tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 20, 2013 12:00pm-2:01pm EST
that we favor impunity, so that this has been a very important role as well. so it's now very engaged globally, of course. if you look at the g 20, were a lot of work is being done, and at least commitment are being made to deal with money laundering, big money, stealing of assets, recovery, enforcement , regulations so that bank secrecy does not prevent the investigations that are taking place to try to find the money that has been stolen from the countries and bring it back to the people so that development can take place. -- so that you don't hide your money in equity in companies around the world. there are a lot of things that are happening so the -- where the bank has tremendous knowledge and brain power and resources to make a difference. as a civil society organization, i transparency international has
you transparency international has and been pleased to work with the bank. andbank. in an >> i would love the panel to tell us something new that is going to be so startling that will make the headlines tomorrow. maybe something you don't say in public. this is a relaxed conversation. to hear the conversations that go on a little bit like that james wolfensohn shared at the beginning. those moments, those thoughts are instructional and helpful. mr. volker? >> you want me to give a relaxed news headline? >> we talked about all the difficulties of dealing with corruption in countries. that is true in many countries.
all of which are represented in the world bank board. it is a hard problem, dealing with corruption by all these other countries. it is a hard time changing the minds of the people in the world bank on the subject. is tough and unpleasant -- it is a tough and unpleasant subject and makes it hard to get the money out there and get a project started. there was a lot of resistance to mr. wolfensohn when he made his point. when i came along 10 years later, it was quite evident. is why i came along. there was a recognition that the bank itself had to do better in concentrating on this issue. the speech we heard from the
president just now set out the leadership prerequisite. it is important that that penetrate through the bank. my impression is that beginning a few years ago, you began to make more progress right here in this institution in dealing with it. let me leave with you with challenge. i'm not sure it is the front page of the washington post, but it is the vest i can do at the moment. [applause] >> what happened five plus years ago that seems to be a turning point? >> it was a hell of a fight in the bank.
it revolved around this issue. there may have been a lot of misunderstanding. it was the point at which the bank finally internalized the fight on corruption. it took more than -- it took the speech by the president to signal this. it took more than the speech to get this done. you can feel how difficult it is elsewhere in the world. a place where you have the change -- opportunity to change the us up chart -- subject. in the corruption is a particular political slogan in many countries. anticorruption is a
particular political slogan in many countries. it is a popular corruption -- logan in many countries. sometimes it is sincerely felt, other times less so. when they win, this is a pervasive political argument around the world, then we have to find a way to jump in there and support ruler formers -- real reformers on the ground. they have a tough job. if they do get elected, into office, that is the time that they need help. it is not easy to do. do we have the structures, the programs that are necessary to help them? to help them develop rules and procedures? >> let me jump in. i want to hear from the minister. let me jump in for a second. my first day on the job, i walked into the office. group of managers took me aside and said, it was like 9:00 --
they said, you have a decision to make. whether you cancel this major bridge project where we have discovered corruption. oh and by the way, the people that are proponents are outside waiting to protest you. we cancel that right there. the first decision i made. -- we canceled it right there. the first decision i made. my predecessor was absolutely career -- clear. he said there is no tolerance for corruption. i think the ship -- frame shift that has happened is so great that jim use the word cancer. some people say, it is a culture of corruption. it goes back generations. there's a sense of inevitability when you use the word culture. as an anthropologist, one thing we see is cultures change
quickly. you have a cancer, and you have to treat it. we know from all over the world it is treatable. if it is not treated, that is not practice on your part is the attitude we have to have. one that there are so many good examples of cultures of corruption been transformed by the way, if you don't do it, your citizens will hold you accountable. that is the attitude that we have to have. whatever you think the culture of the cancer was before, here are tools for you to use right now. it is a matter of your choosing whether you want to tackle it during your campaign or not. by the way, we will be watching.
>> minister cesar purisima, i'm going to go to you next. the thought process on the first day, what was going through your mind? >> i had known about -- jim and i were friends before i took over -- i knew this was a major issue. first of all, i said, let me see the evidence. they showed me. it was overwhelming. the sasol we have to approach it. it is not a wink and a nod. if there is evidence, you have to take a stand. my medical training is, what is the evidence? if the evidence is clear, you have to take a stand. >> you took the -- about the same time, the other side of the equation -- a big, respected german company was caught bribing people around the world.
suddenly that company gets caught up in the world bank was part of it. it made a big impact on the supply side of corruption. which requires a lot more intelligence and follow-up. two dramatic instances, one from the demand side and one from the supply side. they represent a change in attitude. changing the culture. two dramatic instances where we showed we did care. >> we are in the candid zone. we are attempting to make headlines for the next day by being very open.
minister? >> i want to remind you that i caught my breath. you might think that i am trying to -- i want to pick up on the point raised by mr. vo lcker. i think corruption should be our fight. all of the global community. there is one thing called an idea. corruption is about money. it is about time that the global community take about -- think about a passport for funds. there is a passport for us to move between countries. why not for funds? my cell phone number, you can medially tell it is from the philippines. there should be a convention on tax account numbers and movement
of funds, movement of goods, if we are serious in fighting corruption. it has to be a global fight. not just a fight of the filipinos of the philippines. companies facilitate corruption. we have seen the effects of corruption on people, on poverty and hopelessness. that is why we are passionate about this fight. the last point -- i think that the key is in helping countries build institutions. we can have a lot of interventions, but if we don't build institutions, we won't be
able to sustain this fight against poverty. it's not going to be solved overnight with one program. it will be adjoining. -- a journey. >> just checking, so mr. vogler -- volcker knows i am paying attention, vision without execution? >> the world bank is in a unique position. its membership is the community of nations. you can be the one who will espouse the vision and help with execution.
