tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 1, 2015 4:00pm-6:01pm EDT
tuition policies, other states have explicit exclusionary policies. however, what this chart shows is that most states have absolutely on stipulated tuition policies. so this is important because the difference between out-of-state and in-state tuition is very large. and in-state tuition is very large. average out-of-state tuition is about $23,000 a year and that is more than double the typical in-state tuition of about $9000 a year. regardless in-state tuition policies, there's also the institutional level. one example of how this plays out is when undocumented students, they apply to a college and then they are treated as an international student, which automatically gives them tuition levels that are different than what would be experienced for in-state residents. so, this presents him and him
-- so undocumented students are put in a situation where they have to seek out information about tuition, policies and access to aid and whether or not the information is accurate. so it is not a static -- this information is not static. it is always evolving and changing. in addition to confusion ambiguity and a lack of information about tuition policy, there's also issues with access to aid. so we found that this is actually more of a challenge for students at two-year institutions. they are more likely to have to pay out of pocket. however, it is important to know that undocumented students attending two-year and four-year institutions are not getting access to loans. so i want to talk a little bit about implications and i am looking forward to the
discussion during the panel. we think that there's opportunities to explore further how we can push the limits of what daca can do, specifically in higher education. for example, government agencies should evaluate how daca is relevant to programs that promote employment opportunities. internships, certification and access to different forms of aid second, higher education associations should be proud frontline providers of information and resources for their constituents. this will help resolve the challenges associated with ambiguous information, a lack of consistent messaging and the need for more advocates in the field. third, philanthropy should partner with scholarship providers and the higher education community to provide more funding opportunities for cost and access to aid is one of
the biggest barriers for college students these days generally and the particularly challenge for undocumented students. finally, we would like to see corporations review their recruitment and hiring practices , and improve access to internships, fellowships and other career opportunities. so this is a potential space for developing private public partnerships for the government can work with the private sector to create better academic and career pipeline for daca students. this is critical for fields like stem where we have a shortage of talent among students of color women in low income students. -- women and low income students. so, we are looking forward to the discussion. we think that the findings point to a number of recommendations and we are really glad to have both folks interested in immigration coming together with folks who are doing work in the
higher ed field have this dialogue. thank you. [applause] >> thank you very much. now i would like to invite our panel up to the stage in any seat that you will find most comfortable. i would like to first spoke of dr. porterfield, president of franklin and marshall college. he prioritizes in enhancing academic excellence, promoting student success and civic outreach in helping young graduates private life after college. he teaches literal courses -- he teach literature courses dealing with education, social justice. dr. porterfield the dr. porterfield the first administrator in the georgetown when i was a freshman in 2009 and so i'm really excited to have them back as head of the university of pennsylvania where he is doing great things. thank you, dr. porterfield for being here. the next person i would like to introduce is laura who was
seated to my right. she is the coordinator for the dream education program at united we dream and united we dream is the youth organization in the country. laura is a native of mexico city en route to the u.s. at the age of four and was raised in washington, a small agricultural rural towns in washington state. growing up, laura joined her parents at conferences and packing sheds overture is where family, community and herself work. laura cocreated the latino studies minor, which i was also in a georgetown. and halted the washington dream act coalition and graduated as an outstanding graduate of american cultural studies at western washing and university -- western washington university, and her commitment towards educational equity letter to pursue her master's degree at loyola university of chicago. i also went to hs in the schools -- i also went to a jesuit
school, so we have a lot of connections. she participated in committees to change the policies at loyola. laura dedicates herself to education advocate and it's not -- and is an advocate for educational and underrepresented communities. last but not least, a current student at columbia university and currently organizes new jersey for immigrant liberation was sure that the forefront of getting new jersey last year to pass the new jersey dream act under governor christie, republican governor. we are really looking forward to sharing experiences and talking about the important issue. give them a round of applause, please. [applause] thank you so much for joining us. i'm really excited to have you all here and talk about the experiences you are all seen at the forefront of everything. we can talk about the studies in the charts, do you i'll have the experience of working with student had been students. i want to start with catalina because he said he wanted to be a science teacher.
you are currently studying to be a science teacher, but you can't do that in new jersey. i was wondering if he could -- i was wondering if you could speak about what your experience has been trying to become a teacher. >> thank you. my name is catalina. i am originally from mexico. i was born in mexico when i came to the united states when i was nine. i am undocumented. i am also a daca recipient and i also went to a jesuit school. yay jesuits. i went to st. peter's university. now i am a teacher at university columbia university trying to get a masters in education so i can become a science teacher because i love science and because my degrees in chemistry and i love it. i want to get a lot more kids interested in talking about the s.t.e.m. fields and science. right now it is a little difficult. i am sure not just in new jersey, but other states as well because the my legal status or lack thereof.
i am undocumented and even though i yet may daca recipient, daca does not provide me a legal status or a path to a legal status. in new jersey, you have to have at least an hour pr or legal you have to have an lpr, or legal permanent resident status, to obtain a professional certificate. in this case, teaching. i am not able to teach in new jersey. i did not even looked into new jersey, to be honest. i started looking somewhere else and so now i am new york and hopefully things work out for me. this is an issue obviously that is not only affecting they are going to affect me, but a lot of other folks who want to essentially obtain a professional license. >> thank you so much. next, dr. porterfield you just , became president of franklin and marshall college, which is a small liberal arts college in pennsylvania.
you talked about access for undocumented students at your school. undocumented students site cost as the number one reason for dropping out. what is frank and marshall doing to address the problem? >> thank you for sharing your story. it is crucial that we listen to the voices of students and develop strategies and policies and approaches to helping them educate themselves and respond to their actual circumstances. in order to answer the question, i have to step back for a second to describe franklin and marshall college. it is a top 40 u.s. news liberal arts college that is educated a huge number of people to move into the upper echelons of leadership in society. from the left, mary shapiro, president of the fcc, francis wolff, first lady of pennsylvania. from the right, ken mehlman who helped president bush get reelected. ken duberstein with ronald reagan. in the center, patty hearst was
first deputy mayor and other present a bloomberg philanthropy -- bloomberg philanthropist. it matters that schools like franklin & marshall college open doors of opportunity because they are springboards to leadership and to lives of influence for students. it matters that we go to the top institutions around the country were students from low-income groups with larger underrepresented and those -- and challenge those institutions to expand the base financial aid and to reach out the talent across the full american mosaic. there is a special role for those leading institutions to be sure that our doors are wide-open and opportunities present to all. four years ago, franklin & marshall college made the decision to double down i need based financial aid. we doubled our budget. we conducted outreach all around the country, looking for talent. as a result of that, we triple the percentage of students in our student body who are
eligible for pell grants. the tripling of the pell grant population led to a strengthening of the student body as a whole. our numbers in terms of student retention, graduation rates, student grades, quality of students coming that are all hired because we invested in the baystate and without defying talent. ok. the daca eligible students are part of that talent. so our strategy is to find out where it is and not to discriminate against students who have a daca status, but to facilitate their having the opportunity to franklin & marshall college and go on to lives in the mainstream. it is working because the students we are finding who happen to be daca eligible are every bit as qualified to go to franklin & marshall college and are every bit as successful. there are some higher hurdles the report documented that is for us to work on end at the
-- for work -- to work on, and at the same time the kids have the talent. i would say to them! i miss, by recruiting daca students, we are enhancing the education of every student in the school and at the same time we hope contributing to the leadership of class of the country for generations to come. >> thank you so much. you've been working with pirate organizations for many years and -- you have been working with higher ed organizations for many years. you just did training for them in colorado with 90 educators for colleges and universities. i was wondering if you could talk about your role in bringing this issue up to higher ed organizations and colleges and universities and also how you respond to the inability for undocumented students to act with any form of federal financial aid. the pell grants for talk about in federal loans on undocumented students can benefit from. laura: the response of the first
one as i am going through the schools and have a conversation in is hard to find is having a conversation together. it is very much either immigration or education. so that is kind of the first hurdle and the reason it's important to have a conversation in the first place to gather us because we are seeing education immigration is a double letter -- double edged sword. we see the policies introduced whether the dream act per se policy is a root canal with daca has an education required me but we are making it really hard for us to enroll in school. so we are going into the cycle though we are not allowing us to be able to get relief from policies in the future route than the one now because of the education requirements. this is because of the barriers put in education. one of the big things is financial aid. what we are seeing is a lot of schools are starting to have conversations along what does it
mean to have a scholarship within our institution. i am actually really excited to share that, be part of loyola. the past week bearable to pass. their students took the initiative. a lot of the conversations around immigration led by youth and so is really excited to see that loyola university of chicago took it upon themselves to say i'm willing to give half of a coffee, $2.50 out of my tuition every year to be able to give money to an endowment for undocumented student scholarships. so the challenge that the students gave to the administration was to say, can you join me in the effort. and also to the alumni, like myself, can you join us in this effort? we are excited to see the students are leading this, but now the institutions are like this is an issue we need to take forth and so what is really empowering for myself to see that as a student and and alumni from loyola, but also the
students leading the effort. >> you're one of the few documented -- undocumented students in the country that has been able to complete a master's degree. what has been your experience in trying to get to the next step? who do you ask for help? where do you get that information to make that next thinking step for you? catalina: i myself wanted to leave washington state. just because i wanted to learn more. i really pushed myself in the process to find a school outside in general was really hard. i leaned towards the jesuit schools because i'd heard the jesuit schools and private institutions were a lot more friendly to undocumented students and they also had more capabilities to help with financial support. .. i remember one day when i was at western in the library.
