tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 14, 2015 7:00am-9:01am EDT
that? the other, and to me perhaps the most damaging aspect of this debate, is to focus on how quickly you can get one crude and device that you haven't tested in terms of fissile material, rather than how it will affect iran's ability to develop a meaningful nuclear force and a meaningful military capability. so let me begin, and i will start looking around for people who have questions. >> tony, thanks. thanks to all of you for coming out on a lovely day. as my students at georgetown would say, can we have class outside, which at least my experience was can we play frisbee instead of going to class. thank you so much for inviting me. thank you all for having us here to talk about this important issue. i should put one biographical clip occasion, which is i was not one of you poor souls like chris who lived in vienna for
weeks and months at a time in vienna and geneva, lausanne, other places negotiating a deal on the front lines. people like jon and i had the harder task of negotiating a deal back here in washington. just want to make that clear note. obviously, secretary kerry and secretary moniz and wendy sherman and others and people like russ deserve all the credit for what i think is a very strong agreement. asking whether this is his final, whether thi this is the period at the end of the sentence as it relates to this issue, the final long-term answer to all the controversies with iran, it's not. is the agreement itself put in place a series of very important long-standing amendments for iran that we believe to get the international community confident they will not develop a nuclear weapon. it puts constraints on their
enrichment capacity, puts from the constraints on the arak heavy-water nuclear, puts obligations under vanessa was to interested inspection sentiments on certain types of inspections that are frankly unprecedented like inspections into their uranium mines and mills in centrifuge production abilities and the like. it is true that the are inevitably going to be issues and controversies within the four corners of the deal went even with the document that is more than 100 pages long and is extraordinarily detailed and precise, there will be disputes or there will be disagreements. people may find ambiguities. one of the good innovations about this deal is there's a mechanism for addressing that in the form of the joint commission which is basically modeled after
the joint commission we had with the existing interim nuclear agreement, the jpoa, the joint plan of action. it is a mechanism for working through those issues, and to give you a brief example. several months ago there was questioned under the existing interim nuclear agreement about whether the iranians introduciintroduci ng gas into an advanced centrifuge, the ir-5, was a technical violation. the reality was in this particular instance the text of the jpoa was unclear, but when the iaea pointed out i rented introducing gas into the ir-5, we raised it as a strong objection to sing it was inconsistent with their obligations and limitations on centrifuge r&d under the jpoa. the rest of the p5+1 agreed that iran stopped. that was an example of something that wasn't completely settled in the text of the jpoa pickup put back in the box as a consequence of this mechanism and there will be things like
that moving forward. there will also be issues outside the four corners of the deal. the reality is that this deal was never intended to solve every problem that we have with iran or every problem that we have in the middle east, and that there will continue to be conflicts of interest in some places, animosity. and other places perhaps opportunities for more constructive engagement as well as to a whole host of regional issues that still doesn't address that all because it's a nuclear deal. it's not a grand bargain with tehran. undoubtedly we will have to address those issues, and we are committed to doing so. the only thing i would say on the second question which is the deal focuses on what you called the rush to one gun type device. i would say for those of you who are following this less technically, there's been instances in the public discourse on the deal on the notion of breakout.
we defined break out in a very small c. conservative way. that is, the time it would take from a political decision to do so or iran to produce the first bombs worth of fissile material and most of the break of discussion is focused on their uranium path because given iran's current arena capacity that would be the fastest route for them to develop the explosive fuel, explosive material for the first nuclear weapon. as it currently stands iran's breakout timeline for weapons grade uranium is two to three months. if the supreme leader woke up tomorrow and decide to go for the bomb it would take 60 to 90 days to develop the first bombs worth of material. under this deal because it reduces centrifuges by two-thirds and a stockpile of low-enriched uranium by 90%, for the next decade or more the breakout timeline, the cushion will be at least a year and beyond year 10 of the deal for number of years after that we
expect the breakout timeline to be meaningfully greater than just today. but it is true there other aspects of design within. just because java nuclear fuel doesn't mean you have a sophisticated implosion warhead that could fit on the tip of a missile. there's a lot of of the types of research and develop a and work that has to go into the. one of the innovations of this idea that go beyond the framework we reached in april in lausanne is that the first time a box iran industries of commitment to restrict their ability to research and development weaponization. very consequentially had a 15 year been doing any research related to uranium or plutonium metallurgy which is hugely important if they're ever going to design a nuclear warhead. there are other dual use kinds of research, high speed, use of high speed cameras, work on certain types of trigger devices, et cetera, many of which are activities iran allegedly engaged in in the past
before 2003 that they are forbidden in to steal from doing forever. it is true that the deal does not, does not address specifically the very large arsenal of ballistic missiles that iran has. iran has the largest number of short and medium-range ballistic missiles of any country in the region and, obviously, with this deal does address is, is due with the problem of putting a nuclear warhead on that missile by preventing them from getting the fissile material and limiting their already on the weaponization peace but the missile issue itself will continue to be something that we will have to work through. we have eight more years of restrictions under the u.n. security council at a ballistic missiles. with other international agreements and sanctions and tools and other efforts like the proliferation security initiative to go after this issue. we have ballistic missile defense work we are doing on our their own and without borders in the gcc and with israel.
that's an issue we are committed to continue getting after, but again one of those of the false in some sense outside the four corners of you because while these could be delivery vehicles for nuclear weapon in theory, they are also from a lease iran's point is central to the conventional deterrent. they have a nuclear relationship but they are not solely a nuclear related activity. i don't know if chris or jon wanted to violate any of that before we open it up to others. i haven't screwed up too much so far? >> no, you're good. >> i think this a joke of an on the third row. would you wait for the microphone backs. >> i'm with the atlantic council and i will tell you i've been chastised on several occasions by john kerry for referring to the agreement as the deal so i will defer to his terminology. i support the agreement but i have several concerns. first, i to say the white house
has at this stage anything but an ad hoc strategy to market and support the deal and i'd like to know what its plans are for doing that between now and september 17 when the congress votes. more importantly what is the longer-term strategy for the region that will support this deal? or in the case of fails, will deal with that. in many ways this is like a prenuprenup between two spouseso believe the others going to cheat. one of the going to do to put in place the structure for the long-term that allows of this agreement to work and if it fails, what are the off ramps? >> both great questions. so on the date of the deal we had a 30 page rollup strategy that dealt just with the days and handful of weeks after the announcement of the deal and we've been building on that document ever since. we are doing tons of events like this to help further educate and already extraordinarily educated group of folks. we're doing a lot of public outrage at the president has
probably done more interviews on this topic that almost any of issue at least in recent memory, and the venues that have been all over the place. op-ed's, testimony, and then all of us from the president to the vice president to the secretaries of state, energy, treasury and all of his minions below that are basically, i spend half of my day every day on the phone with members of congress or going up to the hilt to provide briefings for members of congress or staff, et cetera. there's no question that it may appear ad hoc on the outside. i think we have a plan and it's adapting as circumstances and sentiments are adapting but we are pretty focused on this, even though it's august. in terms of our long-term strategy for the region, i think that you can think of it in terms of different buckets. this deal is about the nuclear
issue. putting that issue aside for a moment, we still of all sorts of challenges in the region. many of them are related to iran and its destabilizing activities in places like syria and lebanon and iraq and yemen and bahrain, and elsewhere. we are going to continue to contend with it. we have a number of other challenges in the region to include the so-called islamic state, iso, danish, which we are confronting in iraq and syria three coalition of more than 60 countries. but to focus on iran peace, i think it's instructive to note when the president announced the lausanne framework, he announced he is going to have the leader of the gulf countries giunta camp david to have precisely this conversation. i used to run the middle east office at the pentagon at the beginning of the obama administration so the fact we're working closely with the gulf states to build up what we call the regional security architecture is not new. the president did feel like it
was time to re- energizes some aspect of that anti-build off of the work we've already done with the gulf states to expand out to address some of the specific concerns as relates to iran. the gulf states already have an extraordinary quantity of sophisticated necessary conventional armaments. i think there's a sense that arraarranges this unstoppable juggernaut in the region and that iran with a little more money will take over the entire globe. i think it's instructive keep in mind allows you iran spend $15 billion on its defense, and the gcc combined spent $115 billion on its defense. the saudis alone spent $80 billion on their defense. the challenge of that is a good times as much of the rent if you put the gcc together. so the challenge is not whether they're sophisticated aircraft,
the saudis have among the most sophisticated f-16's, et cetera. are ballistic missile defense is that we have and can to build on or other forms of conventional defense would think more can be done is building up their capability to go after the challenges that iran poses. cyber defenses, protection for critical infrastructure, the ability to conduct freedom of navigation and maritime interdiction, the expansion of sharing of intelligence, training their special operation forces to be more expeditionary. these are all areas of major emphasis coming out of camp davis. and then, of course, we had the relationship with israel which is politically tense at times. there's no question about that, again as the guy who used of israel in his portfolio at the dod version of an administration that's been more from a defense perspective or an intelligence perspective and this administration has done with issue. we already do a tremendous amount easy israel in terms of
protecting the qualitative military edge by providing the joint strike fighter, preventi preventing, providing technologies in support as with to the rocket and missile defense, iron dome, arab, et cetera. the presence of our age of cruisers in the eastern mediterranean to protect israel against missiles, from iran going to else in the region and also want to have, take that to the next love as relates to iran's irregular activities in the region. this is a comp look at the time that the conversation because as the president has been clear and other folks have made clear, we understand that prime minister netanyahu is not a fan of this deal. we have tried to make the case that we get that you're not a fan of this deal but with all these other issues we need to do was to include iran and we are ready to roll up our sleeves and deal with them. and get to work with you on those issues, compartment in off the political controversy on the iran deal. the at the moment has been that
the israeli political leadership has not been keen to take us up on that offer because they feel like that sends mixed messages, if they are somehow working with those, but it simply makes political message. we are constrained by that but i hope as we get beyond the congressional review. those constraints will fall to the wayside. >> the gentleman in the third row here had his hand up first. arland got two questions for the price of one. so from now on we will get one question for the price of one. >> i have a process where the question to the deal. if we get to implementation day, do you envision that it takes more congressional action to unwind some of the statutory secondary sanctions, or is it your view that executive action alone could at least largely get us to the withdrawal of the secondary sanctions under the deal?