simple ideas will make it more difficult -- it will make the move in a money market difficult. let's think -- strengthened further for having a passport for funds. >> i find this very interesting. that is a new one. if we look at the next 10-15 years, given from where you are, our population will go up to 8.5 billion by 2025. movement to cities, urbanization is key. if you look at the emerging countries and their demand and needs for greater resources, both looking at urbanization as well as population increase, extreme whether. -- weather --
[indiscernible] when you begin -- and the depletion of some of the resources -- looking at the infrastructure demand, ernst & young estimates 57 trillion until 2030. the amount of money that could be lost and resources or that could be saved could make a huge deference -- difference in terms of the people the world. ideas like those are very, very interesting. we have to open up our mind to thinking this way and bring the people together. the discussion right now on the post-2015 new development goals is an opportunity. the point that this is cultural and the values -- i am asked, his corruption -- is corruption
a cultural issue? i say, it is not. it is a practice. it becomes a practice as opposed to in the dna hearing -- i think corruption is a cancer. very virulent. we could go on. to think about it in those terms. go ahead. >> let me make a parable. i spent this time yesterday morning listening to the mayor of new york making a speech. about how new york is driving during his administration, which is true.
when you look at part of what has happened in new york and the past 25 years -- in new york in the past 25 years, a lot has happened. one big change that was made in mr. bloomberg's era and by his premises are -- predecessor was they started dealing with petty crime. breaking windows, everybody who demanded money for cleaning your windshield. stealing pocketbooks. not much attention was made. they said, let's deal with the petty crime. somehow, that spread into a major crime. new york is entirely a different city with a different culture than it was 30 years ago. you could not walk down park
avenue 30 years ago without turning around to see if anybody was following you. now, it is one of the safest cities in the u.s. who would have ever thought that the city of 7 million would be the safest? because they have been disciplined about the petty stuff and some of the other things. it shows up in a different culture. james wolfensohn, can you contribute anything else? >> the largest economy in the world will be china soon. in my experience, in terms of them joining into agreements in terms of disclosure, for example
, they have been clearly absent. -- completely absent. when you talk about bidding for international contracts or anything that they are engaged in in terms of their financial arrangements, it is not clear, to put it mildly. if you have a country like china which will be the leading economy in the world, how does your program do with that? >> no one country, no matter how big, is an island. if we all work together to require that of them, i think they have to step up.
they are not self-sufficient in everything. they will have to deal with others. if we succumb to their size and operate the way they operate, i think we have made the cancer a terminal one. i would like to look at this problem that has created a cancer for all of us. the good thing is, it can be treated. unlike most cancers. the other thing is, i am hopeful that as they mature and become more prosperous, hopefully they move up in terms of values. in the meantime, since they are not yet there am a it is incumbent on the leaders -- since they are not yet there, it is incumbent on the leaders to make sure this happens. the u.s. is still the place
to start this issue. >> use it under your breath, good question. i'm wondering how you would respond? >> the big issue at the g-8 meeting was for insperity. taxes. -- was transparency. taxes. if you look at china specifically, everything we are hearing coming out of the latest plan, even at looking the choices of who they have chosen to further this issue, they chose the firemen of china to tackle this issue. this is a guy who is widely known as no-nonsense and tremendously committed and successful.
i think that the words and the deeds we are hearing out of china, jim, are encouraging. this administration seems to be much more committed. let's keep going. the reforms they are making in terms of letting the market determine the his tradition of resources. these are revolutionary. we will hope that this leads to a kind of openness that ends up being a model for the world, if they continue with what they have told us. >> his activities are all related to corruption internally. they are not related to corruption that relates to external business. i think that is a very big hurdle to jump. >> again, i think our role is to be as vigilant as we possibly can and call it out when we see
it. the very decision -- the first decision i had to make was this one. it set a tone. this is what we have to do. we have to call it out when we see it. we have to encourage it everyone, especially all the major players, to look at it internally and externally. i think the new york example is a good one. there are so many things that happen because they set targets and went after them. and climate change, mayor bloomberg said we would reduce carbon by 30% by 2030. they are going to get there by 2017. you can just say, we are going to deal with corruption generally. you have to have targets. if you have those in china and everywhere else, and we are started to see it -- very strong commitments, this has got to be an area, corruption, where we
may commit his progress. >> i'm going to give our guests time to sync up -- to send everybody way who is watching online and here in the auditorium, something for them to chew over that keeps them going, that makes this memorable for them. i will give you 203 minutes. i will ask poll vinson -- jim wolfensohn to give us one more antidote. it is fabulous listen to your stories. you have one? >> i think you should talk to jim yong kim, the current president. do you have anything that you would like to bring to our attention? [laughter]
>> there is no particular story. that story of when i entered, it is an ongoing issue. the other piece of that story is that happens to be a critical development project. this was -- canceling was difficult. -- canceling it was difficult. [indiscernible] these are the things that we have to balance. i had to cancel something that would have had a huge development impact. that is the red line that you have to draw. no matter how important a development impact might be, you have to be ready to cancel something if you see carrots and -- corruption. it was a few people, a few people who had done this. now, we hope it goes forward.
