tv Politics Public Policy Today CSPAN April 9, 2012 10:00am-12:00pm EDT
at 8:30 eastern, 31 days that changed america and saved the world. and 9:20, pearl harbor christmas. at 10:15, fdr goes to war, how expanded executive power, spiralling national debt, and restricted liberties shaped wartime america. it's all this week on c-span 2. highlights from our weekend american history tv programs and prime-time. a look at african-americans in 18th-century and national sent -- and the 19th century with lani bunch and the descendants of african american families wh liveo and worked in washington d.c. now look at iran posing nuclear program. speaking about this was a
former deputy director of the international atomic energy agency, also led the agency's efforts to dismantle nuclear proliferation networks. the gives a brief history of the program and where mr. day and lessens the international community can learn. iran and representatives of six of the world's leading powers are scheduled a new round of talks on april 13. >> good afternoon. welcome back to the george washington university elliott school of international affairs. i am an associate dean at the school and i'm grateful for your participation in today's workshop on teaching the nuclear fuel cycle. making the world a better place by conducting research that response to a global human challenges, to educate a new generation of leaders to face
the salingers, and by engaging the policy community who deal with those challenges every day. today's discussion is urgent. we live in a dynamic moment in the understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle. last week in a speech at the nuclear security summit in south korea, president obama said that we all know the problem. process that gives us nuclear energy can also put nations and service within the reach of nuclear weapons. responded to that challenge by calling among other things for an international commitment to unlocking the fuel cycle of the future. in a short essay in "the huffington post yesterday, the president of the john d. and catherine t. macarthur foundation responded to the urgent danger of nuclear terrorism? by urging a ban on the production of materials that would end the separation of plutonium from the nuclear spent fuel and enrichment of uranium to a high levels. yesterday's global security newswire, there was a report that the u.s. nuclear
regulatory commission's deferred action on a petition from the american physical society and urging that they should receive licensing. informed opinions are converging on these topics, but disagreements remain, framed by differences in the perspective of different expert communities. it is our objective in the series to bring peace together. we abroad over 200 nuclear policy experts to campus in the last three years as part of a nuclear policy talks series ranging from gw elliott school alumnus and acting undersecretary of arms control and international security, senator richard lugar, you and secretary general ban ki-moon, and a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering, mary snyder. we are engaged in research on the topic.
the book was co-edited by the dean of the school, michael brown. and we are developing new course offerings in this area including a new graduate course in the fall offered by christopher cahill on nuclear materials, funded by a grant from the nuclear regulatory commission. it is a great pleasure to convene this discussion today, to have all of you here together, and to have the opportunity to introduce the doctor to talk about the situation in iran, which is a pressing issue that intrudes discussion of nuclear fuel and cycle choices into the lives of many people around the world. the doctors currently with the bill for center for science and international affairs, john f. kennedy school of government at harvard spent 27 years prior to joining harvard with the
international atomic energy agency in vienna the last five of those as deputy director general and ted's department he led the agency efforts to identify and dismantle nuclear proliferation networks, including one of them led by a pakistani scientist, and oversaw efforts to monitor and containing iranian nuclear programs. he led teams of international agencies to examine the nuclear facilities in south africa, iraq, north korea, syria, libya, and elsewhere seeking to ensure that nuclear materials were not used for military purposes. he's one of the world's leading experts on iran's nuclear program and led the international atomic energy agency oppose the efforts of in recent years to implement an analytical culture to guide traditional verification activities. please join me in welcoming him. >> thank you very much and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
i hope that i don't spoil your appetite, because i don't think i have very good news for you. [laughter] nevertheless, if we look at the iranian nuclear program, i have been asked to provide a snapshot of where we are today. then i will look one-year forward, where we might be one year from now. then i will try to draw the first lessons from the iaea verification program. it is a big job if you look at the whole nuclear program, because it is very large. iaea has 40 reports published already on safeguards regarding iran. they are around 10 pages. about 400 or 500 pages big stack of intermission. it is very difficult often to understand, because the agency augments, so you never get the full picture until you read it. before christmas, i was on a
panel in brussels with a professor who is the iranian representative to the iaea. there was one thing we agreed, we are the only people in the world who have read all those reports. [laughter] let's go back to the iranian nuclear program. the international community's concern about it for a number of reasons. maybe the biggest reason is that iran conducted this clandestine and uranium enrichment conversion activities two decades without fulfilling its reporting requirements to the iaea. moreover, actually iran diverted nuclear material which it received from abroad, never reported to the iaea. this is a classic diversion of nuclear material. it also accepted nuclear material from the safeguards and
conducted additional experiments from these. years the first lesson, calling a spade a spade. but you have never heard the iaea has said that nuclear materials were diverted. the reason for that was in 2003 when this came into allied of the international community, the reason for that was the agency did not call it a diversion and noncompliant because it would have entered immediately to the united nations security council. france, germany, and the u.k. - that there would be negotiated solution and no problem. unfortunately, this turns out not to be the case. because already in 2003 when this all came out in the open,
iran committed itself to transparency and it did ok for quite some time. nevertheless, when the first declaration came from iran, there was another small shop. it did not include what this was called, a p2 program type of centrifuge, which is more advanced than the ones which are now apparently running. iran failed to include that in the declaration. and here is the second lesson, i think get the international community should have been harder at that time, should have put a clear red line, if there's a problem with the compliance or declaration, it has consequences. but this was not the case. people say, okay, it is a small program, about it. until we hit the reestablishment of uranium conversion in spring
of 2004. again, iran crossed another red line. the original agreement was no uranium enrichment related activities until iran is in full compliance with its international obligations. at that point in time, it was not. but the international community let this happen again. i think these are the lessons from this early stage. when you deal with a problem like that, you need to be clear that this is what is required, this is the red line. if it is passed or moved, as consequences. then in 2007, finally, or 2006 this deal finally collapsed. iran started uranium enrichment.
