tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 9, 2015 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
a company. you will not be around in the next 10 years. everyone in the world needs to adapt or move on. there is so much that we can do, for example, amazon and google know when a woman is pregnant almost immediately, based on but a health insurance company does not know until the claim is paid three months after birth. so, you know, our ability -- [laughter] [applause] our ability to understand what is happening in the system in real-time and enables us to actually take something that is real, that we can't prevent, by giving away free medicine, if they are sick they are sick. if we understand what is happening, we can point them in the right direction. i think over time, our ambition is to work more intimately with systems and we are starting to have conversations around that. how can we work together?
how can we enable you to work with customers in a way in which you are capable of doing working together to make sure that we are providing the best consumer experience? and the best overall experience. i think in many ways, the insurance company and hospitals are butting heads, because incentives are not aligned, but hopefully that will change. president clinton: it is interesting you gave that example, because that is another version of what elizabeth said about early intervention through technology not being insurable because you do not know you are sick yet. both of you have different non-invasive technologies, that is what they do. that is their day job. so, let me go -- jeffrey, how, -- these people are really amazing, right?
[applause] so, how do you propose, what are you going to do with what they know? in other words, how do we align the incentives and health-care system and government policy and all that so that their ideas can blue -- bloom? we have a system that has for a long time actually punished people who did what they were trying to do. right now, we are almost in neutral, but we don't have our pedal to the metal. we are creating a wellness system. jeffrey selberg: i want to share joe's gratitude to you, thank
you for inspiring us. it makes it easier for us, first thing. [applause] i would say the second thing is we believe going out and doing it is the best way. if we find ourselves in policy inside the beltway, we will be there for a long time. it is one of the reasons why the institute of medicine says it takes 17 years for these kinds of innovations to be fully realized. our thinking is what elizabeth is doing, she is out there doing it with walgreens and -- as her distribution network. you go at it and you find a way -- the ways to scale. right now, all three of these innovations i would call exemplary, they are very small. they have not scaled.
our idea is to get the exemplars to the community standard, from the 5% to 95%. one of the things we are doing is working with the center for clinical excellence research at stanford, we funded research and found that 5% of the primary care practices that they surveyed, highest in terms of quality, lowest in terms of per capita cost, that was at 50%. they visited these exemplary practices and found 10 attributes, the essence of high-performance. our idea is that we need to find that assets and find ways to spread it and scale it. there is an old adage that you are limited to publishing. and that is what we found in philanthropy, the spray and -- pray approach. our thinking is we need to get out there, we need to mobilize,
we need to work with all the stakeholders, especially patients to create the demand necessary to pull through this kind of high-performance. so, as we do that, as we collaborate, and i really hope that we do collaborate with all three of you, because you have wonderful things. and we find those areas, thresholds after trying to scale it, then we will circle back to the policies. the policy is important, but the know-how transfer is more important. joshua kushner: just on that note, what we notice, when we first launched oscar we did some things that had never been done before. for example, one is we gave away telemedicine for free, 24/7. you could talk to your doctor in 10 minutes. and it cost to zero. if we could just understand what our customers need in real-time, we could point them in the right place and it would make sense
and save them money and save us money. at the time, people thought we were mad. now, a lot of insurance companies are starting to do it as well. and copy us. our approach from the get-go when we submitted our first business plan, which was almost three years ago to our first investor, what if people copied you, he asked and we said, we hope people do. if they do, it will make the system better. i think with what elizabeth is doing, a lot of people are getting inspired by the idea of working with health care. a lot of our peers, engineers, they want to work at the next social application or whatever it is. and i think a lot of people realize now, in addition to the idea of certain functionality,
is the idea of focusing on this base, as well. president clinton: how do you personally measure success? how do you keep score in a what you do? elizabeth holmes: for me it is completely about every single day, how many people's lives are better because of what we do. the first time i was able to be in one of our wellness centers what we called places where people give their sampled and exceed -- samples and see a woman who had taken a bus from 100 miles away to come in to phoenix because she couldn't afford to do a test anywhere else. even though she was injured her deductibles were too high and she was pregnant and she needed to understand information about
her body. when we were able to take care of her, watching that emotion and watching what that means in the context of one person whose life is better because of what we did, that is what we do it for. president clinton: that is pretty consistent with what they said. you do not mind if you get competitors doing what you are doing. that will make the system better. you actually believe we could get rid of every death in the health system -- every preventable death in the health system by 2020. if you keep increasing performance year-over-year by 10 fold, which is now happened twice in a row, i told them a couple of days ago, he will actually get there in september of 2017, but anyway, so you basically said the same things. if you were dictator of health
care in america and you could do two or three things, what do you think the most important things to do are? if you could change things based on your perspective, what would you do? spend more money, change laws, change incentives, what would you do with everything people do in health care? and we would have to follow your lead. elizabeth holmes: i would unequivocally make it clear that access to health information is a basic human right and i talked -- talk often about the fact that in california today i can buy a gun , i can shoot myself but i can't order a pregnancy test. it is illegal, because somehow that information is too dangerous for me to handle, yet until we get to a point in which
every person has a human right has the ability to get information about our own body we will not change our health care system, because individual accountability can only start with understanding. i had the chance to do a lot of work in louisiana with some very sick communities, who are heavily obese. you would listen to people talk about the fact that, oh, they are quote unquote lazy. that it was not the case. they had no idea what to do to change their health. if you can empower people with information, educate you take the first step in being able to facilitate change. today, in our country, there are 26 dates -- states in which it is legal for a consumer to order lab tests. and all the rest of them, it is not. and to say that by law, an
individual doesn't have access to the information is a symptom of the overall problem in our system. at the end of the day, it is that individual accountability you are talking about. 80 million americans are prediabetic, 90% of them don't know it, and all you need is a glucose test to be able to tell you. [applause] president clinton: and all conditions are reversible. elizabeth holmes: completely. president clinton: what changes would you make? joshua kushner: i would start over completely. [laughter] president clinton: good answer. joshua kushner: i think i would, one, just enable people to understand their health and understand everything that they have access to.
i find it amusing at times that child in africa with a smartphone has more access than you did at the turn-of-the-century and -- in the united states. i do not know how much it will cost me when i go into a doctor 's office and i don't know why i am going to that doctor. i think the consumer needs to understand why they go to one place versus the next, what they have access to. it is a good place to start. there is a structural disadvantage to our system because the health care system is built on a b-b business. that doesn't put the consumer first, when you are selling to companies, you are not selling plants that are right for the consumer always.
i know that there are a lot of people here, especially in the audience that are doing their best to change that. i think there needs to be a structural shift that is focusing on what the end consumer wants. joe kiani: i think innovation is the best medicine. i would create a general innovation office, before the president or congress has -- says anything, i would ask, how does that impact innovation? whether it is new health care laws, how does it impact innovation, because we do not want to impede innovation. second, i look for getting rid of misaligned incentives. right now, there is a perverse incentive to make errors in hospitals. it is less now with the affordable care act, but if you go to your car a tuneup and you go pick it up next day and the car has caught on fire, they do not ask you to pay for the tuneup. they usually give you a new car.
