tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 14, 2015 9:00am-11:01am EDT
sanctions have waivers, some of them don't have waivers. some of them are law. you have u.n. sanctions, you have e.u. sanctions, you have combination sanctions. it's not the same thing as just putting a red mark through a piece of paper. what is meant by not using anything beyond the ir1 centrifuge within ten years? ten years is a short period of time. 10-15 years, everything could change. another thing that gets me kind of concerned is a one-year breakout time. wow. why is everyone saying that's a good thing? how about a no-year breakout time? i think i'd feel a lot more comfortable with that one. am i being outrageous enough? am i shattering illusions here? what that essentially says is the iranians can build a nuclear
weapon in one year. i don't think we should agree to that. i don't think we should agree to 10-15 years either. i think it should be expanded out. 10-15 years everything turns around. this whole thing falls to the wayside. and the use of different centrifuges, the fordo complex, just about everything else goes right back online at the end of 10-15 years. if you have patience all changes. and by then the oil is exported the money's pouring in, this $150 billion that ken alluded to as an economist when i hear $150 billion pouring into a country, i hear inflation. i hope that the iranian leadership does not still follow high tole la khomeini's edict that economics is for donkeys because economics works. the economy drove iran into its revolution many 1979. we seem to be in a dream world here. what is the meaning of the term
in the deal significant amount of time? in the banning of technologies that might be used for producing nuclear weapons. you'll have to excuse me. i worked in a law office for some years and i learned from the lawyers how to parse words how to tear them apart, how to try to figure out the real meaning as stated here. and if there's enough vagueness, change it. who controls the inspection decisions? the security council? the russians? who does that? that's a little bit vague. also some of you may not know about nuclear technologies. every nuclear power plant that uses uranium in the world produces plutonium. produces enriched uranium and lots of other stuff in it. it was the nature of the process of producing electricity t in a nuclear a plant. one minute. okay.
in one minute what can i tell you? i am concerned about how this is worded. i am concerned once the door is opened and the horses are out of the barn how difficult it will be to get the horses back into barn. i'm concerned what will do to the -- what this will do to the region. i can see the hope, i can see the potential to opening up world markets to iran and so forth. this is all great. but the deal must be struck with strict language instruct timetables -- strict timetables and no illusions. thank you. [applause] >> okay. thank you all very much for the broad range of views and comments and the very insightful presentations on economics politics the regional implications for this deal. now comes to the most interesting part, your questions.
i think for the next 40 plus minutes we'll just go ahead and run through the questions we've received from the audience and then turn them over to the panel. i'll read them as we go and appreciate very much if you've got any more just pass them along, and we'll try to respond as best we can. for ken katzman will the u.s. all u.s. investments in oil field services companies, u.s. oil companies, other u.s. companies like boeing be held up until congress acts? >> the fact sheet distributed by the administration makes it clear that sanctions that bar u.s. companies from doing business iran will not be lifted under this arrangement. so this, the sanctions that are to be relieved primarily refer to u.s. sanctions on foreign non-u.s. companies. it is very clear from the u.s. statements that there will not, as a consequence of this particular arrangement if it's
finalized, and u.s. companies might at some point be allowed to participate pursuant to perhaps the u.s. and iran coloring up their -- clearing up their differences quote-unquote, on a range of other issues that have plagued the relationship over past 35 years. thank you. >> the next question, might hezbollah's hesitation to comment on the deal be due to a concern that a warming of u.s./iranian relations might reduce iranian support for them? imad perhaps you might want to kick off that -- >> well, i think this is a -- i don't think that the iranians are connect combining their thinking of what hezbollah represents to them with their thinking on what the nuclear deal would be like. the only thing is there is that
maybe iran indicate to hezbollah that it probably is tomb for hezbollah to -- is time for hezbollah to help the system putting the lebanese system back on track and a phone call from iran would set things very much straight in beirut. >> anybody else have any comment to make on that one? okay. another question that's looking at the broader relationship between iran and israel is now that iran's nuclear power in the region is being analyzed is there a growing concern with the relationship between iran and israel? what do you think will happen? i think that's for everybody to comment on because of the significance of the discussion particularly recently. on capitol hill here. >> yeah. i think context is important.
for almost half the life span of israel from its establishment in 1948 to the present the relationship between iran and israel was intimate, it was strategic, it was economic, it was geopolitical. and the roots are very deep in terms of the stories pertaining to esther, a persian who helped to free the jews from captivity, from babylon. so the degree of trust over the centuries between jews and persians is deep at times it's been massive at times it's been
perfectly e evasive. and when iraq's large jewish community went to israel, thousands went by way of iran. and during the '50s and '60s, the heyday of arab nationalism, iran and israel danced in even other's -- in each other's shadow. they didn't need each other's zip code or area code. there's only one israel only one iran. each has been concerned about an intimate u.s.-arab relationship because there are 22 the arab cups, only one iran m only one israel. so that also was part of the glue or the adhesive. and many in israel regard these last years since 1979 as an
aberration in what would ordinarily be a normal, mutually-beneficial, reciprocally-rewarding relationship between the two countries. so that's background that's context. but it shows a degree of trust and commonality of interest, similarity of interest, complementary interest between the two that now may begin to come back into focus. but it will be quite a stretch. in the near term, it's a bridge too far. but as recently as 1978, meetings i had, a briefing by the head of israel's foreign ministry in answer to a question of where do you obtain your energy your oil, and the answer was 90% we get from iran.