this time, the enrichment went up very swiftly. today iran is even producing uranium which is 20% enriched with regard to isotope 235. why it is concerning is the following reasons, first, iran is producing 15 kilograms per month now. partially in an underground facility. that means they will roughly halve its stock of 250 lilos of that material by the end of this year-- kilos. if you take that and modified the centrifuges which are there in one place, you don't need to put any new centrifuges. just use the current ones and you can turn this 250 kilograms of 20% and maturing into highly enriched uranium in one or two
months' time. so this is now a step or situation where we are today. iran is actually heading to be able to or have the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons grade material if it so wishes. when you produce 20% interest uranium, and you want to produce high enriched uranium, once you have done 20% enriched uranium, actually, you have done 90% of the effort which is required. you have only that minor step left. this is why the concern is there, because if at the same time the iaea raised questions not only with regard to iran's pazner clear declarations but certain military aspects of the nuclear program.
what are those? they started already in 1980's, late-1980s when iran established physics research center, which was located in lavisan and was associated with th technology o -- with the university of technology in teheran. it became public in 2008. iata was not able to access the place when it was there -- iaea. why the concern about the physics research effort? if you go to their web site a where the young lady was working before and i guess is still working, there is a paper that explains what the physics
research center has been procuring from open markets or equipment which is related to nuclear activities. there is equipment related to uranium enrichment, there's equipment related to uranium conversion, and uranium metallurgy and things like that. why would military research center acquire nuclear-related equipment? y equipment, some of it is dual use equipment, but when you put them all together, it looks like this institute was involved somehow on parallel nuclear studies which contributed to the development of nuclear fuel cycles, particularly the content of them. this installation was never declared as an installation to the iaea and does not yet been
declared. then, when this became public, iran started to move the people to be racing that to other institutes and today they are sitting there in another institute. you can read it from the iaea november report. then, when you look at what they're doing, it does not look like they terminated their the first atafter location was wiped away. they had continued studying nuclear physics and experiments which could be used if you are designing a trigger for a nuclear device. they have been doing experiments with high explosives, which are essential for the nuclear weapon research, if you pursue that route.
iran has explained them -- iran has acknowledged this type of research is going on. if you look at the iaea reports in spring of 2010, it is there. there's military and civilian applications. the iaea asked at that time, what are the civilian applications where you need microsecond timing for your explosions, but you have simultaneous explosions? unfortunately, iran was not able to answer this question, stated that these are military secrets and they cannot disclose them. but i have a hard time understanding why you cannot disclose the civilian experiments. maybe their argument is that these were military people who did this sort of thing. what is the lesson that we learn from here?
that is a bit more tricky, but i think it's really important if. first, it has to do with the iaea access rights. if the iaea sees this kind of experiments, which really appears to be supporting nuclear weapons research and development, it should have access to those sites and should have access to these people, documentation, and other studies, and to interview these people. why? if i read article 3, it says that the objective is to prevent -- conventional diagnoses of nuclear weapons or explosions. the job is to prevent and not to detect. once we detect, it is too latest. we have failed to note prevent proliferation. therefore, the iaea should be
proactive, should be in front of the game and the u.n. security council correctly has supported this view of iaea secretary. this is perhaps the gravest. lesson from gravest iran does not heed these requests. it has not heeded to this request of the iaea board of governors or the requests of the united nations security council. as a result of that, the authority of those two organizations diminishes when you get someone who does not comply. and syria, for example, has already used this playbook in stalling in answering similar questions with the iaea. so we have created a dangerous precedent. the first proceed and to this came from north korea, which not only did not answer questions or
provide access to certain sites, but also led to the eight npt. -- the npt. what is its stake is the credibility of the whole npt regime. let me talk a little more about military activities. iaea has been accused of using a third party information that it is not able to ou verify the of te authenticity. i don't think that's true. there are about 1800 documents related to items iran has been
purchasing, procuring. it includes communications. these are coming from the member states of the iaea. these are hard facts. those pieces of equipment have been ordered, they have been delivered, according to these documents. so these are hard facts. you cannot fake this sort of information from 10 different countries. you. fake retroactive -- you cannot fake retroactive things either. the iaea goes and corroborates those individual facts and companies and their papers and found out that indeed these did go there. these were the first ones. not in 2005 but already spring
2004 the iaea had first serious discussions with iran, in particular about the procurement things which took place through lavisan. than these other pieces of an information. the iaea used the same way to authenticate the information, they follow the people of those communications, people who went to work with these people in a round. you have seen a scientist at the iaea has been talking with in several locations. the person indeed was there. he had explained according to the reports what he was doing and what kind of lectures he gave. i think the iaea probably knows
with whom he was working. this is the way that you can authenticate and corroborates the information which is there. you cannot ever say from a single document whether it is 100% true or not. but when you have this kind of wealth of information and let's say you have a 90% probability that it is authentic, when you put this whole group together and they are internally consistent and externally consistent, horizontal plate, vertically, existing people, existing locations, existing equipment which is relative to nuclear weapons, you can trust the conclusion that someone was indeed study invest. --studying this. does the country breaks its safeguards obligations in these cases? yes and no. no in the sense that as long as
these experiments, if they have been in this domain of nuclear weapon development, if they have not included any nuclear materials -- actually under the safeguards agreement, those don't need to be declared, as long as no nuclear materials are there. you can do a lot of these kind of experiments using surrogate materials like tungsten steel or lead. so you are not in noncompliance in this particular item with your safeguards equipment. but certainly this is against the spirit of the npt. article 3 says to prevent nuclear weapons. the article 2 says you should of even acquire knowledge, nuclear weapons. in both cases, iran has apparently not been breaking
against the spirit of the npt, in my view. then you can ask, what is the legal authority of the iaea to verify this nuclear-related research and development, it does not involve nuclear materials? actually, that mandate comes from the security council resolution. that requires the iaea secretary to clarify the purpose of those experiments. that is why i the apa is doing it. this is also the reason why iran is today challenging the legitimacy of those security council resolutions. doing actually a very -- in a very twisted way. they say that since iran was
never found by the iaea secretary of noncompliance with its safeguards obligations. so passing this dossier was illegal and therefore the security council resolution is also illegal and therefore iran does not need to comply with this. this goes back to my statement, let's call a spade a spade. let's call black, black, and let's call white, white. if the report was written that iran was found in noncompliance with its safeguards agreement, it would have been ok for -- not okay of that time for iran and they cannot use this argument which they are now using. actually, they have read the
document, because they went to the iaea and there was another kind of procedure which perhaps the secretary did not follow literally. noncompliance, according to the iaea secretary, -- i a t a the iaea statutes is not-- the director general. in practice, it does not work like that. actually, the iaea board makes its own practices and procedures and rules. so there are precedents, for example, from north korea, but you don't need to follow exactly that way. it was not the inspectors who report. it was the director general.
