i't think that we should scrap the research council to see if the -- >> we look forward to questioning you again we take a briefing on the ongoing negotiations with leaders from the national iranian american council to look at the potential national security and global economic benefits of a nuclear deal with iran. live coverage as the event is just getting started. >> as well as representative brand's office for securing the room. today we are here at a very important time for the united
states to europe and the p5 plus one countries as well as for iran. after 35 years and in this mutual hostility, escalation, the threat of war, the threat of unconstrained nuclear program in iran we are at the cusp of a particular nuclear deal and right now as we speak, negotiators and foreign ministers are gathered in vienna to hopefully hammer out what will be a final nuclear agreement between iran and the five plus one dot ensures they do not develop a nuclear weapon and that with sanctions that are crippling the economy. as we we going to this pivotal weekend and look forward to the 24th and what may or may not be announced there are several important dynamics to what ideal may entail and not all of these dynamics are discussed as much as they should be. there is of course the
congressional dynamic, the domestic political thing ann how will those of the presidents constituent and folks in washington as well as domestic forces inside of iran treats this deal and reacts to a potential agreement. what will -- how will that play out for those that are trying to sow the deal at home and then there's the regional dynamic what does the nuclear agreement been for the middle east come up with the setting for the challenges that confront the united states as well as iran whether it comes to iraq as urea, afghanistan, isis. how will this impact those challenges and then finally there's the economic component and this is one that isn't talked about very much in the u.s. context. what will the deal and the sanctions in the reentry into the energy markets what will that mean for the united states
economy? we all know that iran stands to benefit from the sanctions relief, but as you will see in your pocket to discuss these issues and dynamics, we have three of the best experts who can talk about these issues. to my right we have doctor parsi director of the council and the author of two books on the negotiations and most recently the single roll of the dice and he will be discussing some of the political elements of the final negotiations. next suzanne has been involved in the discussions involving iran for many years now. she is engaged directly with the iranian side. suzanne is a senior fellow at
the initiative at the new america foundation and she recently authored a piece for foreign-policy discussing what the region looks like one year after a potential deal and it's an article that got a lot of attention and will expand on some of those topics in the remarks today. next to me we have david, a chicago-based economist, the founding chairman of the global economics and david recently wrote a piece in the national interest discussing the potential economic benefits of the deal in which he detailed how the reentry to the international markets could actually be the equivalent of a $400 billion tax cut at the time when many economies could benefit from such an action.
so i will first give it to david to discuss some of the potential economic benefits of the deal. >> we can end the sanctions in the negotiations next week and if we can remove them around it's been suffering in the recent years it could have three major profound consequences. the first is the oil market itself. they could probably increase output after 12 or 18 months by at least a million barrels per day. coming at the time when we already have the weak demand for excess supply this could drive the price down to 50 or $55 a barrel. which would then in turn generate $400 billion tax cut effectively for the oil consuming nation and it could be japan and india, western europe and the u.s. because we would import one third of our oil even though we are producing a lot more, we still get edwards is our demand is so great.
the imf estimates of 310-dollar decline to boost global growth by 0.2% said this would be the de facto stimulus at the time that many countries are just trying by budget deficit and they are fronting the unengaged stimulus themselves. nigeria would obviously suffer major budget problems and other oil-producing countries would have problems but the reality would be the shock to the economy. second would be the geopolitical consequence. it could cripple russia and venezuela. 54% oil and the rest from gas. it gets 45% of the tax receipts from loyal so if we had a big price decline it would be a major fiscal shock to russia. factoring the real prices were for us to to $85 a barrel the
russian finance minister said publicly we cannot afford to increase defense spending next year if the oil prices keep declining service would very much constrained the action and would probably drive the russian economy to the point of that recession. we could repeat that experience. 2008 over $140 a barrel to $40 a barrel by december. venezuela depends on over 90% of its exports of the tax receipts. currently running a fiscal deficit of 8% gdp. the oil price collapse is the number could easily double. and i think that the central bank would have to fund the government at that point it would create the hyperinflation. on the oil subsidies right now it spends $2.2 billion getting low-cost oil to cuba, nicaragua
and other countries in the west indies. but if we had a price decline in the scale that we are talking about putting all the programs would be at risk and might even finally set the stage. the third great benefit of this change in sanctions would be the economy itself. the economy has almost 80 billion people. it's adjusted gdp is about $1.21 trillion of the largest in the world infected his 18th in size. iran has huge oil reserves and a wave of western investment in the reserves once the sanctions were gone so the output may not just go down to 2.2 million barrels it could go to three or 4 million barrels over the next five years. iran also has the ninth largest copper reserves in the world.
those could be developed. and of course the manufacturing industry at one time they had sanctions to end and i could see a lot of western investment. also iran has a large stock market. the capital position is $150 billion. the second largest in the middle east. at the correct current time, the foreign investors own .0.1% of the stock market. they are basically invisible. the turkish stock market by contrast is 50% foreign-owned. i think that i could see the stock market in two years being 30% foreign and the rush by their birthday because western institutions to take advantage of the boom made possible by the intersections and i think the fact that you're attracting a
lot of foreign investment has revitalized the economy will change the political regime and at the expense of the hard-liners. it does not want to deal as they make a huge amount of money. the people know that. they don't like the fact that they have a pariah state and that's why they vote overwhelmingly a year and a half ago. the sanction would very much reinforce the process. thank you very much. >> thinks to helping us organize this and of course thanks to the national council for your leadership on eliminating so many issues that matter to the iranian americans.
and many thanks to all of you for joining us here today for what arguably i believe is not only the biggest foreign policy challenge, but also the biggest foreign policy operation facing our country today. as mentioned, they are in vienna working tirelessly to reach an agreement by november 24 that would prevent an iranian nuclear weapon but also avoid another war in the middle east. so against the backdrop -- asked to make some brief remarks on the security and nonproliferation benefits so let's start with the nonproliferation benefits we should recognize for stuff that the interim agreement, the joint plan of action thatas reached by the p5 plus one group and around on november 24 almost one
year to the day has resulted in some important progress toward international counter proliferation goals. first iran has ceased to 20% uranium enrichment in iran hasn't enriched uranium over 5%. the agreement has resulted in eliminating its entire stockpile of 20% enriched uranium because it can quickly be pure trade -- provided to weapon grade. they haven't offered additional centrifuges and it's reprinted from advancing the construction of the plutonium production plants. it also accepted the most rigorous regime imposed in the
history of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. the agency that is overseeing the implementation of the agreement has verified the video supplemented last january. so in some the agreement has stopped development of iran's nuclear program and it has opened the way for diplomatic solutions. now a final agreement would reach all the limitations and monitoring of iran nuclear programs. it's very hard to predict at this stage however i think that that there's widespread agreement there is widespread agreement among the u.s. nuclear
experts that the general contours of the good deal would establish verifiable limits on iran's program that taken together would limit the size of the stock titles enriched uranium and the number of centrifuges to ensure this would leave iran approximately one year away from being able to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. there would also be modifications to the facility into the research and development site and modifications to the iraq heavy-water reactor to ensure that it is no water capable of wonder capable of producing the amount of plutonium necessary to make a nuclear weapon. in addition to these counter proliferation benefits, preventing and iran nuclear
weapons but also result in another key benefit, the heading off of the regional arms race. it also would serve strengthening the global nonproliferation system. the next. the next be held in 2015. the npt is a cornerstone of the post world war ii nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation regime. and the nuclear deal would provide a big boost in the lead up to that review conference. the inter- complaint of action has also led to a market to be aeschylus asian and hostility between washington and tehran and the ongoing nuclear talks which are being conduct it in the context have provided the united states and the diplomat and policymakers with a channel for sustained direct bilateral
communications for the first time in over three decades. the shattering of the decades long engagement is a significant one for the policy. direct diplomatic and hatred between the u.s. and iran has finally been tested and the initial results are promising. reaching a confidence of nuclear deal could unlock a channel for broad discussions between both countries that have compelling common interest particularly in the middle east and south asia. it's complying with the commitment and it should clear the way for washington and tehran to engage on the two security priorities that they both hold in common. the first is the fight against the islamic state in syria and
iraq and second is stabilizing the new unity government in afghanistan. now keep in mind that both of our governments have explicitly stated that a nuclear deal must be completed before direct bilateral coordination of these issues can take place. the rise of isis holds major security and petitions for both the u.s. and iran. and since june, 2014, the discussions between washington and tehran on isis have been taking place on the sidelines of the p5 plus one nuclear talks. the iraqi government is also acting as an intermediary helping to facilitate the communications. following the nuclear deal i think that we could expect to these discussions to move to ongoing direct u.s. iran bilateral talks. this could provide an opening for the coordination and even cooperation perhaps including
the exchanges of intelligence and collaboration on the military action in the fight against isis. u.s. officials have already acknowledged that tehran uses its influence to convince the nouri al maliki in 2014. this led to a smooth transition in power. posted deal i believe that the united states would be in a better position to press iran to use its leverage to persuade the government to share more power with the sunnis and other minorities. this could help to improve a very fragile political situation that exists in iraq today. as the sunnis still do not feel that they are represented by the baghdad government and the military dominated by the shiites. the postnuclear deal environment was also make it possible to test iran's willingness to play
a constructive role in advancing a political solution to serious. many believe that another geneva conference on theory and without iran would be meaningless. posted deal washington could support the participation in the geneva gathering that was organized under the auspices of the united nations. within this context, the united states could then press iran to play a more constructive role in relieving the humanitarian crisis in serious particularly by extending cooperation on humanitarian access. now it is unclear at this point how far tehran would be willing to go to use its leverage to bring about a political settlement that would lead to the eventual departure of al-assad but i think once iran has a seat at the table, which it has been seeking for quite some time now, it will be forced to show its card rather quickly.
