Face the Nation transcripts July 14, 2013: Zimmerman verdict, Netanyahu, Kelly, Diaz-Balart, and Durbin

(CBS News) Below is a transcript of "Face the Nation" on July 14, 2013, hosted by CBS News' Bob Schieffer. Guests include: Ben Jealous, Michael Eric Dyson, Daryl Parks, Mark Strassman, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Penn., and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Plus Peggy Noonan, Bobby Ghosh, John Harris and David Sanger.

SCHIEFFER: Today on Face the Nation the news from overnight. George Zimmerman is found not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. And only on CBS, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Iran is dangerously close to having a nuclear weapon. And is moving fast to develop an intercontinental missile that could deliver it to the United States. It's all ahead on "Face the Nation."

ANNOUNCER: From CBS News in Washington, Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer.

SCHIEFFER: Good morning again, George Zimmerman is a free man this morning. He was found not guilty last night in the death of 17- year-old Trayvon Martin. He stood stoically in the courtroom last night as the court clerk read the verdict.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: State of Florida versus George Zimmerman. Verdict, we the jury find George Zimmerman not guilty.

SCHIEFFER: CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann has been covering this case over the last year. He is in Sanford, Florida this morning with the latest - Mark.

MARK STRASSMANN, CBS NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Good morning, Bob. Not guilty. In the end, a jury of six women, five of them mother, decided that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in self defense. Zimmerman's face was impassive when the verdict was read after 16 hours of deliberations. He shook hands with his lawyers as his wife Shelly cried in the gallery. Prosecutors looked drained in defeat. They had lost on both the murder and manslaughter convictions they had pushed for. Trayvon Martin's parents who watched every day of testimony from the courtroom were not present for the verdict. Zimmerman never took the stand in his own defense. But jurors watched lawyers use a mannequin to recreate his confrontation with Martin and the fatal shot. No independent witness saw the entire fight. Six weeks passed before Zimmerman was arrested. And by then, the Martin family's private outrage had gone national. There are no winners here in Sanford. Zimmerman is a free man, but he may have to worry about his safety for the rest of his life. Martin's parents had their day in court, but not the verdict that they wanted. And their son is gone for good. Joining us now is Daryl Parks. He's one of the lawyers representing Trayvon Martin's parents. You know, you were in the courtroom for the verdict, the parents were not. What went through your mind when you heard the words "not guilty?" And they are they doing?

PARKS: It was piercing to hear the words of not guilty, I couldn't believe it, in disbelief. It was not part of my plan for them. But it's the jury's verdict. And so legally we have to accept it. But we all know socially the verdict is illogical in that unarmed teenager has been killed by someone who had a nine millimeter gun.

STRASSMANN: We talked at different points through the trial. And you seemed to think all along that prosecutors were winning. So, what went wrong?

PARKS: Well, I think what went wrong is unfortunately our laws allowed them to have this portrayal of Trayvon as some thug. And unfortunately, I don't think this jury could connect with the image of Trayvon given the facts in evidence in this case. And so unfortunately they showed these pictures of are of very derogatory, and left the wrong image. And did not portray him on the night in question. So, we probably have some work to do both with you are laws, but also in how we as Americans view the value of racial minorities in our country in terms of how we react to these situations.

STRASSMANN: Well, let's talk about that, for a second. I mean, this case clearly sparked a national dialogue about race. The allegation that Zimmerman profiled an unarmed black teenager. There were six weeks that passed between the night that Trayvon Martin was killed and then Zimmerman was eventually arrested. And here you had a jury come back with a verdict of not guilty and five of the six jurors were white. So, what does this case say about where we are with race in America?