past practice shows this argument of iran is perhaps not the right one. but this is one of the lessons we need to learn. so, what needs to be done next? well, first, there should be a meeting, the 5 + 1 next week, friday april 13. actually, someone asked me this morning how it is going to take place. i characterize it as i think it is still a royal mess. it appears to me they have not yet even agreed about the venue where this important meeting takes place. i have not seen anything on the agenda either. so we will see we're takes place. it is an important juncture in the sense that if we look where iran is today -- and i spoke
about that they might have 250 kilos of 20% in maturing in by the end of this year or maybe even more if they so desire. very often it is asked, iran has always been 18 months away from the nuclear weapons, so why is it always? like always actually, there are several reasons. the sanctions are biting the nuclear program in many ways. it is more difficult for iran to get equipment, raw materials, sensitive raw materials which you need to have when a manufacturer centrifuges. you don't want to produce yourself all small pieces in your own factory. if you do that, you slow down the program, because you it use
a lot of additional intellectual talent for reverse engineering, learning lessons through how certain things are to be manufactured so they are durable. this is one of the reasons for sanctions. you have to put the original sources into the product. the other area is sabotage. there's evidently sabotage against the iranian. iranian this is nothing unusual. if you go back to the soviet military program, someone was sabotaging them from the 1950's. particularly during the 1980's. so that's nothing new. there has been also some unexplained deaths in the
program. i don't think those have really much effect oto the program, other than they have to use much more resources to protect the people and to conceal certain. certain so it makes the program more effective, i would say. then, military threats. they have also impact of this. when you look for, example, the underground facility. iran says that there will build 10 such enrichment plants underground. once you build another enrichment facility, which is in this case fairly small, on top of that, you actually start to waste your resources. you waste your resources on planning, you waste your resources on acquiring infrastructure, which is hard to get you to the sanctions. and you use your best people to
make those designs. so they have an impact on the progress of the program. and we see it. the military threats at, you have to put all your assets. if you look now, they are caving in enrichment and uranium conversion, etc. when i say caving, they have also to protect those materials. ofre's more than 100 kilos 20% uranium. almost four tons of uranium full riot enriched it to 3.5% level. a lot of talk has gone for the teheran research reactor and its needs for the fuel. i think that this is an artificial need. in 2003 when iran is close to
the iaea that its building reactor. the argument at that time by iran was they need this heavy reactor because the tehran research reactor is aging and is not safe anymore. and then, besides that, they also have the knowledge that it's located in earthquake-prone area and almost in the middle of town, because tehran has grown tremendously since the 1960's when this reactor was. bilked in 2003, they felt this reactor was not needed. i think that it is true and still today in a way. if you think that it's being built in the 1960's, the location. is not the location if i have to do this, i would build the reactor somewhere else outside tehran. i don't need to produce 20% and rich uranium to have a feel for
that. as a legacy from the cold war, russia still has 100 tons of highly enriched uranium. i'm sure they are happy to sell it if they find a client. you have 100 tons of high enriched uranium, you only need to take actually 20 kilos of that and then diluted it to the 20% level and then you'll have fuel for the tehran research reactor for the next 10 years at least. same thing with the production of the 250 kilos of 20% in its uranium. it is actually enough for the tehran research reactor for the next 10 years. more recently, iran has perhaps prepared the public opinion by also selling a one to export these materials. -- by telling that they want to
export these materials. if you remember when president ahmadinejad was here in new york, he mentioned this is not economically viable. so it is a little odd that you produce something but it's not economically attractive. so why would you continue to produce? also, 3.5% in its uranium -- actually, there's very little need for iran on that as well, because they have secured the production --or secured fuel for the next 10 years. if you have enriched uranium and you have enough, manufacturing is not an easy thing. i think the gentleman can tell
you more about it. you need to have all the specifications and such kind of deeds in order to manufacture this fuel safely. you cannot do all of this yourself. if you want to have it, this centrifuge is to produce fuel for pushel, pushel needs 20 tons of the richest uranium every year. so you need 10 times in order to feed pushel. if you do it, you need much different centrifuges in order to accomplish it. then the last thing before i summarize the lessons further is how well we know the iranian
nuclear program. the declared program is very well in handle, but if there is something we don't know, what kind of assurances do we have? i would not cheer to this end, because what iran is doing when it sees this assassination, military threats, and so on, what has been doing in recent years which is to establish an organization's sole job is to diversify, conceal, go underground, distribute the things. the intelligence might be penetrating there, but the joy may not last long, because iran
has the right to make counter measures, like any other country. i don't think that we can be sure, for example, one year or two years from now we can read the iranian nuclear program like an open book. they have taken measures and they continue to take them. for the international community, i think the solution is to find a solution for iran to stop this activity and that the r&d. sometimes they say the physics research center is protecting the people. if you are studying simultaneous explosions, it is nothing really to do with protection of the civilian people, it is more looking the design of a nuclear weapon and what you need to do if you plan
to go on that route. then the last thing there is that people say that this program came to a halt in 2003/2004. i would say, yes and no. yes, the people went to other jobs. but they maintained their capabilities and expertise and do some low-key experiments which apparently the original purpose. so i don't think we should be overly happy. but there's another reason why we should not be happy, because the last job of this team was to document everything what they have been doing it. why would you documents something which you don't plan to use? i think someone in a country decided one day we might go back to those experiments and we need