the iranian foreign minister for plaintiff land on theory a which includes a cease-fire, the formation of a national unity government, constitutional revision process that would be centralizing and the power in serious and the new election i think offers a good starting point for discussion. on afghanistan there are some overlapping u.s. and iranian interests in afghanistan. the nuclear deal combined with a smaller u.s. troop presence in afghanistan would set the stage for the direct discussions on afghanistan. both governments have voiced strong support for afghanistan's new government under president and ceo abdullah abdullah. both have called for the full implementation of the national
unity government agreement and establishment and strengthening of state institutions. both also like to see a capable afghan security force and a diminished television and effective strategy for dealing with marco trafficking. so washington should serve as a priority to developing coalition of countries to support afghanistan's transition to the new leadership and manage the period after the withdrawal of u.s. troops. it should seek to bring together other nations to assure the integrity of afghanistan and economic growth. of course iran's inclusion in such coalition of support afghanistan's transition makes a great deal of sense in that there is a precedent for the cooperation on afghanistan. both countries work together to
establish a government that emerged from the 2001 conference following 9/11. i presented two areas where there are significant overlapping security interests however i want to emphasize that i am not suggesting following a nuclear deal decision-makers in washington and tehran are going to join hands. i think even with the nuclear deal, profound differences clearly will continue to exist between iran and the united states. i think that the human rights records will continue to endure and tehran will likely continue to support the designated terrorist groups enabling its proxies to provoke and threaten israel and the deal would also heighten concerns among the gulf states will feel more vulnerable
to the pressure. all of this would make it very difficult for the united states to pursue a more strategic relationship with iran. i've outlined the potential for the calculated engagement on some very specific key issues. the nuclear deal could open the way for the cooperation on a limited set of strategic and tactical objectives that would serve to advance the u.s. security interests. so, just to conclude i think that preventing a nuclear armed iran and avoiding a military confrontation over the nuclear program are vitally important goals. but i am happy that you organized this discussion today because we also need to take a bigger picture view, more strategic and broad view and when we do it is clear to see
that unlocking the channel for the broad dialogue between iran and the united states on issues where we hold common interest but also the and enormous achievement. >> thank you so much much at all much at all of you in the room and also all of the viewers on c-span. i'm going to raise a couple of issues. one is the impact of the potential deal on the internal politics of iran as well as the human rights situation and as well as the consequences and implications of the failure to get the deal. but before i do that i just want to add one thing. i thought the presentation was externally important because it touches on an important aspect that has almost completely been overlooked, which is that economic implications of the u.s. i just want to add one point to that. in july we released a report that populated using the gravity model the cost of sanctions
there's been a lot of conversation about how much the sanctions are costing the economy which is undeniable that it's also got a coastal distinction. and the result of that report shows that since 1995 to 2012, the united states has lost between $13,575,000,000,000 from a very conservative estimate simply on the last of the export revenue which would have been there had there not been any sanctions. that number is likely much higher because it is counting the export revenue and it's obviously a very large amount because that amounts to approximately 1 million lost job opportunities over this entire period based on the u.s. government and regulation. you can find the report losing billions on the website. i strongly encourage you to take a look at it. because the consequences of the deal internally i think it's
very important intact at the end of the day, this was never just about and richmond or just about the number of centrifuges. what does deal with the duty of the internal politics of iran is essentially defined who will determine the policies of iran in the next decade to come ask what they be hardliners will it be relative such as the foreign minister asked this will determine their political future and also determine which direction that iran will go for the next decade or two. and this in and of itself would have significant implications of the region, which isn't very well covered that it would also have implications on what happens inside iran. this is a team that wants to open up to the rest of the world and as a result they recognize that they cannot open up to the rest of the world without improving the human rights record.
thus far a year or so into the term we have not seen any particularly noticeable change. it remains a very negative one and the number of executions in some cases actually have gone up. however, when you listen to the human rights defenders on the ground, they support this deal because the dvd deal that refuses animosity in the western world particularly the united states against iran internal actors pushing for more democracy, pushing for more respect for human rights, greater space to be able to do what only they can do. no one else from the outside can do this for them nor do they want that they need that extra space. it's next to impossible for them to have a successful campaign with greater political liberalization as well as greater respect for human rights under the circumstances that they are currently in which is a threat of war and crippling sanctions that have caused such
damage to the average economy that they care far less about human rights and far more about the day-to-day ability to survive. they need this change to be able to make their case and be successful. beyond that, i think that it will open up opportunities for longer-term political change because if you have the scenario in which the western businesses and companies have an ability to come into iran with that would also compel you and other forms of influence that can have an impact on iran. imagine if 1994, 1995 the united states to impose the sanctions that essentially eliminated the trade and you would have some more representative company that doesn't sell that food and you would have an embassy.
you have americans coming you would have american companies. you think that president obama's ability to have an influence on what is taking place post the fraudulent elections of 2009 would be greater or less? the answer is pretty clear without any american business bare, without any american diplomats, the u.s. ability to have any impact on what happened post-2009 in iraq was essentially close to zero. this gives an opportunity to change that. and by that having the ability to move in the right direction. ..
countries as diverse or as different as russia, china and the united states and europe. put the signature on this agreement. but then he comes back to the u.s. congress and the u.s. congress either sabotages it directly or over the course of time does not implement its obligations under the deal, such as the sanctions. then clearly the blame will fall on the u.s. side and on the side of the u.s. country. that will have the effect of breaking the international consensus that has been built by the obama administration on a rain. in the sense that national consensus is that the fault is on iran's side in the national committee is working closely together without any significant
division or to get an agreement in which the iranians cannot submit. if you have a snare in which they all agree to a deal but u.s. congress does not, then this shift, the blame will shift towards the u.s. aside. one of the likely consequences of that is you will see the sanctions regime that has been put on a rant slowly but falling apart. many countries right now reluctantly agreed to the sanctions. they have made a very heavy price. i mentioned our study from july the sure the cost of u.s. sanctions to u.s. economy. the cost for the europeans incidentally has been more than twice between 2010-2012 than what the u.s. economy if. the u.s. has lost a lot of extra revenue to the europeans have lost more than twice that during these last three years. so mindful of that and the difficulty the eu economies are
facing, if a deal is struck but then it collapses as a result of not iranian action that congressional action, then i think you'll see the sanctions regime essentially collapsed. while the a ring is will then have the pretext of walking out of the deal and all of the constraints that the deal has put on them. and they would get the sanctions released because of a sanctions regime collapses without having any consequence. congress have to think carefully about this. the biggest benefactor of such an action is hardly in a renewed don't want to steal to begin with because they don't want they can strengthen the nuclear program but to do what sanctions relief. this would provide them both the sanctions relief and the absence of those constraints. i will stop there. >> thank you, treated. dishman treated. before getting to the following about what these stakes are for different what these benefits are think of it beneficial to
talk a little bit about the state of play today and this weekend. suzanne, do you want to talk just a little bit about what are the gaps that are remaining calm and what we would expect to be resolved if there is, in fact, going to be a deal on monday? >> well, i think the press is reporting that the current gaps are still the level of enrichment is that iran would be committed to continue to have, number of centrifuges, et cetera, on the one hand. and the process and timing for the sanctions relief that would correspond for that. and then third issue seems to be the duration of the deal. it's kind of remarkable, jamal, throughout this whole process they're been very few weeks about what is actually being discussed by the negotiators. and i think that's a very good sign.