i asked them questions about what is the cost for undocumented students and they did not know how to answer it. what is the process for international students? i chose five questions that would gauge how friendly they were on the topic. i want to point out that i did not have my career be a process by itself. it was very hard. when i kept hearing no, you have to have a visa, that is when i knew that was not the school for me. i am undocumented, and i do not have a bank account. what led me to loyola was their jesuit mission and the fact they allowed me to compete for the graduate assistantship. the fact that they did not know
how they were going to be able to work with the funding with me, because this was pre-docker -- pre--- pre-daca that meant a lot to me the fact they were willing to take that choice and learn with me in the process. i went to loyola. i started to work with them. western also did something similar when they were not able to pay me for working at admissions but they were able to giving scholarships instead of paying me directly or in able to go to a student accounts. so there's different ways you can go around having to pay a student through internships, scholarships, et cetera. that was kind of the beginning of my experience. to add a little bit about my experience while at loyola, to be quite honest i was kind of surprised in a not so great way, because when i got on campus us other was not really a lot of conversations around undocumented students. that's why they do the same thing again. i had a look on the campus website and say ok, who does
anything on immigration, teaching a class, events? i started meeting with those people and that's how we had a conversation at the institutional level and out of that came the allied training that was mentioned in my bio. it's awesome to see within three years since the allied training how much loyola has changed but always there's some room to improve everywhere. >> how did you convince governor christie to signed the new jersey dream act? can you tell us about the process and what happened? >> well, i don't think it was convincing but i don't think we convinced him. it was more like this was an issue that was just the pressure had been building up and osha and it was something that he either had to address or he would just have to suffer the consequences. so in new jersey, the fight for the new jersey dream act, it may not sound like it but it's been
happening for like, well it happened for like over a decade. this went on for 10 years. but i think we finally got to the point where there was a lot more pressure coming from a lot of students, a lot of parents, a lot of educators that we were able to engage. the building up pressure like really from the ground up from the community, and also governor christie was also campaigning for his reelection. so i think a lot of things came into play. it was a grassroots effort, all of the community, the students putting up the pressure, making this issue a lot more visible in the state and then also him running for reelection. i think it was a lot of pieces went together, that a lot of us worked for and things just happened but i think all of those had a role to play in us finally getting him to do something about it your what
we're pushing for wasn't only just tuition but also state financial aid. because as many of us who have experienced went to school, even -- have experienced going to school, even when paying states wishing for a lot of us it still really difficult to make that tuition cost. so we're pushing that not only for tuition but also for financial aid. both things were on the bill. he line vetoed the state financial aid portion, so only one part went through. so it was a first step, and now we are fighting for the next one. so we need to see states financial aid. in new jersey. >> thank you. today, clothing laura said that was very important. there are increasing number of college universities and presidents who understand that we do need to work together and share expenses and learn
-- share experiences and learn together so that together we can , create more opportunity or daca students. it's a terrible constraint that the federal financial aid programs are not available for students with daca status. that's one of the reasons why the passage of the dream act eventually hopefully will lead to the extension of those benefits. to these kids who after all we have invested in in k-12. this is continuing our investment. it's not giving them something to do. it's maximizing investment we have made. what was was pretty good as he is are starting to see a number of foundations stepping up and partnering with colleges and universities to provide on a temporary basis the replacement dollars for the money that would come otherwise from the federal government. for example, don great is your from dream.org, one of the leadership foundations in the country partnering with colleges including with f. and m. to help us offset the cost of not having the pell grant or the guaranteed student loan program.
the issue stream and foundation -- the shusterman foundation in tulsa has been a leader. the pritzker foundation in chicago, while it's not an answer, it's at least a temporary relief to allow us to grow more daca students. >> following up on that, i remember in 2010 when we were fighting for the dream act at the point i was at georgetown and that's what our president sort of made a statement in support of the dream act. and now as you are president of the culture right now, what do -- of the college right now what do you think is the role of colleges and universities, what they play in pushing for public policy on this specific issue? >> our first the major most important role is to go find talent a regardless of financial background and educate and launch that talent into opportunity. in doing so we serve the one and the many and that is what higher education is supposed to do, advance the one, serve society. we do have a role on issues.
i tend to lean towards the issue students needs for education which is what i think the dream act is a natural for college presidents who support. it has lots of bipartisan support. it just doesn't have that support at the right time all at once. i think he did a poll of college universities presidents you would find enormous support for the dream act. enormous support for extending the pell grants to our school students. >> going off on that, you were in texas in my home city of austin because what we sort of hurt in the report is that there's a division between the states now on states that are being very welcoming to immigrants students in states that are not. texas is on the verge of maybe repealing their version of the dream act. texas was the first state to pass it back in 2001 under republican legislature and republican governor rick perry. what was your experience in austin when you were there in talking to students who were facing this sort of threat that is coming on right now to them in the second largest state?