>> so that's a good question. actually it's one that we really tangled with as we work out the negotiations and as we openly decide how we're going to do this. is sanctions relief is set up in a couple of the stage at the first stage, implementation day, is a phase that happens after when complete album major nucor steel, cut for centrifuges by two-thirds, to the stockpile data 2% of what it was. once they do all that we're going to take the steps to go we would call suspend the sanctions. in the document is called sees the application of the there's things you can call about what we are doing is using the president's statutory waiver authority to waive sanctions taliban agree to be lifted in this context. the second step, referring to u.s. sanctions in this context. the second step to that would be when we would terminate the sanctions. that's a step that occurs at eight years down the road.
eight years o or when the iaea reaches its broader conclusion this is the are no more undeclared nuclear activities in a man, something we expect to take that long but actually the kind of cornerstone we are looking for. that's the point where we would seek congressional action to actually terminate the sanctions. it was intentionally constructed this way because we know that congress, we cannot tell congress what to do with respect to this. they have their own prerogatives so we'll seek the legislation. the administration in time until it's best to see that legislation, but it's not a foregone conclusion. so those are the two steps. the eu and the u.n. are largely similar to the. the eu is using its own mechanisms to suspend that in the first phase, economic sanctions they have a place. the u.n. is i different in the sense that the u.n. structure terminates old resolutions but then if we establish of the most import and sanctions ability to
provide for the long-term. those are the ones that relate to missile technologies, transfer of conventional weapons, related transfers of nuclear technologies, the core elements of this agreement. >> the only thing that i would clarify for those of you who are not in the weeds on it is a limitation to ask was indicated as conditions based but there's a question of how soon is that. enters the ball is really in iran's court to our tactical and political issues they have to sort their way through. we think, we estimate it will take six to 12 months difficulties as it obligations of disabling the arak reactor, reducing their centrifuges, implementing additional protocol, addressing the acid issue impossible military dimensions, et cetera. we think it will take six to 12 months when exactly and limitation will be this little tpd. >> this is entirely intentional
to have this big for big sur strategy because most important thing for us within our interest is iran to get done everything it needs to as fast as possible. people so why don't you strength out sanctions along the way. we did what did anything so there's no signing bonus, no drip drip drip, on one big suspension when i read this all the things we need to do to satisfy u.s. interest. >> richard fieldhouse, former armed service committee staffer. this you all again. my question is, if you would address your view on the consequences if congress were to reject the agreement, specifically looking at whether we could simply negotiate another deal, whether iran would be able to continue its previous level of nuclear program medic's
enrichment arak reactor and all that. and also in terms of whether the existing sanctions are likely to remain in place and enforced? thank you. >> let me take a cut at this and see if chris wants to pile on some of the specifics as well as to sanctions. we all have to be humble none of us can predict with 100% efficacy what happened if congress owes of the deal. the only thing is certain is uncertainty. the situation will be more uncertain, more messy, less control, less leadership and the international community will be less united. i think we can be certain of all those things but you can gain a lot of different singers for how this will play out. let me give you two that i think are most likely. one is we effectively rejected you, then it does come after having agreed to with iran and five other countries. remember this isn't a deal between us and the rain. it's a seven party deal.
this becomes a final piece of evidence that hard-liners in iran need to basically discredit president rouhani and zarif. they've already sharpened their knives for the. they pushed the leader, the supreme leader to use this to do what iran has done the last two times diplomacy collapsed. in 2005 when iran was negotiating what was then called the e3, and a 2009 when the reactor developer. is the leader decided to do those two times with double down on resistance and to increase their nuclear program. because it emboldened the hard-liners and so iran's program with a. from their perspective this cancer of the objective of either driving towards a nuclear weapon or getting leverage. i think it's highly likely in the politics of urban that a congressional rejection leads effectively for iran to walk away from its commitments that was once put it is to put the want a permanent under the jpoa.
and remember if they start doing things like a team-leading 20% low-enriched uranium which sometimes is called meeting enriched uranium even the technically there's a such thing, turning confidence of centrifuges they've installed, the 1000 at natanz, they can go from their breakout on one from 6990 days to a month or less in a relatively short period of time. it is very difficult to imagine that we would be able to hold together the international collection even in that circumstance where brand is closer to nuclear weapon. the reason is most of the countries that signed up for the sanctions regime did so for a fixed period of time under the understanding there's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and that is would lift sanctions and iran would be back open for business, whether that's oil hungry consumers in asia or whether its banks and businesses in europe. some of those countries may stay
on site and comply with the sanctions that some of them won't. at the very least the international community will be less united and the sanctions regime will be we could iran for the driving closer towards a nuclear bomb and international community will be more fractured at the sanctions regime will be at least somewhat weaker. that's a very dangerous scenario because it suggests to me that you're going to approach a decision to use military force before you could ever kabul back together an international coalition to get back to the bargaining table, special in the world was a moderate and pragmatist implement our discredit. after all, we saw what happened when folks like julie were at the table versus folks like zarif or at the table. iran is not a monolithic place your their internal politics medevac sexier, congress was of the deal and a ram sticks with you. this is also a nighttime scenario, but it's slightly
different -- nightmare scenario. but also different are the americans are out of compliance we live up to our obligations going up to the implementation day as long as the europeans, the russians, the chinese, et cetera lift sanctions. just with our allies in a horrible dilemma. because they either need to live up to their obligations under the agreement because iran is living up to its agreement, or the need, or the keep the sanctions in place and they are in violation of video, right next and i think china and others are going to have frankly less complicated decision calculus, countries like china, india, south korea, japan, taiwan, turkey, the remaining customers farmingville, it's a big economic it for them not to do business with iran. there are all sorts of ways you could imagine other countries, if they believe that iran was in
compliance and we were out of compliance, doing things to circumvent our secondary sanctions. they could set up bad things that are connected to the financial system or they could transact further set the banks and their us to start trade wars with the most important economies on planet earth. those six customers for iranian oil that i currently mention control 47% of all u.s. foreign owned treasury. account are foreign owned debt. so it allows the sanctions regime to operate is not just the coercive influence, power of the u.s. economy. the size of our economy, the ability of us to force banks and conscious to do business with attorney. but the underlying political consensus us is with that, because most of the times would lead to sanctions the banks and companies to get them to comply because the political leadership in these countries of greed with the objective.