it really conveys the seriousness that the negotiators from all the countries are taking, or putting towards this effort. so i would refrain from trying to guess if we'll see an announcement by november 24 or not. we may hear something a couple of days later. and whether or not it's going to be the full deal that we are expecting, or perhaps another interim agreement or a partial deal that would outline a framework for going forward. i think we are all hoping that they could conclude final comprehensive deal. i think realistically a partial to at this stage that continues the current restrictions on iran's program, which by the way came about through come in my opinion, very limited sanctions relief would be a win for the p5+1 and the world. beyond that i think trita is
right. i do not see a complete breakdown of these negotiations. there's no indication that that would happen. so we will either to very big announcements next week, or an announcement of something partial. partial. >> okay. i appreciate that but it seems like every utterance or gesture or fish tick of the negotiators is now being examined to try to get clues as to what is happening in the talks. the truth is, there's a lot of speculation from the outside but it has been a very tightly controlled process. it does seem though that there is an increased flexibility on the two sides, that some of the areas where maybe the p5+1 did not seem eager to move on or that iran may be was not able to be flexible, some of those a broken down a little bit. it does seem to be more flexibly and indication of movement.
would you guys agree with that? >> i think that's the nature of negotiations is you really go to the last possible minute with your maximalist position. but as we've heard, i think the iranians reportedly have come up from the opening bid of 1500 centrifuges to something around 4500. and the united states -- wait, that's the opposite. the united states -- that would be something. and the iranians have come down to about 8000. in the meantime, the iranians have apparently offered to deal with any resulting stockpile, which i think would allow them to have more centrifuges. so it's still very fluid and they are really into details of the negotiations. >> the uk foreign minister made some positive signals saying the talks had been positive, the
talks were cordial. i think it's to both sides are constantly looking over their shoulders. because what they are truly, both the p5+1 and the iranians is the reaction back home. clearly the president has issues when it comes to convincing congress and making sure that this deal would be viewed as something positive, that it wins the support of enough people in or to stand without collapsing from u.s.-soviet irena sendler similar problem but you have a situation in which hard-liners in iran will try to do everything they can even if they don't try to scuttle the talks because that would be too costly for them if they get blamed for it would make sure this does not become a political win for rouhani and stupid want to make sure this is a very costly political decision for them. in order for that many treasures to be able to sell the deal at home they need some sort of a sanctions relief that relatively quickly adds a lot of benefit to the iranian economy. that would help them, a scenario
in which the criticism from hard-liners will essentially be shouted down because people are sensing very immediate and very tangible economic benefits. but mindful of the difficulty that the president has a lifting sanctions can even though he could waive some of them, that does not seem to be something that the u.s. team is either willing to offer because of the political cost back at home, but also might not even be able to offer because of the tensions with congress. i think that shows something. it shows that while sanctions can be a tremendous leverage in the negotiations, they could also turn into an obstacle to a deal if you don't have enough control over the sanctions instruments that you can lift it in a swift manner as part of the negotiations. this is where the tensions between congress and the president has moved away from being some sort of a clever and highly effective good, bad cop game come to something that actually starting to become
constructive. >> david, you talk about potential oil dropping to 50 or $60 a barrel if there's a deal. use a summit big losers as there would be russia, venice will. i'm curious what would be the impact of some of the regional players? so saudi arabia, iraq, but also how does that impact isil who we know profits off of oil smuggling? does this impact that issue at all? >> isil does make oil from oil smuggling. that would hurt the revenue so they would be a loser as well. saudi arabia and the gulf states would suffer from falling oil prices but they have nasty foreign exchange reserves so they can easily cope with this for two or three years. iraq of course would suffer because her blood on the
international price and they're exporting about 2 million girls would you like to go, they're exporting 3 million. they're producing 3 million barrels, hope to go to five or 6 million barrels over the next five years. iraq would be foldable as well. but there would be lots of winners. india to european union, u.s. they're all well consumers to i could see gasoline prices in u.s. going from 230 , $2.40. if we had further oil shock would have guessed and prices falling further, 50 or 60 cents. that would be i think politically appetizing. >> could you repeat that? gas prices would drop to a? >> gasoline prices could drop a further 50 or 60 cents if we drove the gulf oil price down to $55 a barrel. we will recover 115 back in june 2 not just over 80, and protect this commits more like $76.
that's $30. taking the price of gasoline in the last six months down to about 60 or 70 cents. we were around 365 -- three or 65. if we had a further drop in oil price, the international market, the driver gasoline prices down again a further 50 or 60 cents so we would be around $3.30 or $3.40. >> that reverberations throughout the economy. >> of course it does. it would be a big boon to the airline industry. price decline we've already had. increasing average household income by about $50 per month. that's not a lot of money for some of who is wealthy for low income person that's a lot of money. i think will help to give us a pretty good christmas. when people can go and spend this money. so no, there's many winners and some losers but the winters greatly outnumber the losers. >> this is why the kind of before my before black friday.
>> yes, yes. >> but ask, you do, because we're on the hill i think one of the major considerations right now is congress' response, whether there's, particularly if there's an extension, potentially a deal but some are saying united states can't impose sanctions and iran will not walk away from the table. at the iranian economy is in such dire straits that even with new sanctions iran would remain at the table. what do you think about this proposition? is that the case? would iran actually sit there and allow for sanctions to be imposed and remain at the table, or would this affect lead to a collapse of negotiations? >> i think that it would potentially lead to a collapse. it would be very difficult for the iranian negotiators to continue their jobs when their boss is back home are suffering
more sanctions. they are not going to stand for that and they will feel compelled to do a counter move against that clearly the easiest thing to do is pull out of the negotiations. beyond that if we look at the iranian's upcoming budget, what they have put in the budget does not include any sanctions relief. so they are proceeding with what they call a resistance economy. so for the economic planning for the next couple of years they have not input, factored in what the sanctions relief would bring. so that you an indication of what they're willing to do in order to get to a deal that they think is fair. as for congress, i think we need to keep in mind that, by and large to very large extent the reason these negotiations have happened is because congress has
levied such strong sanctions against iran. it is certainly helped bring them to the table. i think there were other factors of course when the united states drop the regime change language. that certainly helped. and when the united states also said some level of enrichment would be acceptable. but make no doubt about it, congress played an important role in that. however, jamal, i think at this point out these negotiations are at such a critical moment, to come in with additional sanctions would simply just undermine the united states negotiating position. and i just don't see when we are so close to what appears to be a good, what the iranians call a win-win and what we call a good deal, is close at hand. so i think now the thought of cutting the efforts of u.s. diplomats is not the time. >> david, and do you have any
thoughts about the importance of congressional signaling on this? we know that the sanctions can't be lifted without an act of congress, at least the u.s. sanctions cannot be lifted without an act of congress. the president plans to use waiver authority to temporary suspend sanctions. there's been some talk about if congress is saying the president sanction bills or potentially voting in disapproval of the deal and signaling that congress will not allow sanctions to be lifted, that that could actually the psychological effects on markets of basically companies and banks unwilling to allow for transactions with iran and allow for some the sanctions relief to actually be forthcoming. do you have any sense of the role of congress in the process and how that's impacting markets? >> it will depend, how people perceive the president's power to actually waive the sanctions using his own authority.