it is unclear whether it will go forward. that is the difficulty of this job. you've to be ready to make that kind of decision. paul volcker, you seem to want to say something. >> china in particular has been resistant to dealing with corruption by their own companies. which were hardly independent countries. it is also the world bank and the oil for food program. principle violators were chinese companies. a principle -- among the principle violators. to try and get the chinese government to react, it was a
blank wall. they won't deal with it. they won't consider it. it was just a few years ago, but i'm not sure how much has changed today. >> a quick one. i think that a lot of the natural resources of the future are in highly vulnerable countries and developing countries. i think if we can support those countries and help them, give themselves the capacity and power to be able to negotiate with the very strong powers which are some of our countries, in addition to china, who want those resources, that is one thing i would like to leave. a second one is on the whole issue that, you know, if we could relegate power and greed to a new cemetery somewhere, that would help. my third -- my last point is that, you know, we were talking about development, which is so
important and we know the impediment that corruption is to development. money is taken out. people have to pay bribes for essential services which they can't afford to pay for. it is also a question of peace security in our countries around the world. of course that, too, is a question of development. it is hard to have development when you have conflicts. but it is a question of peace, of security, of developments. at the end, it is a question of making this world a human one where humanity prevails as opposed to the power and greed. >> mr. wolfersohn? >> i would say -- i just congratulate jim and the formation of this new unit, which strikes me as being a practical, important step forward. i wish them not only the very best of luck, but would hope
that they would tackle some of the very difficult cases also in publicity and in the annual meeting speech and things. not only talk about the successes but just how tough it is in so many of the countries because i think a statement of all the successes is useful, but i do think that even more useful is a statement in how prevalent the practice of corruption and inequity still is. and so i would hope that this department can report in two phases. one, what it has done, but also how much is to be done.
>> there is a direct correlation between poverty and corruption. and if the world bank's goal is to reduce poverty, it would have to make an equal amount of investment in working towards the reduction of corruption. i think this is especially important because corruption and poverty is affecting countries that are the younger countries. those that have the potential to be -- of the world. so it is to our interests, because after all, economies are about people and the young, most of the young of the world are in countries that are dealing with these challenges.
my aim was to make this the most fascinating hour of conversation of your week. i will find out if it was when you applaud our panel. hold it for one moment. mr. wolfersohn, madame labelle, mr. volcker, dr. kim. your panel, ladies and gentlemen. \[applause] thank you for coming. have a wonderful morning. thank you. president obama
holds his news conference. we will have that for you when it gets underway under c-span. we will follow with calls and comments. is possible he gets questions about his latest nominees to be ambassador to china. senator baucus released a statement of the nomination, saying to china relationship is one of the most bilateral relationships. his goal will be to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties. max baucus nominated to be ambassador to china. the senate pretty much finished work on the nominations for 2013, approving the nomination of john antrim cost him to be the next commissioner of the irs and advancing the nomination of janet yellen to be chairman of the federal reserve an. >> as a moderate in the privacy world, i havevacy
come to a troubling conclusion. the data broker industry as it does not have constraints and does not have shame. information any about any person regardless of sensitivity for 7.9 cents per name. price of the list of rape sufferers. violence, domestic police officers, home addresses, people who suffer from genetic illnesses complete with names, home addresses, ethnicity, gender, and many other factors. of this is what is being sold and circulated today. it is a far cry from visiting a
website and seeing an ad. what it is is a sale of the personally identifiable and highly sensitive information of americans. >> your medical history, imclone, lifestyle, looking into data mining. thom hartmann argues that without a strong middle class the u.s. is heading for an economic implosion they'll make the great depression seem tame and assembly night at 845. by august 1945 it was becoming clear that a struggle for global dominance had begun. from world war ii cold war. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room
at congressional hearings, white house offense, briefings, and conferences, and offering complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public service of private industry. we are c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by the local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. talks with iran continue over the nuclear program, a former administration adviser says there's still no agreement on a key point from level of uranium a richmond by a run that will be acceptable to the u.s.. robert einhorn made the comments this week where he was joined by a former iranian negotiator and former clinton administration official. from the asia society, this is an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> you laid out exactly the questions.
if you have questions, i know they are bringing up the ipad. ambassador, let me begin. the history could be a history of non-relations. well no direct talks. even this interim agreement appears to be a hiccup. secretary has talked to the foreign minister. is this a real agreement? is this a breakthrough moment? >> it would take inventive imagination to believe that it is not a breakthrough in the context of 30 years of almost no contact. where does that door lead? is it leading somewhere? can we see this particular
opening take us through to a stage where we recognize that the agreements -- and i put the plural there because we are waiting to see about follow on arrangements -- that the agreements have produced something that we can see, observe, and understand that it has created a status different from where we started. breakthrough, absolutely, but is the whole question going to be ratified? i think we are focused on the future and that is what we have to look at. i have great hopes that it will, but the problem about the future is that it is all prediction. the point here is that i think the opening of the door is that every responsible reason to make sure on both sides that we conduct ourselves and run the activities so that at the end of the day, the door is leading a
somewhere. from that particular point, we can pick up and do other things. it is not just -- even though both sides have given priority to the nuclear agenda. it is probably hard to believe that given the number of contact, they have not talked about other questions. >> do you agree with ambassador pickering that this is a breakthrough moment? i wonder if you could comment on the domestic pressures facing the foreign minister and president rouhani. i was struck by the contradictory reactions.
it seems like the iranians went back home and were greeted by protests. >> for the first time, we have had direct talks between two foreign ministers. for the first time, we had a phone conversation between two presidents. two presidents have nominated the foreign ministers. five, six, seven rounds of direct negotiations before the deal and the talks are
continuing. we have never had -- this is clear. the domestic situation, we have the same domestic situation that you have in the u.s. people are supporting the deal. some politicians are opposing the deal. some politicians are silent. almost everything is the same at the same level. there is a big difference. there is foreign intervention in the u.s. decision. the israelis are interfering in the u.s. decision. iran is not -- this is the big difference between our domestic situations. i agree with tom that this is the beginning. this is a breakthrough, but this
transparency is the number one issue. iranians and the iaea have had many meetings. they have agreed on the facts and it is ready to go. iranians have given access before the implementation of the interim agreement. the iranians gave access to the iaea to some very sensitive nuclear facilities. both parties are serious. >> you are working on laying the groundwork for this agreement.