once the consensus goes away, then we are in real trouble of the iran deal, a block of the iran deal, unraveling the sanctions regime. let's imagine we make this argument a lot, secretary to has made this argument a lot, secretary lew and others, let's imagine you believe that is hyperbole, that the sanctions regime not completely collapsed. i think we can all admit it will get a list for little weaker relative to what it is today. this is a big audience. are the people who believe the regime will stay exactly the same? raise your hand if you think it will stay exactly think of congress walks away. there's like 400 people in this room. so let's imagine it's only 10% weaker. let's imagine it is only 10% weaker than it is today. riddle me this, batman. how do you get a better deal with less leverage? you can get a better deal with less leverage and international support.
it defies the laws of gravity. so the notion that congress can walk away from this deal, blow it up, keep the international committee deal, ramp up pressure and tried iran back to the bargaining deal to better deal is a fantasy. you can't get more with less and we will have less if congress was up this deal. this is an important thing. i think one of the things american officials encountered when we travel the world given the sense of dysfunction and partisanship in this town is a question about whether we can govern. and i think there's going to be real collateral damage on our ability to do business in other areas with other types of agreements if an agreement that has the support not only of the u.s. president but of pretty much every other major power in the world and the vast majority of other countries, period, that congress just blow stuff up, i think it's going to be harder for us to to have credibility and leads on a host of other issues, and that's a problem.
>> i can't follow that. spearmon before i move on i want to ask and also caution potential questioners not to give the panel to give an opportunity to the speech. [laughter] but seriously -- >> we didn't want to do any remarks at the outset. >> i have a fairly large list of fans already so i look back and recognize people when i get to the group i already have but there was a gentleman in the front. no, to question, and if you wait for the mic, please. it was this gentleman here first, i'm sorry to. >> into. my name is andrecompany russian reporter in washington, d.c. thank you for doing the panel, and i want to follow-up on what he just said about the
importance, actually it was a secular state was also speaking the other day in new york of the difficult and importance of keeping the team together. basically said if we walk away, from iran, people start walking from ukraine. so my question to you is what you doing, what can you share with us that you had to keep the team together, especially since my parochial interest is in russia, which is a separate case and a difficult case because -- >> we have to focus on the question. >> are you looking for to unraveling the sanctions against russia and how do you see it happening? thank you. >> chris, if you want to take, i can take a geopolitical cut or you can take -- i think a geopolitical entity is we don't know. but it is true that as we apply sanctions in a lot of different areas, that a lot of times the way we do it doesn't make other countries all that pleased with
us. not just countries that we target the sanctions against but, frankly, our allies and the coalition reformed along with us on the sanctions because there are real costs associated with this. i think there is, one of the things i worry about and chris has to do this on a daily basis, but one of the things i worry about is if congress blows up his team and we try to keep the sanctions regime together so that by threatening their but in the world, it not only will undermine the political consensus as it relates to iran's policy but it will feed the anxiety concerns, tensions that under gird our sanctions policy in general which will make a whole post of national security parties more difficult to execute. but you have to do this on a regular basis. >> i think that's exactly right. with respect to how this impacts our sanctions policy with respect to russia, separate policies and we been able to demonstrate that while we have concerns in one area, we are able to work closely with russia
on this particular issue we have. we think coming out of his we had a very successful outcome when we were working not on our own sanctions but working to ultimately remove those sanctions of the u.n. security council that we and russia must agree on of the timing and ultimately wins those things will happen. so this is a separate policy issue from that, after think generally speaking it's instructive of how you can use these sorts of things as a tool to openly get the diplomatic outcome. >> we have a gentleman with a question in the far back who raised his hand early on. can i -- we may have lost the immediate interest to let me pass it ont on to the gentlemann the second row there, please. >> i am a command sergeant in civil affair out of fort meade. i wanted to ask a question, different kind of question.
who once this deal? to iranians want this deal psychologically and culturally? is it is for internal use or do we want to steal more? just very detailed and whether the congress approves it or not, not going to make any difference so why are we pushing for the still? by the iranians pushing for a more? >> i mean, not to be glib, i think hthink the answer is we bt the deal probably for different reasons. we want the deal because one of the most significant challenges to international security, and not just in this administration that previous administrations as the prospect of a nuclear-armed iran. because as troublesome as iran is as an actor and as ambitious as original agenda sometimes is, it would be put on steroids in a world where they had nuclear weapons. so with the exception of the wars in afghanistan and iraq, take the iran issue has probably been issued the president has focus on more since they went
because the recognition of the problem. but he is consistently said all options are on the table to deal with this, this is such a vital threat to u.s. national interest that iran will never be allowed to get a nuke weapon. that continues to be the policy of the united states. this via substantiate that commitment even more deeply from iran's point of view. the president has been equally clear if all else being equal, a diplomatic solution is better. is better because it's more sustainable, more enduring at it doesn't accrue the cost of another war in the middle east with all its unpredictable consequences and, frankly, even from the perspective of pushing back their program, it's hard to imagine a military strike that would destroy 90% of the stockpile and disable their centrifuges and all the rest of your not going to get 10 or 15 years, you would be lucky if you got five years out of it. so we have an interest in resolving this issue and if
possible doing it diplomatic. i think our allies should interest and also partners, the folks we partner with in p5+1 including the russians also share that interest. i think the iranian interest is different but i think the iranians are and very invested. the contest between 100 100-$200 billion, much of which has a dual use capabilities. they also invested a tremendous amount of the regimes legitimacy, pride, and national identity in this issue. something i think most americans don't get frankly is the degree to which the nuclear issues wrapped up in iranian nationalism and things like that which is why the notion of driving iran 204 ever is probably always a fantasy because of how much the regime has invested in a. the regime had an interest in maintaining their nuclear program even if for symbolic and civilian purposes. they also interest in getting the sanctions lifted.
lesson and then eventually get overtime because the sanctions have had a crippling effect on the iranian economy. it's probably 15 or 20% smaller than it would have been had the sanctions have been imposed in the last couple of years now been imposed. that's a challenge to the iranian people and even the iran is not a democracy, whereupon he did get elected on a campaign to break iran's isolation to get the economy going again aspect with only. the supreme leader was sensitive to the domestic political cost of ignoring the fact that the public wanted it. the deal is in the interest of both parties, but for different reasons, which is why you don't have to trust them and they don't have to trust us. he just had to make a calculation about whether it continues to be an interest of the two parties to comply with. >> there's a couple of questions here in the front row early on.