given to the current political empowerment it might be very hard. unless in fact congress will realize the price of gasoline might be -- [inaudible] that would be very popular. but i think if congress has to enact this, the president cannot do it through executive action, but i do think the danger is they would get in the way and that would mean they do not have -- [inaudible] or as suggested by trita, maybe the europeans would decide they had a deal they could live with and, therefore, they would lift their own sanctions. you get a boom in european iranian trade, investment but the american firms would not be part of it. we would be missing once again trade opportunity as well as investment opportunity. but if you think there is a lot of pressure in europe to end the sanctions. they have been negotiating reentry into the market. they have a lot they wanted to and i think you'll see the
europeans try to find some way to escape these sanctions. but if we had the outlines of a good deal. >> i think it's important to realize that the way this negotiation has been structured, one of the principles has been that all measures are going to follow the principles of reciprocity and proportionality, which means that if there's a demand of the iranians to offer permanent measure, a permanent concession, which is exactly what we want, we want to make sure they do something that isn't easily reversible, then it has to be matched by something that is equally permanent. sanctions relief through waivers, waivers that lasts only 90 days or 180 days and have to constantly be renewed, including by the next president, is fundamentally and inherently reversible. and that has the risk then of prompting the iranians to only
put on the table something that is equally reversible and equally less attractive to the american side. so this is a negotiation in essence, the two sides will get based on what they're willing to put on the table but if we're only putting very limited measures on the table, we are likely only to get very limited measures from the iranian side but everyone a good deal, the signal in my view should be that there is a willingness, political willingness to be quite flexible in going very far when it comes to sanctions relief, granted obviously that the iranians patch that. so far the signal has been said that if you're that is part of the race why the iranians have not matched it with something that we would think is acceptable on the american side. >> correct me if i'm wrong, one of the components of the deal on the arena site in terms of verification would be the implementation and ratification of the additional protocol, so enhanced inspections which would
require an act of the iranian parliament. would have been be something that would be tied to reciprocal action by the united states congress? is that is what's being discussed? >> the iranians to agree to the additional protocol they've done so in the past but they can vote to implement it but what we want is for them to ratify it. make it a permanent measure that they cannot walk away from. they had implement it for about 20 months between 2003-2005 and then they stopped. to stop because the deal fell apart. we want to make sure they bind themselves to it but that will require action by the parliament which is increasingly becoming similar to the u.s. congress when it comes to the political winds they're blowing and the tension between the executive branch and the legislative branch. >> who has a question?
>> thank you very much. or earlier this month it was one reported president obama sent a secret letter to ayatollah khamenei asking for informal coordination against isis but it seems that offer has been rebuffed to understand that is a separate negotiation to nuclear talks but it does in what would've been a great opportunity to build trust on both sides. can you speak to the political calculus behind that decision? >> so how's that letter been rebuffed? what, if any, coordination is occurring now and what could potentially speed and what was in at? >> what was in the letter if anybody knows. >> we don't know what was in that letter. that was a private letter from president obama to the supreme leader khamenei. even though it's a reporter from "the wall street journal" seems to think he knew what was in that letter, i'm not convinced he did.
and besides, this isn't news. for years now iran and u.s. have been exchanging letters between the leader and obama, and obama and rouhani. so that have been ongoing communications. so i really don't, wouldn't venture to guess what was in that letter. it seems unlikely that president obama would be so explicit in a letter to the supreme leader and offer coordination on isis in such a way, especially when negotiators from both sides have opportunities to talk about these things discreetly. but i think as i presented in my remarks, i think looking ahead, clearly if we could get this nuclear deal under our belt and have it implemented, this would most certainly in my opinion be the first area where the u.s. and iran can start working with each other.
both of us, both our militaries are now operating in that area, in iraq, and that it would be the height of irresponsibility for us not to be committee getting them not to be coordinated with each other. >> trita, you just wrote a piece on this. >> working off what suzanne said can we don't know what's in the letter but if we just go with what "wall street journal" reported, it was not an offer of working together against isis. it was more at least according to the press report, a suggestion that if the nuclear issue is resolved it opens up the opportunity for potential collaboration in these other areas. we also don't know to what the response has been except for the fact that there has been a response. the very idea that at this crucial moment, just a few weeks before the deadline of the negotiation there is a letter from the president to the
supreme leader, i don't think you should be surprising nor viewed as something negative. at this stage the willingness to trust the deal, the willingness to take the risks of saying yes, which is something you the u.s. and iran would have done with each other, it's always been easy to say no, he's coming to a test. and for the leader than to signal political willingness, for the u.s. leader by sending a letter to khamenei i think as the calculation of being able to prove the u.s. is serious. it's time for iran now to also be seated. i assumed it was the calculation and if that's the case i think it would be the right calculus. >> just a follow-up. so we know there have been three maybe four of these letters that have been sent over the past six years. what about on syria? maybe this is not included in the letters. maybe we will never know, but iran has not participated in the geneva conference is on syria.
the most recent session iran was invited and then disinvited. any information on some of the background with interaction on that issue, maybe with the dissidents have been in including iran in that process? >> as mentioned, jamal, there's been some complicated background noise to iran and its participation in the geneva talks. the geneva talks on a multilateral group of nations focus on forging a political settlement to the problems in syria. i can understand the political difficulties for geneva ii of including iran at that point. but as i said in my presentation i do think that even in this town most people have now come to the conclusion that a political settlement to the problems in syria cannot be reached without the participation of iran in some
ways. the geneva process offers i think the right forum for the u.s. and iran to be engaging on this subject. it is under the u.n. auspices. it could actually happen before a nuclear deal is concluded because of the u.n. premature. but the other thing, the signals from iran on this issue, particularly from the foreign minister, he has put forward the four-point plan that i discussed. and the closing matches a lot of what we've been hearing, certainly what mr. brahimi had said about what needed to be done to reach a political settlement. and i think there's a lot of overlap i'm thinking of what needs to move forward for the iranians. their main concern fatalities on the position of mr. assad is a want to see a strategy.
what is the strategy if he is to be replaced? i think there are concerns have been conveyed to the united states that they would be a big power, power vacuumcome and what could replace it could actually be worse than mr. assad if we can imagine such a thing. so i think this is an area that is right for discussion between tehran and washington, into the keep your place, saudi arabia to be involved, turkey and so forth. >> with the onset of isis, i think that you have, there are folks here in the u.s. who say they have been indicated because the civil war has produced his isis the number of the but with iran i think if some of the official site they have been vindicated because this demonstrates what this vacuum and what the potential ouster of assad could mean for series. that is, have spread some of the instability of radicalism.
do you think is a complete difference in the way the two sides see the isis phenomenon from how it originated? >> i think publicly there is a big difference in how they see, how did isis how did it come about? both governments were fairly, maybe not caught offguard but didn't see the extent of the destruction the isis post. of course the iranians traced the origin of the isis back to the u.s. invasion of iraq and even before, and vice versa, the united states blames iran for playing a part in that come the emergence of a group like isis because it allowed maliki to continue to put forward a government that was so divisive. but i think we are getting to the stage where we probably need to dispense with the discussions of who did what to do and the
blame game. because this is a real serious issue facing both our countries right now, and the region. some hoping cooler heads will prevail and we could get to a point where the contours of what a political settlement could look like finally is discussed. >> can add to that? >> scheuer. >> also keep in mind that the united states and iran because of the last 35 years of tension and because of this ongoing conflict, even in areas where we have common interest, there's been a lot of common interest in afghanistan, i think afghanistan is a good example. that when they move in the direction of trying to improve relations, they permit themselves to collaborate in these areas of common interest. but when their hostility defines the relationship, even areas of common interest is turned into
areas of competition and rivalry. that's certainly up in afghanistan. it is happening in iraq and to a certain extent in syria. even with common interest exists, there overtaken by the larger hostility that defines the relationship. is that larger hostility is significantly reduced as result of a nuclear deal, that's when we'll see an opportunity for the common interest to a much heavier than the hostility and provide the opportunity to utilize that, whether it is an iraq, syria, or in afghanistan. i think it's important to understand that, to fully grasp the extent to whichcommon interest between the two sides can be explored. >> president obama has clearly invest a lot of political capital in these talks but i think the opposite is true that president rouhani has invested even more in the negotiations. is this a make or break moment
for him? what are the implications if there is or isn't ideal for the future of the rest of his term? what are the effects on the other parts of his agenda including human rights? >> i think for mr. rouhani it's not what i would call a break or make, but if this were to fail in a very negative way, it could would undermine his position. i think his agenda on these other issues, on advancing social developments and rights would really have to be put on the back burner. it's unclear what would happen to the foreign minister who is the public face of the negotiations, whether or not he could survive a failure in talks. but beyond that i think for a ladies playing a positive role. i think the leader is happy with how he has handled the economy for example.
as one iranian insider told me, rouhani has presented the collapse of the iranian economy. he is in stark difference to his predecessor, mr. i put in a shot, who has now openly talked about in the rent -- ahmadinejad compos mentis skills decimated the iranian economy and i think mr. rouhani has proven himself to be an asset. so i don't think we would see his disappearance but we certainly see the conservatives and the hardliners come out with their knives to make a play to gain power. keep in mind that the iranian parliament has an election coming up. i think certainly moderates, reformers would be undermined in that but there would be a cascade effect that would not be good for those who are more reform minded.