>> a lot of the youth on the capitol lobbying were students who were directly benefiting from their straight -- state the dream act but you that all ready graduated so that they would be able to benefit from it. there was a lot of pushback from people on the hill basically saying our economy is bad, and a lot of the different discussions in my opinion, a lot of the different things that are always used against state tuition or just in general supporting undocumented youth. and what was really heart wrenching for me this is that they were, they were comments like the one made on national media about having -- there was a comment made too ever since about you are bringing drugs and drug cartels. so the reaction to the young woman when that kind of stable was made to them is very much connected to like the mental health and internalization of what it means to be undocumented.
she had to step aside for the rest of the lobby because that really hit home in terms of like offensive to her. so it was often the energy around just we are going to defend our rights for education, defend this policy. but also to see the reality that there is a lot of comments being put through these things about having to be, not being able to be a student, having to always to defend and protect a set of actions to be able to be a student and take advantage of being a student. >> you're an activist student right now, too. so how do you juggle those two things going on in your life? how do you like to make sure you push forward your academic career while still pushing like your life issue that is in your face almost every day? >> i mean, it's really difficult
because it's something that if you like, and once again it goes back to like a home mental asia aspect of this, is that it is something that you can't escape. so when i was, well, i mean, yeah, finally when he understood what being undocumented meant, when i was making that distinction of going from high school to college, it was really difficult. and then withhold deferred action when it happened and i was able to qualify and applied i felt maybe those feelings were going to go away or disappear, or i don't know what expected him to do, but what if that was it was a very difficult to live a quote-unquote like a normal kind of regular life. because even though i wasn't worried about myself anymore because now i can work, now i can at least make some little money for transportation to go to school or whatnot, but like my parents are still at able to do that. or deferred action grads need protection from deportation but what about the family members who do not qualify for it and you still have to live under the fear? so it's not that i can escape it edges because i feel somewhat
protected because still the family that surrounds me, my friends, so if you like is that something, it's not a situation that at least for me i don't think i can easily escape. and so in a way they can feels like, like i have to do something here so it feels like there's responsibly to act. not only for myself but for all of those people who have still not benefited from anything or who have no path whatsoever to giving any form of status. and knowing what that feels like an understanding how terrible that can sometimes be, like i think that makes me feel somewhat responsible that have to do something. but also i think it creates a lot of like feelings of anger where you, like, oh, well, what's happening to us is really unjust, and we do not have to -- we have to fight back because there's no other way to change things. >> and i guess that goes into
the university sight of it because once you're you are there, it's about being more than just there. what do you think, dr. porterfield, is the role that universities and colleges should play in making sure once students are there to make sure they are not feeling anxiety not feeling anger and they're continuing the whole process process? >> our goal is to cultivate the greatness in each student. to be responsive in real-time. one of the ways we are doing that with daca students is that we were able to secure a grant that will allow franklin and marshall college next year to roll a large number of daca -- to enroll a larger number of daca students who are qualified, more than qualified coming to treat them as a cohort, meaning that they will meet together with a faculty member and they will get to know me, and we will learn with them about their needs, and over the course of the first two years in college not only help them have a full college experience but also
educate ourselves and the campus community about what it is the students are experiencing. we hope that the cohort model will offer an example for other institutions of a way of empowering daca students of broadening the circle of support and of gaining more knowledge as the report gives us about the actual experience of being an undocumented or a daca students so that we can be more , responsive. the other day we had a group from california on campus called college match, about 45 or 50 high school juniors from los angeles, and something like five to 10 students in that group were daca students. and we talked about that openly with the kids. all the kids identified who was daca and he was not.
one has to assume in any high school group that you meet with today that there are daca students in that room. one has to extend the arms widely in partnership and friendship to those students. because the students bring so much to the table. and by assembling all the more of a critical map, we give voice -- all -- assembling more of the critical mass, we give voice to the experience and that may help address some of the frustration. >> as a follow-up question, what do you say to the folks and alumni who are intriguing to the university of when they push back? have you faced any pushback? >> not really because we have a talent strategy to we are recruiting talented students who earned their place come international student, domestic students, east-west and north-south, immigrant born, u.s.born, doctor, legal status to all types. we have a ton strategy. the students have earned their place, .1. by having a talent strategy it has elevated the whole school. our ranking is higher, our prestigious hire because we are recruiting smart students are making it count.
>> so going off about you working states more like in california where you have so many resources, like the university of california which has announced the commitment to building on the daca student program and you are in states where there's absolutely nothing how do you deal with it that the vision when you are talking to a student who is in a state that might not a welcoming to them? what do you say to them? >> >> in a lot of the areas, a lot of it is coaching and a lot of
it is a much leadership as well. and what i'm seeing, it's cool to be working at the national because i can communicate across states and say this is what what's working in california. at the same time i see california's a lot to learn from arizona because it is very much at the end of the state but they're doing pretty amazing things when it comes to education. we have to be creative but they're doing it. so those are like the learning institution that we can take you california and other states. but when it comes to like the coaching, it's hard to be able to say i'm so happy and i'm really glad you're on this journey and this fight with me and justin locally fighting for education equity, but i'm also sorry to say that you can't stay there to reap those benefits because this is not where you'll be able to succeed. so right now one of the youths the work at verizon is being pushed out of her state and having to go to school in mexico because that's what should be able to access higher education. it's hard to see that the youth and the communities that are building their team unity are not able to stay in the own community and have to leave their own state. it's very much, it's hard to like make those connections but being of the national we are able to say ok, we have an affiliate in new mexico, you can continue to stay active and
still be a scholar activist, but obviously that is not the first choice of students. it's hard to juggle but it's also very rewarding to be able to learn across states. >> thank you. spent how do you mentor other students as to think about becoming public advocates in a sense coming out? when they also their families needs and their siblings needs their own uncertainties. that's tremendously courageous act of public leadership and public citizenship. but it's not easy and maybe it's not for everybody. what should we learn about what the students think through when i think about using their voice the way you have? >> i think the number one is a don't be afraid. i always say, i'm undocumented. i'm a scholar activist and every time i say that i am coming out,
it's not something that just happened once. but me being able to say that and have the courage to know that my family might be watching this or they might get -- i saw your daughter on c-span, and then being undocumented is very scary. but if i'm the one that's taking the stuff to say i'm undocumented and afraid, why is it so hard for institutions and presidents and other administered to say the same thing when they have a lot less to lose, actually not much to lose but we have a lot to fear. so it's definitely the power of our story is deadly a good thing and people need to them but i always think about what does it mean for the generation after me to be in these spaces, because i was able to share my status and is able to share my story and i was able to push back.
>> i think it's also like understanding that it's a process but at least for me it took me a while to be finally open and said in a crowded and say yeah, i'm undocumented. that takes a while and it's a process for many people. so just, i guess for when it comes to mentoring other students, especially some who are younger than me, a lot of it is being patient and understanding that not everyone is at that level where they can just say that. but also i think the power of the stories, i think it's really important to really listen. because it's not until people start owning their stories and start realizing through listening and through sharing their stories that they are dignified human beings. >> thank you all three so much. by that we want to transition to q&a and i would like to invite the others to come up so we can opened it up to the panel for audience questions.