let me begin with the gentleman and then the lady. could we -- thank you. >> i was looking, retired federal employee. iran is -- there's a concept known as -- which is deceiving the non-muslim but they have relationships with russia and china and japan. those countries have also psychological deception techniques, the communist and east asians. i'm wondering what particular technique the leaders of iran are using to d.c. this? are they using those techniques or are they just followed the weight of no way and the doctrine of no doctrine and think if the shoe fits, wear it? >> i will do the academics debate whether cultural essentialism makes sense or not as an explanation in these types of issues. i would say that the broader issue is not whether this is
about him viewed in something in the dna of the islamic republic but just the in vehicle fact of the matter which is that iran has engaged in a secret nuclear activities over the years. all the iconic nuclear facilities to talk abou about t, batons, fordo, arak, these were all once covert facilities. so we don't trust that all else being equal, the iranians what do things in secret because they've done things in secret before. which is why the president has emphasized this deal is not about trust, it's about verification which is why we believe there is never been an agreement in the history of arms control or nonproliferation, and negotiate an agreement to more intrusive inspection of nuclear programs than the one we got here. it's not only 24/7 coverage of known nuclear facilities, natanz, fordo, arak, those facilities, but also regular access to uranium mines and mills and centrifuge production enrichment facility. for those of you who want to know why that matters, if you want to build a secret
enrichment site five years from now, it's not just about telling a whole underground. you've got to do with the stuff, centrifuges, scientists, uranium, natural source, yellowcake, convert that into gas. wilt the stilt those that know the deal of it-as in the past is create surveillance across the entire supply chain which makes it effectively inconceivable that iran could divert large amounts of material from which no facilities into secret facilities. because iran will have to apply the additional protocols which allows a time bound procedure for getting the iaea access into suspicion facilities which is also unprecedented because countries that have additional protocols were to have such a procedure, we have confidence that if you haven't logged in as they march down the field, you have some significant goal line defense as well as you can get into suspicious sites. if you don't let us in the can snap sanctions that would take other actions because they would
be in violation of the due. all of that is to say, one of the great ironies of the iran debate in this town is that so much of the criticism is focused on the transparency and verification mechanism. when i think the nonproliferation should look at this, i believe that's the starting part of the deal. we agree with that assessment. >> the lady in the second to. >> i work for the bbc and the money if you can tell us what about the marketing plan you can up with. i'm wondering what you found to be the most hard argument to overcome or maybe those surprising what you thought they will have a point here in washington. i love to hear from the other panelists as well. >> i don't blame you las. i think the hardest argument to the convention is the terrain is not a good regime. so i would make a deal with a bad actor? and i think that argument is
completely understandable. it's understandable when numbers of congress make a. it's understandable when the israelis make it. the iranians make a board statement about israel, threatening statements. is for a bunch of actors that do our allies in the region, israel and others a great deal of harm and threatens to they are not a good regime. but we spent the entire cold war at least since the 1970s making arms control agreement after arms control agreement with an entity that ronald reagan called the evil empire because we recognize that you could, to reducing the risk of nuclear war was such an important priority that you could strike deals to reduce that risk in the arms control the main while still pushing back against the other than the soviet union did all over the world like subverting our allies and supporting proxies and supporting terrorism and killing american forces all over the world. we walk and chew gum during the
cold war. we do the same thing to put the notion why would you cut a deal with a bad regime is kind of an understandable reaction that we've had to push back. jon, i don't know if you want to add, you've been involved in a public outreach as much or more than i am. >> thanks. beginning to feel a bit like dr. carson at the republican debate las. [laughter] spin this is a complex technical agreement and relies on a certain assumption of knowledge. to its going to people who have not dealt with the international atomic energy agency, why safeguard coverage of is important, why the united states has championed that principle for decades your because we don't want to reveal proliferation sensitive information that u.s. facilities where we have confidential agreements. where the israelis have
safeguard confidential agreements that they want to keep confidential with the iaea. has been a real challenge. this debate which i think a partisan political debate. we recognize people target posture themselves to say there's a piece of side deals we have been able to see because they don't have familiarity with the iaea and the work that they do has led to questions like how do we know we can trust these guys? nuclear power and 45 plus countries around the world, because the iaea has been demonstrating their job for over 60 years. these are the guys who got it right in iraq is said that was the ongoing build a. that's been the biggest challenge and once i don't know if we will be a will to overcome the it's wha where i think the support of people like the now 32 notable scientists including six nobel laureates validating that the iaea can do this job, that inspection regimes it would work because they understand and help develop it, that people are looking for touchdowns like a. that's just a process we are going to have to go through.
>> the gentleman in the far back. >> in october 15 is an important date in the agreement because the iranians are supposed to account for possible military dimensions to the iaea. what are u.s. government criteria for a successful and accurate accounting? and by the way, what's happening at parchin speak with these things are related, jon. >> i think it's important just to take a step back and remind ourselves what we are talking about. up until 2003 iran had an active program to develop a nuclear weapon. how do we know that? the united states declassified affected the national intelligence act. the iaea documented information provided in part by member states in their november 2011 annex by the director general, the 13 areas of possible military dimensions of the iaea was investigating. one of those was the possibility
of conventional explosive work to develop a nuclear implosion device which is the united states believed was conducted at parchin. the iaea have been trying to get into the facility for summer use the iaea has been able to string out because there's obligation for them to provide access any kind of framework unlike under the jcpoa way we would've gotten access way back in 2011 had it been in place. however, we believe that if iran's editor nuclear weapons research in 2003, we have not seen any signs that research has resumed, and this question is whether not the iaea will be allowed to pursue their legitimate investigations with a country like iran under safeguard has a responsibly to provide the iaea access to the places, people and things, documents, that they deem necessary to complete an investigation. what we've been working to do is not figure out what went on at
parchin because with a fairly good sense of what went on, even things we haven't necessarily this blows -- disclose publicly, but to make sure the principle that iaea kids what it says it needs is what we are working to support. so that in five years iran can't say that there is a facility that the iaea as interest income because it has a legitimate claim, you didn't have to go into parchin so you don't have to go in here. what we have urged the iaea and irathe red workout and what we e now linked to any sanctions relief is that the iaea must be able to do what they believe is necessary to pursue their investigation that includes ensuring that are able to investigate parchin to their satisfaction. now, the exact nature of how that is going to work has been workout confidentially between the iaea and iran. that is been briefed in full in a classified session to all members of the congress. they had that information.
they will have to judge whether to believe that's sufficient, but we do they think of it as we are with a plan that it is sufficient. we recognize that is a leap that has to be made in terms of what's going on in parchin, i have no idea. i would really like the iaea decoder and find out. but if we believed that they were doing nuclear weapons research at parchin under this deal, we could get in in 24 days. the iaea could get in in 24 days. that's absolute. anything with agreed in terms of cleaning up the possible dimension of the past only apply to the previous investigation. anything moving forward operate under the rules that by the jcpoa. >> there's a gentleman over there in the far right that raised his hand early on. >> congratulations to the sponsors. i think you set a record for attendance on august 12 at an event, congratulations on the
format from which i wish i could else would follow when we know the subject. my question is of offbeat so i will make a quick. i spent my life in free trade agreement, the u.s. is what free trade agreement which was supposed to be the u.s. egyptian-israeli free trade agreement which is was not. on the table idea. the u.s. has five quote inspite agreements now and it is with oman, bahrain, israel, jordan and morocco and so when. we are thinking if you want to send a signal to like-minded countries why don't you consider proposing perhaps begin work on agreement including the whole arab countries in the middle east? abaco be on trade and, obviously, it's not important that i would put things like relations understand, energy security, et cetera and, of course, most importantly wind up with fast-track authority for that so we could begin in the administration. thank you. >> so i don't know if you, that's the free trade area is beyond my area of expertise.
i was as a general i was if chris wants to chime in because it's at least closer to his expertise in mind but i will say this. the major reassurance of measures that gulf states and our arab partners are looking for at the moment are not in the economic domain that is not that they would be interested, so doesn't prejudge any of the issues you raise. but really what they're looking for is a general security assurance that will protect them if you're extra attack which the president reiterated at camp david and this goes back to eisenhower, nixon, carter, you know, the gulf war in 1991 to liberate kuwait and the rest, but reaffirming that and putting it on the bone by keeping our security cooperation in the areas i talk about. that's what they're focused on at the moment. >> the agreement judiciary may be the one that is much more public in than the one we just hatched which i thought was one of those complicated agreements.