>> i think i agree with suzanne. it would not be the end of rouhani's presidency. he would, however, risk being the end of some of the orientation towards the west that he has been pursuing. it could be in and to part of the foreign policy approach. because what it would do is it would vindicate, in my view, the wrong narrative and iran. there's a hardline narrative and i've and this is ultimately the west is not trustworthy. you cannot negotiate with the west. the west is only pursuing these negotiations in order to be able to find a new way of putting pressure on iran, depriving iran of technology. every time i ran try to negotiate, the west sees that as a sign of weakness and find a way to add pressure to iran but there's another narrative that says that no, negotiations have to be tried because their common interest to the world is changing. the main threat in the region as
defined by ran itself is not the united states but it is actually isis. add that if there is a real negotiation and if there is a given day, if i ran into a strategic utility to the united states, a to relationship can emerge. if these negotiations collapse it will be the indication of the wrong narrative and that will put back into charge the people in iran who prefer to drive a more confrontational foreign policy, vis-à-vis the west. >> britney from congressman -- i had two questions. been talking a lot about the difference in kind of the u.s. and iran, the cooperation if this deal were to go forward. i'm just kind of wondering, other than these neutral interests, what is the part of the u.s. gains from this deal? and also there was some mention
of the gulf states, if the oil prices would drop. i think mr. hill said three or four years or something like that. as far as being sustainable but some wondering what kind of negative repercussions could we see from those states as result of this deal? will there be i guess negative u.s. backlash as a result? >> be want to address that a little bit? >> the real question is what will saudi arabia do? that can stabilize the price was $75 ago. going into the opec talks next week in vienna there is those undecided wants to do that at the current time. they will protect their market share and focus on the price. if that policy continues in iran will have a major impact on oil
prices but it will be a question what response you elsewhere in opec. at this point i'm we don't know because it's just a scenario. it's not a clear alternative. and, of course, the saudis, the emirates, israel are all opposed to a deal because they feel that will open up the door for iran to develop nuclear weapons over time. maybe not immediately but over time, changing the whole balance of power in the region. saudi arabia and the emirates have large foreign exchange reserves. saudi arabia is no public debt. they can easily cope a couple of years of low oil prices. then if you have a low oil price that might encourage -- [inaudible] but by 2018 the oil price might be starting a recovery. after with his big price decline that came from ending the sanctions. >> on your first question, how would the u.s. benefit beyond what we already discussed, well, i think first and foremost the threat of another war in the middle east would fade. so that's a big plus.
but beyond that, i mean, would you think about the history of the u.s.-iran relationship, we have not had a normalized diplomatic relations for 35 years. and often think, i don't always agree with henry kissinger but i think of this particular court he got it right. he said something like there are no two countries on earth that have more common interests and less to fight about that iran and the united states to rethink its absolute right. if you travel for you immediately feel that there is an affinity between americans and iranians. so i think the potential to reestablish those diplomatic relations is a big one. i would love to see us have an ambassador in tehran and for iran to have an ambassador here in washington. i would love to see the economic relations that we heard about earlier come to fruition.
and as much as anything i think the iranian american diaspora here in the united states, which i know trita can talk as eloquent as anyone, wants to see this. they are very successful part of our population here they want to see the relationship between our two countries, our two governments flourish. and i think we would all benefit from that. and i think women look at the past 30 years, the lack of people to people exchanges between our societies i think has hurt us. and with a deal i think we could see that move forward and build the relationships that we once had with iran. >> if i could just add a couple of points to that. the obvious first benefit of course is that the deal would
close off any path iran would have towards nuclear weapons. that's the big take a. that's critical. if the iranians agreed to the additional protocol, i thought, and that inspections it go been anything that has existed in the past. it would make it essentially impossible for the iranians to be able to perceive them. and this is critical because we have defined a potential proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region as the primary use national securities threat in the middle east. if that is gone then that is a huge benefit. but beyond that in order to understand and imagine the benefits of a deal it would be good to set to assess what the cost of this bad relationship has been. we just go back 12 or so years and received that after 9/11 the u.s. and iran during george bush junior's presidency, starts to collaborate and coordinate against the taliban, diplomatic
we, politically, intelligence wise as well as military. that collaboration is so successful that when it comes to the effort to put together new constitution after the taliban has been defeated, this was a joint u.s.-iran operation. in which the current foreign minister zarif was the lead negotiator for iranians and ambassador jim dobbins coordinated the entire conference and he managed to get there to make sure that not only was the military campaign, with -- six weeks later george bush put iran in the axis of evil. and all of the potential collaboration that could have continued and could lead to a very different scenario in afghanistan is gone and the u.s. and iran started competing in afghanistan just like they had before, before the brief period of collaboration. we see what happened in afghanistan ever since. we've seen the great
difficulties the u.s. has had, the major cost to u.s. soldiers, et cetera. imagine if that hadn't happened to imagine been going for for the next 10 years that you have three more cases in the middle east in which the united states decides to compete rather than to collaborate. then you get an idea of how beneficial a deal could be. last point is on the perspective of the diaspora. diaspora of course has a lot of different views, i winning i men committee like any other community is not one view on this issue. but there isn't a woman about a support for the negotiations which is driven partly because of course they don't want to see nuclear weapons but also driven by the belief that if there is a deal, if tensions are reduced it will ultimately be a big beneficial thing for the pro-democracy activist and human rights defenders in iran. the ability of a brand-new been
a more liberal political direction, very much depends on the extent to which iran has hostile or nonhostile relations with the west. >> right here, third row. >> what's the impact of a deal or no deal on israel in all this? >> suzanne? >> well obviously i think if there is a deal the u.s. government and the obama administration, would have to continue to make a special effort to provide israel with the assurances it needs to feel comfortable with iran having an enrichment capacity that is now internationally authorized. that's going to take a lot of work. i think in recent days we've heard of various positions coming out of israel that have
been, have been consistently concerned about the direction this is going. so that's going to take a very special effort. it may mean posting iran come is was defense capabilities to make them feel reassured. but make no doubt about it, that will be a diplomatic effort that will require just as much attention as it will to probably reach this deal with the iranians. and i think it will be well worth it. my own belief is that if the comprehensive nuclear deal with iran that prevented from having a nuclear weapons capability is not only in u.s. interest but in israeli interest as well. >> if i can add a couple of points. suzanna safley right. the israeli government since 1993 has made a point that seemed to put an event would be
in the disaster the global threat, and existential threat. if these negotiations reaches a deal that would in any iranian path toward a nuclear weapon, that clearly is a major benefit. for the israelis. it doesn't necessarily mean that president netanyahu will do that as a benefit or at least politically that he would find that you beneficial. i think the israeli government unfortunately has increased the cost to israel of a deal by taking on a very, very for russia's public position against these negotiations and against a deal to easy take a look at, i don't know what to call it, that graphic that prime minister netanyahu added at the u.n., not this year but the year prior to that, the essential take away was that the israeli redline articulated for the first time
by an israeli prime minister, there simply of israeli redline but never articulated by the prime minister, that deadline was giving it should not have 250 kilos of 20% enriched uranium. .. beyond that, if you have a u.s. iran deal and you have a reduction of tensions between the united states and iran as i mentioned before as that will lead to less competition and
rivalry between the u.s. and iran and other theaters in the middle east that will also have a positive impact on israel because it will prompt iranians to be less hostile. hostility towards israel from the iranian site has very much at times been a function of their competition with the united states. if that competition reduces the utility of iran taking on a very tough position vis-à-vis israel also reduces it. just take a look at the posture of iran since the negotiations began on rouhani and the posture of iran prior to the much more serious negotiations under ahmadinejad. that's just as a result of the negotiations. imagine what that could mean for israel if there actually is a deal. >> questions? over here. >> thanks. so i was wondering, there have
been some groups here questioning whether iran has complied with the joint plan of action particularly with regard to testin testing on advanced centrifuges. i wonder if you could unpack better make it clear. furthermore what would be, are there any viable alternatives to a negotiated solution? thanks. >> does anybody want to talk about the allegations are violations of the interim deal? i think you know, there was a think tank that said that iran may have violated by ceding iranian into the ir five centrifuge. do you want to address that at all? so there was this allegation i think the administration was pretty clear actually at the outset of the negotiations that, this r&d work was written into the deal is being permissible and so the activity that was
highlighted was actually considered as this r&d work. that being said the administration after this allegation was made they did announce that they contacted the iranians and that even though this was not a violation they asked that the iranians not continue to do this work and report is that they did. so this actually demonstrates how important the challenge for diplomacy that we actually have far in addressing these issues. >> if i could add one thing to that. at the end of the day the iaea has come out and clearly verified everything the iranians said they were going to do and everything the u.s. and the p5+1 said they would do under the deal have been done. the iaea has been passed with overseeing the implementation of this so their statement is the final word on this. at the same time on the west side as well as the e.u. side they have also confirmed their belief that the iranians have
held up their end of the bargain. there is an area outside of these negotiations between a iaea and iran which there has been some delay and there has been some tension. there have been some problems but that is outside the joint plan of action. that's an ongoing problem that the iranians have for the iaea and those two should not be confused. >> sorry, the second question? >> is there any viable alternative to a negotiated solution? >> so i think this is -- is there any universe in which there is no deal and there are some solution short of that. i know there were murmurs that the iranians were saying that if there isn't a deal that they would still comply voluntarily with the inspections that are happening. is there any credence to those reports? is there any signaling that decides that withstand the
continuation of the status quo meaning the interim agreement on a voluntary basis? >> i mean short of a deal, could we imagine muddling through for a little while? probably especially if the iranians continue to adhere to the current parts of the interim agreement and as jamal said i am hearing that the iranians have said even if there is not a collapse but some sort of extension of course the iaea would be able to stay in and maybe if there was a collapse they would keep the iaea. that is i don't think a solution. it's not a sustainable long-term solution to getting this deal done. and if we play this out, and if we have a muddling through a approach we can imagine those voices that have been advocating military strikes against iran's
nuclear program coming to the forefront again. and i think that would be, it could be very hard to manage at this time especially if the iranians pull out of the joint plan of action. you could see a potential link back to where we were or perhaps even worse where the military option was being considered and i think, certainly from the u.s. point of view with our attention focused on defeating isis, and dealing with crises throughout the world not only in the middle east but ukraine and elsewhere, i just can't imagine that this administration would want the situation to deteriorate from that point. once he gets to that point, there is no guarantee that a spiraling like that can be managed. >> i would like to add something to that. i think when the -- u.s.