but if someone goes in for a hip implant, or a tonsillectomy one of those 10 things that could cause preventable death happens to them, the insurance company still bills them for that. unless a hospital has created processes to prevent these, we are not going to pay when somebody gets harmed. imagine for a moment what ceos would do, they would now make sure that all processes are in place, there are only 10 of them, to make sure that people do not get hurt. there are more misaligned incentives, like group purchasing organizations getting paid by vendors to negotiate for the best product at the lowest price. they are getting paid a percentage by the vendors, so what do they do, they do not negotiate for best prices and best products.
aligning these incentives and making sure that we do not lose the innovation edge that our country has, that the world relies upon. jeffrey selberg: i would empower the patience and i would empower the communities. we have this technology now where we can bring information to people, they can engage in their own health process. we have an expert culture that is not giving up very easily. there is a sense -- this is a -- this is not just health care, this is across the ages, there is a buildup of vested interest, i have the expertise i will take care of you. when in fact, we have the technology to bring this expertise on a decentralized basis. i don't think there is anything more effective in terms of care, both from a quality and cost outcome, then an active and
engaged patient who is surrounded by a family surrounded by in active engaged -- an active and engaged community. that is where i think we have to go. [applause] president clinton: i don't want to end this on a downer -- [laughter] i love this stuff. but i think it would be a mistake for us to conclude this without recognizing that if all this was as easy as all of you highly intelligent, incredibly creative people make it sound, we would have done it already. so, talk to me about -- this will be good for everyone here talk to me about at least one frustration you have had in doing what you do, how you
managed it. and how do you in your business, and how would you recommend us working with health care, what are we most likely to flub up and how should we deal with it? joe? joe kiani: you come up with a new smartphone and within six months everyone has it. you come up with technology that saves lives and reduces costs to our health care system, it takes 17 years before it gets adopted. there is a problem with that and i think it stems from the third-party mentality, you know, a third-party taking care of you, a third-party paying for that care. a third-party negotiating for things that the hospital should use, that they should know what they want. the frustration is, how do you get rid of this 17 year cycle
that, along the way, kills and hurts people. today, our technology, the first measure we invented, over 100 million people are being monitored with it, annually. at minimum, 3 million people are being impacted by it. from saving their eyesight to saving their lives. we have another technology, like you said, that by the way translates to a half $1 billion savings the u.s. another technology that we invented, it could save family -- it could save $5 billion a year. it increases blood transfusion dramatically. 90% reduction in blood transfusion, yet it will probably take 10 more years before it is adopted. president clinton: what should we do about it? joe kiani: patient advocacy. president clinton: you are like
the little engine that could. you are just pushing that rock up the hill. that has been a strategy in my life. the more you push the rock up, the more you would like a different way. how can we -- what legal or institutional changes do we need to avoid, because it would be hard to get anybody in america to stand on this stage and say i am for this 17 year timeline, it is the best thing since white bread -- sliced bread. by all means let -- let's wait 17 years. it is a hard case to make. but we have lots of systems like that in america, not just health care, lots of things that no one would ever defend upfront, but we all, every day shrug our shoulders and live with such things. so, you want to go next? joshua kushner: yeah, i might get in trouble for saying this.
president clinton: i hope so. we need it. someone is to get in trouble here. joshua kushner: i feel grateful that i have interacted with extremely nice people in the health care system, but what has been frustrating and motivating, allowing us to bring on the best engineers in the world, is that there are people in this industry that are evil. they don't actually care about the patience -- patients. there have been systems that we have interacted with that are so ecstatic about the idea of a quirk in with us and creating a better experience for people who go to their hospitals, physician practices that realize they can still make a tremendous amount of money, maybe more by providing a better experience. and there are some that look at us and say, why would we ever change? we are making money and we don't care. so, it is actually funny that we live in this idealistic, oscar is a great world, and we get
excited when we have a meeting with one of these people because of fires me up for a couple of months, but at the same time it is frustrating that we are in a world in which we are providing a service to people where their health is the primary, the primary thing in their lives and people don't really care about them. as individuals, sometimes. so it is frustrating and motivating. elizabeth holmes: i think it goes back to empowerment of the individual, the consumer, as a way to not have to do with -- deal with sometimes the confusion that exists with some of these established entities, around something simple like, do you want to save money?
sometimes these conversations, we can come in and save you $80 million a year, that should be a very simple conversation especially when you are not asking for anything in return. but the entrenchment is so great that working through those systems, existing policies, in our mind is harder than empowering the consumer to create an infrastructure outside of that system, which by definition, will make that change because of the way that you are empowering the individual to take ownership and because -- for example, we started billing and published our prices. everybody knows how much a lab tests will cost them before they get a test, every single time. that is making a shift in the system, by acting outside the system. we really believe in that, as a way to make a change. we try to spend most of our time
focusing on ways in which, through individual engagement, we can facilitate that change as opposed to trying to convince the existing system to change, because that could take a really long time. joe kiani: my biggest frustration is data. -- jeff selberg: my biggest frustration is data. health care is so opaque in terms of performance. if i have -- the stuff i would like to see us do is make it open source. all of it. [applause] and the idea that it is proprietary, there are other ways to compete. if you go into a grocery store there are no prizes, you go to the cashier and they tell you the bill? that is how health care is. so, what elizabeth is doing is groundbreaking. with data, i think we can shine
a light continually on best performance and consumers can see what best performance is and so can providers. the primary care exemplary's that were identified, i didn't -- they didn't know they were exemplars. i think data is the biggest frustration and that is where i would go. president clinton: i want to tell you why i asked you his question. i spent most of my life trying to change things, i was always making someone mad. 40 years in public life, but i found that the resistance to change that was self evidently good, like in just the examples you have all cited, was often rooted in naked self interest. that is what you talked about. but also, the comfort of the way
things are. people -- a lot of people do not want to think about doing things in a different way and it is -- the inertia that it builds into society is enormous. it is staggering, the idea of change, people's boxes with within which we arrange reality. that is the problem. and the third big problem i found is, if you want to make a change that will make things better, but has more moving parts than the way things are, that is hard. i will give you the best example, with energy. if you want to build a cool -- coal-fired plant and you want to accelerate climate change, you have to go to a contractor to build the plant, one contractor to supply the coal, a government
agency at the state level to approve the building of the plant and you are off to the races and someone else does the rest of the work. if you want to create just as much energy and a less expensive way, by having building retrofits, a lot more moving parts. it will cost you less money, save the environment for our children, and create a lot more jobs. i have spent a long time working with my foundation and the caribbean, where they have the highest electric rates in the world. it should be 100% clean energy but if they buy oil from one purchaser and somebody gets it and the appropriate political people get their contributions. and you have old-fashioned generators, there you go, you are contributing to climate change, bankrupting the country and it would be a lot cheaper to
the on totally clean energy. what a way to market a region. but it is hard to do because of moving parts. the reason i am saying that is we are coming to the end of this program and it doesn't matter what the policy is, if we get rid of the 17 year time delay, that is why the world desperately needs people like you. that is why we will always need innovators. because brains will always be more attuned to the comfort of of the present than the innovation of the future. because there will always be money and more money in the status quo. one reason i admire trevor, the health care giant, and he gets -- is that everything he gets up and he is still the little, i have known him a long time, he is the little reformer, he was as a young person and he tries
to think of a way to push that thing down the road in the right direction. a lot of people don't do that. we always need disruptive innovators, we need you. so, that is off-topic, but it is true. i want to thank you for what you have done and urge you to get keep -- urge you to keep going. no matter what you achieve, you will always need somebody to disrupt what is going on. and i thank you for it. [applause] we have about 10 more minutes, you've got people here who are involved in health care across the country, a lot of them like me wonder if they will ever see the east coast again. [laughter] go figure.