i have want to start off and after what we can opened it up in the mic will come to you, is that everything we just talked about is also in the context that we are in a certain moment in higher education where there's a lot of trouble going on, right, where pell grants at this point with the republican
budget were basically cut, were a lot of issues were students or citizens were getting these benefits are facing a trillion dollars in student debt, facing cuts to higher education for the benefit. and i guess my question for you all is how do you also take into account that the higher education, you don't have to fix the higher education system but you were working to fix the immigration system at the same time? so if there's any thoughts about the state of higher education, the state of immigration in the country, would love your some of y'all's thoughts and then we can opened up to the audience. >> i feel obligated given my role to attempt to address that. the key to the future of america is to invest in education from weekday through ph.d. in a knowledgebase science and tech driven global economy where what you know and how you think will determine not just your opportunities but those of your community. america has no choice but to invest in education at every level, no choice. some of the problems around cost can be addressed. but what we can't afford to not address is the aspiration of our students. we have to invest in education robustly. that's crucial for the future of this country. i would say further for those that are in an unfortunate
position not to meet financial aid to the indeed fortunate position not to need financial aid, it is crucial that others get it because we are one country. >> so the challenge in higher education is a challenge that has very few precedents looking backwards. we now have the precedent mentioned to educate the most diverse cohort of young folk in the history of our country to much higher levels of competence and skill and sensibility, than
ever before, at a time when the economy is evermore integrated evermore interconnected, and where the interruption of the extraordinary levels of inequality come fundamentally through two mechanisms. this is the hypothesis in the book, capital in the 21st century. it is reimagining, restructuring global tax mechanisms, or the alternative hypothesis is the distribution of skill, the destitution of knowledge education at the higher levels in the cognitive and metacognitive range, that produces the narrowing of economic gap, whatever you have data. so as we face increasing inequality, the value of education goes beyond that was spoken about that was the central town the greeks and how aristotle imagined education. education for freedom, education for the human spirit, right? or the hypothesis of education for citizenship. you can't have a citizens that are autonomous, that can make that judgment to self govern without education. and, of course, the third prong is education for the 21st century labor market. a label market that is evermore
the eyes of the world are on you know, on our system and our big cities. this is the issue that everybody is facing moving forward. berlin, 40% of the children in schools today come from non-german immigrant origins the amsterdam rotterdam and the hague two-thirds of the children come from non-dutch immigrant origin homes. stockholm, the whitest country in scandinavia, about 30% of the children in the stockholm schools come from non-swedish immigrant origin homes. we have done this in the past. this wave of immigration is not unprecedented. it's larger her portion only it's smaller than what we face
in the past. connecting with the extraordinary examples that our two panelists in the way and body shouldn't be -- this is not maxwell's equations. this is very doable for a country of our history, and what we achieved in higher education. >> i would like to open it up to any questions. >> thank you very much for the panel today. our members are foreign student advisors instead of brought advisors and we've been dedicated as cover his immigration reform for many, many years. and many times daca students dreams, others are advised to go
to speak to foreign student advisors to get advice on how to become students when actually have grown up in the united states. so we've been very active in trying to provide information to campuses and bring people together to focus on how to provide education to individuals who would qualify for the dream act. and what i'm wondering is if you have models, examples, or best practices on how to bring people together on campuses, financial aid advisors, foreign student advisors, the administrators together to talk about this in a way that can move the discussion forward and have policies that can be implemented on campus so there are not dreamers who have to go to a foreign student
advisor to get information, how to get education in their own state? thank you. so we are very happy to know. i'm not saying that at all. we're very happy to help, thank you. >> so what was thinking earlier that i was in colorado is because we're actually doing an educator ally training, which each training looked very different because we did one training at a 4-year institutional and one of the high school level. what were able to do is to bring all of the key people in each department within each institution to come together and advocating on how to better work with and for undocumented students. what's so cool about the training is that it's not only awareness and information and best practices but we actually have dedicate the second half of the trading to do action work plan.
we can say this is the goal that we have this year, or if they wanted to find your plan would work on a five year plan. but definitely at least the one you plenty to say this is how we're going to change our practices. and so to give you an example for want of them, they want to focus on student programming. and so a lot of the students that were from the school iran document also attended the training, and because -- make these decisions with things that affected their lives, and so it's an example of one but also what came out of the other thing is they treated a passport within their institution with key people from different parts of the the university of high school so this is like career counseling, admission, financial aid, student life, et cetera that were able for people to say how can we meet monthly, bimonthly, biweekly with her students to give lucy what are the needs our students right now and what can we accomplish within the next one year, five years. >> the reason why i like that particular model is that what we have observed is that in a lot of cases student clubs, but the
students themselves who are mobilizing and trying to sort out this information and then sharing information with each other, right? so it places the burden on the student to kind of navigate their educational experience. that concerns me a lot. i think that institutions need to take more responsibility for their students, and so i really appreciate your comments and the work you are doing. and so we need more institutional leaders to step up. i like this idea of a task force where it's not just an issue for the financial aid office. it's not just an issue for academic counselors, you know. we have mental health issues. we have faculty, the stories i hear about some things that happen in the classroom, you
know, we need faculty to be unaware of who the students are in their classrooms. and what the resources are that are out there. it has to be ongoing because even in a state like california that's more progressive around their policies, programs and resources, things are always evolving. so we have to always kind of learned how these issues are evolving, how are the policy of practices and procedures evolving. and we have to keep revisiting that. i think a sector of particular concern has been community colleges where they tend to be more underresourced and for your institutions or more selective private universities. and it's in that sector where probably we are more likely to find undocumented students, and so we have to have a conversation about having more
community colleges involved in this dialogue. >> it just came to me as i was listening to you is that our governor is a jesuit. [laughter] >> the international students are a tremendous gift to the whole campus and it was quite helpful for daca students i believe to have a culture with lots of cultures, lots of cultures at our colleges because we're about 15% international. that provides just a much more rounded global atmosphere. we provide need-based financial aid to some international students as a part of our talent strategy. it sort of spreads out so there's so much difference and so much sameness but so much difference, so many backgrounds that are altogether bashing it up and learned together and constantly recentering ourselves because we're in a different conversation with someone from another starting point. that just opens up in a much broader way to students from the
domestic context who are coming from a circumstance that of the students have not encountered in their own lives before. >> good morning. i'm from the university of maryland. i would like to bring attention to this booklet, 15 page. it says here in the chart, it says here that professors, which are 32.1% of secure because, 30.6% were as of the students are 5.6%. does this mean that other students are less welcoming of undocumented students and professors and security guards are in the extreme spectrum of the data are more welcoming to undocumented students? that's fellow students in colleges and universities considered uncommitted students as competitors. that's what they appear to be
unwelcoming to undocumented students, whereas professors who are in the highest spectrum of the data are 32.1%. it means professors are very welcoming to undocumented students. thank you. >> the question in the survey is about experiences of being treated unfairly or negatively due to legal status. and so we have a range of different categories students can check in their level of feeling treated fairly or unfairly. and it's interesting because it depends on the institution. so we have a different findings for private institutions versus public. we had different findings for two years versus four year. and it kind of goes back to a
point about we can't just create kind of blanket rules and policies and procedures and information that cuts across the entire general. went to drill down what are the conditions and experiences and issues that exist in different settings, different types of institutions that are positioned ? at different state settings, and kind of look at that more specifically. and that's what i appreciate what united we dream is doing because they're kind of tackling this position on the ground in a particular settings. >> one last question. >> good morning. i currently work at georgetown university. i've been talking to laura about maybe instrumenting a training on campus but my question is to you, dr.