negotiator put it very well that there is no deal the name on the of the game on both sides will be escalation and that's the worst-case scenario which would be a relatively good scenario. that escalation in the u.s. side would mean more sanctions and potentially gravitation towards military confrontation on the iranian side. all of the limitations that have existed so far on the joint plan of action would be taken away and they would probably go back to 20% expanding their centrifuge count etc. etc. so the idea that at no deal scenario leads to the continuation of the current status quo i think is something that we have to be very cautious of. it's probably the opposite and a no deal scenario will lead to the deterioration of the current status quo of militarily, diplomatically and economically. >> israel threatens months ago to launch a new reactor that was
going to create plutonium. israel said that was clearly a military plan, purely something they could attack. he was going to be above the ground in the desert. so the pentagon said to me this building is so visible it had the word attack written on the roof. so anyway because of the agreement we had last year with a ram construction of this reactor has slowed down. it may not produce plutonium, it may produce something else but basically this threat if negotiations collapse and iran reverse what it was doing a year and half ago building this reactor could clearly set the stage for military action in israel which again would make things worse. >> may i ask you a question? >> and what the price of gas would be if there is a deal. what would it be if there isn't a deal and you have an escalation? >> i think we had an military attack on iran the price of a
$10 a barrel with the fear of military in the area. how far would they go in retaliating? i think it would be easily upwards of $10 barrel. how far we go would depend on how well played out. china has a major interest in us because they get over half the oil from the persian gulf. they are active investors and iran and have had a close relationship. they would probably tell the iranians please don't -- because we need not to be open. but again we don't know what iran would do. the radicals would take over in which case you might get extreme action. we just don't know. it's a wild card. >> i think the official close to negotiations put it succinctly and that is failure is not an option so we will be watching with baited breath what happens over the weekend leading up to the 24th and hopefully we will
be mindful of the many benefits of a potential deal. i want to go ahead and thank our participants, david hale, suzanne dimaggio and trita parsi. i want to thank the archive foundation for sponsoring this event as well as congressman moran. i want to thank all of you for being here today. take care. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] >> from the "washington post" today secretary of state john kerry plunged into wide-ranging talks today over efforts to define limits on iran's nuclear program meeting with iran's top diplomat and winning strategies among key partners with a deadline just days away. meanwhile news breaking today that house republicans have filed a lawsuit against the obama administration over its implementation of the health care law. they say the president has overstepped his executive authority in here carrying out the program. as it is specifically against the secretaries of the treasury and hhs. also centers for medicare and medicaid director marilyn tavener and health care law adviser jonathan gruber have been called to testify before
the house oversight committee on tuesday, december 9. house minority leader nancy pelosi had this to say today about the lawsuit. the legislative branch cannot sue simply because they disagree with the way a law passed by a different congress has been implemented. it is clear as one leading legal scholar put it that this lawsuit lawsuit is an terrorizing loser. meanwhile house speaker john boehner said if this president can get away with making his own laws, future presidents will have the ability to as well. the house has an obligation to stand up for the constitution and that is exactly why we are pursuing this course of action. the lawsuit follows president obama's announcement last night of his intentions to take executive action on immigration reform. the speaker also commented on the immigration issue an on camera mob remarks to reporters earlier today. >> good morning everyone. our nation's immigration system is broken and i think we need to
work together to fi fix it. but if fixing it starts with a commitment working to the democratic process and enforcing the laws that the president is sworn faithfully to execute. all year long i have warned the president that by taking unilateral action on matters such as this health care law or by threatening action repeatedly on immigration he was making it impossible to build the trust necessary to work together. as i warned the president, he can't ask the elected representatives of the people to trust you to enforce the law if you are constantly demonstrating that you can't be trusted to enforce the law. the president never listens. and with this action he has refused to listen to the american people. the president has taken action that he himself has said are those of a king or an emperor,
not an american president. and he is doing this at a time when americans want nothing more than both parties to focus on solving the biggest problems in our country, starting with our still struggling economy. the action by the president yesterday will only encourage more people to come here illegally and put their lives at risk. we saw the humanitarian crisis on our border last summer and how horrific it was. next summer it could be worse. this action also punishes those who have obeyed the law and avoided -- have waited their turn. with this action the president has chosen to deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms that he claims to seek and as i told the president yesterday he is damaging the presidency himself. president obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he
was elected and we were elected to serve but we will not do that. in the days ahead the peoples house will rise to this challenge. we will not stand idle as the president undermines the rule of law in our country and places lives at risk. we will listen to the american people. we will work with our members and we will work to protect the constitution of the united states. >> the president says. >> you all know what the rules are. >> mr. speaker the president says you could have prevented this mr. speaker by showing that the house was going to take action on comprehensive immigration reform. did you miss the boat? >> the president made 38 unilateral changes to the affordable care act. the president repeatedly suggested that he was going to unilaterally change immigration law and he created an environment where the members would not trust him and trying to find a way to work together
was virtually impossible. i warned the president over and over that his actions were making it impossible for me to do what he wanted to do. >> can you tell us how you plan to respond, how they house plans to respond and when when the hospital responded whether or not you agree with chairman rodgers that given how these things are funded the power of the purse through appropriations is not a constitutional avenue to bite this? >> we are working with their members in looking at the options available to us but i will say to you the house will affect that. >> you started a piecemeal process last year earlier this year. can you renovate that? can you reinvigorate that or move it forward or it will you start from scratch? >> as i said from the beginning of my remarks we have a broken immigration system and the american people expect us to work together to fi fix it and e have to do it in the democratic
process. moving bills to the people's house through the senate into the president's desk. thank you. happy thanksgiving. [inaudible conversations] the president will continue to speak about his immigration plan in las vegas this afternoon. we will show you his rally life beginning at 3:55 eastern time on our companion network c-span. the miami book fair is this weekend. join us both day starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern for live coverage on booktv on c-span2. you will see best-selling authors talking about their nonfiction books and we will take your, e-mails and tweets.