to have these things documented. so it than the major lessons at the end, there are positives and negatives. first, i will start with the positives. this is the iaea verification scheme. we have seen it in iran particularly in 2003, the detection of high enriched uranium particles and explanations put iran to disclose its's full program at that time. second, if the iaea uses all its inspection rights, it is a powerful set of tools. unfortunately, we have failed to use, especially inspection, i think we should use it in the early stages. in particular, it should have used it in syria. then, the third lesson here is that when countries have this
kind of compliance problem, there are two ways to go. one is to stop, cooperate with the iaea, then at least you can beat closed in a fairly short amount of time. as an example, libya, we went through this verification process a couple years we did in a couple years. the same was the case of south africa. it was not a compliance issue, but when south africa had dismantled if its old nuclear weapons program and the iaea and verify that in 1992. it was fairly swiftly when there was cooperation. but then when the confrontation is taken like currently in the case with syria and iran and north korea, things correct. at the same time, these countries, if they want to do, they can reach capabilities, and they are closer and closer, higher and higher on a ladder to
get the nuclear weapons capability, if not capacity. there's also a difference in my view of what is the nuclear weapons capability. actually, you should not do this sort of research which iran has done. i think we should not share that they stop some of the activities including 2003, because the information is there. this part of the program should be dismantled. it should establish what exactly took place, how wide it was. it should be dismantled or made not usable in a verifiable manner and then there should be long-term monitoring in place like was in south africa for couple decades, so that this -- these places are not used to reestablish those things. then the last lesson which irs said in the beginning, when we
look at all these cases like iran, north korea, and syria, this is an area on the verification scheme that the authority of the iaea poses a challenge and also the director general of the iaea at this time is acting in an and far away, a shooting targets by some the iaea members, they tried to undermine his credibility. i personally feel that he is doing the right thing, at least based on the information i had when i left in 2010 from the iaea. certainly, this has a role and the authority of the un security council is eroded. with these positive remarks, i am ready for your questions. [laughter] [applause]
a >> you are a national treasure, the japanese like to say. i thank you very much for your remarks. i have two questions. you spoke about hardening, deepening, underground ,,in. i'm not sure whether you went caving in this way or a cave underneath. we all know the very prominent prime minister in the middle east talks about a limited time before which it will become to hard to bomb underground facilities i wonder if you have any views on that in terms of whether that limited time is six months for a year or whether every year it will be one more year. that is my first question. second, in your closing remarks,
you talked talked weapon is weaponization. according to the press, the u.s. intelligence community does nots iran has gone farther in weaponization. does iaea track that? do we have a long time before a usable weapon? can be weapon thank you/ -- do we have a long time before a usable weapon can be fabricated? >> hopefully iran agrees to the 5 + one processed to dismantle certain capabilities and
provide more transparency and openness from the uranium site and explain the rationality behind a program in a very good way and provide by a a more access. i think it is pretty much by prime minister netanyahu sees that the time is closing. i think this has to do more with what is rail can do alone militarily without help from the other states. so they have limited capability, so they have to strike when you can still stop the. program for while it but once it is all underground, it might be beyond their scope. we have to remember what is also happening now is iran has
distributed this stuff too many places. so the more they have time, the more there will be places, particularly manufacturing of centrifuges. i don't think i have seen anywhere in the open. what is the place where centrifuges are manufactured today, for example? you will see every now and then some new workshops. they have been distributed all over iran. you may have 3 or four targets where there used to be one target. if you want to eliminate such capability, as an example. so it's not only out one location or another. you have to select a lot of targets if you want to stop them by military means. i think this answers the difference between the u.s. and israel the u.s. has much more power.
this is not like the reactor in iraq -- >> we will leave this discussion at this time and you can see it in its entirety on c-span.org. we're going to the aspen institute symposium on the state of race in america. a continuation of next on race and politics with a look at the latino vote in the 2012 presidential election. >> dr. jackson on the demographics of race and then a panel to start us off on the place of race in our upcoming election. this panel will be on the latino votes. just waiting for one more panelist. h[captioning performed by national captioning institute]
[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> i think we are waiting for that last panelist. in this discussion on the state of race, looking specifically to the latino vote, we are happy to welcome our moderator, who is the news anger for telemundo as well as the network's national director of public affairs. he is a former washington bureau chief for telemundo as well as european bureau chief. he was formerly co-anchor of cbs this morning, the first journalist in the u.s. to anger both a daily spanish and english language newscast. the former anger in miami where he was the winner of two emmy awards and a peabody award and an alfred but heisman dupont board. business magazine named him as one of the most influential
hispanics in the united states. [cheers] diaz-e welcome jose dia balart. >> thank you. especially being here with colleagues that i watched and admire and read constantly. this is such an important subject and a very timely one. let me introduce the panel before i get into things. maria cardona democratic strategists, principal at dewey square group,. lesley sanchez, political analyst and wonderful person. michael scherer, "time" magazine, white house, and author of this very important and significant cover story on hispanic voters in arizona.