i think as colin said, the concern amongst gulf partners and others is not to be outpaced economically. iran is still a huge hole economically. there's over have a twin towers in pressing needs that has been built by the sanctions we had enforced is not an issue iran would become the economic center of the middle east. our focus for the moment is making sure iran takes these steps to address our proliferation concerns and we were close with a partners to address their security concerns. >> it is a question here in the third row i think. the gentleman right there. if you wait for the mic, please. >> from egypt. i guess the repercussions of this is not only with recent behavior of a rant in the region but also another dimension that should be taken into consideration is the fact that energy axis of egypt, saudi
arabia and edwards might ask for the same deal to be implemented and develop their own capabilities nuclear -- >> you need to move the mic closer. you're not coming clear. >> not being clear? i am already done. >> i take a first cut and then jon will have more details. for those of you what trouble understanding this is a general concern that because the agreement leaves some of iran's nuclear infrastructure in fact, that it will set off a proliferation cascade in the middle east and saudi arabia, the emirates, egypt and others, perhaps turkey, to imagine these capabilities and assets in motion a nuclear arms race in the middle east. a couple of things to keep in mind. first, iran's nuclear program has been around since the 1960s. so if than the existence of the nuclear program was sufficient to set in motion a chain of events, we have a number of decades of empirical proof of
that. they been developing in earnest enrichment capability since the 1980s, also when they started the arak facility. they accelerate that in the '90s. so this is not a new challenge and if there was sufficient to tip the region into proliferation cascade we have seen already. second, as an empirical matter, proliferation is quite revered so, for example, india, followed china and pakistan followed india but then it stopped. north korea did what he did and it didn't lead to south korea and japan or taiwan taking other actions. so it is neither inevitable nor as a historical fact you tend to see reactive proliferation as a reaction to nuclear political progress. why doe does it matter is to prt them from getting a nuclear weapon. what is odd about this fight with athletic proliferation cascade is iran's program is here in terms of their capacity. with this deal the program is quickly going to go to here and to make it all the way to
nuclear weapon. with this deal that program goes down to your fm gradually ramps up. so explain this, how is this more of a risk, regional proliferation, then this? it's not. it's not is the inspect the extent this is a concern for the same critics who made this argument three years ago was and you can never allow iran to get a nuclear weapon, the second to do the saudis will acquire a nuclear weapon from the pakistan and the egyptians and the turks, fixing a nuclear weapon peace in peace, not just leaving some enrichment capacity. the last point i would make is none of our other partners in the region are immune from the obligations under the npt. not to get nuclear weapons. i'm not sure any of them would like to pursue a course to building a large nuclear program that event has pursued at the expense, direct expense of $200 billion i and maybe half a trillion dollars in economic
damage. if i look at iran i would say that's not a model of want to pursue as relates to building a nuclear weapon. it's a concert i think will have to be mindful of but it's a risk that is higher in the absence of this deal then with this deal. >> all i would say this that all countries that are fully comply with their obligations under the nonproliferation treaty are entitled to benefit from the pizza uses of nuclear energy. if each authority of the country in the region wants to purchase or develop nuclear power reactors, ma they are fully capable of doing so. i have no doubt that countries like egypt, just like the uae, and on the national market to provide fuel for those reactors and fuel service. the uae is under legal binding restriction not require enrichment and reprocessing. they signed an agreement to buy to modern advanced south korean nuclear power reactors with u.s. technology and to have no problem having fuel services
provided to them and to benefit from the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and one of how to rely on enrichment reprocessing. if states want to enrichment reprocessing because iran has ended up as a sacred argument, that isn't much different type of conversation from type of isa much different type of conversation and one adult who serve the interest of the countries in the region or the relationship with the united states. >> on the side over there, far left. she's raising her hand. >> my question is with regard to sanctions. are there any regulations or framework being set into place that's an introduction of terrorism related sanctions, when i support iranian claims of such sanctions being a repackaging of the coveted
sanctions or preventing for an applicatiapplicatmathematiciansr related sanctions relief? >> thank you. that's a good question i did i would every time i do everything, certainly several times when doing them on the hill. so we were very clear throughout this negotiation with the iranians, very well understood that we were only talking to one category of our sanctions that were going to be released as part of the stupid those were the sanctions put in place over the last several years specific to address iran's nuclear program. that doesn't oliver sanchez iran are going to go away. are never sanctions remain in place that were specifically about this at put in place to address iran's support for terrorism, and those are going to make a place. to our sanctions that were put in place with respect to iran's human rights abuses. those are going to make a place. they are sanctions that respond to iranian support for the assad regime history. there are lots of those sorts of things that will remain in place. one of the fundamental ones it's going to stay in place are those
that relate to individual entities have been testing by the department in treasury for their support for terrorism. this is one of the core things that we choose to try to disrupt the flow of funds to elicit networks around the world, is about the strength that's what is to place of those entities, iranian or otherwise that were designated for their support of any tears or decisions are going to stay sanctions. that includes banks ever designated for those reasons, one everything that was where to hezbollah financing. they're going to state sanctioned. the real powerful aspect of this is part of the sanctions that were imposed under the comprehensive iran sanctions accountable and assessment outcome the bill passed by congress in 2010, that bill said that if you're a foreign bank energy do business with one of these people on our list, if you help them transit money from iran to lebanon or any other
place, or even from iran to london for completely peaceful activity, doesn't matter, that bank can get cut off funding as a financial system. that is all staying in place and that is well understood by the iranians. to the extent any of those sorts of things are taking place, they will remain subject to sanction to another question on getting as can you continue to enforce this, imposed sanctions for those reasons? the question is yes. we are clear in these additions which every intention of enforcing those. if anybody decides to start funding hezbollah, that bank even if the relief from sanctions under this new good you can get sanctions against and that is not grounds for reposting, not grounds for iran to walk out of this deal to a lot of people will say iran argued that that's not consistent at iran can argue anything it wants, grants walk away from the stooges like the united states can as well. the rail is to our commitments
in their, they're well understood your we have an absolute commitment to use to sanctions and any other authorities that we have to continue iran, continue to counter iran's support for terrorism. >> one data point is, we are in a very tense political moment both here and in event as relates support for the still and yet two weeks ago patricia department forward with additional designations as relates to hezbollah's activities in syria. this is part of a walking and chewing gum at the same time argued earlier. >> ladies and gentlemen, called has been kind enough to create to stay on until about 3:15 which gives us time for a few more questions. i have one in the far back, and there was a gentleman over there in the row toward the back. >> thank you. i'm a member of the public. does this nuclear arms deal prevent iran from acquiring
already ready-made nuclear weapons from north korea or any rogue sources? >> so the terms of the agreement are quite clear. iran will not anyway seek to acquire, possess, develop, hold, look at longingly -- [laughter] -- nuclear weapons. so not only would that be in violation of the deal, but it's something that we've already been very watchful for in terms of north korean behavior on its own, very clear that any transfer nuclear material, technology from north korea is a problem for us in our relationship with north korea in the region. but that would be something that would be prohibited under the terms of this agreement and is walled off, sanctionable which the united states i think would be prepared to take very, very strong action. >> the one point, say something about -- one point beforehand to
chris is there's all sorts of -- how iran could a list of the acquire images to either build a nuclear weapon on their own or acquire one from other states. that is the challenge we had before the deal. it is something you have to be vigilant about after the deal. before the deal was a violation, under the deal it's a violation and a bunch of additional commitments they made to the deal itself but the one difference between the preview and post deal world is that we'll have such greater visibility into their nuclear infrastructure across the board also a dedicated procurement channel that will have much higher probability of detecting activities we have had a pretty good track record of detecting already from an intelligence perspective but in much higher probability of detecting in a world with the deal than a world without. ..
if they want to buy those things that have to get approval by this mechanism which is an approval by the joint commission made up of all the members. approval has to be consensus. the shorter answer is we have a veto over every single procurement requests. even if they are not high in entire weapon if they want components controlled for nuclear sensitive reasons we have a unilateral veto pen if they done at the violation and we have the ability to respond
with other things we might do in response. >> is a gentleman -- yes. >> things, great program. you are very slick. i'm not sure i used car from you however. this country is led by three senators and yet there is no congressional observer group or senatorial observer group has existed in all important international agreement negotiations since 1919 in the failure of the lake. why? >> i will differ on the history of all. this is not a treaty. it's an executive agreement. it is not a treaty in the sense that it is not a legally binding agreement of the nature of the
treaty that requires a two thirds consent of the senate. it is an executive agreement, a political agreement that hinges on the continued mutual interest of the party to implement. so it is different. the second thing i would point out is it's hard to argue congress has been in the dark. if wendy sherman moore appear, the number of briefings, hearings, i don't know another where we spend more time talking to congress. not just now as we make the case that this deal is a good one and should be supported but through the entire process, folkestone crisis team had been holed up in front and volunteered to meet with any congress -- member of congress seniors that. if you talk on an average day to staff for senator menendez on
the senate foreign relations committee, they often have better insight into what's going on in the negotiations and some of us in the white house. i don't know there's a sense of congress piedmont of congress piedmont data details that his son members don't like the detail which is their right and also our right to make the case that the facts of video. >> one more point as well. under international arms control treaties which are more familiar with commenters things the united states has to do like eliminate hassles or bomber aircraft or forego certain weapons systems and thinks the russians or soviet union have to do as well. the only thing is the president believes his waiver authority to waive sanctions that the congress authorize with a presidential waiver in them. pass the congress not authorize the presidential waiver? republican and democrat
administrations alike have resisted sanctions for which the president didn't have a national security waiver. there are no restrictions placed on the united states. if there were, you would have an argument that there should've been a different type of conversation. there are certain obligations we will pursue in the future but that is a significant difference between what i think you are referring to in this political arrangement. >> there is no way i can get to all the people that this gentleman in the back was fairly early in the process. >> tom cochrane. i am retired. in your opening remarks he said the administration can break out in the time required within arm's worth of material. the administration's definition is in terms of rescue,
strategic -- >> significant quantity. >> if there was discovered iran with the administration they did and how the bombs were restated another way. which you agree i ran and they could make a weapon of same reliability but lower yield. >> i will let john take on some of that. a couple of factual predicate. under this agreement for the next 15 years they are not allowed to have been enriched uranium number of 3.67 level in the list of over 300 kilograms and why that matters is they currently have about
12,000 kilograms with the types that significant quantities for the weapons are talking about. 300 kilograms is a fourth of what you might mean and beyond 15 years iran never has the right to produce weapons grade uranium. i understand your question like we discovered 16 kilograms of weapons grade uranium. it would be a violation. [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, but we simply can't get it in. >> the way we define breakout in that sense is one weapons worth and how we quantify that is the industry's and her and it's not terribly controversial and i know there are some analysts out
there suggesting make a crude device with uranium enriched to a lower level or lower quantities. the breakout calculations are not controversial. >> i think that there is going to be controversy perhaps 25 years after a successful agreement as well as an unsuccessful one. at least that we can predict for the future. ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the point where i have to bring an end to this. there probably are going to be many other opportunities. let me thank you for coming and think the panel.