>> coming up acting secret service director joseph clancey testifies on secret service operations in the wake of a string of security lapses that led to the resignation of its former director last month. this hearing runs an hour and 40 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the judiciary committee will come to her and without objection the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at anytime. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight of united states secret service. before we begin i want to make members aware that the first portion of our hearing is open to the public and there may be
items which we cannot discuss in an open setting because they fall into the category of being law enforcement sensitive information. therefore after the director has testified and we have concluded one round of questions we will recess briefly to clear the hearing room. after that members and staff will be permitted to re-enter the room and we will convene the law enforcement sensitive portion of the hearing. today we welcome acting director clancy to hearing to conduct oversight of united states secret service. we very much appreciate you being here today particularly given that you have only been on the job for a little over a month. you have an exemplary record of service as the head of the presidential protective division and we are grateful that you agree to take the reins of the secret service at this critical juncture. the secret service created by president lincoln in 1865 has a long and distinguished history. the agency has two primary missions, criminal
investigations and protection of the president, vice president and other dignitaries. what protection is clearly the most visible of its two missions i would be remiss not to mention that the secret service has recently had a number of significant investigative accomplishments including approximately 6700 arrests for financial and cybercrimes in fiscal year 2014 along which prevented more than $3 billion in lawsuits. it is important to note that the service has also had many successes implementing its protective mission. in fiscal year 2014 the service provided protection for 6000 travel stops including more than 2500 visits by foreign dignitaries and two national special security events. secret service is entrusted with protecting some of our most valuable assets including the president, the first family and the white house. this is an extremely difficult high-profile mission for which
there is no margin for error. recent incidents give me great concern that the policies, procedures and training at the secret service are not entirely up to the task. just after 7:15 p.m. on september 19, 2014 omar gonzalez was able to scale the white house fence, invade numerous secret service officers outside the white house and force its way through the unlocked front door armed with a knife trade although was initially reported to the public and congress that gonzalez gonzalez was apprehended just inside the north portico doors we have since learned that he actually made it all the way to the east room of the white house before being tackled by secret service officers. the department of homeland security's review of this event uncovered a laundry list of errors that evening including communications systems that didn't work and that officers were not trained to use properly, a construction project along the white house fence that
obscured officers sidelined, unlocked front doors to the white house late on friday evening and a k-9 officer who was on a personal cell call without his radio earpiece in his ear or his tactical radio at the time gonzalez scaled the fence. this delayed the officer's response meaning that the k-9 was not able to identify gonzález is the target. the report also discusses a number of training and staff issues as well as potential missed opportunities to stop gonzalez in the months leading up to september 19. today's hearing will take place in two parts, a public portion and a closed portion which we will drill further down into the deficiencies that have been revealed in the secret service's policy events and procedures as well as any deficiencies with the physical security at the white house. in particular i'm interested in discussing how the service intends to improve security at the white house win as was true
on september 19, the president or other protectees are not present. a month after omar gonzalez was able to enter the white house and other fence jumper was quickly apprehended by secret service officers including the k-9 unit. it is my hope that this incident shows the services are implemented important reforms. however the gonzalez fence jumper is just one of many events in the past few years that call into question would be the u.s. secret service is doing all it can to fulfill its mission and prevent mistakes. others include the colombian prostitution scandal the reasonability of a security guard with a criminal history to take a service weapon into an elevator with the president and the incident in the netherlands dealing with intoxicated secret service agents. given the vital role the secret service plays in the security of the present in the white house it is critical that congress investigate the services response to recent incidents and
work with the service and make sure it fulfills its critical mission read this hearing is intended to do just that. and since the ranking member has not yet arrived, we will go ahead and swear and our only witness and again welcome him. acting director clancy if you would raise your right hand and repeat after me. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god so help you god? thank you very much. let the record reflect that the acting director responded in the affirmative and we welcome him. joseph p. clancy was designated as the acting director of the united states secret service on october 1, 2014 by secretary of homeland security j johnson. prior to accepting the position mr. clancy served as a executive director cable security at comcast corporation. in 27 year veteran of the secret
service mr. clancy's career there began in 1984 and the philadelphia field office. mr. clancy was appointed special agent in charge of the presidential protective division on february 1, 2009. mr. clancy held this position until his retirement from the secret service on june 30, 2011. mr. clancy attended the united states military academy at west point and is a graduate of villanova university with a bachelor of arts and political science in criminal justice. prior to joining the secret service mr. clancy worked as a high school teacher and football and baseball coach for the philadelphia archdiocese. mr. clancy and we appreciate your presence here today and we look forward to your testimony. your written statement will be entered into the record in its entirety and we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes or less. to help you stay within that there is a timing light on your table so welcome mr. clancy.
>> thank you mr. chairman. good morning chairman goodlatte ranking member conyers and distinguished members of the committee. let me begin by recognizing the tremendous support this committee has given the secret service over many years and acknowledge her staff both past and present the work with us on issues as varied as protection of former presidents to cybercrime targeting our nation's banks and financial institutions. 44 days ago i embarked on the greatest endeavor of my professional life, the privilege of leading the dedicated and self-sacrificing employees of the secret service for a challenging time in the agency's storied history. while returning to public service after beginning his second career in the private sector was not an easy decision the call to restore operational excellence to the secret service was too urgent to ignore. i did not come here today expecting this hearing to be
easy but it is my hope that the next several hours will yield productive discussions about the state of the secret service. without question the agency has been severely damaged in recent years by failures ranging from disgraceful misconduct on the part of some employees who operational breakdowns that undermine the trust and confidence that previous generations work so hard to establish. one of those operational breakdowns was the white house incursion on september 19 of this year. i understand the committee was briefed last week on the review of the incident. i have read the report. i found the findings devastati devastating. what hits the hardest is the range of shortcomings that ultimately allowed omar gonzalez to enter the white house practically unencumbered. although i firmly believe the secret service is better from this incident i open lake knowledge that a failure of this magnitude especially in light of other recent incidents requires immediate action and longer-term reform. the department found that the
level of training for uniformed division officers likely contribute to kinsella's ability to reach the white house interior. there was confusion regarding various roles and responsibilities in the fence jumping incident. to address this issue i will continue to oversee the integrated training for white house division officers and tactical teams that were initiated after the september 19 incident. this training involves dynamic scenario-based exercises simulating breaches of the white house grounds. my goal is to enter the 100% of all white house branch officers receive this training by the end of the calendar year. if someone does attempt to scale the white house fence i want to ensure they are met with immediate and forceful resistance. but i also view the fence itself is a needed deterrent for would-be jumpers. the secret service has long held prevention is the lynchpin of effective security plans which is why we are currently working with our partners and the national park service to look at potential changes that would
assist in the detection and delay of any persons attempt to scale the white house fence. special agent u levels have direct impact on the secret service's ability to conduct regular in-service training. thanks to additional funding provided by congress in fiscal year 2014 the secret service was able to hire a total of 238 new law enforcement positions more than tripling the number hired over the previous two years combined. this fiscal year we hope to surpass that number and continue our work to achieve staffing levels that are commensurate with the mission requirements. however i recognize the staffing challenges are not remedied overnight. as it stands now the recruiting an onboard process takes about them -- approximately 12 months with an additional seven months of training for new agent officers. while concerns will take some time to resolve i have taken immediate steps to improve the flow and quality of communication at all levels within the agency.