you have it "time" magazine cover. is.e it we were just talking about how timely the issue of the latino vote will be in 2012 and how important it has already been in the elections. you are certainly welcome to be a part of the conversation. let's start with the time magazine cover. especially for people who don't speak spanish and who are not on a daily basis aware of the impact of 50.5 million hispanics in this country and the incredible purchasing power they have. why did -- was it tough to get that cover? >> a lot of it has to do with that blocked at the end of the
day of whether you can get a cover story versus another story. i think we knew late last year that this was going to be a huge demographic that would play a big role. what we did not expect is it would play a big role so early. the republican primary would bring this issue such to the forefront the polls would go so badly against republican's this early. it effectively magnifies what is the long-range demographic story. there is the long-range demographic story, which essentially says that by 2030 or 2040, if the republican and democratic parties remain roughly as they are now, the republican party will be waning. it will be going out of existence. it will have to shift. but the 2012 election, president obama has made a bet that he can use the latino votes in key states if, especially colorado, nevada, arizona, to really change the outcome of this election. the republican party has so far not responded in kind. it basically said we are not going to worry about that issue
right now, we are just born to play to the base of our party in the south and in the midwest. that means alienating. you've seen polls where mitt getting lown percentage points, which could be devastating. >> latinos applauded that cover. >> absolutely. >> people in the english language then realized 58 million plus people matter. you are correct in the fact that the president is banking on hispanic support their the question is whether this spanx will come out to vote -- whether hispanic people will come out to vote. you have a president who went to spanish-language radio and spanish-language television and
spanish-language whatever in 2008 and promised that within his first year, he would have comprehensive immigration reform and the response of silence on the issue has been deportation. a lot of people may not come out to vote even though they may like him. >> that will continue to be a huge challenge for this president. what is also true is this president continues to speak to the latino community, not just about immigration but on the economic issues, on health care, on education, talking about what he has done from the standpoint of his record in terms of giving hundreds of thousands of latino students pell grants to bid to go to college, giving 9 million latinos coverage through the health care act that they did not have before, and giving them the opportunity to get a job where there was not before, out of the 4.1 million jobs that have already been created by
this president. >> still just under 11% unemployment for the hispanic community. >> yes, but it has come down. a president who will be the first one to say this, we have more to do. but on immigration, he continues to talk to the latino community about how he wants to do this but he cannot do this alone. here is where the critical point of the discussion is. there is a lot of disappointment among latinos. >> i would use anger. >> that's, , too. q research has found regardless of that disappointment on deportation and on the fact he has not kept his promise, they still support this president. and because of what has happened within the republican primary that has become the issue of immigration and the way
of not talked to the latino community, it has become so vitriolic, that harry reid will to this day say thanks to the latino vote, i am still senate majority leader. and michael bennett is there because of the latino vote and barbara boxer. >> usa mitt romney so far is the sharron angle -- you are saying that mitt romney is the sharron angle, so far? >> absolutely. >> republicans have to recognize there's been this vitriolic and insulting language in many ways in the primaries. let's not forget "operation wetback." and some other words used on the "anchor lighke
babysit." -- "anchor babies." both sides have said stupid things. but the republicans have not been open to a positive discussion. >> there's been a tremendous amount of damage in language. >> continues to be. >> by the many of those contenders have since waned. >> i'd think romney is pretty high up there. >> let's put some reality to this. we talk about the pure research study. i have just talked to hispanic voters in some swing states. with respect to the research, the president continues to have but a tremendous amount of support among hispanic voters of all kinds. what is also the reality is they don't know about the deportations. >> who does not know about it?
>> many of the hispanic voters right now. the awareness of the increase in deportations that the obama administration has had over the last few years, which is maybe on par with the. which is onn you tal -- par maybe with the bush and administration. there are mixed signals that are coming within the hispanic community based on the state they live in and how long they have been here. some believe the deportations have been a good thing, some hispanics. we will agree on language. i wrote a book about that and we have talked about that. we have had talks about the damage it can have to the hispanic community. we deserve to be treated with respect and not to be demonized
individuals. >> that's the other issue you have been working on a lot is the fact of voter suppression and about maybe some of the things that are going on in some of the state's that we see covered in the media, especially, may have a very negative effect on voter turnout. >> you hit the nail on the head. the republican party recognizes that they need the latino community eventually and basically will need them, but they realize they have done such damage to their brand in the latino community that they basically say we're going to wait it out. the voter id laws that you are talking to is that on the surface, you have roughly 11 states -- 39 states are considering these laws -- but 11 states control two thirds of the electoral votes. they include texas, florida, arizona, nevada and down the list.
there's actually a pattern of these swing states. not surprisingly that these top five states also have among the highest foreclosure rates. when you start talking about voter id laws, does to get into the weeds, you say, if i was a voter, 18 million voters, i've lost my home in the key swing states, it will make it difficult for me to vote because i have to go get a new id, stand in line and pay $25. if you are living with your grandmother, in your mind, that is temporary housing. you will not want to go get that id now let's have the idea of latinos and african-americans and elderly people living in convalescent homes, this is the biggest issue right now of the 2012 election. if you ask me if latinos are going to go out and vote, african-americans, and young people? i would say they are permitted their vote's going to count? that's a completely different story no one wants to get into because it is a lot more
difficult because it is much more nuanced. as far as latinos and where they see themselves going into the future, they very much care about immigration, but it is the tone of immigration. for the first time i have done people calling to volunteer for colorado? saying i did not realize i was latino until i walked into a hamburger joint and the cashier asked me for my papers. those are real stories. it is that political awakening that i applaud your article, because for the first time it was the nuances. if it's not first or second generation, it is people being profiled as an american. >> is that new? >> it is as to the extent of how it's happening. i grew up in california and everybody applauds the latino vote that came out against sharron angle. they voted for senator harry for a but they voted republican governor. so it was about the new ones of
party that there was a strategic meeting that happened in 1999. if we did not earn more than 35% of the hispanic vote, we would cease to be a majority party. the census came out and said there were almost 600,000 decrease in registered american voters. it has to do a housing crisis and frustration with the president. the economy was the underlying our. the dynamic of how the latinos are morphing into a modern americano. we have to be careful. tell republicans you have to be on the defense. they believe all the rhetoric
they hear. on english media, they are so pro-independent and they are disappointed in the president. there is a strategy that needs to be developed. >> we should not underestimate the ability -- will not quite beat etch a sketch. he was talking about his disappointment with getting immigration reform through. calling harry reid illegal aliens best friends. mitt romney is not going to do that. he will make the issue about the economy. one of the first ads that mitt romney put on line was called
"bumps in the road." the president said there would road. the but the faces -- look at the faces in the ad. the row be some sort of watered-down dream act -- there will be some kind of watered-down dream act to deal with the total issue. >> mitt romney is not too extreme. he is closer to meg whitman. he was winning the latino vote. would over performed across the board.
pete wilson is a dirty word. you first put him on the ticket. what did romney do? -chair. in his coat-cha outrageous. at the same time, he was dealing with spanish-language in florida. he cannot talk to -- you cannot talk to latinos and of two size of your mouth. -- two sides of your mouth. all of a sudden, you're going to make the life of an immigrant so difficult. giving
of the party to the neighbor to make it difficult for them to survive that they have to pack their bags and leave. >> all of this would have to be pivoted. >> exactly. i agree with you. ivot.ll try to priv campaigns are following every single thing and the word you're saying. that will be difficult for him. not just pete wilson but he has also sought the support of the most anti-immigrant chair in the country. there's a lot that mitt romney is going to have to answer for. he promised to veto the dream act, which is something a huge
majority of americans want support. >> i think you're issue on rubio and what he presents is some version of the dream act or a first step toward some immigration reform. have to see if romney can except it. >> he basically laid out vague markets. he does not want to see a path to citizenships. the kits would become citizens but they would not be citizens -- the kids would become citizens. it doesn't lead to a path to relatives living overseas. by the time to get to august, mitt romney will have some kind of a dream act. >> the act without the dream.