so, i want to give you a chance to close out in a totally different way. i want you, the innovators, to ask them to do something. if you could get everybody who came here committed to developing a wellness model of health care, community by community, what would you ask them to do? go in any order you want. joe kiani: i think data is critical, but i think action is king. and i think action is inspired by love, so if we start loving other people's children, the way we love our own, all of a sudden these misaligned incentives
these issues, they step out of the way. i hate to sound like the beatles or whoever, but just give more love to the world. [applause] elizabeth holmes: my wish would be that every person here takes just a minute to think about what it means for health to be a basic human right. and a right that every single one of us has. a right that every single person we love has, in the context of ultimately being able to change what we know in this world today around having to say goodbye to soon. if we start to see access to our own health information as our human right, then we will start to engage with it and we will start to become more interested
and look through a different lens at understanding it, using it to change our lives. we should not live in a world in which we know more about our credit card data than we do about what the cell blood count on our lab report means. that starts with recognizing that we have this right, the right to the health and well-being for those we love for ourselves, is probably the most fundamental human right. and when we know that, we will begin to change our system. [applause] joshua kushner: very much in line with what elizabeth stated, i think what i would ask, while you develop your businesses, you do not necessarily think about your business as much as a product that you want for yourself. we want to create the health
insurer that we would be very excited and get the access that we would want for ourselves. i think that that sets the bar at a much higher level, so i think that is it. [applause] jeffrey selberg: i had a mentor when he would hear me talking about these virtues and big dreams, he would say, so jeff, what will you do on tuesday? i will ask the same question you all have dreams and visions and passions, it is time to execute. what will you do on tuesday with that vision? [applause] president clinton: well, i will do something off the books. would anybody here like to ask any of them a question?
then i will ask, how -- do you have plans to go beyond the end -- individual market and how do -- can you get traditional insurance companies to adopt some of your changes? when will you have enough data on this to prove that what you are doing works, because it is not like -- there are some insurance companies that are trying to promote wellness and they really do recognize that they can keep rates down now that there is no cost that they have to eat, or there is less, anyway. how do you think we can move from where there is only 10% of individual insured americans to the other 90%? when cannot begin to happen?
-- can that begin to happen? joshua kushner: we are expanding to other states, california and texas and we will also expand into the group market at some point. it is not our top priority right now. again, we did not start the company because we wanted to provide insurance to individuals, we wanted to make a better type of insurance for everyone. that will definitely happen at some point. in terms of data on what we are doing, there has been a tremendous amount of data in terms of engagement. which we have shared publicly, which is 85% of people have asked us to get access to their records. 90% of people have asked us to do health risk assessment. we have a large amount of users speaking to us through telemedicine.
our mlrs for the health insurance nerds in the room, pretty much went above the lowest in the state on the individual market. i think we are one of the only insurers that asked to drop prices after the initial year. we are actively doing our best to introduce new products, see if they succeed or fail, and iterate and hopefully drive our costs forwarded to reach as many -- lower so that we can reach as many people as possible. while we have had tremendous success, we will introduce things over the next years that do not work. i think if we don't, that will mean that we are not trying to innovate enough. in terms of working with other insurers and hospital systems, we are already starting to have those conversations. to try and get our products to
as many people as possible. president clinton: i think it is important to do a report about what works and what doesn't work. everybody will start following this. there is enough action in the insurance business that everyone will start looking at this. it is very interesting, at joe's conference on preventable death, there was a lot of talk about how troubling it is when people do not have access for their own records. and how we could store them securely and make them available to individuals and to their designated providers, people they approve it to. it is a huge issue, is the next big thing. the government made an effort
last year, almost a year ago, to publish the first comparative data on medicare and medicaid. there is a lot that they didn't have. in terms of what the results were in the different health-care providers. pennsylvania is the only state or at least was the first state, to start regularly reporting the impact of -- what did things cost, and the results throughout the commonwealth of pennsylvania. every year, they found that there is no connection between price and quality. the only connection with quality is how many times you do it, whatever it is. we are almost in the stone age in real access to data and empowerment. it is the one thing i have heard, in different ways, from all of you today.
that is maybe a message we ought to send out there, that it only hurts for a little while when you practice transparency. pretty soon, you can't believe you didn't do it. you are stunned at how long it took to get around to it. everywhere i work in the world where things are transparent they are working well. and where they are not, it is not so hot. i went back to indonesia last year, 10 years after the tsunami. unrecognizable. it was the first global disaster, that i believe was ever conducted with virtually 100% transparency. where did the money come from, where did it go, who got it, what did they do with it? you can get it all on the internet, from start to finish. everything should be done like that. it is an unrecognizable place now. that is the sort of thing -- i got that from all of you in
different ways, but if you really want a patient citizen centered health system, you have to be able to get the information. >> we will leave this conversation with former president clinton to go live now with remarks from vice president joe biden. he will address u.s. policy in iraq and efforts to come back the islamic state. vice president biden: thank you very much for the introduction. it is generally an honor to be here before such an incredibly distinguished audience. ambassador nesbitt, thank you. she is a senior vice president. i am just a vice president. [laughter] these days, i don't like the word senior associated with my name. [laughter] provost jager and finally, i
would like to say to the ambassador, iraq's ambassador to the united states, it is an honor to have you here today. military officers, men and women, and brian, how are you doing brian? brightest want to tell me, but he is at the defense department now. we worked together at notre dame. that was 412 years ago. [laughter] anyway, good to see you, bryant. next week, the prime minister will make his first visit to washington dc. this provides us with an opportunity to take stock of where things stand right now. and that is going to be the focus of my remarks today. critics have made a number of claims regarding our policy in iraq and the state of affairs in iraq today. they say that iraq's fight
against isil under the command of the iraqi government has stalled, has been stalemated. we read that isil remains in a commanding position inside of iraq. that iran and its proxies are leading the fight against isil, and they are dominating iraq. and that iraq itself is likely to be a thing of the past, doomed to split apart because of secretary and violence. -- secretary and -- secretarian violent. the claims do not reflect the circumstances on the ground. the claims do not respect and represent the circumstances on the ground. they don't reflect iraq's progress against isil. incomplete, but significant and growing. iraq's unity, many predicted would split them apart.