it does seem to be exquisitely balanced. you worked hard on getting the balance right. do you agree on how each side is under parallel pressure? do you think one side or the other may be facing greater domestic opposition? >> there is great symmetry, great balance. this was a major accomplishment. in a relatively period of time. it is only one step in what is going to be a long journey. the obstacles ahead are huge. the mistrust on both sides is tremendous. the issues they have to tackle, the interim agreement, the
issues are small in comparison to the big issues of what has to be resolved in a final deal. and then you have the domestic criticism. we have the u.s. congress, very skeptical, the american public is skeptical. it has been 34 years of estrangement. a lot of ill will, mistrust. the american public does not trust any deal with iran. i am confident that this interim deal, besides will comply with it. on the iranian side, there is tremendous skepticism. this could open the door, if there is a final agreement, the obstacles are huge.
it can be achieved, it can open the door to cooperation in some other areas. but it will be hard. think of areas in the world where there can be cooperation. afghanistan, perhaps. in terms of the conditions for stopping the civil war in syria, there are differences. it is a very impressive initial step, but it is only an initial step. >> you have a situation, 50-50, according to the president. the clock is ticking. the congress has been clear that six months means six months.
what would you do right now to start to beat the clock? >> i did not think the clock is running. the first thing i would do is get the clock running. i would start yesterday in beginning to scope out the effort that has to be made, the strategy, the focus, the ideas that have to go into the comprehensive agreement. i would try to pick up immediately, perhaps beginning in bilateral contacts, despite the fact that the bilateral contacts have tended to produce
two negotiations. it is not easy to go from a bilateral deal to a multilateral deal seamlessly. it has been very clear that from the moment the u.s. asked for bilaterals and the moment in which iran accepted it, the key was in the locked ready to be turned to open the door. that is very important. you have issues on what basis should we make an agreement with respect to continuing enrichment in iran, which is inevitable. should it be related to a program? you cannot just pull figures out of the air.
that has to be tuned with how does that help prevent rapid breakout. what to do about the future of the iraq reactor? should it be converted to low enrichment? should we find a way to produce the result? those are all very important questions. i am sure bob could give you 100 others. i think we need to work on the congress. we escaped a catastrophe. despite the fact that it was explained in the basis of their uncertainties and mistrust of iran. >> recognizing the right to enrichment, the opponents of the agreement were saying it is impossible.
they say iraq would have to be closed. is there a creative way around that? >> of course there is. the creative way is to restrict enrichment to levels that are both related to a peaceful nuclear program. with all respect, iraq has no use for low enriched uranium. [laughter] they will have to figure out what it is they want to do. let me also say, i think we are making progress with the
congress. the congress has come to understand how will they take enrichment knowledge out of the hands of iranian scientists? you have conquered that particular technical problem and zero enrichment may give you some time, but in the end, it does not undo the notion we've already have been able to develop it as a scientific reality. >> let me respond to your point about enrichment. what is it like inside of iran right now? is he under pressure as well? and how much time pressure is he under? president obama has decided to deliver sanctions, how much time will he get from those forces? >> with all respect, with the enrichment of uranium, i believe that americans do not need 10,000 nuclear bombs. but the iranians, whether they have enrichment or not.
time pressure, george, this is extremely important for the future of iran and u.s. relations to understand the threats and sanctions that have brought iran to the negotiating table. i am talking about the future. if americans come to the conclusion because of sanctions and threats and pressures, they need iran to come to the negotiating table. >> that is an article of faith
for most americans in congress. >> sanctions definitely harmed iran. no one can dispute this, even domestically. but looked to the package or postal that we gave in 2005. they were members of a nuclear negotiation team. it was a time to did not refer to the united nations security council. multilateral sanctions before un resolutions, and look at november 24 or 25. you would see that the elements are exactly the same. the major elements of the proposal is exactly the same as the elements. they proposed not to have reprocessing.
they propose to enrich below five percent. they proposed to limited the stockpile. that would give the state big interest for leverage. now look at the result. what is the main objective of the sanctions jacko before sanctions have 13,000, after sanctions, 13,000. iran was really -- reaching below five percent. iranians have been harmed, but
on the issue that they really increased the level and capacity of the nuclear order. to prove to americans -- i am sure you have been at tables where you have heard a narrative like that. what would you say? cracks come on, hussein. everybody knows why iran has made these concessions. the sanctions became very effective. it's true they were resisted and the program continued, but after
the oil sanctions were put in place and revenues dropped, inflation went up to 40%. the sanctions became hard to tolerate. the leadership before the june elections were in a state of denial. they thought we could weather the sanctions and get around them. >> what is the difference between the proposal in 2005? >> i don't want to go there. after the june election, a group of leaders came to power and looked at the situation and decided this is intolerable. our country is going down the drain and we have to do something about this. a majority of the iranian public said, enough. we need to rejoin the world and need to get rid of these sanctions. there is no question in my mind that the sanctions are what
brought iraq to the table now. looking forward, i think sanctions can be counterproductive. if subsections are good, it is a mistake to think that more would be better. they have plenty of incentive and the easing is modest. >> how do you make that case to mccain and schumer? >> the u.s. objective is to get the best possible deal that keeps iran away from a nuclear weapon and doesn't take us into war. the alternatives to me seemed to be very stark.