>> these are big differences in the electoral strategy is to go beyond the latino vote. this will be decided by the economy. the obama is looking at this as an incremental election. intt romney is planning to w a touchdown or two. obama wants to win by a field goal. they will make that case. >> let me bring in another element. we're looking at how things shift in the big picture. there are other small pictures which sometimes matter more to people. a lot of latinos that were born here see the undocumented and say there but for the grace of
god go i. so they do care. there's another issue. a couple of weeks ago, i crossed this country in a state affected by one of these laws, they told has quiter bottdego, sure people that work there, fathers, heads of households. it gets confusing. she had a bodego and hired three or four household heads. immigration came and took them. that shop is essentially closed.
three families do not have a way to find support. pink underwear and all those wetbacks, still hurt. three households do not have a father. that matters more than any other rhetoric when you're talking about that. do you know who they chalk that up to? not to pete wilson. they chalk it up to the federal government. 55% of the deportations have been criminals, that includes the people that came back into the country three weeks ago because their daughter had been taken away from them because they were deported. the daughter was put up in a foster home and the daughter was raped. parents came back to this
country to take their daughter. she would fall into the 55% criminal. nearly half a million people -- what was their crime? that amount of suffering -- that matters more to many. thanmorrimatters more pink underwear or pete wilson. knockabout operation we -- talk about operation wetback. the administration is separating 1.2 million families. >> this president has to make the argument that if he had any
support within the republican senate to have been able to pass comprehensive immigration reform, it would be a lot today. -- it would be law today. not one senator supported comprehensive reform. they have turned their backs on it. that needs to be part of the mix. >> they are not part of the same issue. was a report saying 47,000 or 45,000 people have been deployed with u.s.-born citizens. i don't know the statistics of how many went back to their home country with their parents. these are american kids. >> there is finishing
conversation here. under current is the subject of trust. this is a personal thing. it is wanting to say republicans would not work with us -- it is one thing to say republicans would not work with us. made a promise and i was going to do what my first year. the comet went down the tubes -- the economy went down the tubes. but people come back and said, he had health care reform. i did latino fall to the back of the barrel? he can argue they are not. do they trust the president to keep his word? >> to the trust the person running against the president to
be better? >> right now they do not. >> so we start seeing with the president lives. 70% sounds amazing. this is what michael's article is all about. it will be important. i think -- i did not note a latino that doesn't know somebody that is undocumented or about to get deported. those are conversations that are having every single day. it will be people what the local communities. "i need to change my local school boards." >> it is about the president.
>> what galvanized sharron angle was not harry reid. it was the conversation. >> it was on the ballot. that will have an effect. >> it will be even worse news for the republican party. at a local level, the state legislators are much more right wing. >> the person that got elected was it moderate republican. that is what the latino community is holding to winning. or create a wave of individuals providing political cover -- we are creating a wave of individuals providing political
cover. they believe overwhelmingly in the dream act. thing start breaking about. the dream act was up for a vote. there were five democrats decorative voted for it but chose not to. >> 8 republicans voted for it. >> it passed. i get it. >> not ocho cinco. >> says the health care vote was very close as well. it is easier to create a narrative that is one over the other. >> you say five democrats voted against it. how many republicans voted for
it? >> they chose not to. >> we needed a handful of democrats to vote with it. this is not a democratic or republican problem. this is an american problem. >> it is a political problem for both political parties. they deal with it matters. it takes courage on both sides to not to the real popular thing in your political party. they did it for their political survival, what may be in the best interest of the nation. >> a majority of republicans chose to do the personal thing in the senate.
>> the senate. >> the member for the day -- number for the day is ocho. >> must rubio helps him, let's see what comes up with. when you you pasivot have youtube. you explain what self deportation really means. it is a hard thing to describe. that is what logic would tell you it means. they did not say that. at some time you have to define yourself. >> it will be defined. >> but with youtube around --
>> it is back-and-forth, tit for tat. >> there is no comparison between the words of obama and the words of mitt romney. the people who support obama on immigration reform are different than the people that support romney on no immigration reform. >> we can agree on that. let's talk about the impact that immigration will have. people will vote for the candidate, not the party. it is consistent from what we know from our data. they are focused on the economy. the independent swing voters -- >> how many are latinos? >> it is about 25%.
republicans need to garner about 12% of that. you have die hard kennedy democrats that may not turn now. the president has to talk about immigration. you have independent, swing voters on the republican side who are primarily focused on the economy. they are looking with a critical eye and both parties and are starting to focus on mitt romney, assuming he is the nominee. we have asked about rubio and they don't know rubio either. >> tell me who you hang out with and i'll tell you who you are. these are the people he hangs
with. i do not know. i am asking. >> the biggest issue right now with the romney campaign is that -- gingrich and santorum have a long did it the debate -- have elongated the debated. he would like to be focused on jobs. the president is the jobs president right now. >> the president is the jobs of president in what narrative? >> in the last three months. asked someone what romney's position is on jobs.