>> the issue is about nuclear and the impact of a nuclear agreement on the region iran and israel. i think we need to be sinner is so -- sincere to each other about iranian nuclear policy and israeli nuclear policy. iran is member of non-proliferation treaty from the day one. israel has never accepted to be member of non-proliferation treaty. iran does not have nuclear bomb. israel has about 400 nuclear bombs. recently pentagon accepted israel, they have nuclear bomb. just in a decade iran has given more than 7,000 mandate
inspection to iaea. no other npt member during the history of iaea has given such a level and amount of inspection which iranians, they gave. israel has never given even one inspection. iran has initiated nuclear weapon-free zone in the middle east in 1970. this is iranian proposal as insisted for 40 50 years. israel is declining is rejecting, is objecting nuclear weapon-free zone. in mid 1990s egypt proposed middle east free weapon -- free from weapons of mass destruction, wmd-free zone in middle east. iran was the second country to support it. it's over 20 years israelis opposing weapons of mass
destruction-free zone in the middle east. therefore, we are talking about two very very, very different policy on proliferation. and as an iranian i'm really shocked everybody's talking about iran, and nobody's talking about israelly nuclear bomb -- israeli nuclear bomb and all pressure and sanctions are on iran while iran doesn't have nuclear bomb and nobody's talking about israel. i mean, this is a -- [inaudible] on the hill in washington, in the west about proliferation issue in the middle east. however, this deal has a lot of new elements which really can contribute to permanent removal of any proliferation risk in the middle east. it says iran would be committed
to have no reprocessing. okay, this is first iranian goodwill as long as you do not have reprocessing, you cannot make nuclear weapon from heavy water facilities. israelis, they have rereprocessing. would the u.s. and the world powers be ready to regionalize the measures agreed with iran for all regional countries? nobody would have enrichment above 5%? as long as there is no enrichment above 5%, there would be never nuclear bomb from enrichment facility. if there is no reprocessing, it's impossible to have nuclear bomb from heavy water facilities. it can have major positive impact if israelis also would be
ready to follow the same nuclear policy iran has followed for 40, 50 years and if the other regional countries would be ready to accept such a measure as iran has accepted far beyond npt. >> do you want to, do you have any comments on that? >> me? >> yeah. >> i, i don't think israel will ever give up its nuclear weapons or agree to restrictions and i think i would expect them to continue to oppose this deal no matter what and to lobby for more actions against iran. that's -- because of the nature of the two governments john was
talking about how in the past israel viewed iran as a, you know as a partner in a sense because both of them had concerns about the arab world and american relations with the arab world but i can't see that entering into their minds anytime in the near or midterm. and, in fact their concern about iran is so great that they are, you know, in a sense reversing that trend and trying to forge relations with arab astronauts that also view -- arab states that also view iran as a threat. it's a very tactical effort on their part. it's only because they both have a concern about iran. when netanyahu was many front of the congress a month -- was in front of the congress a month or so ago and warned that iran is a
country that commits aggression against the arab world i think that he -- [laughter] i don't think that's his primary concern. >> paul? >> just very briefly, i mean, i think i would say there was just simply a consensus in the international community that the way israel was formed, how small it is, the fact that its neighbors rejected it immediately, there's just been a consensus to sort of allow it to have this deterrent. so i think continuing to raise the fact that they're not in the npt and all this may be intellectually precise, but it's probably not going to go very far, so that would be my response. >> the israeli military and other institutions don't start the day by saying --
[speaking in native tongue] death to america. maybe changing that could help go a long way. also personalities define relationships. and right now we have very strong personalities involved in the israeli/iranian dialogue, if we want to call it that. it's more like two monologues that never meet. also there are other issues involved here, and let me get it straight. i'm not saying i'm against the deal, i'm not saying i'm for it i'm just saying get better specificity, and make it a real deal, not this thing floating in the air. i am not for war with iran. if anyone has that impression, i've been through war games looking at the costs of that war, and it is astonishing what could happen. it would make iraq look like a picnic. iran is a bigger country bigger military, more organized,
hierarchical, a long culture, and as soon as the boots hit the ground, welcome to hell. for all sides involved. we don't need that. what we need is some kind of a diplomatic economic, informational and other change to bring this about. and my sense is this two-and-a-half page document is not it because we have other issues to deal with. what's happening in bahrain what's happening in saudi arabia what's happening in lebanon, what's happening in iraq what's happening in yemen. this is not part of the deal. ballistic missiles are not part of the deal. this is a very narrow document. this solves a very narrow question. and again, i am for improving relations, but it has to be done in the right way. excuse me. >> [inaudible] i just urge you to read
dr. anthony's latest piece on what -- why are we talking about iran, why is, what are the reasons basically behind this push towards iran iran, iran. so i urge you to read his report on that. >> there's a fundamental question here with regard to actually getting a copy of the deal. somebody asked where can we get a copy of the framework between the u.s. and iran. where is it published? >> the white house web site. >> oh, the web site? >> yeah. >> the middle east policy council has it on its web site. >> you can also find the iranian interpretation and the french interpretations which are somewhat different than the white house interpretation which is part of problem here. >> yeah. >> there are cultural differences, there are linguistic differences and there are also political differents across the country that are changing the way this is interpreted. it's far from done, and it's far
from clear. maybe it was important to make it unclear to see what happens. >> do we have any idea who the leads are on returning back to the constitutions, the it can call discussions? is it going to be secretary of energy? is secretary kerry going to be engaged on it can can call sides? what level will they be? >> if they haven't started this yet, the clock is ticking. july 1st is not so far away. you know, that's almost midterm time for a college, and this is trying to deal with all this complicated issue. probably there are a bunch of sherpas out there on all sides doing the heavy lifting. and once they get to a point where the sherpas do most of the heavy lifting, then the big players go on cnn fox tv and iranian tv and then they start to say well, we made the deal. the real work happens at a different level. >> right. >> yeah.
i -- there was, david ignatius a couple of days ago, i don't know if you read him -- i don't know if it appeared in the post but in the daily star he basically summed it up as if i may, basically the deal or framework for the deal slightly over 5,000 centrifuges for the next ten years that iran would maintain, would be allowed to work only enrichment for 15 years will be banned at fordo, this is the facility the mountain facility. iran can enrich some uranium at natanz which is the heavy -- >> no -- [inaudible conversations] >> i'm sorry, iraq heavy water reactor. at natanz 3.67% purity, and that is capped at 300 kilograms for 15 years.