the issue here is, continuing to keep sanctions on iran when they can be useful getting the nuclear weapon by taking a nuclear deal. it means you have created a double duty operation. you can put them back on again and we have held the trigger very tightly in terms of the present situation by taking off what are the symptoms of sanctions as opposed to the sanctions themselves. but to get a cooperative agreement, we will have to go further. the alternative, in my view, it is kind of lunatic. holding out for a deal that doesn't accomplish a great deal more on the basis that it has to be paid for in all of that extra
coin to do it when it doesn't demonstrably change the situation is one of those risk- benefit analyses that logical people can come out in a very clear way that the kind of deal we are moving toward is a good deal and a helpful deal. >> if we don't keep the pressure on, the entire section? >> and has not been proven, in my view, to be effective. i don't think that is right. >> what does the president have to show to the supreme leader and others in the power structure of iran and the iranian people to be able to complete a deal?
>> of course, a better economic situation would be the most import and issue. it has a relation with two issues. one is domestic management and one is sanctions. i think they are in much better situations under domestic management. they are much more functional. and the process of sanction lifting also continues a lot. i sincerely believe the major issue makes it feel possible, a
change in u.s. position. you are the first in the state department to recognize that and restaurants should be somehow accepted. the reason these efforts faded is because the u.s. deadline was no enrichment. we cannot do anything. the red line was no nuclear bomb. these made the deal possible. if the u.s. was supposed to continue sanctions for another century, it would never be able
to get it. >> i remember it well because of the interviewing the secretary the morning after the deal. they say the deal clearly includes the right to enrichment and he was adamantly denying it to my direct question. it might get you through an interim agreement, but how do you square that? >> as far as i understand, the u.s. has not officially publicly recognized rights of enrichment for any country. including germany, argentina, brazil, japan. but practically, has tolerated.
when kerry or obama are talking about we're not going to recognize the rights of enrichment, they have not recognized the rights of enrichment for japan, brazil, argentina, germany, but they have accepted. this is what they're going to do about iraq. >> it is clear that the present deal doesn't get zero enrichment. there is inherent language that zero enrichment may not be forcibly on the table considering the follow-on deal. but it doesn't say that it necessarily can't be considered. there is a kind of politics to this rather than legality. i don't think anybody can believe that enrichment was ruled out, nor was it
specifically provided for. >> there is no recognition of the legal right. we don't believe iran is going to accept the deal without enrichment. there has not yet been accepted by the u.s.. it is conditional upon agreement, limitations on stockpiles and acceptance of monetary measures that would make the enrichment program acceptable in terms of the moving concerns of the potential misuse of the program for nuclear weapons. before i accept hussein's gratitude for recognizing early,
at the moment, they have very different conceptions of what an acceptable enrichment program would be. they talked about a mutually defined enrichment program based on practical needs. what are iran's practical needs for enrichment? it has a research reactor supplied by the united states. it already has enough fuel for decades. the russians are supplying the enriched uranium fuel for it. they have plans for for small research reactors and that is
fine. iran can produce enriched uranium fuel for that. so at the moment, the practical needs are relatively small. my guess is the u.s. and its partners are going to suggest a very constrained and small enrichment program. it won't look at current practical needs, it will look at plants that i think are wildly unrealistic. the u.s. will not agree to enrichment program sized to fuel a very large fantasy program. >> po that israel is looking at
agreement. what about russia and china? what do you see the role they are playing? are they hostile to a real deal? >> i think they are in the same range for a deal. there might be some variations but i don't think it would be much more since they have been around. there are clear differences on the table here with russia and china. they have put forward ideas for it deal never two different from
where we have come out. i think that the chinese are happy to follow in the wake of the russians on this one. not to get out ahead, in front, or behind on the kind of question that has been very comfortable for them. we had the extraordinary and maybe excruciating time of french resistance. which i think had its own peculiar dynamic that we are now over. we had deep concern in the gulf states of israel. i was ambassador in israel and the prime minister of israel through an absolutely magnificent set of foresight and criticized the deal that he did
not know the terms and conditions of and it turned out not to be the deal that was the deal. it gives you an indication that it was at least some political imperative at work here. it was interesting to me that the week after the deal, the israeli approach shifted. it was come to the united states to try to find a comprehensive deal. and that produced, on the hill, a set of reactions of tightening sanctions. some left to find the parameters of the deal. that isn't the deal. the two sides can agree to additional. i think it would be hard
sledding right now and that is why when you asked me the first question i said we really have to put a maximum effort into getting a comprehensive deal or something very close to it. >> do you think the maximum effort is being made? >> yes, except for imposing new sanctions. otherwise, the effort has been really positive. but the u.s. has played and would play a very critical role. it depends to what type of deal the u.s. would look for a comprehensive package. the need to satisfy netanyahu or a deal to satisfy nonproliferation.