is been a jobs pushed and they will say, the president did that. and it should be leading in the polls with job creation. his expertise has been lost in that narrative. >> that is being felt significantly? >> not significantly. joe market meet it is talking about job growth -- general market media is talking about job growth. >> about 11%. >> they consume english. they will be able to enjoy that. >> michael, jump in. [laughter]
>> have a friend who is an angl o. i aston, how was your christmas -- i ask him, how was your christmas. he said, it was goodbye did i get a chance to speak much. i said, there is no turn. you have to jump in there. >> we're talking about 25% of the latino votes. republic and will get 20, 24% no matter what's -- republicans will get 20%, 25%, no matter what. you're talking about this in between vote. states like nevada, for every
eight points you get with the latino vote, you get about one point in the overall outcome of the election. you're talking 3% are up for grabs here in a state like colorado or nevada. the theory of the race -- a pivot.omney can ads will start going up with his plans for the economy. haqqani will get him -- the economy will get him one or two votes. approach.mney's they will go to the polls -- " did the president the fill his promise to me?"
that will be the thing that wins him -- romney as to back away from actively turning people off. >> a lot of republicans will tell you that that will be his strategy. he needs to be something. t knows care mostly about the economy -- latinos care mostly about the economy. emigration is what we call a filter issue -- immigration. if we do not like the way you're speaking about immigration -- >> you're saying there is the tone of immigration as the entry issue. mitt romney has a problem with the tone. if you say you don't care about
a vote, they will not vote for you. mitt romney has been broadcasting is measures that he does not care about your vote and he has to solve that. let me ask you guys. let's say that you're called then -- let's say mitt romney is set to go and he says, "one of the points that i have to bring up in spanish language media to try to mitigate the damage?" what would you suggest to mitt romney that has the nomination. nate two are three points -- give me two are three points. >> spanish language is different in terms of the tone and message. i will tell you why.
we just came out of the field. risk an interesting thing that i .idn't expect to hear the people that listen when it came to romney they said, why didn't he say he was mexican? it went on and on in different states. he seemed to disrespect a heritage. it was something very personal and very cultural. >> will would do talent to do -- what would you tell them to do ? >> he is going to have to talk about believing in the american dream and having the opportunity for these children, finding a pathway.
the same way he is having some movement on the dream act already. has to say he will make immigration reform a priority. >> same question to maria. hey call you whin -- >> romney? >> the democrats and president obama did not want to help you. they just want the issue to beat up on republicans. there is a case to be made there. every time he talks about immigration, he can say, i can get something done here. tell me that again. >> let me ask maria the same question. obama calls you in and says, how
do we hand out the lack of enthusiasm there may be in some segments of the line american community? -- of the latin american community? >> he will start speaking to latinos in spanish like he did during the campaign, which was very effective. [speaking spanish] mi casa blanca is your casa blanca. "here's where i need your help," eye to eye, into the camera. >> they need to start talking to them in english.
them -- 2.4 of million people that have turned 80 years old and nobody is talking to them -- that have turned 18 years old. it is fantastic with telemundo and univision. we have to start talking to the young people. if you want to talk to them, start talking to them in bilingual radio. i would start to identify surrogates. i would identify surrogates if i was obama. as far as romney, care about job creation and small business. let's start talking to them --
they are the fastest-growing small business owners. values.lk about family talk to them in a way that this issue based and not personal. >> we have to talk about age. when we talk about the long- range demographic trends, we're not talking met huge waves of immigrants coming to the country. republicans, the latino vote could be damaging long-term. it granted a generation of younger latinos democrat. arnold schwarzenegger tried. >> california was say swing state. >> even after some compromise,
what you'll see for a decade, kids in college now have in the mont been introduced to politics by thinking republicans are bad and democrats are good. >> there are microphones if you like to join the conversation. in my almost 30 years in television, i saw a shift of awareness in the white house of the latino importance with george w. obama has been far better from my perspective at reaching out to spanish-language media. the interview that i do it with him is in english and it airs on msnbc and on nbc. he does cnn, you chime in in
both languages. i think this white house has really made some huge efforts in reaching out to media. >> they know all the statistics you just rattled off. that will be part of the strategy. >> it is basically kabul together -- cobbled together. how do you get creative online? you have to work. obama has been great of online. >> yes, sir. >> a lot of the discussion has been tamped down to local strategy. with the latest wave of
immigration from mexico, it has been dispersed through the united states. traditionally it has gone through loss angeles and the agriculture areas -- los angeles. >> you're speaking about mexican americans? >> i am talking about undocumented labor. they have been so widely dispersed. one has to been more of a kind of movement? >> to do what? >> to get the kind of immigration reform you think would be more popular with people who see labor on a daily basis. i have sympathy for people who use the labor. >> i think alabama is a perfect
example. they came together and said we need immigration. silicon valley or agriculture workers -- we're living in a time when there is a lot of fear. people are losing their homes. find leadership that gets selected based on that fear. alabama and georgia lost billions of dollars in agriculture. they went against the farmers. >> biggest growth has been in north carolina and south carolina and georgia in the latino population. those will be ripe for democrats to go after in several years. there is not much political activity that you can do unless
you're -- >> my show on sunday at noon on telemundo. they met with people in the car companies in korea that have plans in some states of america and they have been meeting with car officials in germany and korea. a law of things have been happening. there is a lot of work being done -- a lot of things have been happening. >> feeling the backlash -- fueling the backlash. the carolinas and the south and the midwest, you have latino populations living where they did not live before and that has made people feel like they need to react. the pot
pleasant as a% is too small to flip an election -- the population is too small to flip an election. >> we see this all the time. people live invisible for many others. in new york, go to the best french restaurant and the chefs that are coping are from pueblo. it puerbo york. for others, they are invisible. they do incredible work day in and day out. you are helping to make them invisible to your community.