1,000 ir2 centrifuges, this is the newer version of the centrifuge, would be removed from natanz, and the iraq heavy water reactor would be reconfigured to prevent the production of bomb fuel, basically plutonium. the iaea inspections would last for 25 years of all facilities, all mines, all imports that have to do with all of this. the iaea will have full access to everything and in return iran will get the gradual removal of sanctions as soon as iaa provides verification. so whenever iaa does that, then the sanctions will begin to be lifted. >> to put this in perspective this is the white house document explaining the deal. this is it. >> next question, with the gcc countries so close to iran and the nuclear sites even if iran's
intent is to build nuclear for energy what language should be inzitted on in the final agreement -- insisted on to avoid accidents like fukushima? >> you know, this is an issue of real concern in terms of one of the sites the one nearest to the gulf and the other gulf countries. because of the sanctions, because of the nonexistent relations between tehran and washington diplomatically and formally, there could be such an accident. iran has had a history of earth quacks -- earthquakes, and so has turkey. they're part of a different tectonic plate than those of
arabia. and so there is a legitimate fear what if there is an earthquake in that region. the fear is that there would be spillage and leakage and that this would be contaminating, and it would positive an immediate direct threat to the water desalination plants in kuwait bahrain, qatar and elsewhere. and ships may refuse to come into the gulf million this is -- gulf until this is dealt with and cleaned up. that is more than a nightmare. that has catastrophic implications. the russians were involved in building that reactor, and they are also the so-called inspect
ors of it until now. but this is like putting the fox in the coop with the chickens. there needs to be a more technologically professional, efficient and renowned inspector of that particular facility becauses the one that could -- because it is the one that could be catastrophic would there to be any accident there like a chernobyl. and the kuwaitis are the ones that are the most concerned and involved with this. and the chernobyl disaster some 200,000 people had to be relocated. and that was costly. and the united nations asked for a number of donor countries to subsidize and finance it and kuwait was the leading one. so kuwait's been involved in this kind of an issue longer than any of the other gcc
countries on the accident side. which relates directly to inspection and relates directly to one particular nuclear facility, the one that's closest to the gulf and that could affect them all. >> that's the busheir reactor. >> yes. yes, yes. busheir, yes. >> first of all busheir is under full control of the iaea and on the safety issues. it is 100% from the day one has been under iaea full supervision for the safety issues, and iaea has fully confirmed all safety measures and mechanic nhls already -- mechanickisms already is there. on the framework they agreed they have also agreed, the war
powers, to have more cooperation with iran on the safety issues. third, fukushima was in japan. japan never lowered its nuclear activities after fukushima. they continue the same nuclear activities. chernobyl was in russia, russia increased its nuclear activities after chernobyl. emirates is going to have four nuclear power plants. saudi arabia is going to have power plants. turkey is going to have power plants. therefore, we really do not need to create more artificial fears about iranian nuclear program. >> the japanese shut down all of the nuclear power plants. i was there two weeks ago visiting a plant just wes of tokyo -- jutte west of tokyo and they're spending billions of dollars to set up safety devices in the event of another earth
quack or tsunami. the japanese have been through a very difficult energy time since they had to shut down 30% of their electricity. which is what they have done. and there's a huge debate in japan right now about whether to turn these back on again. the farther away from tokyo you are, the more likely one of those plants is going to be started up again. it's a very emotional issue. and this fukushima problem wasn't just the earthquake, it's a water flow problem. and when i think water in the middle easts i wonder what some people are thinking. the jordanians are building a plant in the desert of northwestern jordan using a water treatment plant as a source of water to cool the spent fuel and the nuclear plant. as i told a reporter a few days ago, i wouldn't live beside that thing, because if the water treatment plant goes down, the water flow goes down and the thing overheats, and you have a fukushima in northeast jordan
right near the iraq border. the middle east is water short. if you're going to be putting the plant on the ocean, that makes sense. if you're putting it in the desert, that makes no sense. if you're putting it on a fault a line where busheir is it's on several fault lines, this makes no sense. near the ocean so maybe you keep the cooling going. but at the same time it will shut down automatically if there is an earthquake. it has before. the one in san diego shut down. nuclear facilities are very complicated beasts and they need a lot of water and a lot of water flow and people are are just not thinking through. >> anybody else want to comment on? question for ken katzman. please compare and contrast libya sanctions removal versus iranian sanctions removal, and when will iran be removed from the terrorism list? >> that's quite some questions. i know c-span is here, so i want to just say, hi, mom.
[laughter] >> i'll take that opportunity too. [laughter] >> the terror -- iran's removal from the terrorism, u.s. list of terrorism state sponsors, well, there's some young people in the audience so maybe by the time they're, you know, my age or our age, that could happen. iran is not anywhere chose to being removed from the the terrorism list. there is no can consideration in the u.s. government for removing iran from that list. i would just be cat forcall -- categorical on that question. the other -- what was the rest of the question, i'm sorry? >> oh, let's see -- >> libya, comparing libya? >> yeah, libya -- >> well i mean, you know we conceivably could have two similar situations. i mean, libya gave up its nuclear program and actually gave -- dismantled the whole thing. so obviously, there was not the
same level of debate over lifting some of the sanctions on libya because they had been so, you know basically dismantled the entire program. iran is not doing that. obviously, this deal leaves them with a sister-in-law infrastructure and -- substantial infrastructure and we've had, you know, more than an hour of discussion of the continuing concerns. so, you know, obviously it's not quite as easy. but, you know, again, just looking at authorities though i i mean the president does have you know, quite a bit of authority in terms of suspending sanctions. but if you're talking about lifting sanctions outright where congressional action is needed, then, of course it becomes much more involved. most of the main sanctions that would be relieved under this deal are enforced by congressionally-passed institute and, therefore -- statute and
therefore, congress to lift the sanctions outright would have to pass new legislation to do that. >> there's a follow-up question if i could, just for you regarding the the banking system. and, you know, contemplating full access. would a final agreement contemplate full access of iran to the banking system and the u.s. payment system? um -- >> again, anything involving the u.s. is not really part of the sanctions relief. it's -- iran would be able to access again, the european, the asian financial system and the secondary sanctions on those banks that are doing business iranian banks, they would not be penalized by doing business the u.s. financial system. but direct iran/u.s. financial transactions would still, that is not contemplated as part of the relief package.
>> thank you. question for ambassador mousavian from international news. foreign minister lavrov said he would recommend iran joining the shanghai cooperation association if the nuclear deal is successful. what would the implications of this be, and how would iran and the sco partners benefit? >> iran is already participating on all shanghai's high-level meetings. and if iran is member, there would create more opportunities for asian cooperation between iran and china iran central asia and then iran and india. this would be, this would have more impact on iran's economic
relations with ace rah. with asia. >> just as a general for the panel, we've got about 16 minnesotas, 17 minutes to go -- 16 minutes, 17 minutes to go. it's a broad one, what will the u.s. congress do? which is just sort of going to be filling a lot of air in terms of time. but if anybody would like to comment on that. over the next three months -- [laughter] >> hi, mom. [laughter] >> well, the u.s. congress will do what the u.s. congress will do. and that is debate this issue and take partisan viewpoints and try to work through in whatever manner they will. there's an election year coming up. there's always an election year coming up. and it's going to be hardball. and that's pretty much the way it's going to work out. and the house and the senate are now run by republicans.
which, for those of you who don't know, they run who gets invited to the committee. and, actually -- and run the questions in the committee assignments. so things are going to be a little bit different. it's going to be a very rough road. >> yes. i agree with him. but to my understanding, not only because of the next u.s. election and the domestic rivalries between democrats and republicans, it has a lot to do with bibi netanyahu, aipac and more, i believe a big big understanding not only in the u.s. congress between a lot of u.s. mull politicians. you hear from many u.s. congressmen that we should keep the sanctions, pressure iran.