what iraq's resolve to uphold their sovereignty and independence, even as they look to their neighbors in all directions for assistance. the jury is still out. that is the truth. it is not over yet. but the momentum is in the right direction. i would like to speak about that for a few moments today. it is true that when isil swept into iraq last summer and took its capital, we saw the collapse of the iraqi army. the horrific slaughter of innocent civilians, and the enslavement of women. athletic -- ethnic cleansing including groups who had lived in mosul for over 1000 years. isil gained a significant amount of money from the banks that they robbed. significant, sick -- sophisticated equipment behind by iraq you forces.
and manpower from brutal inscription and foreign fighters. and maybe most dangerously, a sense of momentum. even a sense of a nevitt ability, which seem to attract more foreign fighters. that is why when mosul fell, president obama responded decisively. within hours, he took steps with all of you, the military, to make sure that all our people in our embassy were secure. within days, we put special forces into the field temporarily to better understand the battle space. we searched -- searched intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. and we set up centers in baghdad and -- all to prepare to help iraq is -- iraqis fight back. we knew, though, that the first order of business was to make
sure that there was a functioning government. for all the years i spent in dealing with iraqi public officials and iraqi government, we know for certain without a united iraqi government, there was no possibility -- none -- of defeating isil. when mosul fell, iraq had just held its national election. roughly 14 million iraqis showed up at the polls. but now the head of former government in the middle of this chaos. having been deeply, deeply involved as brian will tell you, because he was with me trying to help form the persian government , we knew this could be extremely difficult. and was likely to be difficult. during the term of the last government distrust had deepened so profoundly between sunni, shia's and kurds
creating obstacles to a unified effort against isil and a question of willingness whether they were literally willing to stay together. but the irony -- the irony of all ironies is that iraq was actually helped form the government because of isil. isil the outfit that intended to tear iraq apart. it actually united iraqis. the sunnis realized they preferred a united and federal iraq under a new government to being at the mercy the mercy of isil or dependent on the other sunni states. the kurds realized with drawing from iraq was not a viable option. and they did not want the terrorist state at their doorstep.
i don't know how many conversations i had with the president related to this. and the shia, they realized they didn't want to take on isil alone. consequently, they each concluded they are better off if they are in this together. to quote a famous american politician, we either hang together or hang separately. the iraqis themselves realize how badly the trust had been broken. among them. nothing less than a comprehensive change could deliver a united iraqi government that could effectively take on isil. in many iraqi leaders believe that the only way to do this, as i believed, was a wholesale change in leadership. that every -- every interest in
iraq had to find different leaders this time. to occupy the seats of power. i remember speaking with the proud son of musol, who had been the speaker of iraq's parliament. in order to make way for a new wave of leaders, it was very important, and she thought it was important to that they would have to step down as speaker. and so, there was a need from the speaker to the prime minister to the president to find new leaders. the result was another widely respected sunni. he became the new parliamentary speaker. and iraq chose a well-respected kurdish statement to be the new
president and he stuck to his convictions under enormous pressure. you know how the process works. he, the president, is the one that been turns to one of the factions to turn a government -- form a government. there was an over some out of pressure. but he stuck to his guns and he named the prime minister. a shia leader who had built up support within the shia national alliance. there was a consensus among these leaders. that iraq would need a much greater measure of functioning federalism, which is called for in the constitution. they all agreed to that. that common understanding backed by genuine act of statement ship, has led to significant progress. and the chance, the chance of a long-term unity government. in just eight months, the prime
minister and other iraqi leaders have formed an inclusive government. in record time, arrived at a national budget with equitable revenue sharing. forged an oil deal between baghdad and irbil. i don't know how many times brian and i sat there after the 23 visits in iraq being told, there is an oil deal just over the horizon. never occurred, but in the face of this crisis, they pull that together. they built a consensus, began to mobilize thousands of sunni fighters to fight against isil. just this past week, the prime minister visited irbil, and met to discuss cooperation. in a plan cordon aided by general austin, in part, to help liberate mosul.
yesterday, he was in the and bar province announcing the delivery of over 1000 weapons for sunni tribes in preparation of the liberation of anbar as part of his commitment in the formation of the government. more efforts to organize arms and integrate the sunnis willing to fight will be needed in the months ahead to liberate anbar and mosul. the president has also tried to improve relations with his arab neighbors and turkey. he has visited cairo, kuwait abu dhabi. and for the first time since 1990, saudi arabia has agreed to open an embassy in baghdad. at the invitation, of a shia iraq he president. -- iraqi president. having done this for the last 12 years, i can assure you these are very promising, promising
steps. obviously, a great deal of work remains. including moving forward on the national guard legislations. legislation to design to advance national reconciliation, including -- continuing to mobilize and integrate and arm and pay sunni forces. further integrate the cash -- pe sh into the security force. bring a volunteer forces under the command of an elected government. empowering local governance and planning for reconstruction in the liberated areas, consistent with the notion of federalism and all of which, all of which we will be discussing with the prime minister. not that we haven't discussed it a lot. he and i have probably spent more time on the phone then we have -- i have with my wife. the entire region -- the entire
world, but the entire region is watching this closely. and iraqi leaders cannot afford to lose the sense of urgency at this point. and much hinges on the prime minister, but not the prime minister lamothe. this is about all the leaders pulling together, and they must continue to compromise. and it is hard. it is hard. thousands of bodies have been strewn and lost in the interim. but they are doing it. we knew that in addition to forming a united iraqi government, the next challenge would be to help them put back together and ability to be able to position itself and succeed on the battlefield. that started with helping iraqis reorganized their security forces. for years, in the face of terrorism, many iraqis have
fought bravely and given their lives. that would challenge any army. but as we saw last summer, some units, including those in mosul have been hollowed out with corruption, lack of discipline, secretarian fighting. and the collapse helped make the fall of mosul possible. so we helped leaders rebuild their forces, with hires based on competence, not on ethnicity. they were -- appointed -- excuse me, relieved a number of former military officers. they appointed a sunni from mosul as defense minister. and he continues to reform iraq's military leadership. we sent our special forces to assess which iraqi units could
actually be salvaged. and under the leadership of general austin, we began working with iraqi military to reconstitute their divisions. we are now training and have continued to train iraqis at four different sites across the country. thousands more are in the pipeline, and we are supplying weapons and critical equipment. since the fall of 2014, the united states has delivered over 100 million rounds of ammunition. 62,000 small arms systems. 250 minor resistant vehicles were delivered in september that are now protecting forces from mines and homemade bombs. and 50 additional mraps began to transfer to iraq this week. at the air force base that many of you served in and were part
of, we are training and advising and assisting iraqi army forces who are, in turn, assisting and arming sunni fighters. we are also bringing pilots to the states who are in the advanced stages of flight training. and we are not doing it alone. we led and mobilized a massive international coalition of over 60 partners -- it coalition partners have launched airstrikes in iraq.