an integral part of why i agreed to serve as acting director reports of some employees are no option but to take their concerns to people outside the secret service rather than trusting their supervisors and the agency's leadership to confront difficult issues head-on. that is unsustainable and any organization. while i have the utmost respect for the employee's right to report incidents of waste, fraud and abuse in a confidential manner without fear of reprisal i see an urgent need to reestablish what it is one of the most basic tenants of a well-functioning workplace. trust your boss that he will stand up and do the right thing. one of the first things, one of the first actions i took since assuming this was to foster better communication between the rank-and-file supervisor in the agency's executive leadership. i conduct a town hall style meetings with the circuit -- secret service field offices around the country by video office. i joined officers at the white
house complex during their daily roll call. in the event that employs are apprehensive about their supervisors i instructed the secret service ombudsman to establish a mechanism of elevating employee concerns directly to the executive review board for resolution. i'm a great importance of full accountability and directed that i've be present when actions are taken. the core values of the secret service just as do the courage honesty and let him guide the agency through many challenges over the course of its history. now more than ever it's critically important for us to recognize that in the midst of all the turmoil there is exceptional work being carried out by thousands of secret service employees around the country and around the world to embody these core values. in my view there could be an integral part of success whether that refers to an agency or to an individual. we are confident we can fulfill our mission with honor and
restore the secret service as the most respected protective service in the world. chairman goodlatte, and ranking member conyers this concludes my opening remarks. i look forward to a good discussion and will be happy to answer questions during both the open and close portions of today's hearing as appropriate. thank you. >> thank you mr. clancy and i will begin the questioning and when he does arrive he will recognize him for his opening statement and questions. as you know the officers who were present with omar gonzalez to jump the fence on september 19th believed he was not armed and not present a threat that would warrant a lethal threat and was ultimately discovered he was carrying a knife when he entered the white house. can you explain what the services policy for the use of lethal force has given mr. gonzalez didn't actually have a knife when he entered the white house do you agree with
the decision to withhold its? >> yes sir. dhs and the secret service have a very clear policy on the use of deadly force. basically what it states is an officer when it's necessary is authorized to use deadly force if the individual poses an immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer, the agent or to someone else. >> and what nonlethal options as an officer have to subdue or stop a fence jumper? >> officers in addition to their weapons they have pepper spray and obviously they are trained to use their hands as well to transition to that mode. >> are you looking into other options? >> sir we are always looking at other options are available. we are in close consultation with other agencies and we share
information so we are always evaluating the equipment we have for our officers and agents. >> concern is then raised that there's an over reliance on the dogs, on the k-9's that may have impeded the service's ability to stop what happened on september 19. >> the k-9 are an important asset we have on the north and south grounds of the white house complex. it's one option of several that officers can use in the event of a fence jumper. it's a decision that the officers have to make depending on circumstances whether to use the k-9 but previous jumpers have been confronted with officers have used their hands and use their batons. they have used other equipment to stop these fence jumpers. >> thank you. i want to get an opportunity to discuss an incident that occurred back in 2011. it's been reported that there was a period of additional
confusion about whether gunshots had been fired toward the white house on november 11, 2011 and that officers were told to stand down. can you comment on what the service did that evening and the days following to investigate the shooting and did the service relies or did they not realize that it was wrong until the bullets were found on the side of the white house several days later? >> yes sir thank you. if i had been briefed, when we were aware of shots being fired initially there was a report over the radio that there's a stand-down order but that was quickly overridden to our officers responded to probe away. they went to their defensive positions in the white house complex. they did hear some noise that sounded similar to gunshots. we continue to try to identify
where those noises came from. we knew there was construction on constitution avenue but we immediately within two minutes notified the park police of the sounds by constitution avenue. within five minutes we located the vehicle where mr. ortega, where he was driving within five minutes. within 30 minutes i believe we started we built an incident command center on constitution avenue and then we continue to stay with the course of the investigation over the next several days. >> how quickly was there a warrant for the rest of the suspect in that case? >> how many days sir? we identified as i've been briefly identified mr. ortega that day as the owner of the vehicle and then through the process of an investigation through our field office we were able to identify where he was located and i believe novembe
november 15 a warrant was served on him in the state of pennsylvania. >> within a few days. >> yes, sir. >> with regard to the elevator incident in atlanta on september 16 of this year, what steps is the service taken to revise its policies and procedures for handling third-party security contracto contractors? >> yes, sir. needless to say that was a breach in our procedures. we did not follow procedures in advance of that visit at the cdc. we have done and a business -- investigation on that and in general someone who normally a sworn law enforcement officials should be -- in this case we did not follow the proper procedures. it's not a matter of necessarily changing policies but more an indication that we need to do better training and reshape some of the training we are doing with our folks in production
details. >> and on that what is your policy for determining when third parties may be armed within the proximity of the present or another protective individual? how you go about determining that? >> they will ask his local security at the site and is anyone armed and needless to say we all do so do records checks on anyone who's going to be in close proximity of the president. in this case again we have failed our procedures in allowing this gentleman to operate the elevator arms. >> thank you very much. my time has expired and i will now recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee mr. scott for his questions. >> director clancy thank you for being here. one of the problems we have around here frequently is that when we do budgets, we don't think tax cuts affect the budget and the budget cuts don't affect your ability to provide servic
services. can you describe a little bit about the budget ups and downs over the last three or four years? >> yes, sir. when i came back to the secret service and accepted this position i identified three main areas of concern. one was staffing, one was training and obviously morale as well. staffing is a complicated issue. back in 2011 we were at a highpoint. we had approximately 7024 security personnel back in 2011. 2012 and 2011, i'm sorry 2012 and 2013 we had a severe drop-off and there were uncertain times from a budget standpoint and also we realize from what i understand that 7024 number was unsustainable. we were not able to year after year to pay those employees. so our numbers drop down.
in 2014. >> director did you need 7024 people? >> yes sir. >> keep going. >> so in 2014 with the help of congress we were able to hire 238 new security professionals which was a good help to us but we were starting from scratch after not hiring people in 2012 and 2013 so we are starting to work our way back up. needless to say in 2015 that is a priority. right now we have uniformed officers and six classes of special agents prepared to go through training this year. >> you are understaffed. what is that due to people's vacation time and overtime? >> yes, sir. it affects their vacation time and it affects overtime drastically. our uniformed division works extremely hard but very often they get their days canceled or
they have to extend their workday and that has a severe effect on their morale and obviously it has an effect on training which is something we are going to correct moving forward. >> when you are understaffed can you explain what happens to training? >> yes, sir. we are understaffed is difficult to people out of their training assignments because of the operational needs of the service so one of the things we have done to alleviate that in the short-term as we have brought agents in from the field to take some of these positions the uniformed division has at the white house complex a weekend get people out to train. >> what happens when people are not properly trained? >> when we are not properly trained sir we failed. >> now, we have coming up next year another round of sequestered, 10% across-the-board cuts. what will that do your -- to your staffing morale and training? >> sir that will have an effect on our staff and our training
and on our morale. we will continue to do our very best to fulfill the needs and we will meet the needs to protect the white house and the first family. we will do whatever we need to do to make sure we meet those requirements. >> if you meet those requirements that something has got to give and what priorities will not be met if you need to transfer people onto the white house security? >> sir sometimes we do have to reach out to our field offices who are doing a tremendous job as the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks. there are investigative functions that we take those agents to support us. >> did the transfer, do you know if the transfer to homeland security had any effect on your ability to perform your mission? >> sir i don't think i'm one to evaluate. i was a young manager when we
are in the treasury department. certainly i've had exposure and experience with the department of homeland security and we abuse them. as i've been briefed in the most recent united nations we used our other components within the department of homeland security to assist us in the united nations security plan. we use their hsi investigators to help us. we use their tsa agents to assist us with magnetometers. we use the coast guard to assist us with our water and sea support and air support so we were able to use the components of the department of homeland security to assist us in a very critical mission. >> just for the record, when the fence jumping incident occurred where was the president and the first first family? >> sir when the fence jumper on november 19 occurred the president had left for camp david and the first lady was out of the residence as well. >> thank you mr. chairman.
>> the chair thanks the gentleman in recognizes the gentleman from north carolina mr. coble. >> thank you mr. chairman and mr. clancy is good to have you with us here this morning. mr. clancy if i were going to pursue an activity to direct attention to me i believe i would have find some exercise other than a fence jumper at the white house. maybe i am in the minority in that world but it's been reported that the service had vulnerable contact with guns out was prior to september 19. while any review of that event include a review of how information regarding the suspect prior to that date was handled including information gathered by the secret service investigators following gonzalez' arrest on july 19, 2014? >> yes, sir. that is correct sir and to explain a little bit what happened. >> if you would do that.
>> yes sir. during that time sir when mr. gonzalez was arrested down in virginia our roanoke office was advised of the arrest. there was consultation between the local authorities and our agents and at that time our agents did not interview mr. gonzalez. subsequent to that, when mr. gonzalez posted bond our agents did interview mr. gonzalez and we were all where of the weapons that he had in his vehicle. we were also aware of the map that he had in his possession. this is one of the most difficult decisions and agent has to make to make an assessment of someone that they are interviewing whether or not that individual has the potential or the motive to do harm to any of our protectees and during that interview mr. gonzalez did not exhibit any of those characteristics.