iran only came to nuclear negotiation deal can or framework because of sanctions pressures. still they keep the same narrative. in all debate you read the same narrative. but very simple fact. before sanks iran had a few hundred centrifuges. after sanctions iran increased to 22,000 centrifuges. before sanctions iran was enriching below 5%. after sanctions iran increased to 20%. before sanctions iran had just a few hundred kilogram of stockpile. after sanctions, 10,000 kilograms. before sanctions iran was working with one generation of centrifuges, now eight generations of centrifugings. this was really the impact of sanctions. as president obama said,
suddenly the p5+1, they opened their eyes and they recognized iran has just three months to breakout. the only thing really made the sanction -- the deal or framework possible was, first, the u.s. agreed to iran to have enrichment for its domestic practical needs. that's why iran accepted to every transparency measures. and iran was ready to give every confidence-building measures that iran would never divert its nuclear program towards weaponization because practically they had the same red line. ayatollah khamenei's red line was nuclear bomb. and obama said our red line is nuclear bomb. these narratives still have not been corrected in the u.s. congress. there is a big misunderstanding.
and they are repeating the same mistake. today more concerns were about issues beyond b nuclear. you heard our panelists that they discuss about other threats, hezbollah hamas israel influence over iran and so and so. the reason netanyahu and even some arab allies and the hawks in washington, there are pushing the administration to continue coercion strategy is to contain iranian influence on power. this is the reality. but as long as they really do not recognize the fact. what is fact? i believe for 35 years the u.s. europe, the world powers they did everything they could on coercion strategies against iran.
unilateral sanctions, multilateral sanctions u.n. sanctions. war against iran. a million iranians were either killed or injured. even using chemical weapons against iranians. material technology was provided by the u.s., europe and arab allies. they all supported the use of weapons of mass destruction against iranians. no other country has been under so much pressure and sanction orchestrated by the u.s. however, after 35 years everybody today is crying and complaining why iran so stable? why iran so powerful? why iran has so influence? iran is everywhere from beirut to baghdad to yemen, iran is everywhere. this is clear evidence and fact that 35 years of sanctions and
pressures and the most powerful coercion policies against iran not only has failed, but has strengthened iran's stability and power in the region. and hook at the u.s. allies in the region. where is mubaraksome they got all weapons all monies all supports. and you can see the collapse of u.s. allies in the region and the others we cannot say but you won't understand, they already -- [inaudible] therefore, and one would say, look if you are right, then if we lift the sanctions, iran would be more aggressive. here is another misperception misunderstanding about rain grab culture between -- about iranian culture between our regional arab allies and even in washington. i have been 13 years seeing the iranian administration, and there is a culture. they need to understand iranian
culture. more pressure, more sanctions would make iran more aggressive. therefore, as long as the congress follows the coercion strategy iran would be more aggressive, and you would cry more, you would be feared more about the role of iran. if there is more opening to iran more cooperation iranians would make a deal like you on all other issues like the flexibilities they did on the nuclear. therefore, as long as this you are narrative continues in u.s. congress, i am optimistic each about the future of iran/u.s. relations. i'm pessimistic, sorry. [laughter] >> dr. sullivan or imad? >> well one country we haven't mentioned sheer is china.
and -- mentioned here is china. and they are very much involved in the situation including developing two of largest oil fields in iran under sanctions. i don't think the issue is an application of two tough sanctions, it's an issue of not applying the sanctions that we already have in certain circumstances. the chinese import 60% of iran's oil exports. they built a rail system they built roads. they're very much involved in iran right now. the russians are very much involved. that's another country we have mentioned one or -- once or twice in here. it's not just the u.s., and we have lost leverage. some people in this city seem to think we can do something and the world jumps. this is a different world. china is a powerful country. russia is not as powerful its economy is degraded, and it's, you know that's something else. but the chinese are a powerful country that wants more influence in the middle east and they're moving into every single country. it's one of few countries that
helps saudi arabia and iran at the same time invests in available -- saudi arabia and iran at the same time. they support the palestinians and israelis at the same time. they're playing a double game and they're playing it brilliantly. and our leverage in the region is not what it was. even five years ago. so to think that we can say sanction and close the door and everyone jumps, that's not the way it is anymore. this is a different region. it's a different iran, it's a different china. china, when this whole thing started, was a poor country back in 1979. the iranian revolution china was a poor country. had no real clout in the region. and it didn't start importing oil until from to -- from oman in 1983. this is a totally different can world. we have to get up to speed on this one. >> yeah. but the, back to the congress issue, the unfortunate fact is i believe that the only hope that
might come from anything related to congress is that the white house would have some sort of a ability to brach the veto-proof kind of thing. unfortunately, the situation is such that congressmen are not necessarily listening to reasoned argument. >> after ambassador mousavians' pessimism with regard to congress, i'm going to come at it from a slightly different perspective, but i end up with same point, and that is the pressure of lobby groups neoconservatives and those who are interested in advancing the israeli narrative or israeli objectives or israeli interests.
and iran has become quite convenient as a distraction from israel's action, israel's policies israel's positions, israel's fait accompli. and it will continue to serve this tactical role to deflect tension away from the eastern med train grab -- mediterranean, specifically israel and its building of settlements by focusing on iran as the whipping boy, the bad boy, the scapegoat the fear mongering there. and this is because it has been a successful tactic by israel and its friends. in 1982 the u.s. was on a roll in iran having camp david under
its belt and gotten the israeli's to withdraw from the sana'a. and the next items on the agenda were to be jerusalem and the west bank and gaza. and the israeli pushback was over our dead bodies and this will not be your agenda. and we thought that this was hubris run amok. but it wasn't. i've sat in on meetings in january of '82 where state department briefer said between april 15th and june 15th israel will invade lebanon. and we said, why would they do that? because there's a cease fire and that's already seven months been negotiated with the plo. lebanon's intelligence, mossad and cia. by then it'll be 11 months, why would they do that? and the answer was because they
want to change the agenda completely. and, indeed they did by invading lebanon. and they remained there directly or indirectly for the next 19 years during which time with the attention deflected the set settlements doubled tripled quad quadrupled, and the settlements all remains. so this is quite tempting. even with the invasion of iraq on march 19, 2003, in the period since then israel has built the so-called separation barrier the security wall. and this has cut into what was to be the territory for interdependent state of palestine. 22% remaining. so territorial expansion has occurred in the shadow of deflecting american attention. we have done nothing to prevent
those events that i just described. that is, put a just enduring comprehensive piece even further from the reach of those who have tried in the last year with secretary of state kerry, before him mitchell before him, colin powell before them tony -- [inaudible] etc. we've been ineffectual. so i share the pessimism of the ambassador, but i arrive at it differently. iran will continue to be an on the of scorn and isolation if people in congress and those who lobby them are successful. >> thank you. i think we've got probably less than three or four minutes left so what i would like to do is just final, one final question and pose it to the panel, and we just go right down the row and see what we have to say about
it. what would be the regional implications and repercussions for a failure to arrive at an acceptable march 30 deadline, what's the next step if there is no agreement on the technical details in the over the next 90 days? >> go ahead -- [inaudible conversations] >> we'll start with dr. sullivan and move this way. >> be probably a delay. because i don't think it's going to be a reachable goal. it's going to be an extremely complicated situation. and to just give up and throw your hands up on july 1 that would probably bring a great deal of political resentment and anger within iran, within the iranian leadership, and the implications of that could be significant for whatever is
happening between the united states and iran on other issues. if et breaks down -- if it breaks down entirely, then we're back to step one. and to get these folks back to the table even if it's that wonderful ten-star hotel in lausanne, it's going to be very difficult. the proxies for iran and others may also react in a kinetic way if this happens making life far more complicated in the region. the guam has started -- the game has started. and i don't mean a fun game, i mean a very complicated and dangerous game. and it may not be a retreatable one if this thing breaks down. but the agreement, if there is to be an agreement, it has to be a proper one and very long lasting and has to be a step to going to deal with the other issues that are involved with this. otherwise we'll have an
agreement on something narrow and nothing else. >> i agree with paul about, that maybe, maybe the resort would be to postpone the negotiations on the it can call agreement but -- technical details. but at the same time if we resort to, if we postpone those then it's likely that elements within the iranian regime will try to stir things up regionally so it can have a little more of a bargaining chip in those extended negotiation cans. negotiations. >> i think given the reaction in iran to the tentative deal i think it is going to be extreme through difficult for iran not to go forward and have the final deal. i think the repercussions in iran would be tremendous if
there were a collapse at the end of this. i think president rouhani probably could not finish zarif, minister zarif would certainly not be able to continue. i think you would see a major, major upheaval if this doesn't go to completion at this point. >> yeah i agree that the technical details are so difficult that i would fully expect when june 30th comes, some announcement about extending talks and continuing. and i think that would suit a number of the gulf arab states because they would like to see a tighter agreement can negotiated, and they don't want sanctions lifted yet until the agreement is better.