i believe he would never be satisfied because everybody would ask about the peace process. he would be afraid to continue the iranian nuclear issue. if the u.s. is going to reach a comprehensive deal with iran to satisfy nonproliferation, we have three major arrangements. one is additional protocol, and another is code 3.1. this is the maximum international community that they can expect from iran based
but if you're going to put limits, this is another issue. that you cannot find any type of limits. they can have one enrichment site or 10 enrichment sites. no one can impose on the members any limits. >> it is certainly not true. it has one magnificent qualifier. peaceful. things that are not peaceful are not permitted even though we have had long disputes and arguments about this. the last screw turn on a bomb, it is peaceful until then. i don't accept that view. already in the joint agreement, iran has agreed to put inspection of certain items, centrifuges, and other
installations up for inspection that are not readily changeable to the additional safeguards. i think it is an example for the whole world that you're doing it. i would like to see that improved. we have a particularly difficult problem. sensitive activities that can be converted and moved into a weapons area. it is up to the international community not to be static as the fundamental designer of everything, but to move ahead and try to find ways to improve capacity. a suggestion was made by a number of us that we should
internationalize these facilities and there would be openness in what the facility was doing. and i think, iran has come back with that suggestion quietly and in a number of areas. if i had my way, i would've started with the u.s. to take part in the enrichment facilities and put them under international ownership. the others that are nuclear powers, it would be purely a civilian effort. but it would be no guarantee. >> he mentioned before that there were recently imposed sanctions and that this was a
problem. they said the u.s. will not impose new sanctions. what that means is that there may be particular enforcement actions and this was explained to the iranian side in great detail. expect more entities, but there will be no new sanctions. it was explained and understood. i happen to know that at lunch time, the u.s. side gave a heads up and advance notice that these designations were coming. before the world knew, as a courtesy, we let them know. it is recognized. even if these actions were
consistent with the interim agreement, they were inappropriate and unconstructive. everyone knew that they were not inconsistent. they were expected. >> given the history and given mistrust and the actions that we considered iran's violations, they have to do more than just satisfy minimum requirements. officials have said that our job is to resolve the concern of the international community. we are prepared to go to great lakes to do that. it will need certainly, temporarily. what should our objectives be? constraining what is called breakout capability.
if and when a country decides to get nuclear weapons, it abandons constraints and uses existing facilities very quickly to produce enough bomb grade uranium for a single weapon. and to do that quickly enough for the international community can intervene. but you have to lengthen that breakout timeline, the time it would take to enrich enough uranium for a bomb. in our view, it is possible to constrain the size of the program while at the same time meeting iran's legitimate needs for enriched uranium to fuel its nuclear energy program which, for the time being, is very modest.
it is possible to square the circle, but it will involve bridging a gap that is very wide. the problem with the interim agreement is that it attracts fire and criticism. it is natural for leaders to wanted to get a little bit. >> he said you can't have a deal that satisfies prime minister netanyahu. if that is true, can there be a deal? >> i agree that it should not be the standard. i don't know why he has taken a
very maximalist position send all enriched uranium out of the country, shut down this reactor, i don't think that is achievable. and it is not necessary. we can have a good agreement without meeting those criteria. what is the harm in going for it? the worst they can do is say no. there is worse than they're saying no. if we put a position on the table that the world considers unfair, we lose a vital element in negotiations, this very strong sanctions coalition. when i went around the world speaking to governments, the
best argument i had is that we need your help strengthening the sanctions in order to increase the chance of successful negotiations. only through pressure are we going to get a good deal. we are responsible for the impasse. >> that is how it unravels. >> they agree on no nuclear weapons in iran. as bob said before. that hussein is ready to say that the iranians will agree.
it gives us as much of that time as we need and as much transparency so we know what we are losing that. as an arrangement out there on the table, do we want to give that away in hopes of getting something that is slightly better, but not worth the price of admission? it might well lead us to a military conflict. >> he is the expert. >> iranian hardliners have benefited from sanctions.
these confidence building measures in order to remove it from national concern. the reason i am really surprised about it is the amount of impact is because he is challenging officially the u.s. president. it is shocking. and second, when you hear a congressman say that i trust more israelis, can you imagine a u.s. congressman tells the foreign secretary i trust israelis more than you? this is really something that we cannot imagine. [laughter]
>> can you tell us more about the secret u.s. iran nuclear agreement? >> tom was behind. the person that masterminded these. >> i can shed more light on it than anyone else here it but i am restricted in what i really can say. there have been reports of a bilateral channel going back before the election on that. and it is clear that president obama has personally said i would like to have bilateral u.s. iranian talks. we need to restore dialogue.
the administration has been for that for quite some time. at the un general assembly, you had a foreign ministers meeting they met for 30 minutes afterwards. all of that was very good. the bilateral dialogue continued after that. it has been revealed since then that there had been a lot of side discussions. and in that crucial second geneva session, what happened was the document that was prepared and handed, she called it an american document, but it
was largely iranian and american document. it was not fully resolved, but it was largely the work of bilateral discussions working very efficiently together. my own view is that the u.s. might have done a better job at consulting its partners, but we were honoring the request that we keep this confidential. it is very difficult to negotiate in public. even if we said this is strictly secret, it could get out in the newspaper and make things very difficult. we kept it quiet and it caused some resentment. the public reaction was i think
a function of his feeling a bit left out. it was resolved within 24 hours and was a consensus that we moved forward with. this could be a complicated factor going forward because i think everyone knows that if there is going to be a deal, there has to be a meeting of the minds. those are the critical protagonists. i don't want to diminish the work of the eu, but the u.s. and iran will be critical. even though they will be the central talks, i think they will have to be supplemented with
bilateral discussions. you are professionals of a hard grinding work. president richard nixon's historic visit was a pivotal moment in u.s. foreign policy. is president obama on the verge of something similar? is there any world where it would be more helpful to try something dramatic like that? >> we have yet to see what we -- beyond what we already have. they are not to be disparaged. they have to be look at not like the visit to china but the visit
to china was prepared over the course of a year. and to be able to get that thing moving for the reason it was just explained. both sides had a feeling that they could prosper if it took place outside of the glare of the lights and outside the influence of other players. other players were brought in at various times. but my feeling was it was a necessary risk to take. they were so significantly larger than the momentary hiccups that we had to go through despite the fact that they got a lot of publicity. i think the challenge is how
bilateral context can be syncopated a little bit better. the notion of the fact doesn't have to be hidden any more. reports as to exactly who said what. i think there will have to be some thought given to it. i thought that they did exactly the right things and managed it as best they could. >> would've more dramatic move like that be helpful? >> of course. we should recognize that they would have never reached a deal otherwise. and that progress with direct
talks, again, it would fail. however, we should not limit talks to nuclear. we need to enter a broader dialogue. the u.s. is a big player in iran is a big player. we have a crisis in iraq, the u.s. is a big player. and it is really interesting to remember that we are supporting the same government. and the u.s. allies are proposing this to the government. the major threat is terrorism
we need to do so to review need to get russia we need to engage egypt. definitely. but this talks. the problem is to call her to solve enlarged, did you read that? >> not in this case. not now. there are those who was in iran than those in the u.s. believes that this is not just blue clear but this is long-term in the region. there are great hopes for that in the long run. there is an interesting symmetry in the short term. there are domestic political reasons on both sides. the name of the game is getting
the sanctions lifted and getting the economy back on track. you don't do that by complicating the problem and delaying a deal. there are still those the call the united states the great satan. there are still concerns among u.s. partners in the region. they think the u.s. is going to cut a deal that says, in exchange for iran's nuclear concessions, the united states is going to give iran a free hand in the middle east.