>> i was doing set up for some events. people were being interviewed and they were undocumented. this is a town with 3000 reporters. nobody will look for them. >> good morning. the panel earlier talked about america in achieving a minority majority around 2040. we seem to get caught up in the black vote, the hispanic vote, the asian vote. is there any efforts to work collectively and -- >> you saw the march on selma. was a latino-african-american march. -- that was a latino-
african-american march. >> i know we have our own agendas. to sign any equation, you have to find the common denominator. i think we can take the power of the minority-majority if we can work collectively. a right now we're working on firm step and that is the voter registration. we're working with more than 80 national organizations. the conversation we need to have it is bringing the minorities and bringing together like- minded americans. that is when we start creating that space. i think that is where we have to have that conversation. to your point, we need to have an honest conversation about the
need for emigration. this is an american issue. we need the labor. we will basically -- everything is smoke and mirrors. >> and a political ping-pong. >> the majorities of americans support comprehensive immigration reform. it goes back to political courage. >> there are numbers involved that we should talk about. >> this has been interesting. i am a writer. i have always thought that one which has been what unified nations throughout history. this is it long term question.
how we got into this situation where people can live in the united states and not have to speak english -- is in this this vise d isn't evisive? >> u.s. parents about whether they want their parents to speak english -- you asked parents. it is not that they do not want to speak english. if you're a parent and you have two or three jobs, when do have time? mayor bloomberg is doing a good job and the city of las vegas where they provide classes during lunchtime and the classes fill up. think our greatest strength --
you start talking about india and china at eating our lunch. educated and have a higher health standard. why are we capitalizing on that? i think that is another issue that republicans have waded into to their detriment in terms of calling for english-only laws. the fear in the community is that everything is changing. they hear these families speaking spanish. it doesn't have to inject fear. part of the problem is that we are not talking to each other. >> what language do you speak to each other?
>> you can find committees that want to bring people together and i think that is what we need to do. >> i know entire school district that is bilingual. they're both learning english and spanish to gather. it is an asset -- both learning gether. and spanish to gath >> know that we find the importance of english. you go to community centers across the country, across the southeast and there are non- hispanics learning spanish. you're seeing a great cross pollination. they want to learn the cuisine. have these coffee talks with
people trying to practice their english and they are trying to help each other. >> i was in california two weeks ago where people were waiting for a job by the home depot. i was asking them about the difficulties that they face. one of the guys was telling me -- [speaking spanish] he was sent his children were starting to lose some of their spanish. he is not able to speak with them about schoolwork. did not like he works eight or 10 or 12 hours. they are there from sunrise to sunset waiting for a job. all of the most recent arrivals
undocumented -- their children in mealie pickup english -- their children immediately pick up english. that was a reality i wanted to leave you with. >> good morning. i wanted to thank you for speaking so much about immigration as a filter issue. -- thanks toaspen inte the aspen institute for inviting us. >> both parties have been holding off on immigration. a lot of members are rallying around an anti woman health agenda. latinos often have strong family values and are fairly
conservative on social issues, how do you see that rhetoric affecting the vote in 2012? >> there was a study done on that issue with latinos. what it showed was that even though -- this goes to the mistake the republicans make when they say the latino community is much more socially conservative and therefore try to put above that a political filter. the latino community is much more parsley conservative -- personally conservative. some of the questions were top of mind. the majority of latinos agree that women should have access to health care including contraception.
that included most latino man who believe that. whole debate about the perception that the republican party was trying to do -- >> that is without the church elements . >> the church element is important. those issues for latinos are personal issues. they don't bring that into the voting booth with them. >> that has changed. fodder is are mobilizing-- voters are mobilizing vertically for the first time the way black churches do. have the big prayer breakfasts. they are mobilized on those issues and have made a difference on marriage
amendments on the state level. the religious freedom issue. >> 60% of catholic latino women believe that it is their own decision. what is happening right now is where you live. if you are in rural arkansas, become an evangelical. they are teaching english and parenting and it becomes a funle. you'll see -- a funnel. you'll see a split in the latino vote on religion. >> i think the split is already occurring. bourbons have moved out of the urban areas -- suburban have
moved out of the urban areas. that will have a long-term economic of fact. >> add to that the immigration issue. they all agree on the immigration issue that the republican party is on the wrong side. the pastors are saying we want to get to a revolution. >> i interviewed a pastor in arizona who volunteered for bush in 2004 and has pictures of him all over her office and says she will not vote for romney and does not think she can vote for obama. >> will not vote for romney because? >> immigration. >> we have a few more minutes. >> there seems to be a misunderstanding of the impact
of these anti immigration policies. these reach deeply into families. then a family household, you may have a resident or citizen or somebody who is undocumented. what you have is the entire diamond -- a mix of household debt broken out. is resentment against obama because of that -- there is resentment against obama because of the. russell pierce the state attorney -- form a network of extreme right-wingers. folks on the ground no that is
-- those interests are republican. this goes back to 1980. it has the same lineage. resentment against obama is very deep. they would rather sleep with the devil. >> thank you for that. we talk about those that some are invisible and do a lot of our work and contribute to our economy. i met an incredible late last year who tell me that she lives in a neighborhood -- a small hispanic neighborhood in arizona. an american moved then who is a sex offender.
because he knows that in that neighborhood their little children, children of undocumented. that mother told me about how her community and her group of neighbors knows that one day he is going to rape one of their children. it is why he is there. because they cannot call the police. if they call the police, they fear deportation. there are people who move into neighborhoods to prey upon children knowing that it is easy, free, and uncostly pray for them. when we talk about people in puerbo york -- pueblo york the
work of the best restaurants and maybe prepare our rooms at hotels, that needs to be spoken about. it doesn't matter how you feel about the undocumented first is the documented. let's talk about general human decency. there are people in this country who live in fear that people move into the neighborhoods to rape their children knowing there is no cause behind it and have to live like that. it is about them. it is about those who have documents see that reality and say, this should not be happening. there but for the grace of god go it.
debate we should be having should not be democrat and republican. there but for the grace of god go i. should be no never it's a childh rapist can move into. thank you for the opportunity and i thank this extraordinary panel. you have gone much more talkative. next time you have a family meeting, you'll be able to cut in and interrupt these people. thank you, all. [applause] >> thank you. >> would give our thanks to the great panel. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
while we're waiting for the next panel, to go to the rest of the program for today. of this program on the new american identity for one hour. will take a lunch break and come back with a panel on education. we will eliminate the break in the afternoon and go straight into the last panel on the news media, that at 4:30 with a wrap up after that. sessions will and about 20 minutes earlier than originally planned. ok.