and because they have recently, i think, realized that they need to heed in dealing with -- to lead in dealing with geopolitical threats rather than wait for the united states to lead them. not only that but they're also seeing that the united states is responding to their lead and the united states is gradually getting more involved helping in yes, yemen, helping more in syrian than before. so i think it would suit a number of those states for the negotiations to continue until a better deal is agreed upon. >> i believe already the negotiations have reached to no return point and they have already decided to strike a deal and they will reach. the u.s. also cannot leave the
negotiation table. the world powers they cannot leave the negotiation table because of two reasons. one -- three reasons. one, from the beginning they agreed criteria would be npt. they have signed. there is nothing left or disputed within npt. already everything within npt is i agreed even in details. second, iran is the only country with measures on verification, no brachout non-- no breakout nondiversion toward weaponization. far beyond npt. and third is the realities in the region. this really dictates to them to finish the job by july 1st. if it failed i believe neither
upheaval in tehran nor in washington. neither we would have regime change in tehran nor in washington. iranians would be able to continue another decade like they have been able to, to resist and to stay stable powerful last three, four decades. but the implication -- even if we do not agree with the world powers, why iran and the regional powers like saudi arabia turkey, egypt they cannot sit together and to agree on the same measures? within npt and beyond npt for nuclear weapon-freeway zone in the region? why? this is already achievement for the regional countries, regional powers to sit together, to agree for a regional mechanic
mechanism. and finally regardless of the nuclear issue, the problems in the region definitely is far far, far beyond iranian nuclear issue. and as long as we don't have regional cooperation between regional powers, iran, saudi arabia gcc, turkey, egypt, we are not going to get to anywhere even if the deal is dope on the nuclear -- deal is done on the nuclear. >> okay. well it's 12:00. it's time to move on, close the proceedings here. i want to on behalf of the national council and u.s./arab relations, i wanted to thank our wished panelists for -- our distinguished panelists for coming today on such short notice to share their insights, knowledge, wisdom and projections for the future. let's hope the next three months are eventful and as closing i
wanted to just point out that the president's legacy is on the line on this. so it's with serious discussion and debate that we'll be probably moving forward in the next three or four months. he says if we can take the nuclear issue off the table and bring regional stability to the middle east, these are noble objectives which i think in the days ahead will, as a result of our insights here, give us a better understanding of whether or not these are actually achievable ends and noble goals that can be pursued with success. thank you again for coming. you've been a great audience and wonderful questions. [applause] [inaudible conversations]
>> c-span2, providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy events. and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the senate about to gavel in starting the day with general speeches, and much of the action today will be happening off the floor. senators meeting behind closed doors with secretary of state john kerry regarding the iran nuclear deal. and the senate foreign relations committee will be working on a bill to prevent president obama
from lifting sanctions on iran. you can watch that hearing on our companion network c-span3 scheduled for 2:15 eastern time a. as we take you live now to the floor of the senate here on c-span2. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. eternal spirit thank you for sustaining us with your steadfast love
and unchanging mercy. without your compassion, all of our efforts would be in vain. your wondrous deeds keep us secure. may our lawmakers remember that true greatness comes through service. may they embrace their accountability to you to be responsible stewards of the opportunities you provide them each day. lord strengthen them in their challenging work, reminding them often of the fragility of life.
empower them to trust you without wavering. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: this week looks to be a busy one here in the senate. we've got a lot of important legislation to consider. we're hoping our friends across the aisle will work with us to do so in an expeditious manner. for instance, we'll begin the process of finishing our work on the balanced budget before the senate -- which the senate passed just before easter. passing that balanced budget was a big moment with the new senate. for years the budget process was ignored almost entirely in this chamber and the idea of a balanced budget passing was basically unthinkable. but now the senate is under new management things are changing, and soon we'll conference with the house to work out a final
budget that can be passed by the full congress. that's just the latest example of congress getting back to work. i know a lot of americans are happy to see that. but the budget is far from the only item on the senate's near-term agenda. the senate will soon consider bipartisan legislation that's designed to ensure seniors on medicare don't lose access to their doctors. it's a solution to a broken medicare payment system that had vexed congressional leaders of both parties literally for years. it would mean an end to the annual exercise of congress passing a temporary fix to the problem one year and then coming right back to the very same cliff the next year without actually solving the underlying problem. so the fact that we have a bipartisan reform bill here is significant in itself. the fact that it passed the house overwhelmingly is even more significant. it doesn't mean the legislation's perfect. it doesn't mean we won't have
some disagreements about it, but i do think the bill deserves a vote and it's my hope that the senate will soon take one. we'll also continue to work to pass the bipartisan justice for victims of trafficking act. it's legislation designed to prevent women and children from being sold into modern-day slavery. it was reported out of the judiciary committee with the support of every single democrat and the senate took up this bill with the consent of every single democrat. there is no reason they should now turn around and filibuster this antislavery bill at this point. as a victims' advocate put it, they said the democrats should stop choosing a phantom problem over real victims. a large bipartisan majority of the senate have voted repeatedly to end a very regrettable democratic filibuster of this antislavery bill. it will only take a few more votes from our friends across the aisle to bring hope to children and -- children and
women in chains and suffering in the shadows. we hope to work with them to end the democratic filibuster of this human rights legislation. the senate should pass this bipartisan bill right away, and as soon as that happens we'll turn to the loretta lynch nomination. committees in the new senate are working hard to advance more bipartisan legislation. we already saw the intelligence committee vote 14-1 to approve bipartisan legislation aimed at protecting the personal and financial information of middle-class americans from cyber criminals. over in the finance committee we see the top republican and the top democrats continue to discuss the best way forward to increase american exports with new trade legislation. and today we'll see another product of negotiations between a top committee republican and a top committee democrat, legislation aimed at reforming our education system considered in the health, education labor and pensions committee.