that is not going to happen, but it is a concern. the iranian leadership wants to confine this to nuclear. if there is compliance and people are comfortable with it, it can open doors to do more things. starting off with areas of obvious common interest, broadening from there. >> i think that we have both committed to do the nuclear deals as rapidly as we can.
and probably in sequence before we try to solidify other deals. i think there is no question in my mind that in some core doors, in some discussions, other issues come up. it is more important to have the iranians know what we think about these questions then to have them presume the worst in terms of how we go ahead. it is important to talk to the saudis about these questions. with respect to syria, it is a hard case. as a minimum, participation has to involve at least some knowledge of some commitment. i think we are seeing potential
>> the only positive development since the beginning of the syrian crisis. the syrian crisis, even the last two years, this is the only serious positive. this is only due to cooperation between russia and the united states. therefore, there is already one big step for syria to take. to engage and push aside to give up -- assad to give up political weapons. >> that is not the solution. that is the entry point to
getting to the solution. no one, i think, at least not in a public way. it does not establish the basis for trying to move ahead with an approach to resolving syria. they are reluctant to agree to something. that is the only point i was making. they had a particular step that opened the door to these other questions. stopping this location that is taking place in the region. certainly jordan and lebanon.
they feel the effects, to say nothing of the horror. i think it will take time. i would warmly welcome them into the steps if they agreed it was a common basis. >> there is another step already underway. there is multilateral cooperation, how many examples do you want? >> another basis. we will need a cease-fire for that. >> no extremism and terrorism.
iran would fall prey to both. if we agree that syria has no military solution, if we agree for a transitional period, if we agree to pave the ground to decide about the next president and constitution, you would have them indefinitely. >> we need them backing a cease- fire. we have to get chemical weapons out. that is a precondition. >> it will not be a cease-fire. as long as they are not ahead of syria. >> having a pre-commitment to
get rid of it. >> it is only the truism. it has to be clear that the transitional machine can evolve the current head. it makes sense to recognize that upfront. it seems to me a necessary -- >> you said that the negotiations have to be isolated. >> iran wanted separate. if you make concessions, we will cut you some slack in syria. i think there is a relationship in the sense that if this is successful, it is going to
facilitate cooperation on syria. they will be more supportive on engagement in syria. >> responding to some of your questions, a person says i think his position is based on survival of their country. do you think the position changes? >> i believe the public opinion for eight years. they never said israel should wipe them off the map.
>> ahmadinejad never said that? >> never said that. if you googled it, you would see the deputy prime minister of israel. this is online. you can find it. it was misinterpretation. he never said israel should be wiped off the map. it was a misinterpretation recognized by officials. condemed the holocaust. the foreign minister
congratulated jews for the new year. >> what about the rabid dog rhetoric? >> my point, bob, is this. you have not had any rhetoric from the new administration. >> the good news is that ahmadinejad is not around anymore. [talking over each other] >> if an administration questions the holocaust or this administration condemns the holocaust, the netanyahu opposition is the same. it doesn't make a difference -- >> can the president say clearly that israel has the right to exist? >> the problem is not with iran. we have 57 muslim countries. many of them do not recognize israel. [indiscernible]
all of your allies, a majority of your allies do not recognize israel. israel's problem is not with iran. the peace process is with netanyahu. everybody knows who has blocked a solution. this is not iran. this is netanyahu. [applause] >> gentlemen, this was fascinating. on that point, i think you gave a lot of insight into the deal and what could come next with some moderate reasons for hope. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]
>> the senators wrapping up its year working on a number of nominations. they passed the nomination of the commissioner of the irs and move forward with the nomination of janet yellen to be chairman .f the federal reserve her confirmation vote will be the first vote the senate takes in 2014. follow the senate on c-span two. here on c-span in about 15 minutes we will take you live to the white house, a look now inside the press briefing room. we will have the news conference at 2:00 p.m., when he gets underway here on c-span. host: we want to introduce you, welcome.
it was a taste of your background, so people know who they are talking to. guest: m.d. senior vice the progressive think tank for policymakers at federal, state, and local level. year, i wasthis coming off a stint as the assistant secretary at the department of aggregation -- education, where i had served for the entire first term. writer that i worked on capitol hill, for chairman kennedy would he was the chairman of the health education. , i knew but i'm old. >> where did you grow up >? guest: new york and new jersey.