others have provided trainers and iraq. italy, germany, the u.k. and others are working with us to train and resupply the peshmerga, web reclaim a significant amount of territory initially gained by isil. in several countries, including japan, have made significant on military contributions in areas such as development assistance and humanitarian aid. a majority within each of the iraqi constituencies supports this u.s. efforts and his coalition efforts. leaders from across the political spectrum have publicly asked for our help. and our continued help. and we are providing that help in a smarter way. small numbers of advisors backed by a large coalition. and this large coalition is backed up by the most capable air force in the world. we are pounding isil from the
skies. nearly 1300 airstrikes alone. thus far, thankfully, we have not lost a single solitary u.s. servicemen to enemy fire. not one. but this is a dangerous, dangerous, dangerous place. with our assistance, iraqis have made significant progress in the battlefield. it months ago isil was on the offensive. no force had proved capable to defeating them head on. but today and iraq, isil has lost large areas that it used to dominate. kirk cook province -- isil has been defeated at the dam, and helped to create. isil's momentum in iraq has now
halted, and in many places has reversed. thousands of isil fighters have been removed from the battlefield. leaders have been eliminated. supply lines have been severed. weapons, checkpoints, ied factories, safe houses have been destroyed. reports of demoralization within isil are rife. and some fighters are refusing to fight. foreign fighters being killed by isil because they want to return home. there is still a long fight ahead. i don't want to paint an overly rosy picture here. but isil's invincibility has been peers. and that is important. let me give you one recent example where iraq's military capability was tested, as well as it political leadership. three weeks ago and every
newspaper in the west and here in the united states, the speculation was that the coalition and iraq's elected leaders had been sidelined in the fight against isil. military forces, backed primarily by iran, or running the show you saw pictures and they made it clear. the implication being we now own iraq. then something changed. the attacks stalled. and the prime minister stepped up. he courageously stepped in making it absolutely clear that the iraq he -- iraqi government, him as commander in chief, was in charge of this operation. when i spoke with him, he made
it clear to me that he wants the united states and the coalition to engage all over iraq, was his phrase. and explicitly, he wanted us engaged and requested support in tikrit. his call was joined by that of sunni leaders, as well he declared the iraqi government had to be in the lead. the units had to be directly under command, all units under the command of the iraqi government. and that sunnis had to be included in the liberation of their own communities. and we made clear, general austin, that we were prepared to help in the battle with volunteers fighting alongside but only if all elements
operated strictly under the chain of command of the iraqi military. that is the only way we can ensure the safety of those on the ground and to minimize the risk of friendly fire. today, iraq costs's national flag hangs over the city of tikrit. policing them with forces trusted by the community in the community they are returning home to. governing authority, back to local officials. as envisioned in their federal system. restoring vital public services. in the face of reports that they were mass looting and burning's
of homes the prime minister stepped up and took swift action. he condemned the visas. abuses. he had nothing -- hid nothing. they uncovered execution grounds where i still murdered -- isil murdered young men. mass graves are still being found, a stark reminder of the need for isil's defeat. we are taking the fight to isil in syria. the coalition has launched airstrikes against isil and other terrorists inside of syria, bombed to refineries.
the oil, both refined and crude used to fund their operations, eliminating that as a source of revenue. we embarked on a train and equip program to take on isil and protect syrian communities. in kobani, killing thousands of its fighters and proving that isil can be defeated in syria as well. the regional challenge extends beyond syria. four years, iraq has risked being pulled apart by a wide range of sectarian competition internally and externally. but the reality is that iraqis do not want to be drawn into regional conflicts. they do not want to be owned by anybody.
everybody forgets there was a war, not but a decade before where over 100,000 were killed. a war with iran, their neighbor. they do not want to be puppets dangling on a string of anyone's puppeteering in the region. don't underestimate the power of the iraqi national pride independence, and sovereignty. it is only natural that iraq will have relations with all of its neighbors, including iran. the history is too long, the border is too long, and it is a difficult neighborhood. but iraq as be free to make its own sovereign choices under the authority of elected representatives of an iraqi government. we want what the iraqis want, a united democratic iraq as
defined by its own constitution where power is shared among all iraqi communities. were sovereign government exercises command and control over forces in the field. i go back to the focus on the iraqi government. when the three major constituencies sunni shia, and kurd are united in wanting a whole and prosperous iraq, the likelihood of being pulled into the orbit of any single nation in the region is diminished exponentially. this would represent the only, the only government in the region that actually is not based on sectarian dominance. this is going to be a long haul.
success or failure is in the hands of iraqis. as a standup and stand together this administration and country is committed to stand with them. i need not tell this audience, since 2003, more than 1.5 million american women and men including my son have spent significant amounts of time on iraqi soil. every single morning since i have been vice president we contacted the defense department. i ask the same question. give me the exact number of americans who have given their lives on iraqi soil and afghan
soil. give me the exact number. not a generalization. an exact number of those who have been wounded or lost in afghanistan. no audience knows more than this every one of those lives, every one of those brave men and women, represents a community. represents a family and a larger family. only 1% of all americans have waged these fights for us. but 99% of all americans owes them support and recognition. 4481 americans have given their lives on iraqi soil, including many who served alongside the people in this room.
i bet everyone of you in uniform know somebody who has was lost or windeounded. there are still men and women in uniform in iraq making sacrifices as eyesi speak. all of you who wear the uniform know one of the loneliest feelings for your family particularly if they do not live on a base, while every other family at church, every neighbors thinks everything is fine, that her mom is not home for that birthday. they are missing that graduation.
they are not there for christmas. they do not make a thanksgiving toast. we have an obligation. just because we no longer have hundred and 60,000 troops. -- just because we do longer have 160,000 troops, they want our support -- warrant our support. as a country, our one shared obligation is to give them what they need on the battlefield of care for them when they come home. their blood helped give iraq another chance. our mission now is to help the iraqis themselves the most of this. thank you all for listening. most of all, thank you for your service.
may god bless the united states of america and may god protect our troops. [applause] >> if you missed any of what joe biden had to say, you can see it again in the c-span video library at seized and.org -- c-span.org. all this week, we have been bringing you congressional member freshman profiles. we bring you a conversation with
representative norma torres. after that, a panel of american indians discussing the stereotyping of their culture. speakers include a former player believed lead plaintiff in a lawsuit against the washington redskins. here's a preview of the event. >> this is a well-intentioned teacher who is teaching her students about thanksgiving because thanksgiving is required content in almost every state in the union. teachers are expected to teach about thanksgiving and some way. this is what they have been teaching. this is innocent play, isn't it? they are pretending, which is what kids do. it seems innocent enough.