we hope to bring all these issues to the senate floor for debate in the very near future. another important bipartisan bill that would be considered by the committee today is the iran nuclear agreement review act. the foreign relations committee is set to mark that up today. the legislation is supported by a large number of democrats and it's no wonder why. the bill is aimed at giving congress and the american people a say in reviewing and improving and looking at an international agreement in wide-ranging consequences and the american people mr. president should have a say. the interim agreement we saw from the administration would not only allow iran to continue to enrich uranium and retain thousands of centrifuges but also allow it to continue researching and developing even more advanced centrifuges. in other words it seems more like an agreement built around iran's terms rather than a plan to advance what should be our
national goal, which is ending iran's nuclear program. it's a matter of great concern not just to our country but to the entire world. the concerns of our allies and partners with regard to iran's aggressive behavior throughout the middle east were made clear when i recently led a senate delegation to israel, jordan, iraq and afghanistan. this is a gravely important matter and the american people aren't just spectators here. they and the representatives they elect deserve a seat at the table, too. today's bipartisan action in the foreign relations committee will help ensure they do. and, mr. president as i mentioned earlier, there will be a lot of activity in the senate this week on a range of issues. it's good for the functioning of the senate, but it also helps underline one clear point. the new congress is back to work again on behalf of the american people. i suggest the absence of a
the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president people at home can't see but every desk here on the senate floor has a name on it. mine says mr. reid. right behind me is one that says mrs. murray. to my right is one that says mr. mcconnell. why do i mention this? today is national equal payday, a day that symbolizes how far into 2015 american women must work to earn what their male counterparts earned in 2014. that day is today.
women have basically worked for nothing until today. this pay disparity between men and women doing the same work is known as the wage gap. unlike the desks here in the chamber, the wage gap does not bear a visible stamp of ownership, but make no mistake mr. president. republicans in the congress absolutely own the wage gap. their names are all over it. republicans' refusal to address income disparities makes them responsible for the additional three months and 14 days that american women work to earn what their male counterparts earn doing the exact same work at the exact same time. who are these working american women being far assed to work for months just to catch up on their wages? they are our daughters our wives, our granddaughters, our neighbors. republicans' repeated filibusters of the equal pay legislation makes them responsible for working women and families to make do on 78
cents on every dollar their male counterparts make. democrats have repeatedly tried to pass the mikulski paycheck fairness act which would take away the disparity. if a man and woman do the same work, no different they should be paid the same amount of money. very simple. we have repeatedly tried to pass this simple legislation. this legislation provides the american men and women i repeat, with the tools they need to close the wage gap yet time and time again republicans have stonewalled this most basic issue of fairness. five years ago republicans filibustered the paycheck fairness act. two years later republicans did the same thing. last year, they blocked the bill two times. just last month during the budget debate, senator mikulski again gave republicans another chance. once again republicans blocked it. five times in five years republicans have blocked equal pay for women. five times in five years republicans have told their very own sisters daughters and wives and of course their
grandchildren that they're not interested in fixing this unfair income disparity. that is why i say republicans own the wage gap they own it. so today as we recognize equal payday i hope my republican colleagues will come to their senses and address this injustice that hurts millions of american families. american women deserve equal pay for equal work. my daughter deserves equal pay for equal work. would the chair announce the business of the day? the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, there will now be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president last week on thursday, the evil forces of nature struck in fairdale illinois. since that moment of terrible loss two lives and many injuries terrible property
destruction, we have seen the better angels of our nature come forward. this is an all-too-common picture in my part of the world in central illinois and down state illinois. devastation of a tornado of dramatic power and strength. two twisters, one of them a category ef-4 with wind speeds up to 200 miles an hour, tore through dekalb and another county and badly damaged the towns of fairdale and rochelle last thursday evening. the picture tells part of the story. the tornado's path where giant trees were uprooted, homes ripped from foundations and the damage is stunning. sadly, two women, neighbors who lived in fairdale, lost their lives in the event. geraldine schultz and her close are friend and neighbor, jacqueline closa fell victim to
the tornado that struck their homes. the two friends were inseparable in life and departed life that same moment. the tight-knit communities of fairdale and row sell are helping victims sort through the rubble. one tornado tracked a 25-mile continuous path from near row velocity -- roshrochelle through bell azero. this was a popular restaurant in the town of rochelle. 12 people including diners and staff were inside the grubstakers restaurant when the tornado struck. it was a miracle. everybody made it into the basement just in time before the twister hit. they all survived though they were trapped in the basement for an hour and a half waiting for rescue crews to clear them. a few people had to be treated for cuts and bruises, everyone covered in thick dust that had
blown from overhead but they lived through it, a terrible, terrifying ordeal. on friday i spoke and again on saturday with the director of the head of the miami-dade -- the emergency management agency james joseph. the governor was out at the scene the next day after the tornado and we sent our staff to monitor any possible federal assistance that might be coordinated with the state and local effort. we're continuing to gather the information together to see if there is a possibility of federal help. but i've been very wary because of two recent experienceness illinois in washington, illinois and harrisburg, where tornado damage there looked so devastating and still did not meet the threshold qualification for federal assistance. when i spoke with rochelle mayor chet olson i told them to do their homework and keep track of their expenses but that it was a