porterfield, does change need to come from the top down? does the president need to make a decision to i could maybe provide services for undocumented students? anyway, you've been mentioning about holding university leaders accountable for the work but how do we do that next how to hold them back and but because were putting the burden on the students are there maybe a couple of it ministers to do this on the site just because a personal connection. i'm really curious to see how do we actually make change happen. >> i do think each institution has its own culture and ecosystem and resources, and mission. and so there's not one playbook but i think that brought participation is that better than single actor strategies. so involving the upper echelons of an administration, faculty, the students, other resources from outside the campus in the community, the immigrant institutions that support our
communities can all play a role , but i think more inclusiveness is probably better. i think that there are a number of institutions in georgetown is one of them, were people in my roll of people i learned from in terms of their responsiveness. davidson, georgetown, trinity in washington, d.c. those are examples of presidents i look up to because they have been on the leading edge of thinking about students and their needs. i guess i feel it's a great question to you should put together a broad-based coalition that georgetown together, team up to see what you're hoping to do. >> ok. so i was at st. peter's university where the president of the school actually issued a statement in favor of the new jersey dream act when we petition for that. and have to agree, i think it's more like a collaborative, it has to be a broad effort. so it wasn't just him making the statement. it was also the faculty, like the professors who were interacting with students on a
day-to-day basis, listening to the stories, and once again understanding that this is a topic of conversation that was happening. and so i think with the effort of the faculty, the professors who were seeing this, were discussing this topic on a day-to-day basis, and then also the president of the university knowing that this was one, like a hot issue, and also the students in the campus who were dealing with this. and so making a statement about that. so it feels like it has to come from like a lot of the moving parts, like the students in the campus, the faculty, the professors and then the president. it's about working together really to make sure that -- i think they have to do it together. >> i would add that, you know, i think where i'm concerned is on the level of the higher education field, you know, we are placing, first of all, we are placing a lot of burden on
the students when i think institutions need to take more ownership of the issue. if you think about the democrats mission of higher education and some of our challenges associated with college completion in america, we have to kind of think about a lot of the threats to our ability -- to educate the next generation of students. with that said, i think higher ed associations are very important. so associations for which presidents and administrators are members. i think these associations are very important because they can provide some guidance to the membership and the kind of get this issue on their radars and take it up as a kind of challenge for their membership to pursue.
we also have an organization called national scholarship providers association. we spoke at that meeting last summer, and the membership faced -- is basically the same. want to do something, we need models. we need to know how we do this. we need to get a sense of who is doing it and how do we work with the boards and how do we work , with institutions? how do even construct an application, scholarship applications, in a way where they can do with this issue? so these associations are very important, and so i'm glad that some of them are in the room you know, we would be glad to help provide some guidance. >> i agree with that because and this is coming from my experience at st. peter's. st. peter's is also a member and so they put the issue on the
administrators, basically on their table. and then when the association asked the president to sign on to a letter in support of humane immigration reform, the president of the schools like ok, we have to make a stand and went to public come out with a statement. but yes, i agree with that completely because i have seen it, how important it is for the association to also put the topic on the radar. >> one last question and then we have to close off. >> very quick comment. i am don gray, ceo of the company called great holdings. i think it is the largest scholarship program for undocumented students which you would probably know. i have two things i wanted to see. one is, we are a new organization but we've raised , enough money and we will be offering full scholarships to select partner universities, at
least 1400 dreamer students. we are already over 1000 we obviously desperately want help from everyone in the room in spreading the message that there is an organization raising money for scholarship dreamers and hope to go much higher. the last question you asked , about presidential leadership. we reached out to almost every selective private university in the united states. we are not a high dollar scholarship organization, but you have a very unusual student president on the panel. i think state universities are forced to confront the issue because so many are knocking on their door. private institutions only do it with presidential leadership, and this is an extraordinary leader. >> thank you all so much. one round of applause for our panelists. [applause] i think we will start getting --
there are some more copies of the report outside. thank you all so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> coming up, we bring you a discussion on iranian nuclear negotiations. secretary kerry will be staying in switzerland until tomorrow. u.s. officials say there has been enough progress on the
nuclear program to extend talks for another day. the conversation this evening includes john bloomberg, and the president of the national a romney counsel. -- irani council. >> james foley was beheaded by isis terrorists in august, 2014. he was the first american killed by isis. his parents appeared at the university of arizona for a discussion about journalism in conflict zones. the panel also includes terry anderson, who was held hostage in lebanon for seven years. here is a preview. >> most of you who are not involved in journalism do not understand how it works. you don't understand how we
gather information, how we choose stories, how we write them and edit them. you don't of the process. it is a rigorous process. the stuff you see in the media in mainline news organizations is pretty damn reliable. most reporters i know are doing it not for the money or the fame or the thrill, even those who go out into danger. they are not there for the adrenaline rush. they are there because they truly believe that it is important. that it is important for them to find and tell the truth as best as they can about what is happening in the world. that is why they go into places
like syria or other dangerous places. >> you can see the entire discussion tonight at 9:00 eastern. >> here are some of our featured programs for this weekend. on saturday at 8:00 eastern, wendy davis. on easter sunday, golfing legend jack nickless receives a gold medal for his contributions to the game and community service. on c-span2, activist and author cornell west on the political thinking of martin luther king jr..
and alive conversation -- and a live conversation with jonathan tessler. on american history tv on c-span3 east carolina university professor charles calhoun on ulysses s. grant's presidency. and historian patrick shorter takes is on a tour of appomattox courthouse. >> a discussion on how iran and other middle east issues have influenced american politics. david rothkopf and dov zakheim
look at a potential nuclear agreement with iran, its impact on u.s. regional allies, and how this and other issues may play out during the 2016 presidential campaign. it is hosted by the center for the national interest. jacob: i am jacob heilbrunn, the editor of "the national interest " magazine. i am moderating on behalf of the center for the national interest , which has invited to distinguished guests to talk about iran in american politics. on my right is david rothkopf who is an editor of "foreign policy" magazine. he held high-level positions
during the clinton administration, and has altered several books on international relations. on my left is dov zakheim, a longtime friend and also the vice president of the center for the national interest -- the vice chairman. he has also been the comptroller at the pentagon during the george w. bush administration, and is the author of a provocative memoir called "a vulcan's tale," dealing with how he believes the administration mismanaged foreign policy in afghanistan. today, we are going to discuss iran. it could hardly be more timely. the middle east is always in ferment, but today, a defense department official was quoted
asking " who is going to be the person that shoots the archduke of the middle east, igniting a new world war i?" with the negotiations in geneva over iran's nuclear program and the events in yemen, i think it will hardly be a better time to discuss the role that the middle east and iran lay in american politics. david: thank you. good afternoon, it is a pleasure to be here. the observation i hear most frequently since arriving that the center for the national interest has the best lunch buffet of any place in town. i have to agree with that. i want to make a brief side comment before i dive in.
i made a pledge not to appear on any panel that did not include women. unfortunately, i see there is one woman at this table of -- good -- i think we can do a lot to enrich. i hope you are not diminishing my point. i think there must be more women out there who are interested in the subject to enrich the conversation. i think it is apposite that we focus on iran because i think it is central to the situation. before we get into the iranian fact, we ought to jump off jacob's point. there has never been in our
lifetime the situation such as that we see in the middle east right now. every country in the region is involved in a military conflict with the exception of oman. every single country. the analogy to the balkans is not over the top. it may not turn into a world war, but we already see it fueling unrest in africa, and parts of asia. we know it has potential consequences for extremism in europe and in north america. it clearly has global consequences economically. we cannot afford to walk away from it. our impulse to do that is one of
the contributing factors to the problems we have. since the topic is iran and american politics, i want to zero in on that for a while then we can open it up to the rest of the region. during the 2008 presidential election, when barack obama was trying to differentiate himself from hillary clinton. when he said that the approach on to be engagement, the questioner he faced said, " with whom would you engage?" and his reaction was iran. hillary responded to that with skepticism. i do not believe that our interaction with iran over the course of the ensuing 6+ years
is somehow an accident. if you look at the chaos that followed in the wake of the arab spring and the changes that have come, one country has benefited. that is iran. iran has benefited with greater influence in yemen, greater influence in iraq by considerable amounts. it has benefited by greater influence in syria with a solid looking -- with asaad looking to outlast obama in office. at the same time, i think one cannot help but objectively conclude that u.s. relations
with virtually every key ally we have in the region, have deteriorated. the only country with which there has been a substantial improvement or potential for improvement is iran. not only is that the case, but our allies, who feel shunned aside or neglected or distrustful, feel that way for a reason. they feel that way because we did not respond to their concerns about the growing problems in syria. they feel that way because they saw us embrace to quickly the egyptian regime and not criticize it. and embrace too slowly the new
era of egypt. our relationship with israel is at its worst. our relationships with gulf states who feel that we have been in the midst of a deterioration with iran, they have growing concerns. although everybody is trying to put on a brave face. this situation does not look like it is going to improve, despite some optical sleight-of-hand this week. that included general austin saying he would never have american troops coordinate with shia militia, which is
preposterous. if you do not call it coordination, come up with another word, but when you look at it in the dictionary, the word is going to meet coordination. we are playing telephone with the iraqis through back channels. that was sleight-of-hand, having the shia militia pullout. and then our so-called support for the saudi's going into yemen, which creates the confusing situation of opposing and a radiant-backed group in yemen while fighting alongside them in iraq. it also does not take away from this, particularly since the looming issue on the horizon is the iran nuclear deal. the iran nuclear deal looks very likely not to be anything like the nuclear deal besought. -- deal we soft to end.