they would -- the other thing is this, that innocent play turns into this, a group of sorority girls resting up as -- dressing up as indians. or later hipsters dressing up as indian. these guys. what is this thing about dressing up like indians? victoria's secret every year. we what starts out as innocent play eventually becomes ignorant
racism. >> a brief preview of the program at 9:30 p.m. here are some of our featured programs for this weekend on the c-span networks. c-span2, book tv. grover norquist says then americans are tired of the tax system. and sunday, roosevelt and stoll and unexpired partnershipand stalin's unexpected partnership.
sunday afternoon as 1:00 american history tv is live. commemorating the 150th anniversary of the confederate server surrender. yesterday, the national council on u.s. air relations held a discussion analyzing the framework agreement. they gave the assessment on its implications for the regional neighbors. speakers include a former nuclear negotiator for man. this is just over two hours. >> good morning and welcome to another of the series of briefings of the national council on u.s.-arab relations on issues of vital importance to the united states and the nations in the middle east. thank you for coming this morning on such short notice.
we put this together on sunday monday? we have such a distinguished group of panelists who follow these matters. this morning i am honored to be your moderator. i joined the national council on u.s.-arab relations after spending 35 years in the arabian gulf in the energy field. i am well aware of the importance of the iran nuclear deals for the people of the region. before we begin, i would like to thank c-span for covering this event live today and for covering our briefing last thursday on yemen, held in this room. the saudi ambassador spoke at the conclusion of that session. c-span coverage of last week's briefing is available on our website.
a quick word about the national council on u.s.-arab relations. established 33 years ago as a nonprofit organization. the guiding vision is one of education. it seeks to educate about the islamic world and place relations between our allies and partners across the region on his firm a foundation as -- on as firm a foundation as possible and continuously expand the relationship through a variety of programs. there are a variety of programs aimed at students, academics, and our armed forces. it organizes an annual conference here in washington, conducts a study abroad, youth leadership development programs, such as the ones that will be held this weekend in houston and washington. beginning tomorrow over 400 , young americans will represent
22 arab countries in a model arab league to debate pressing issues of the day with over 38,000 alumni. the program ensures the next generation of americans will be better prepared to conduct economic and commercial relations in a region so vital to the united states. today our panel will assess the nuclear deal. the issues and implications. it would be incorrect to say this is a done deal. this is a preliminary agreement, a framework with many technical issues to be sorted out in the coming months. by june 30, to be precise. as has been said repeatedly, the devil is basically in the details. in the meantime, the public debate will be vigorous and intense. is this a good thing or a bad thing? what do our regional partners
and allies think? will this define the legacy of a president in the home stretch of his administration? to be sure the president has , described this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to see if we can take the nuclear issue off the table and bring regional stability to the middle east. let us see whether these noble objectives are achievable. before we kick off, just a few housekeeping details. each of the speakers will have 10 to 12 minutes for their remarks. in the interest of time, i refer you to their bios in our announcement. this will allow full a full hour of questions and discussions. on your chairs, you will find a 3x5 card. please write your questions on these cards and we will do our best to respond as fully as possible.
we will wrap up promptly at noon. to start i am pleased to introduce our first speaker, dr. john duke anthony. dr. anthony is well-known and well-respected in the region and in washington. he is the only american observer to attend each head of state summit since 1981. and then the ambassador will speak. he will be followed by the executive director of the middle east policy council and a specialist on middle east affairs with the congressional research service will present his remarks. next we'll hear from the distinguished affairs fellow at the national councils on u.s. arab relations.
dr. paul sullivan will conclude, professor of economics at the national defense university, will wrap up the presentation. dr. anthony, if you would kindly come to the podium and kickoff our discussion on this deal. dr. anthony: thank you, john. when we were putting together this seminar, we came up with 14 factors, phenomenon, windows prisonsprisms through which someone could look at what occurred about the framework and the challenges it represents and the opportunities it also represents . we are going to be able to a
dress around eight of these 14 factors. but we will be as candid as we can. much is unknown. my brief remarks have to do with the needs and concerns of three of iran's neighbors -- oman, bahrain, saudi arabia. thomas mattair will deal with the united arab emirates and qatar and kuwait. a few statistics to keep things in perspective. with regard to saudi arabia's concerns. saudi arabia is the epicenter of prayer and pilgrimage, faith and spiritual devotion for some 1.5 million muslims worldwide. inasmuch as iran is the leading
country with a largely shia orientation on the theological stage, there is inherently implicitly, explicitly a degree of competition. iran is being perceived beyond the nuclear agreement in terms of its leaders making reference to iran's unprecedented influence in four arab capitals. it would be of concern to those in the league of arab states. of the 1.5 million muslims in -- 1.5 billion muslims in the
world, 2 billion christians, one billion of them being roman catholics, some 200 million muslims identify with the shia sect of islam. overall, we're talking about 12% of the world's muslims being shia. this is important to keep in mind when one listens to people speak about the threat that iran poses. 12% taking on 88%. something is wrong with that picture. the framing needs to be radically different. at the governmental level, the highest organization to which muslim countries belong is the organization of the islamic conference. it has 57 members. no more than four of those 57 would be predominately shia in
the orientation of their government. so the numbers are heavily imbalanced not in favor of iran. this, too, needs to be kept in perspective. with regard to oman, saudi arabia, and by bahrain these , three are profoundly similar in their concerns regarding iran, because they are neighbors of iran. they have similar needs and concerns and similar interests and similar foreign policy objectives. and yet there are the vertices diversions is -- divergent seesncies
between and amongst them. when people talk about threat analysis, it is usually where they are located. people in maine are not so concerned about jamaican and haitian boat people coming to their shores. those in florida are not obsessed with the same kinds of concern that people who live in new england are concerned with. this is another way of looking at the concerns and objectives of these countries. oman is different from all of the other gcc countries. it has the best, most amicable, smooth relationship with iran. this is not new. this has been the case is the almost since the beginning of the iranian revolution in 1979 and dates from before then. part of it has to do with the body of water between them. many people have the image that most of the shipping goes through iran's waters and
comes into the gulf and exits the gulf. this is not the case. the vast majority of the traffic goes through oman's waters. there are three lanes. 12 mile wide lane -- on 2 mile wide lane for ships coming in to the gulf. another free ships going out of the gulf. and the zone between the two that is a safety zone. the strategic and geographic challenge is far greater on the omani side than on the irani side. you can look at the map. that little piece of oman at the top of the peninsula is separated from oman like alaska is separated from the continental united states. the strategic aspect between -- this drives the strategic
aspect between oman and iranian relationships. there is not going to be a conflict between them started by oman. oman's citizen base is less than 2 million. iran's is 80 million. the numbers should drive your perspective, your assessment of what the issues are and the implications. but there is more. iran sent close to 30,000 soldiers to oman from 1972 through 1974 to help oman put down a guerrilla rebel marxist oriented uprising in oman. no other country did as much as iran did to help all mean regain
oman regain its stability. there are no territorial issues between the two, unlike issues that exist between some of iran's other neighbors and iran. with regard to bahrain's situation, it is also numerically fruitful for your analysis. if people made frequent reference to 60% of the population of iraq's population being shia and ruled by a sunni government, you have a situation that is even more imbalanced in the case of bahrain. you have the last remaining arab country with a sunni government ruling over a majority shia population. and despite the much renowned
report that came out as a result of bahrain's uprising in 2011 in which there was a statement that there was no evidence of iranian involvement in those uprisings, here is where perception comes in. perception is more powerful than reality. around 3000 bahrainis have been trained in oman, coming straight from secondary school, finance d by the shia merchants in bahrain. they go at age 17, 16, 18. some stay for a semester, some stay for a year. they go largely not to tehran, a seminary based shiaism and they
return to bahrain. some of those are regarded by the intelligence security services as forming sleeper cells. in other words, one day they may be called upon to return the favor of the education and training and leadership development that they required acquired as a result of iran. and so when the government speaks about iranian involvement, there is this dimension that does not come out in the media but should help one frame bahrain's concerned and on top of periodic statements not from the most senior officials of iran, that bahrain should revert to iranian control and influence. this is disturbing to any bar
bahraini tasked with security and stability issues. saudi arabia is concern the cost of a significant shia population in the eastern province. there is far less evidence than there has been in the case of bahrain's needs and concerns. saudi arabians have become open in accusing iran of being behind in terms of the inspiration of the attacks on the towers in 1996, in which large numbers of americans were killed. this is a brief overview to begin the discussion, by showing there is no unanimity of all of iran's neighbors.