>> a look at the racial gender makeup of the officials and whether it reflects the demographics of the american public. this pinup in annual net roots nation conference in phoenix is an hour and 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. thank you for joining us for this panel that leaves us tackling structural barrels of democracy. i entrench it with the women's donor network on a community of 200 individual women philanthropists leveraging the resources and power to create a more fair and just world and so what we are going to do as i have -- we have four amazing women on this panel and we'll
have an awesome discussion and hope to hear from all of you and get into a lot of these issues. before we start i want to ask each of them to introduce himself and give a little bit of flavor about their work. can i start with you, chrissie castro. >> hello, good morning. is this on? i am chrissie castro, a citizen of the nomination. i am mexican -- my my my background as an committee organized in los angeles which is the largest urban indian community in the country at the county level. and the vice chairperson and also an elected member of: democrats need of caucus and i am currently working on a project funded by the women's donor network around how to
create a more receptive democracy that is inclusive of native american people and leaders. for the funding that went to the new organizing institute, the wdm sound .3% of elected leaders in the county to the federal level are native american which is atrocious. that is the evidence not included in this american political system and democracy and we lose a lot from that. you have a lot of power and so we are working on a project where we interview native american leaders throughout the country about the structural barriers that preclude us from participating in the american democracy at all levels of government and what are strategies to see represented in his face as. all share more when they answer the question and answer period
>> good morning. thank you for joining us bid my name is jessica byrd and i currently own three-point strategies, a consulting firm that works with organizations and candidates running for office. it is currently staffed by black women. one of the reasons that i spent the last decade been positively addicted to campaigns. what that has meant as i've really noticed all the ways in which candidates of color cap from the ballot and organizations aren't able to an age candidates of color in a meaningful way. i'm working on a project being funded by the women donors that were called to pass a project and it is enough for to organize and create a coalition of people of color organizations working on civic engagement in their communities so they can build a plan together to grow political power for people of color across the country over the next 10 years.
i will tell you more as we move into it. >> good morning, everyone. >> her microphone just cut out. >> on the senate minority leader from arizona's though i'm really passionate about helping turn arizona to a more progressive state which were used to be a long time ago. i'm a social worker. that is my background and that is what got me into politics in the first place. in addition to serving in the legislature, which part of my role is working to recruit and get more democrats alike and i know this is a nonpartisan group. i also ran emerge arizona and national organization to train democratic women to run for
office. we've been here for 11 years and i'm really passionate about a million more women alike. both as a social worker and as a woman if he looked at my legislative record you with the a focus on issues that we consider women's issues but i consider them to be our issues that help move the single women forward and not the whole help our communities in general. that is my focus and why i'm here. thank you. >> hi, my name is transfixed. i transfixed. i'll start a timer on myself. i'm an elected member in oakland, california and i work for the women's donor network and member recruitment and retention. i'm really excited we are talking about this because members in california are not paid for the most part.
there's a real barrier to normal people being able to run the school board and a lot of elected offices on paid but that same communities of color often are precluded from being able to run in there. if i were talking about this today. i will stop there. >> rapier for those of you who came late, the conversation with focus to that reflects the people it's supposed to serve. to help frame this conversation, what i will do it share the research we did at the women's donor network to help us understand what we are now when it comes to race and gender of elected leaders. >> we started this product last
year and it comes down to this simple idea, measure what matters. when you look around at the country and the things we measure, the u.s. census obviously, colleges and universities, we want to make sure everyone is included and has access and more and more big companies start on the recent gender of employees. it's long and the more diverse your team is the better outcomes you have in business. when it comes to elected leaders in the people in the halls of power making decisions every day that affect millions of us on every issue from economic justice to women's rights it is something we haven't measured in a deep and meaningful way. starting with what we know there's 314 million of us in the united states. 51% are women, 49% are men.
63% are white and 37% are people of color. our country is changing fast at the u.s. census bureau predicts by 2044 we will actually have the majority of people of color. given these demographic realities, the women donors network ask the question who they've does and we were shocked to learn the answer didn't exist so he had to invest in finding out. we commissioned a study of 42,000 elected officials across the united states from the county level to the federal level. we did this to her green tea and airways data matching with the voter file, a lot of electronic surveys we did in partnership with the center for american women and politics at rutgers and as a lot of very awkward
sign-ups because they have to identify people. so this is what we found. if our country were to reflect from its leaders were to reflect the country in the population, it is fairly balanced between the different demographic groups among white men, white women, men of color and women of color, this is what it looks like. when we put the data together, we found -- let me go back so you can see it again. women as a group are underrepresented in this note some of these numbers with regard to congress. we had never known this on a deeper level going down to the county and state level. people of color only 10%.
a lack that officials are 90% white. white men are 31% of the population and a control 65% of political power in this country. we created a new measurement with the national representation in depth and information is available and here you can see and you can see where they reflect good in terms of this state leaders reflect in population. the interesting thing is that whether brad stayed. it was all it was thought that states it didn't matter and
overall the makeup of elected officials is white then. so why does this matter? a lot of us in this room did find states with more reflected local representation have better policy outcomes and all the issues we care about, whether it's immigration, fair pay, algae bt rights, women's rights, economic justice and criminal justice. the women's donor network also released a cut of the data last week that looked at prosecutors and that shows why this matters. 95% of all elected prosecutors are white and in the criminal justice system were 60% of the prison population are people of color you can see why powerful positions matter. how do we fix that?
that is what we're focusing most of our discussion on today. we want to get on the barriers and how we overcome them and how do we do it with a structural analysis. much of our work to bring more of a reflect of democracy has been about hurling individual people over these barriers and they've made some progress but we have it made enough progress. how do we take these barriers down and how do we do that not only with funding political candidate but actually with philanthropic money and how we work to change the system to open up some more women and people of color are able to run for office. in our campaign, we identified for barriers that we think we can change how we are going to talk about that a lot more today and i will go through them really quickly.
one is to recall a gatekeeper network and this is the part of politics well known but also hidden where people decide and with the resources will go. there's a way for me to hold the gatekeepers more accountable and away we can create gatekeeper networks have prioritized women and people of color. there is also the civic institutions and community organizations, how we connect them or to a pipeline so they can represent the community in a different way. money is also a big goal that we will talk a lot about money and politics in what it takes to run a campaign and how you run for office if you're not independently a if you have to hold down a job to feed your family. finally coding structures are voting systems, the rules of the
game matters in terms of who can win on a ballot. whether an at-large election for a winner take all. we will talk more about. the women donors network has also been funding to find the solutions that work and recall the reflected democracy with nine projects, two of whom honor panel today and they're really looking at how to innovate around the problem and find solutions scaled and replicated. we did this are putting out a request for proposals this year with 120 application and narrowed it down to these nine and we are excited about the work and sharing it with the rest of the broader field. i believe that at-bat and get started with a question.