longshot for federal help. i made it clear that the delegation and i stand ready to help any way we can and particularly working with the governor. as so often the case when a disaster like this strikes the first responders, friends and family members waite wasted no time you rushing to the friends and businesses of the people who were damaged. i have no doubt the area will clean up and rebuild. terrible mourn the loss of life heal the wounds of those who were injured and start tomorrow to make another day. for the families of the women who lost their lives and for everyone who lost homes and property our thoughts are with you. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
student audience at safer university in cincinnati about what she says is a global water crisis and how to solve it. this is one hour 20 minutes. [applause] maude barlow is the world's preeminent water rights activist. in fact, if you google the phrase water rights activist she is the first and only person specifically named in the results. she chairs the board for or a member of the council of canadians food and water watch the international forum on globalization and the world future council. she holds 12 honorary doctorates and has received numerous awards for her work on the water rights most recently the earth care award the highest international honor of the sierra club. she's highly published and her
latest is blue future. protecting water for people and planet forever. we are honored to have her here at xavier. please help me in welcoming her. [applause] >> thank you. wow. thank you very much. i'm absolutely delighted to be here. thank you mark, for your beautiful words. i am quite embarrassed if i, first, i am going to look. thank you so much to nancy and elizabeth for the sustainability committee. thank you so much, james buchanan for your beautiful words and to work. and cynthia cummings for the great work you do at the center. and just a shout out to edward the founder. i just want to say that it is a true pleasure speaking at a university where your stated goals have to do with peace and
justice and that's actually up front who you are. it's not that common actually. so it's a treat to be here. but i'm going to talk to a little bit about the global water crisis, and welcome by the way to the high school students. i'm really happy you guys came you. a special to be. i'm going to talk all of it about what we can do and what we're doing because i want to say to you that i hate when people my age come to talk to you people and say it's doom and gloom and you should just forget about it. there's nothing you can do but tear your hair out there actually there's lots you can do about the crisis that would to talk to you about and guide people the hope is a moral imperative. so if i share with you some of that is, it's also because i'm going to venture with you when you think we need to do about it. i do think we need to base the actual dimension of the crisis. we have seen an enormous increase in the amount of water
that we're using as the human species in the last couple of decades basically future% increase in withdrawals in a very very short time. we are seeing what some of us are calling running dry. we are seeing massive pollution of our surface water and even massive pollution of our groundwater. i don't know if you know but in the united states it is illegal to don't toxic waste into the groundwater sources, and a massive amounts are actually being dumped out of sight out of mind i guess is the thought but i wish entity with others that they found an aquifer under mexico city, mexico city is in real trouble water wise and get take out all the water under the city but they did find another aquifer and when they pulled the first glass, cup of is, cup of the new freshwater up come the engineers said drinking and said it's delicious and then he said this is what you don't
destroy your groundwater because someday you will need it no matter where you are. we are also damning rivers and also pulling up groundwater. i call a groundwater mining way faster than these groundwater sources can be replenished. and we are damming rivers for most of the major rivers in the world a longer reach the ocean. where the rivers, where freshwater meets salt water when a very important spawning grounds for aquatic life. we are doing this for many reasons but the most urgent demand on water is for food production for the global market economy. it's important for us to start off with a knowledge of something called virtual water. virtual water is the water that is embedded in the things that we eat or the closer or computers or whatever. up until not long ago the united nations was sent to each person on earth uses x. the amount of water. and that we understand that that probably is about one-tenth of
the water that we really used. nine-tenths of the water we use is not something that we see or touch. it's embedded in our dinners and so but if you sit down with a family of four to a small stake each, you're consuming the equivalent of an olympic size swimming pool with that state. we are beginning now to bring this into the equation understand what this needs. but what's happening is kind of like a bathtub. it's like a bunch of us sitting around a great big bathtub with a lot of water in and we've got lined folds and straws ever drinking of that water really fast. we think it's fine because there's lots of water and there's lots of water for everybody. and then all of a sudden there's no water for anyone. it's called exponential over use of something. so you can't see it coming. it's not like one and one makes to, and to indeed makes for. it's the exponential overuse of something that's finite. last month there was the world
economic forum for leaders around the world. it was held in douglas switzerland which always is, and always every year they do research ahead of time on what are the major issues and to talk to 900 experts around the world ma into a person they said it's becoming water crisis. it's year in terms of impact. another meeting of u.n. am a ban ki-moon, the secretary-general, brought-scientist together and they said what would you do now is what they called planet to water in what they called the planetary transformation has greater change to the world as the melting of the ice age. they also in a separate different study, again this one done through the world bank, the statistic that stuns the world at the time was that two years ago is by 2030 the debate in our world for water will outstrip supply by 40%. this is just almost impossible
to try to understand. and, of courseunderstand. and, of course, you stop and think about who is going to do without. it's going to be the poor the marginalized, it's going to be the people around the ages the people in slums the massive slums of the global south or the people in poor communities here in north america. it's also going to be the animals. it's going to be the species they can't survive easily without water. so i just want to give you a few examples of what we are talking about. india is in terrible trouble. 60% of all of their water for farming comes from irrigation and so they're pulling up again their groundwater and damming the rivers really seriously. depleting water in some places by five feet a year and literally in some of the states beginning to run drive. china 75% of all their surface water is polluted, and here's a stunning new report that since 1990, half of the rivers in china have disappeared.