it differs from one to the next. now we have the pleasure of listening to ambassador seyed hossein mousavian. thank you. [applause] seyed hossein mousavian: good morning, everyone. iran and the world powers both considered the deals agreed in switzerland as a win-win deal. to my understanding there is five reasons why iranians would consider the deal a win for iran. number one is that the deal contains respect for iranian nuclear technology including enrichment. number two is ultimately the
sanctions would be lifted, even gradually. number three is that ultimately the iranian nuclear would be normalized. and number four is that ultimately the nuclear would be file would be removed from chapter seven united nations security council and all resolutions would be terminated. and number four is that iran after a period would be able to have a normal, peaceful cooperation on peaceful nuclear technology with the world powers. this is something iran has been sanctioned from day one.
the world powers consider the deal a win for themselves. i would like to give you five reasons why they believe this is a win for the world powers for the u.s. number one iran accepted the maximum level of transparency and measures within nonproliferation treaty. they have safeguarded the agreement and additional protocols and arrangement for code the .1. these are three arrangements for verification and transparency. iran has accepted to all three arrangements. number two is iran would agree has agreed to address all issues
which would need to give the verification transparency inspection to the ieaa. beyond npt. practically the world powers have the most intrusive, strong powerful verification system. during the history of the liberation proliferation in the deal with iran. no other member has ever been committed like iran on transparency measures. number four is they were looking for a break of the one year in case iran decided to go forward. there are to be a breakout of one year. they have got it. and number five, confidence building measures, the u.s. and world powers needed time.
due to 35 years of hostility. this implementation for measures are about 10 to 25 years. therefore, they have got enough time for almost a decade to a quarter of a century. to my understanding, this is the a mutual win. a deal for both. and again, i would like to give you five reasons why this is a win-win, a mutual win for both of them. first, through diplomatic solutions, they were able to escape a devastating war in the middle east. and perhaps this is one of the rare occasions a big crisis in the middle east has been resolved or is going to be completely resolved through diplomacy.
second, they have been able to set a new mechanism for verification, for non-diversion toward weaponization. many nuclear experts believe it npt is not enough. many believe even additional protocols, which is the maximum level of transparency is not enough. and the measures, a new mechanism of verification and transparency, assuring non-diversion toward weaponization for the first time far beyond npt. therefore, if they are wise enough to embed the agreement with iran on a broader scope regionally and internationally
this will be a big, big game for the liberation globally. number four is that perhaps this is the first evidence, engagement policy of president obama announced in 2009 has worked. iran and the u.s. have been trying for 35 years to improve relations. a lot of efforts and all have failed. this is the first time a success is stamped at the highest level of negotiations between iran and the u.s., which would have implications on implications relations between iran and the west. number five, it opens the door to a regional dialogue between iran and the world powers, iran and the west, iran and the u.s.
tehran and washington decided not to go for broader dialogue negotiations on other issues unless they reached something on the nuclear. therefore if it is finalized by july 1, can open the door for iran and the u.s. to cooperate and to have a regional dialogue, to cooperate on common interests, common threats. it is obvious now that extremism, terrorism, isis, they are threats to the region, to even u.s. alliance, to iran, to international community. there is a consensus that the
threat number one to international security today is isis and other versions of isis. there is indirect cooperation between iran and the u.s. americans are leading the airstrike against isis. iranians are a key force on the ground battle against isis. they have common interests for peace and stability in iran and iraq and afghanistan and many other issues like security and energy. therefore this is step one to toward if they want and now they can open a dialogue to cooperate on common threats. giving five reasons why iranians are happy, five reasons why the p5plus one are happy.
and five reasons why the international community and region should be happy. i believe everything is not over yet. they have a lot to do until july 1. many technical issues have remained unresolved. therefore we cannot say the deal is 100% done. second, with a nuclear deal, 35 years of hostilities between iran and the u.s. is not going to be over. there is a huge mistrust between iran and the u.s., iran and the west. and some u.s. allies in the region, the israelis are worried after the deal, americans and iranians would go to bed. i want to assure them, they are not going to bed soon. it takes time and this would
only be the first that. -- that. i now ask thomas mattair to address the next issues. [applause] thomas mattair: thank you. 10 minutes is not a lot of time. what i want to say is that there is -- there are positive developments in this nuclear framework agreement and enough progress to go forward with more months of negotiations over technical details and find out whether it can be implemented. the gcc states are making cautious statements about willingness to see what the
details are and to see whether more progress can be made and whether something airtight can be developed and implemented. i say it is cautious, because there is a lot of skepticism in these states. and is not just skepticism about the nuclear deal itself. the other concern, which is perhaps even greater, is that the united states in exchange for this agreement is going to acquiesce in the expansion of iranian influence in the arab world. they are looking at iran's influence in iraq after the u.s. invasion and toppling of that whole system. iran's relationship with the assad regime and its help for the assad regime.
its influence over hezbollah its influence over shia communities in bahrain and now in yemen. that concern about what the united states is going to do is really great on their part. in fact, they are concerned the united states might consent to iranian hegemony in the region. when we hear talk about isis or al qaeda these states are also asking the united states. equal amount of attention to iranian backed militias in iraq and syria. if we are only focusing on city jihadists, it concerns them greatly. about the uae in particular.