-- we sought to end. are we going to reduce the risk of proliferation in the region? are we going to reduce the risk of threat from iran? the reason i put those in that order is that, if only iran had nuclear weapons, the deterrent effect would work. the concern is that they get nuclear weapons and other countries in the region seek to counter that, and that increases the risk that weapons fall in the wrong hands. you have a nuclear agreement that creates the possibility that iran could go from the day it ceases to apply with the agreement to having a nuclear weapon within a year or a few months in every state that is concerned about iranian nuclear power is put in the does -- is
put in the position of having to defend itself and that is not the proliferation risk that remains. that is what we went from. we went from seeking a one-year buffer, to not wanting centrifuges now excepting thousands of centrifuges including those in bunkers. we went from what i think was a much more gradual expectation for sanctions, to us giving into iranian pressure. we are going to do this by the united nations that is going to improve iranian understanding. even if the u.s. congress blocks this, in terms of places it has
power to do so. so, you are going to end up with a less than ideal arrangement that will survive. we will go from interim agreement to a permanent agreement -- the president will veto any efforts to block the agreement. iran have additional cash. as iran has additional cash, it will give it additional opportunities. it has economic problems at home. but iraq has economic problems. the government is unable to operate, its oilfields -- the iranians have put themselves and a sponsorship position with the baghdad government that is unprecedented. our policies of the past --
soulimani is hailed throughout iraq for the pushback of isis. if the iranians have the ability to help iraq further and we are disinclined to do so -- which we are -- imagine what that will mean in terms of further reading influence. or syria, or places like yemen or western afghanistan. i think it is highly likely that we will come into the 2016 election cycle with iran being the big middle east winner from the obama administration, with the middle east being in the most precarious shape it has ever been in. the approaches of the obama admin station to the middle east being seen as egregious
failures, even among those who would argue that the bush and ministration had more egregious failures in its first term. by that, i mean significant parts of the democratic party. it is pretty dark. perhaps, in our discussion, we will be able to find some rays of light. i know that dov's sunny frame of mind -- to provide a useful counterpoint so that he can assume his role, which is to defend what the obama administration has done. [laughter] jacob: for our c-span viewers, i would like to emphasize that these remarks about the obama administration come from somebody who served in the clinton administration. the situation is very stark.
david: i am sympathetic, ask either of my daughters. jacob: i will turn to dov for his further explication of the middle east, which is always easy to explain. dov: i'm afraid i'm going to disappoint the viewers, i'm not going to defend the obama administration. i will take a perspective pretty much the same as david. but i will expand about it in a variety of ways. there was a man who uses it in the far corner of this room. he was a leading journalist and analyst, a brilliant thinker and quite a character. we are going to miss him. i just wanted to mention that, because he was a regular here. and contributed tremendously to
conversations we had. i want to give you some context that goes beyond what david talked about. you have to begin not just with the debate with hillary, you have got to begin with the fact that the president, as a candidate and consistently since then, wanted to focus on nation building at home. that was his priority. do stuff at home and try to keep the world at a distance. what are his legacy items? obamacare is one he hopes to preserve. he is trying to do something on immigration. he clearly has a predilection for pushing the envelope on environmental issues, even if it means alienating canada. you start from there and then you look at what has been his approach to the world?
it has been one of " if i can keep out of it, i will keep out of it." keep out of afghanistan, keep out of iraq. no ground troops in libya, even if the country falls apart. withdraw brigades from europe and not restore them, even as mr. putin flexes his muscle. only arm the kurds with baghdad approval. hit it to asia without more forces. -- pivot to asia without more forces. you see a pattern. how does iran fit into this pattern? what i see going on is an attempt to -- on the one hand,
work with iranians in the region . the nixon doctrine said to handed off. in some ways, i think president obama thinks that the best way to deal with their region is to let the iranians handle it. and outcome of that is to downgrade the relationship with israelis. treat them as a secondary power revert back to the relationship israel had with the united states prior to the mid-1960's. i think that is where he is headed. if you look at all the things that have been going on, a kind of all hangs together. for example, in the case of afghanistan, everybody notices that ali khamenei visited here,
we will keep troops there until next year. the last thing they need in kabul is more troops in afghanistan. that one favors the iranians. not providing too much support for the kurds, because if you give them too much military equipment, and they really feel they can go independent and they have already talked about it in a way that they had not as recently as two years ago, but because of the collapse in iraq, they are now talking about it. if you do that, everybody notices. so will the iranians. because the iranians have their kurds. obviously, i am convinced of this -- i was and could extend for a conference three weeks
ago. we are working hand and glove with iranians. i had a panel that included the national security advisor of iraq, the vice president of iraq , our emissary to fighting isis and the chief of staff to the president of kurdistan. i asked the panel four times, talk to me about iran. nobody really wanted to. i can understand why the iraqis do not want to, because they want us to help and they want the iranians to help. i can understand why the kurds don't want to, because they don't want to inflame the iranians. nothing, zero. that tells you something. it's true, obama has a dilemma in yemen. he is supporting the guys that
are fighting the iranians, but by and large iran is the direction in which he is headed. look at the steel. everybody has been arguing for ages about how many centrifuges we will allow the iranians. it is not just a matter of centrifuges, it is a matter of allowing the iranians to have centrifuges to which they give nobody access. we are giving away no question until what they have done now. for an ancient empire, what is 10 years or 15 years or 100 years? nothing. and then what? as david rightly said, look at the reaction in the rest of the
region. people who are supposed to be our friends. i am not as worried about an iranian strike on israel as some people are, for the simple reason that if the iranians try it, just work the analysis. the missal has to go off, the target has to work, none of the four layers of israeli missile defense works. only then might something come through. if it comes through you destroy jordan, saudi arabia, and other countries. lebanon, syria, as well as israel. but guess what? with the likely percentage that in a radiant missile can make it through -- that and iranian missile can make it through -- if i am in a rainy and general
-- if i am and uranian -- iranian general, i am not going to allow that. nobody's going to sit on their hado you see iranians still supporting groups that want to overthrow the iranian regime -- bahrainian regime? you see the houdis taking over yemen -- it is the classic nightmare, being surrounded by iranian puppets and supporters. add on top of that in a radiant nuclear capability. there is nowhere that the saudi's will not go nuclear. one foreign minister tells me "why do you think the saudi's
have been supporting the pakistanis? they will tell you how nervous they are about the turks going nuclear. there you have it. everybody goes nuclear. you will now have a chain of nuclear powers running from the pacific ocean all the way to europe. all it takes is one mistake. one mistake and then you are worse than world war i. this is what the iranian deal will get us. the way the administration is going about it -- none of this matters. the one person who is actually
helped the administration. the iranians should not have come to congress, he should not have pissed off the president of the united states, his behavior during the election made the united states feel ignored everything he said. his subsequent backtracking has not cut ice with anybody. what did he really do? if there is no override of an obama veto because of his deal, you can thank mr. netanyahu for that. the democrats were going to override, but now they are in a tough position. the only reason in override might happen now is because more and more is coming out about this fuzzy deal gets fuzzier by the day.