what did you mean, disappeared? they are gone. they are disappear. that's partly from hydroelectrical mining for hydroelectric power but also because they're using their water and air and soil to produce a much of the stuff that gets sent around to the rest of the world. they were too late someone to take about. one was in the former soviet union, big lake it was called to see. the of the selected chad and africa. once the fourth largest sixth largest lakes in the world. now almost nothing. both of them down to almost a bare trickle but in each case it wasn't climate change as we've come to understand it. it was absolute over extraction. the story that most distressidistressi ng is that is brazil. brazil has been until recently considered the country with the most water, the most water rich country in the world. they never had droughts. tons of water. they have the rain forest, they have a massive area between the
rainforest that holds a tremendous amount of water. but suddenly são paulo, the second biggest city in brazil with about 20 million people living there has gone dry. when i tell you in the last two years, there was no problem two, three years ago. it is going try incredibly fast and its massive drought the last few years right across brazil. it turns out it's because they're cutting down the amazon. what we now know is that when you cut down forests are rainforest vegetation, it changes the hydrologic pattern and these rain forests give off massive amounts of humidity and paperscome in the form what's called flying rivers. you've got to think of it as a river in the sky being held up by air currents but then they can travel thousands of miles and then it delivers range of são paulo and other places. they are cutting down that amazon and the rainforest because they are growing massive amounts of sugar cane and
soybeans to make ethanol to put in cars not only in brazil but around the world. so much of this is for export so again on the cutting down the trees the taking of massive amounts of water in the form of virtual water and basically sending this water away. the great lakes, a very big issue for those of us living you guys live about as far away from the great lakes as i do the i live in ottawa, canada, so we are equal distance to the great lakes, not far. the great lakes are in very serious trouble. we have invasive species massive pollution but we also have over pumping of the water system itself. i don't think too many studies but one study on groundwater said if the great lakes are being pumped as mercilessly as groundwater around the world the great lakes, and i quote could be dead drive, bone dry in 80 years. if you've ever stood on the bank of the big lakes superior,
michigan and so you can imagine that that's why told you about the see. it is possible to take a massive amount of water and destroy. we are dealing with blue-green algae, you read about in toledo last summer. expecting them to come back again this summer. this comes from industrial farming, chemical-based agribusiness and we do not have proper regulations and this stuff, these nutrients are running off into our water systems. there are 60 million square miles of agriculture, agribusiness around the great lakes basin. and it is poisoning them. a patch that without we got rid of him lake erie is back and it is a very serious issue. you probably know that you own all iran has been named the most polluted body of water in the united states for seven years running. i know there's a tremendous amount of work being done in cincinnati and in the state on renewable energy and on this
being a kind of very exciting area for high-tech solutions to our water problems but we are not stopping the water pollution at its source. we need to understand this. there's 23 million pounds of chemicals that were dumped into the ohio river last year and we have to find a way to stop this. martin luther king said many would've things that when he said was that legislation may not change the heart but it will restrain the heartless. sometimes i see people doing wonderful things but their government still will not stop the people doing bad things and doing those bad things, and it's like you can't get you because you can't keep up with the destruction taking place. so we absolutely need to regulate and to nobody's going to be allowed to do that to these leaks. the recent concern i have is that the great lakes are increasingly being used as what i call a carbon corridor to move the '30s energy on earth by train, type line around and
even under the great lakes. most recently being shipped on barges and ships on the great lakes. this is from alberta tar sands and we are fighting very hard in our country because this is an oily substance and no way to get it through pipelines is to lace it with liquid chemicals. and when they spill they make massive, massive, you know, dead zones and terrible, create terrible pollution. now the coast guard and the united states has given the okay to ship on ships on american waterways wastewater from fracking, which is among the most volatile substances that we can. to my mind when we know about what we know about the water system, the water situation, the water crisis in our world, how we can do this continues to be just stunning to me. colorado, the colorado basin lake mead which is the reservoir that was created when the hoover dam was built, all of these are
down. there's a new nasa study this has been taken enough groundwater out of the colorado basin to provide all the water that's needed for all under can households for eight years. i mean, we just put these bore wells down and we drank the stuff of. there are 200000 or wells in the ogallala aquifer. that's that massive aquifer that goes right down the spine of the u.s. down to the texas panhandle. again building massive industrial farms to grow corn for corn ethanol and pumping up that groundwater with pumps that were not designed to tell the late 1950s. so before that they had no ability to pull off that groundwater. it's only in 70 or whatever that we've been able to glean the desert in the way but there's a table price and the terrible price is that the department of agriculture in the united states said two years ago that the ogallala aquifer will be gone in
our lifetime. you try to say that to people who farmed there or who live there, and it's going to be gone. and people say, i don't know what you mean. yesterday, the "los angeles times," if this isn't a headline that will get to you, i don't know what will, but he was their major headline, major editorial that said california has one year left of water. i would ready to ration it. look at the. don't believe me, look at the. how can we get up every morning and say this is as usual. it's not business as usual. about to the people in são paulo. i visited some communities and they get their water now. this is from water rich area, two years ago, three years ago. they have water from five to six in morning, just a trickle and then it's turned off. have water again from 10 to 11 at night. you better do whatever you need to do that you need water or try to click in those two hours because that's the water that you get. like you don't have to go that
far away. i've been working with people in detroit, michigan, who have had their water cut off many thousands of them. we got a a moratoriumoratoriu m, get the u.n. involved and brought u.n. experts to actually look at what's happening. this is an area where a lot of money left the inner city, most of the people left behind are poor. mostly african-american and older people or single mothers very high unemployment. they don't have the funds and some the city near bankruptcy then, now in bankruptcy doubled the price of water. people cannot afford it so they're coming in and they just literally go house to house and turn the water off. i raising kids, try looking after somebody ill with no water. it's not just happening far away. it's happening in the so-called rich parts of our world north america as well. these are real issues and this again, just the last of these stats, another nasa report that
just came out last month. reported that there is unprecedented megadrought coming in the midwest and the united states and parts of canada. the great plains and the southwest over the next few decades. they say that it will last decades, that it will be unlike anything in living history or living memory. here's a prediction i have for you. you've got a presidential election coming up. i predict that this issue will not be on the table. i predict that they will not speak about it and they will not write about it and they will not be asked about him debate. now, why is this? well, i just have for thoughts on why this might be. the first is what i call the myth of abundance. we all learned back in grade six or whatever that there's this finite amount of water that can never be destroyed. peddling the same amount of water that exact same water that was here at the beginning of the planet and it goes around and around and we'll have this
diagram in her head. almost like a big river around the earth. just stick all the straws you want any. so we learned we couldn't find out that i also think that in the global north the west would've you want to call it we tend to think it will always be a technology that will fix it. but that misses deep rooted and it's really hard to get rid of. secondly weekend is the water as a resource for our pleasure and profit inconvenience but we don't see water as the element that is necessary for life. we don't respect water. we don't think about it. we don't care about it. it exists to service period full stop the one of the advisers to president hoover when they're building the hoover dam and those of the big mega dams said america be great when she learned to conquer rivers. this whole notion that water issue to be conquered for our economic model is really a powerful, a really powerful one. i also think that we have
misdiagnosed the water crisis. if you talked in environmental is our most environmentalists and most people involved in climate change, they will say the water is a victim of climate change that's been induced by greenhouse gas emissions. that's true. the melting glaciers melting ice packs and all of that is true. but what they don't say and what's missing from the diagnosis is that when we take water from water retentive landscapes when we moved where we want to commit the entire store in california, they have enough water. they are moving it over the place so that they can produce 85% of all the omens for the entire world right in a state running out of water. so as they say water runs uphill to money right? so we have a situation where we are misdiagnosing what the situation is and our mistreatment, our displacement our abuse of water is one of the major causes of climate change. it's very, very much past time
that we started putting this in the mix and that we started talking about water and the way we treat water and how we could undo what we've done as one of the answers to climate change. and final i would have to say to you in terms of reasons for our politicians are talking about this, our store be the. i'm not suggesting that soldier in the united states. i think it's very, except in a few countries where they're just facing water shortage like the water is running right now. it's the domino model of economic element, which says more growth unlimited growth. we could just keep going forever. more trade, more stuff more market economy. i want my strawberries in january and i don't care where they come from or who it costs. so we have this notion that we can all things at all times. we have created a global economy which is basically, i would argue, not only creating enormous