this is what i want to say is our nation is founded on the idea of government by and for the people and we know they make up the majority of the lack of it and they've never been heard in the halls of power. our goal is to correct the balance so they can have a more perfect union. so, so let's just skip started. i would love for each of you to share from your purse active with this data and the barriers i talked about, but from your own good, what are the big challenges you see, the big barrier cc in your work when it comes to women and people of color running for office and ultimately getting elected.
can i start with you, katie? >> he talked about the gatekeeper barrier and one of the things we started doing with sort of trying to infiltrate the party. so our alumni represent every level at the democratic party but district chairs, committed people, county chairs and stayed officers and that has been really important in terms of changing who is in the pipeline and so that is in one of the strategies to try to address that. in terms of other groups besides women, we tend to have silos and working to overcome silos is really important.
we have to devote in the that are in the is that in the that are as good as out of it as rooms at who represent and that is another whole issue. >> jessica. >> the effort to organize people of color and to be honest it is the first coordinated effort to get people of color around the table who are doing civic engagement work. one of the barriers that people of color who are running for office find is a lot of ways they are sharing organization in pooling resources. most of them are doing an exceptional job of being inclusive than the resources getting out to candidate who need them the most order might be able to change the landscape are not getting them. i honestly feel like i've candidate coming out of my ears
sometimes. the amount of black women and latinas who call me and sam ready to run, let's do this and getting them on the ballot is the hardest part because there is a complete ecosystem of people in the progressive community whose full-time job is to protect the teeth they feel it bears. new candidate they don't feel familiar to leading organizations and parties don't get access. where i hope this project and i know so many of you are working for organizations that should be connected with and i hope we find time this weekend is to get us on a communication space where we can share resources. we can pool our money and talk about candidates we need and also exposed structural barriers that have kept our organizations in power so we can hold the big
organizations accountable for not doing a good job. i want to add to the own, the way our candidates are recruited, and was never meant to truly include people of color. we are reimagining democracy right now. this democracy is always been men, white landowning men. so we have a huge job in one of us are reimagining during what our spaces and not, women and people of color. having a space where we are able to string together about how to do this work. >> great, christy. >> i will pick up on some of the themes. political participations are rooted in a complex history of our relationship with all of the government, local, state and federal government. a lack of understanding that as
citizens we have dual citizenship as members of our sovereign nation and american citizens in a long history of buying our participation in politics. we were granted the right to vote in 1924 yet many states really resisted implementation of that law. we see arizona and mexico allow natives develop. there was legislation that reason is the 1970s and it was posed by our ability to vote in the election saw the barriers will talk about for native people is rooted in that relationship. there's this way we were made to feel we were part of the
political system and meanwhile we are also working on nationbuilding. when you think about our leadership role, talent pool, difficult decisions our leaders have to make about the overall american alike are at and democracy or do we want to focus on tribal nations and their own indigenous systems of government. >> can you talk about your work on the ground of the local elected official how this works out. >> i feel like i've actually benefited from the gatekeeper system because my background is in the labor movement and where i live we still have a strong labor meant and so the question is i think there's two ways it devastated me. i had people who could vouch for me, my credentials as well as liability as a candidate, people
who saw me work on campaigns and all sorts of stuff. but there is a question about how we help candidates that don't have networks because not only is it harder for them to get on the ballot, they will also not have asked her and some other campaigns and i feel that is so important because people really don't know what they get themselves into. it is one thing to tell them you have to knock on doors every day for six months and another for them to understand the physical demand and emotional demand of a campaign and milling about fund raising and all the other things involved. in terms of the big challenges and my work to get other women and people of color to run, some of the best positioned people to run because of their their experience or parents in oakland, but most parents are low income people and they don't
have the luxury of taking six months off from their jobs to run. some of the people who understand the challenges of students and families are pretty much completely shut out. that is something i'm trying to figure out. there are some great parent organizing organizations but no one has ever attacked them for candidate that is one of the things i'm looking at. >> when we talk about the gatekeeper network it has a bit of a negative connotation as you think of the shadowy network which is true in a lot of cases. i also think when you're in the enough is to become the gatekeeper and with her project she is trying to create this other then. can't gatekeeping be used for good and how have you worked with at, and how you are thinking about it, jessica, would be great.
>> yeah so, part of my job is to get more democrats on the ballot specifically for legislative races. my role as a party leader, gatekeeper of enso definitely it can be a useful role. but i've done since the beginning of my political involvement as work i'm barriers and does the leader i see that as part of my job and i will continue to do that. >> i worked this year with a black woman council in pennsylvania and she's a reproductive justice later in the state and leads the largest
black women return to just have a deal that just have been the only person who saw the conference specifically focusing on environmental justice in the state of pennsylvania. she's openly and under the age of 35 and she raised her hand to run for office because her bigger community was being incredibly gentrified. and the city council had been massed in a way there had never been a non-white person elected in the city council district. she raised her hand because she was still in incredible amounts of anxiety about gentrification and decided to run. this is a red present what i do run for office, we wanted to run for office. she gets her name on the ballot, puts together an incredible team and set up an office in the middle of her district and
raises a competitive amount of money and gets no endorsement. she's the only person who's ever done on the record environmental justice investigate sierra club and environmental organizations and all of that was because we sat in front of each one of these organizations and i don't mean to pick on them. there are many others who said we have a process. the process of a person we can't endorse in this race are they automatically get her in person at. all of those people were ynez gatekeepers. i have been there. i worked in big organizations that have very clear processes to do this work. i understand how hard it was. it is our job go back to not
only access in the ballot of winning and doing that work. if our board we get to endorse and they don't reflect the vision of what we're trying to go, we should change the process. ever thought about the way we endorse? have we thought about the way we should be running for office's. i spent a lot of time in meeting other progressive folks who truly want to see a more inclusive space for elected officials and then we go back to organizations that prevent that from happening. i encourage all of us to be fully accountable to the ways people are not able to access the ballot. i want to add quickly that also means winning isn't everything.
if they were looking at a candidate, she spent 10 years of their life carrying water and it might be a longshot, that could be worth it. sometimes the winningest in the fight. she ran and she lost the she was the highest challenger in every single race in the pennsylvania primary and that was because she was going to do the work to organize her community. i just want to say that in terms of winning isn't the only measure of success. >> yeah, that's amazing. that brings up another example of what we talk about what the civic institution barrier and how we can change the pipeline as leaders so they come out of communities to have a base of people who support them that can be valuable for fund-raising campaign to further the work.
i want to go there in terms of why is that our civic institutions are not connected to this political power pipeline and how can we think about that over time. >> so i think people get really creeped out by this e3 come and see for distinction. we have to be really clear with people that you may not be able to endorse a candidate but you can hold the candidate information and the values we think our community needs and deserves to see reflected see the community about where people stand on the issues about endorse his. that is a really important distinction organizations need to wonders and i may need to
stop sidelining themselves because they are exiting themselves from being able to be part of the candidate pipeline. going back to the gatekeeper thing i wanted to chime in with what you're saying as a role as an elected official. this is an important part of my role so as an example often candidates won't have a chance to present themselves to endorsing organizations until the formal endorsement process has started and that is all wrong. candidate should have an opportunity may be a gear head of elections to get the organization and hear what they think is important and have a chance to build a relationship. i am working at the organizations to start in december to have candidate information night because i think that is what it's about. endorsements are not how you answer the questions. endorsements are the position should be held at the organization and a lot of candidates don't understand
that. you have to build a relationship and be aggressive about it. how do we change the incentive for gatekeepers? how do we, as jessica was saying, is that all about the wind. is there a way to claiming -- naming and shaming and gatekeepers who they will endorse a non-endorse. >> i think part of the point that i was trying to say before as if i count this plays out. we all know when people need folks to show up to a rally for time for the election and we need you to call your people and get them out though, that is when political power players called the community organization. what we are saying is that is great and we want organizations to get called when it's not just like my friend john is pretty cool. let's get him in there. but actually, who is not
represented on the city council? what choices do we need to bring in and ask them who you have. who's in your ranks. that is a really hard thing to shift but that's what i was trying to get out more. any other thoughts? >> i just wanted to share as far as the role we've done many interviews in new mexico and i think there's a lot of wonderful things to build on and opportunities created in the pipeline and a lot of the elements exist the folks in new mexico are really saying they would like a native table to interface with other tables. creating a strategic way to connect all the dots requires resources and funding that
currently does not exist. i think new mexico is a wonderful example. there's so little happening in other states that we are really looking at the bright spot and how can we we can start giving what we're learning in mexico and other states. i think there are opportunities we can seize we're basically just having right now is sharing the 30 year projection of the new american majority and so in the last census boosting the population has gone from five points to a million which is a 30% increase in there expecting us to continue. we think this is the moment to do the strategic pipeline development. >> so let's talk about money. i think we always think that
they know what we think of politics and representation we know money plays a huge role in shaping the system we have in the demographics of the elected officials. it has two components really. the two i want to dive into is the system of money and politics and i want to talk about that and also the barrier of income. studies in massachusetts that one of our members is involved in the found income is the number one barrier for women of color. may have to bring in some money. starting with the politics question, i would like you to share from your perspective and experience we know there is a huge move in the folks working on the issue.