it is going to be much harder thanks to mr. netanyahu. i would point out that if iran was the number one concern of mr. netanyahu, and by definition, it is not the number one concern if you want to worry about your number one concern, you offer something to the palestinians until mr. obama "i am giving you x you are giving me y." the deal is terrible, the behavior in the region falls into a pattern. the pattern is simply some kind of condominium, some kind of off shoring of american influence proceed -- prestige in the region and handing it to tehran. jacob: a quick response then we
will take questions. david: i never said the word quick, but i will make an effort to be brief. first of all, i think we need to look at the response of the saudis and the gcc states to the houthi gains in yemen, not just in the political context of yemen, nor in the traditional shia-sunni terms. it is a response that there are no other stabilizing forces in the region right now. it is a message from them that they are unwilling to tolerate further deterioration of the situation with regards to iran's
regional position. therefore, it is a broader consequence that it is typically described. so far, dov and i have not disagreed on any point, but he may disagree with this. but i want to throw it out there. if only to validate that i am a democrat. i am not one of those people who believes that anything other than a deal shouldn't be done. i think we should get the best possible deal we can. i think we should embrace the games -- the gains the deal gives. for it to be effective, it has to be in the context of the strategy. the strategy needs to work with regional allies to rebuild
original alliance that extends from the gulf to egypt and includes all of those who are concerned by the iranians and give them the assurance that we are standing with them can be will tolerate no deviation from this. it requires a balanced approach and a long-term view and a strategic framework and we have not seen. one bit of evidence of the absence of the strategic framework is the degree to which the iran deal itself has been overemphasized in the context of iran politics. not only while we are worried about iran getting nuclear weapons, is iran gaining ground in the middle east, which is a greater threat to the stability of the middle east. in other areas, there are other disturbing patterns.
we are in the midst of a cyber war with the iranians. they are as others have demonstrated regularly attacking -- we are willing to negotiate a deal on the technologies the 20th century that gives them sanction relief while we are exploring the risks associated with the technologies of 21st century conflicts at the same time. we may end up reporting them even as they are attacking us in another waste, or attacking allies in another way, and destabilizing the region in other ways. this does not sick just -- this is not suggest a strategy, exceed just a narrow gauge focus. a campaign oriented approach to how to deal with geopolitics.
let's get a win, let's get something out there we can show for it without putting it into any kind of broader context. the final thing i would like to say, and this may confirm your suspicions that i'm a democrat. i do not think it has been all bad. during the first term of the obama administration, when they were getting good advice from hillary clinton, they were pretty good at imposing sanctions on iran. they were squeezing around. there are getting benefits from iran, from the sanctions. there are getting themselves in a position to negotiate a good deal. what is happened since then? not only have as people left, i have talked to people in the negotiating process and there are more senior people saying, "how do we solve this problem?"
i spoke to a senior national security official, a democrat, who said to me two days negotiations, i would be ordering everybody into the lobby with their luggage and saying that we are leaving." only in showing that you don't need the deal, you have to leverage to achieve the deal that you want. right now, our body language -- the iranians and our allies know it and grandmas in toledo, ohio know it -- we want the deal more than the iranians want the deal. that is extremely dangerous and that is what gets you into a less than adequate deal, and that is dangerous when it exists outside the context of a coherent strategy for dealing with iran or the region.
jacob: we will now have a response. dov: david is obviously right. the focus has been on one area. one place they have not focused on is missiles. you cannot destroy countries unless the bonds are carried in a suitcase, which nobody has really tried. you have to make them into missiles. we are not saying a word about it. we have a problem that you cannot resolve even if you have a decent agreement or it nobody trusts us. if you are the saudis, and if your ambassador who is highly trusted by the current king, was the subject of an assassination attempt in washington by the iranians, you are going to have a lot of trouble accepting that all of a sudden the iranians are
good guys. it's not going to happen. the problem is, we have not been trusted for years. it's true this and ministration accepted -- and i use the word excepted if isley -- sanctions. those sanctions were pushed by the hill. the ministration try to fight them and told they could not find them every more. everybody knows that. the people in the region know that. let me be more blunt than david about this negotiation. why do we have an end of march deadline? it is an artificial deadline. we chose to have an end of march deadline, we chose to have an end of june deadline. we are fighting against ourselves. one other point. this is not widely understood. most of the arabs see us as israel's closest ally. watch how we treat the israelis.
they figure that if we treat the israelis badly, we are not going to treat them any better. if we are undermining the israelis, they notice that. i was just at the munich conference last month, and the iranian negotiator said in front of everybody -- and i double checked to make sure i wasn't hearing things -- the ones responsible for the burning of the jordanian pilot, nobody in this administration said word about it. you have a fundamental problem with trust. the israelis we know do not trust them. the arabs don't trust them. you are not going to turn around and cut a deal on artificial deadline that, as you just heard, even democrats are worried about. and then turn around and say "t
rust me, it will all work out. jacob: our first question comes from dimitri simes. dimitri: i think that your indictment of the obama administration, i agree with both of you 100%. to defend administration policy -- the question is not how fundamentally flawed policy is, and whether we handle the situation as david suggested. my question to both of you, and particularly to dov, my question
to you is what is the alternative? under current circumstances would you suggest that we leave -- live with the status quo? would you contemplate an attack on iran? would you be in favor of that, and what would happen to the price of oil? we can use this opportunity to create further mischief in ukraine, where russian forces allegedly are now. and where the chinese would be?
are we going to be better by rejecting the agreement? david: i will start. i have written and spoken over and over, i think an attack on iran would be useless. -- dov: it will not be a one-shot deal. the united nations will tell us to stop within a few days, and the job will not be done. let's assume that a combination of we and the israelis can take every iranian target out. fine, the iranians say we are on our own and they get the bomb within a couple of years anyway. i do not think a military strike
is the answer. what i do think is the answer is to turn to the iranians and say "this is not good enough." netanyahu said the interim deal was a disaster. the iranians have not moved as far as the otherwise would have moved, and there are still sanctions squeezing them. i would continue talking. i don't trust this president, i think you will grab the first opportunity to cut a deal but we would just keep on talking and keep the sanctions that currently exist, and do nothing more at this stage. david: first of all, i agree. i do not think there is a benefit from us attacking iran. in the current situation, it would be calamity.