>host: how did you end up gettig a masters? guest: i applied to a bunch of law schools and with their initially for law school and your masters paid would do a lot of work and economic space trying to help think of the best ideas probably to grow our economy. working one a team energy and climate issues, national security issues of a health care, immigration, education. we really cover the gamut. host: you are a non-partisan organization with a progressive
agenda. how can this be? promote progress of everyone. helps that will stem climate change but national security be keep our nation safe. we believe in a progressive agenda and we are open to anyone from any political agenda supporting that. host: what is a progressive economic idea that you support? guest: in the short term, we need to raise minimum wage, extend unemployment insurance for people who have -- this will be unprecedented if we do not extend unemployment insurance when on employment is at 7%. it will be good for the economy to do so.
if their insurance is cut off, we will lose jobs. we need to invest in growth. washington dc has been overly focused on budgets and deficit. that made sense for years ago when we were facing unprecedented deficit levels. we put out a paper a couple months ago laying out the case that we have reduced the deficit, the debt trajectory has changed. we need to focus on investing in growth. austerity policies have not worked around the world. our focus is trying to inspire policy makers to invest in growth and create jobs. host: the budget agreement that patty murray and paul ryan came up with, what do you think of it?
guest: it is good they were able to get past the crisis mode. it is a positive thing and that our constant running to the brink and creating the level of uncertainty in our economy, this has been a bad thing for the country and economy. it is good that they have come to a resolution. the deal is not as good as we would like. we think that if folks on the conservative side were willing to consider putting things like closing corporate tax loopholes on the table, we would be able to get a deal that would alleviate more of the cuts sequestration brought. we think it is good to have stability in terms of our budgeting. we are applauding both senator murray and congressman ryan's leadership and being able to get us to that point. we want to turn to the things that we need to focus on.
things like immigration reform. things that will really help to grow our economy. host: "the washington times" has an op-ed. louis and peter with the national tax limitation foundation. the end of the progressive era. cooking frogs, place them in cool water and turn up the heat. the frogs are unable to jump out and save themselves. that is what president obama and democrats have had in mind with obamacare, which they planned would end up with socialized medicine. americans are reacting with reproach. it is progressivism and the democratic party that is getting burned.
guest: i would take issue with just about everything you just read. i think the american people want to have access to good, affordable health care coverage. i think that is what the affordable care act is offering. there have been glitches in terms of implementation. that is a problem that needs to be addressed. the administration is working very hard to do that and to provide flexibility in the transition. these kinds of implementation problems are not unprecedented. they happened when medicare was established. many people who benefit from medicare are very pleased with the program. when george bush expanded medicare for prescription drugs,
there were glitches in the implementation. people need to focus on -- because of the aca -- the october-november numbers shows that 680,000 have signed up through exchanges. 1.2 million people are benefiting from health care they did not have previously through expansion of medicaid. in california, we are seeing 15,000 people signing up every day. people want coverage. once this is implemented, you will see people with better health care coverage at lower costs. that is the right thing to do. host: tweeting in. we are $17.2 trillion in debt. you are going to have a hard time to convince me our problem is lack of investment. guest: there is a long-term issue about that. we need to look at long-term deficit reduction. i think there are ways to do that. in the short term, we need to grow the economy. we have brought down the deficit. if you look at the targets,
bipartisan targets of the simpson-bowles commission. we have met those targets. it does not mean that there is not more to be done. the most important thing -- if we grow our economy, that will reduce debt. we will bring in greater tax revenues and that will reduce debt. it is not that that is no longer an issue that is off the table. we need a short-term plan and a long-term plan. in the short term we need job creation. host: talking with carmel martin, executive vice president for policy at the center for american progress. 202, 585-3881 for republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. caller: good morning. in the state of the union, come up with good ways to --
maybe nancy and harry could sing to him. have you got any better ideas? guest: i am sure the leaders will take your advice to mind. we are going to be focused on ideas that the president can support in the state of the union. host: tweet in. i do not think she agrees with you. how do you feel about the redistribution of wealth? the fraud on global warming. two different questions. guest: we have the greatest level of income inequality in this country that we have had since we have been collecting
data on the issue. and this economic recovery, the people at the top are recovering. ceos salaries are back to prerecession levels. incomes are stagnant for average americans. it is hard to argue that a good way for us to proceed as a nation. the u.s. has been known for its commitment to mobility. people's destiny is not determined by where they start in life and that they have the ability to do better than their parents. we are seeing a trend moving away from that. we think it is time to re- examine things like the tax code so it is more fair and not focused on benefits for those at the top. but also looking at the broad majority of people. we need to grow our economy from the middle out and so the top
down. host: john, tampa, independent line. caller: good morning. i am being very serious. why don't we raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour? the reason you do not want to do that is because it would be disruptive to the economy. just like the affordable health care act, instead of helping people, you are destroying lives. progressive policies are bad for america. the establishment in washington does not seem to understand that. that is why we voted for tea party candidates to stop the agenda. we could not stop the health care act and look what it has done to america. thank you. guest: i respect your point of view but i disagree with you. the majority of americans believe we should raise minimum wage.
it is not fair that a ceo salary is going up exponentially. the average american salary is in real terms the same as it was 30 years ago. in terms of health care implementation -- i have to respectfully disagree. have it.oons will now healthople who had insurance, there are a lot of parents who are happy out there.