they have a special reason for being skeptical about iran. i was specifically asked to address this issue so i will. it concerns three islands in the approaches to the shipping lanes inside the gulf to the left of the street. -- the strait. if you control them, you control the shipping lanes. the shaw of iran wanted them and took them just before the uae became independent in 1971. he explained that he wanted them for strategic reasons. he was concerned that radicals in the region might take them might be able to interfere with shipping. john was talking about revolution and the intervention there.
it is very much the case that the prime minister's ever ran her telling the british in the 1950's and 1960's they were interested in potential oil. they did take them, although the uae has a strong historic and legal claim to the islands and has ever since tried to press that claim in the international arena. it has had the support of other gcc states and the arab league. the support has continued during -- after the revolution, of course. in 1979. one could see during that time that those islands can be useful because during the tanker war when iran was interfering with
shipping coming out of weight and other states -- out of kuwait and other states, they did use it. as well as the offshore oil installations, to interfere with installation -- it demonstrated the military utility of those islands. even when there was a thaw, in the early 1990's after the war was over, the gcc states were interested enough, concerned enough about iran's general military capabilities, it's conventional military, on the islands and the modernization of its military, they were concerned enough about that to start signing security
packs with the u.s. to open up their states for american airfield. that concerned iran greatly and iran has complained about that greatly. iran has conducted naval exercises in the region. some of the exercises have involved attempts to block passage to the strait. qatar and others are participating in us-led exercises so they can counter that. they are purchasing american equipment modernize their air force is to contain any type until -- contain any potential. it is impossible to tell what around's -- iran's intentions
are there are so many other acquisitions that they have made over the past decade. they believe they need at least the ability to deter that. they are getting it from the united states. however, as i said when i began they are not just concerned about the nuclear agreement. they're concerned about the trustworthiness of the united states. one of the official said there was a time in the united dates was a force to be reckoned with. now it is a problem to dealt with. they're are not sure they can trust the united states. the united states does say that we have your back when it comes to an external aggression. but they are looking at our intervention in rack, they are looking at her hesitations in syria. they're looking at our repeated
failure, decade after decade to help the palestinians leverage themselves -- liberate themselves. they are questioning what kind of judgment the united states has. this is all part of their concern about the nuclear agreement. why they want to assure -- why they want assurances that the u.s. will do something about the rounds presence in the arab world. they are actually concerned we may go back to the concept we had when the british withdrew from the gulf in the early 1970's. which was the twin pillar policy where we supported both iran and saudi arabia against the ussr but more the support went to because it was more developed. they are even more concerned that we would tilt toward iran and recognize ron's -- iran's
power and industry, technological race, and think that they should be -- that their aspirations in the region should be accepted. so, while these countries will say that they have a cautious willingness to consider this agreement, i would say that there is substantial concern there. you can even see in the case of qatar that although it is often said the relations with iran are cordial, almost as cordial as oman's, i would point out that they voted in favor when they had a rotating seat on the security council, they voted in favor of the resolution in march
2007. it imposed sanctions on iraq -- iran. it identified people who should be sanctioned and banks who should be sanctioned. they are on record with eating concerned about that program. i would even say that in the capitals, there are people who if his agreement -- if this agreement fails to satisfy them, if they feel they are in danger, because of the potentially additional bonus that iran might seek if it were allowed to eventually escape from these inspections and restrictions and -- in 10, 15 years, these are states that would think of
other options, reluctantly. but they are countries who have talked about how we need to keep all options on the table if this agreement is not workout. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviting me. i will probably not talk for 10 minutes. my medicine wears off in eight minutes so that is my limit. i will be ncr a style objective and non-partisan. if there are congressional staff in the room, i work for you. ask away. i'm glad to see you afterwards and clear up anything. that is unclear. i confine most of my comments today to the sanctions part of
the deal, the issue. it is clear from both the iranians and u.s. that basically all the sanctions that have been imposed by the u.s. and the eu other than human rights related sanctions that have been imposed since 2010, resolution 1929 of june 10, are going to be released as a consequence of this agreement. that means that iran's being shut out of international bank system will come to an end. sanctions from iran's sale of oil and shipping of oil sanctions on insurance of iranian oil tankers, shanks sanctions on buying chemicals
sanctions on supplying a run with automotive gear, on supplying them with oil drilling exploration equipment, all of these at his and will become to a conclusion if this deal is finalized. and when the ie certifies that iran has complied. this is still a little bit unclear. it has to be clarified a little bit more when the deal is finalized. apparently the iaea is going to be the arbiter. they are going to certify that iran has produced its stockpile to the 300 pounds or whatever the agreement says, that iran has dismantled 15,000 centrifuges and put them away. when these things are certified that is when the sanctions will be released, is my interpretation -- what i am seeing. even though the two factions
differ little bit. iran would gain measures to approximately 130 -- 150 billion in heart-wrenching reserves in various banks overseas, much of which is in south korea, some of which is in japan. hard currency payments that were made for oil, but iran is unable to move back to the central bank. no government has impounded the money, no government has taken title to this money. it is iran's money. they are in bank accounts under a ron's name. because of the banking section -- sanction, and the bank will help cooperate with iran to move the money back to its central bank. that is why it is overseas and iran cannot get to it. frozen assets, or impounded assets. that is incorrect.
i see some oil people in the audience. as i said, one of the big things is that iran but would be able to export again. there are five countries currently that have active exemptions to avoid u.s. sanctions to buy oil, turkey india, japan, south korea. they could increase their orders for iranian oils and iran could start to supply those five with more oil. the eu, which was buying a quarter of arends oil, they enacted a ban on purchases of iranian oils. it will take longer for them to take -- to start buying iranian oil again. there has to be a consensus and
a political decision to lift the ban. that could be perhaps early 2016. the other five that i mentioned could conceivably, let's say there is a deal in june, the iea gives the go-ahead september -october, those five could conceivably start buying more iranian oil right away. the radiant economy in my estimation is likely to rebound fairly quickly. this $150 billion, $130 billion that i mentioned that around the get access to is virtually equal to a ron's entire budget year that they would instantly have hard currency. the value of iran's currency would rise instantly. peoples whose shops are shuttered would reopen.
people would go back to work. some people go to work but right now under the sanctions regime they go to work but basically drink teal day. they may get paid three months late and the boss may give them a quarter of what they are owed. this is what is going on now. the entire iranian economy is in a state of suspension, suspended animation. the entire economy is waiting for this deal to get done and sanctions released to occur. that is when everybody goes back to work and starts getting paid again, start buying clothes again, says buying electronics. that is when the economy starts firing up again. to close the administration plan if this deal is finalized, their abuse of presidential
waiver authority on the u.s. sanctions on the foreign companies that have been effective. after some period of compliance, i personally think a year, don't quote me necessarily on that, the administration plans to then asked congress to enact legislation that would change, modify, or repeal or revoke the u.s. sanctions that have been put in place by statute. then it would be a congressional decision at then it would be a congressional decision at that point. the u.n. sanctions apparently will be relieved, so if congress did not act those sanctions would stay in force. that will be a deal between the