there are solutions and many of those have been tried and will continue to be tried but it also hasn't been a movement with tact about here before that is very centered in communities of color or the leadership of the movement is not very diverse so i want to bring that in because it feels like part of our challenge but also an opportunity. we know the american people want us to change but in our communities they haven't seen the connection between that issue and everything else they care about. as we care about a more reflective moxie and money in politics is one of the biggest barriers, can we get more motivated to change that? i wanted to throw that out there and ask you want to share your thoughts on that. anyone want to start?
>> i was in elections get more and more expensive over time, it is really inundating voters and not doing much more an engagement. we are not seen voter should sponsor the money by saying i can't wait to go. we are just seen we are moving folks around and spending millions and millions of dollars in order to get them to do what they probably would've done anyways. i feel like i approached this in two ways. one is structural piece. we had to reroute what we'll do about all of the independent spending, all the way as money pours into election. i know there's lots of people working on it but even those groups are thinking about the way restricting access to the civil rights issue in being able to take an intersectional racial
one will be really vital. because i work with candidate all day long it is also held in candidates that if you have the resources they need to race competitively. every state has different laws about who gets paid, who doesn't, how much they're allowed to contribute. so many women are like i'm not rich. i don't have a lot of rich friends. when they are sitting on a facebook list of 5000 nfl minutes a thousand contacts that and i always ask them maybe five people right now if you told them you are running for office they would be so excited maois have 25. many of those people have never been asked to contribute meaningfully by a political candidate ever.
it is also a way for us to do the work better and run for office. they have elected officials be on the canada side there's lots we can raise about this. >> i actually believe running for office and serving in office are specific duties and obligations the famous jury duty of people who serve in the military. if you serve in the military your job is guaranteed and you get paid. you can't be fired for serving on jury duty in have to be paid. running for office should be treated the same way. i think that is a very simple -- not simple, but simple idea that people are serving their country and they deserve to be compensated for that.
i also think we need public financing of campaigns. i don't know that any joe schmo should be able to. you have to so some expanded on your campaign and in oakland city council members to get matching funds and unfortunately a lot of women come to exist the school board in so that the barrier that remains against women. i think that is important. not paying people to sit in public office effects than and their family and their ability to do the job well and give it the amount of time and effort that it deserves but also your employees. i'm really lucky i have a supportive employer. believe me, it is not a deal. >> did you want to add anything? >> we have in arizona -- i think
tucson has their own system. for legislative and statewide races, we had a fun system struck down by other court. a lot of folks -- if you have an opponent of running traditionally and they overspent the amount you are getting you would get three times the base level funding. that one away and made it not a viable option for a lot of folks. i legislative districts have three seats. if you have three people in the district and they sort of team up to run as the fleet, there is $120,000 of funding available. that is a good amount of money. so we don't have school voters to be council and that is where
a lot of them come in. i hadn't thought about that before, but it is sort of putting up a barrier there. i think also connect gained a gatekeeper issue and jessica touched on this a little bit, too. bringing people into run for office we also have obligation to help and so helping them get started on fund raising and opening the doors to access the funds if they are going to run a campaign. as an elected official is always really frustrating in terms of how awful all the money is in campaigns and trained to fight again saddened at the same time continue to raise money. all the time i spent raising money that they could've spent doing other things, i could
enjoy myself more, but even more effect that the leader if i wasn't sitting in dialing for dollars half my time. >> crazy, do you want to add what you found in your research? >> sure, in new mexico we have had countless examples of qualified amazing potential candidate to have decided not to run because new mexico is the only state that doesn't have a state legislature. economic barrier was named as one of the most difficult to overcome and there has been an attempt at changing that. but it still hasn't changed. that is a huge barrier. folks have mentioned racism and sometimes when candidates are running their seen as unlikely to win and therefore money doesn't come in for them at the onset. once selected the money comes in
so it's hard to break through the barrier. we've also found getting out the vote cost money, especially in troubled communities that have a huge geographic polling though and the desire for communities. there are huge financial infrastructure challenges and so we are lucky not the innovations and the ways they can overcome barriers to candidates that are running and can they do other things that cannot set the income barriers that exist. we look at other strategies we can also entertain. >> it seems to me those strategies are critical for us to make progress on the issue. i want to open it up to you while to ask questions. one question i want you guys --
ladies, sorry, to address. we did a big polling research project and one of the things that came out when we did focus groups with diverse americans across the country and we have heard this feeling that it would degrade that doesn't matter because don't they just get corrupted by the same system and it is just going to be the same no matter what it is. i would like for each of you to share your thoughts on how we work with that and how do we both work to help people accountable to a set of values and also why does it not her and how can we help people see the vision of why would he really different from your perspective. jessica, you look ready.
>> so this last year has been a good example of how i feel about this. i've been incredibly inspired by the activism that's happened around racial justice of the country and as i watch people flood into the street and direct action and organized them selves around a really, really hard conversation that has a lot of history and then i will hear an elected official angry about the organizing and i thought how do you talk to the protesters? have you talked to the people organizing? so working with activists say in all elected leaders should dismantle the government, start again. it all -- up. i'm sorry. i thought we were -- forgot we
were filming. the name of the firm comes from my feeling that winning activism, good public policy and good elected leaders. those three pointer by transferring communities and we can't leave any of that on the table. we need activists holding leaders accountable. they need to know the leaders who represent them who can help us carry that water and we also need everyone to be working towards good public policy that helps us all the more meaningful lives. elected leadership is a part of the triangle and to leave it on the table would be an incomplete sentence in the work we have all been dooming. where that can be most meaningful is recruiting the people who are doing the work and know their communities and figure out how to do that and hopefully all of us are really trying to figure out how to recruit from the groups of people do not forget the
transformative outcomes. >> ready, thank you. >> if you guys don't take anything else away from the session i hope you'll think of the best organization you know, that you love the most and make a point to talk to people there. the board, staff, volunteers about running for office. introduce them to the people you know who are gatekeepers or great friend raisers or have some tool or scale the person could use if that person likes -- you know they shared values. that is the best thing we can do is to really put the idea in people's heads. most women of color have never even thought about or asked about running for office. women need to be on seven or eight times before they will even start to think maybe i should run. people of color as well. that's the best thing you can do
to help us create a more reflective democracy. we start with an idea someone thinking this person thinks that would be great in office. i'm going to make a page for going to your favorite organization and talking about it. >> i will say i really think where we need to go with start with our young people. our young people need to know who they are. they need to understand the dual citizenship that is. -- status. what the sense of contribution and society both in a tribal and nontribal sense. the american democracies are really a way to shore up our poverty and make sure we have elected officials that are going to be very much accountable to the community's interest and we don't have that right now. >> do you want to add anything?
>> yes, everything they said. i would love to hear from folks in the audience. i do want to say this is streamed and taped for c-span. there is a microphone in the back of the back and you want me to speak into the microphone for the broad cast a net loss of repeat the question for the folks watching on the stream. go ahead. >> good morning. my name is david garcia, member of the stonewall foundation and a formal tribal leader. my question is for your state legislature. i would agree -- i am referring to urban tribal members