building off of my prior point my sense is that we are going to end up with an interim deal that will turn into a final deal. that final deal will reduce the threat from iran somewhat and provide for inspection and other kinds of oversight, that can ensure that the risks from iran are somewhat lessened. on the nuclear front. the primary threats posed by iran are not nuclear. the primary threats posed by iran are regional, in terms of instability, the actions of hezbollah, the actions of hamas the actions associated with
their support of the thhouthis. unless you treat those things as the primary threat, you are missing a point. therefore, take the deal, enforce the deal, and do two things. build a strong alliance, repair the alliance with the gulf states, with the saudi's, with him rodney's. -- with the saudis, with the emirates. they have responsibility for stabilizing the region first. we need to work with them to create sunni grassroots political movements that can be stabilizing and western iraq. we need to work with them to ultimately find a solution that will work in syria. we need to work with them to
ultimately get a negotiated settlement that is the best settlement you can get with yemen, and primarily when need to work with them to counteract the two pernicious forces in the region, one of which is sunni extremism, which manifests itself in everything from isis to the brotherhood -- and the other is a ron. one -- and the other is iran. it only deals with a fraction of a fraction of the problem. so, use it, but have your eyes wide open, and do not think that this is producing a strategic realignment in this region, because it is not, because our allies do not want it to, and it will not help us or it will put
us a greater risk. jacob: our next question is from ambassador jeremy brenner. >> i want to agree with david. the problem that iran poses is strategic and geopolitical. effectively, what he is talking about with the administration explicitly and hillary clinton explicitly rejected is a policy of containment of iran. that may be where we wind up. there are some important lessons from the containment of the soviet union. first of all, it was a policy that was carried out by 10 presidents of both political parties for half a century. during that half-century, we spent an average of 6% gdp on defense. we deployed hundreds of thousands of troops around the ring of the soviet union. our allies were spending 3-4
percent of gdp. containment is not cheap or easy. the problem -- and it was bipartisan. i don't see how this administration which has got itself into a very partisan situation on this issue of nuclear agreement, is going to have the ability to produce a strong, bipartisan support for containing iran, which is basically what david is calling for and that is where we may wind up. nobody thinks it will be easy. it will be expensive, we will have to put troops on the ground in the middle east. we will have to probably put nuclear weapons on the ground in the middle east. it will certainly have to put nuclear weapons there if we want
other countries not to get their own weapons. david: i'm not explicitly calling for containment, i am calling for counterbalancing. i think it is possible that if the iranians make progress, it here to the agreement stop doing the things they are doing behave in a more constructive way, that they could grow in international standing in ways that would be bad. i use counterbalance rather than contain. it is all conditioned on than actually doing those things. a have shown no inclination to do those things thus far. i think we need to be very beady-eyed and very results and evidence oriented in this regard. you are right, it has become political. having said that, i can't help but point out that to a large degree the political problems we
are having -- the political proms in washington cannot be blamed on one party or the other. both parties have played a role in creating the most politicized foreign policy atmosphere we have seen in a long time. that is not helpful. regardless of who is elected in 2016, one can only hope that, as a centerpiece of their foreign policy, will be a willingness to commit the effort at home to rebuild the kind of across the aisle alignment that is essential to having credibility overseas. i think the recent experience with netanyahu illustrates the problem. if we are seen as dysfunctional the polarized -- dysfunctional he polarize, we are not seen as a reliable power. that is a threat to us. dov: let me jump in briefly.
i totally agree with you that if you want to contain a ron, you will have to spend money. this in ministration does not want to spend money on defense. what they have done just now shows that to you. they came in at the request for more defense spending in the sequester in the budget control act would allow. the congress turned around and said they are not going to bust the sequester. the ministration knows they don't want to bust the sequester, what we will do is take the additional money and put it in the overseas contingency operations account which would allow us to do the kinds of things you are talking about because it is operations -- stationing troops and so on. it shows you where they are coming from. they don't want to spend more money on defense, so containment is a nonstarter for these folks. there is another problem. the way david puts it is to tell our allies that we will cut a deal with the iranians and the
nubile fix it with you. -- and then fix it with you. you have to convince your allies you are reliable, that you have a certain understanding of their concerns, and that you are going to act on them because not only after the deal is cut, but before the deal is cut. when you have a spat with israel that goes well beyond mr. netanyahu's behavior, when you have friction with the saudis that has nothing to do with the israelis, you have a cutoff of support to buy rain -- bahrain, they are younger brothers to the saudis --if you operate in that way, you are certainly not giving them the comfort factor
that they would need prior to a deal being signed. we are doing it exactly the opposite way. david: let me say one thing in response. i agree that the right way to have done it would be to maintain and then build credibility, listen to our allies understand where they need assurance, not undercut our credibility with them at every turn, not offer the iranians a deal on enrichment that we would not offer the emirstesates, not do the things we have done. my view is that if you want to make the best of the situation you have to look at those relationships and restore them. by actions, not words. by the way, you can't restore
relationships and region like this unless you empower your state department to go out and do the work. if everything is done by the white house, to cannot do the day-to-day blocking and tackling of the dramatic relationships that this requires. there are operational issues involved here. that are serious problems. the final point i want to make is -- we didn't just part of dmitry -- dimitri's question -- there are broader geopolitical ramifications of this. when vladimir putin sees us behaving recklessly or being distracted by situations like this, every single time he takes advantage of it. it is no accident that when he takes it vantage of it, people in the region see him as a little bit stronger. the israelis have turned to the
russians more closely and they have better relations with the russians. others in the region have done the same. as i was saying to jerry, there is an ironic twist going on. you may recall the discussion of the pivot to asia. we didn't really follow through on the pivot to asia. do you know who is pivoting to asia? everybody in the middle east -- everybody we were supposed to be pivoting away from. the saudis, the gulf states, they are looking to china, they are looking to india as a buyer of energy products, they are looking in a different direction for major power involvement in the region because they don't trust that they can count on u.s. major power involvement in the region, and that is compounded by the fact that the notion of eu foreign-policy is a
fantasy. the eu has not gotten it back together yet enough to actually have a foreign-policy. the atlantic alliance and the deterioration that is taking place within the context of that alliance has contributed to this weakening in the middle east, as well as to the weakening in the face of putin. that needs to be addressed if you are going to address this pivot and issues in the region as well. dov: the reason i said we should continue talking is precisely so that we can do the things david talked about. restore credibility. there is no reason for us to say that if we cannot get something done by the end of march, we are going to walk away. that is exactly the wrong thing to say. the right thing to say is, if we cannot get something done by march, we will just keep
talking. the longer we talk, the more time we have to restore our relationships with the saudis and israelis and the rest of them to prevent the pivot to asia, do have some kind of credibility with our adversaries as well as our potential adversaries, it is not just putin that see us as we, it is china that sees us as we, it is everybody that sees us as weak. those of you who travel everywhere to the same refrain we are unreliable, weak, we are looking inward. we need time to restore that. you do not cut a deal and then try to restore it. all you will do is further undermine yourself, because you will prove how weak you are for all the reasons david gave you. jacob: we have the vice-chairman
of the center for the national interest and "the national interest -- and dov zakheim. >> as jacob just said, the subject of this session is iran in american politics. the terrible message i am hearing is very fundamental to american politics. the question is, are we capable as a country with reasonably the most resources -- economic military -- of any country in the world, are we capable of conducting a meaningful foreign-policy? david, you began by pointing out the ways iran has been the beneficiary, you have to take that back to bush. when we eliminated the iraq
saddam hussein challenge, we basically destabilized balance in the region. with anybody thinking about that issue when we went into iraq? i see a structural question, and it is partly related to a generational change that is occurring in our politics. the last american president who served in war was george herbert walker bush. since then, we have had a new generation that has a very different view of the world and how we should be dealing with it. what we have been cranking through, the lack of strategic thinking, the fact that people in the world do not trust us. dov used the word "weak," i don't think people see us as weak, but they do not know what
we are all about. that undermines the trust that is reinforced by domestic medical dysfunction that was just talked about. richard: under george schultz one of the great secretaries of state. anyway, my point is, i think the situation calls -- not probably in this room, we have people who devoted their lives to security. and foreign policy, but as a country, look at the people coming up as potential presidents for the next cycle. almost none have foreign-policy experience. in a world in chaos, or as henry kissinger put it, a period of disorder, or a world awash in change, i think we have some