PARKS: Well, it says - it operates on different fronts. And I think that they probably came to the verdict based on a lot of different things that happened within the case. And that's fine. However, as a country, Trayvon's name and legacy means so much more now to helping this country as we make day-to-day decisions, meaning people of different races, and often by people who are not minorities. The one thing I will say about the whole movement, there have been many, many white people who have been very supportive, a lot of people of other races have been supportive. So, this is a multi-racial issue that I think we all as Americans can learn. I think it stands to young people who say, well, what can we do? I think we can do many things. We can be people who are proactive. We can be people who participate in the process. We can become judges. We can become legislators, so many different things that we all can do. But it tells you that we all need to be proactive and not sit back on your laurels and be a part of what's going on in our country.

STRASSMANN: Was the racial make up of the jury, in particular, a concern for you all along?

PARKS: I don't want to say. You know, with a jury you get who you get. Obviously, there is a better jury would have liked to have seen, without question. We would have liked to have seen a jury with more of his peers, whatever that may be. Obviously you would like some diversity, no one can deny that. And so - you know, but it is what it is. They tried. We appreciate them. We thank them. However, their role is finished now. I think now it becomes advocacy of the country in moving America to a different point.

STRASSMANN: OK. And going forward, they intend to continue their fight.

PARKS: Yes. They have the Trayvon Martin Foundation, TrayvonMartin.com, which is their foundation. And we are going to continue to advocate against gun violence against youth. That is the message here.

STRASSMANN: OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Parks, appreciate it. Bob, clearly this verdict is a topic at many kitchen tables having breakfast in America this morning.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, thank you so much, Mark. The Zimmerman verdict brought demonstrators to the streets in several cities across the country last night, hundreds marched peacefully in Washington, protesters also turned out in Tallahassee, Florida's capital city, and in several cities across California where demonstrations remain largely peaceful despite concerns of widespread violence. Joining us now to talk about this and the reaction, Ben Jealous, the head of the NAACP. He is in Orlando this morning. And Michael Eric Dyson from Georgetown University. He is in Philadelphia this morning. Mr. Jealous, first, obviously, you are not happy about what happened in the courtroom. But what happens next? What do you do now?

JEALOUS: Now we focus on ensuring that our justice system continues its course. There may be a civil action brought by the family, but there should definitely be criminal charges brought by DOJ. And we have asked DOJ to continue their investigation. They have are indeed continuing. And we hope that once everything has happened that can happen here in Florida, because the DOJ often waits until the end, that DOJ will act and will hold Mr. Zimmerman accountable for what he has done.

SCHIEFFER: In other words, you would file - you would ask them to file some sort of a federal lawsuit that is civil rights were violated?

JEALOUS: No. Federal criminal charges, under the Matthew Sheperd, James Bird hate crime bill. The reality is what you have to do there is show that race was a factor in his decisionmaking. And there seems to be plenty of evidence that suggest that race may have been a factor. He called 911 a lot about young black men that he suspected of being dangerous. And he, you know, said that these punks always get away. You know, having had that track record, those words have powerful meaning. And then you hear young men who lived in that community, boys who lived in that community say that they felt targeted by him. And so, that's our hope. It should not be the case that somebody should be able to track, to taunt, and to kill a young man on the streets.

SCHIEFFER: Let me bring in Michael Eric Dyson of Georgetown University, biographer of Martin Luther King Jr., among other things. Was this about race, Mr. Dyson?

DYSON: Absolutely. It was about race from the very beginning. It was racial motivation of it appears of George Zimmerman when he said "these people get away," "they always get away." We don't have to be Einstein to deduce from that particular assertion of his that he - and the calls that he made that Mr. Jealous referred to, that he's got a fear of and suspicion of African-American youth. It was also involved in the construction of the jury. We know that there were no people of color, as far as we can tell no black people on that jury. And while not indicting the jury themselves, they are reflection of the broader society's inability to empathize and imagine what it means to be Trayvon's parents and to be Trayvon, under assault, unarmed, Skittles and iced tea in your arm, going home and you are assaulted by, stalked by, a marauding person who obviously is motivated by some sense of prejudice and bias toward African- American men. And in the denial of the ability to use racial profiling as a term within the courtroom and the refusal of the prosecution to pursue the racial consequences and the racial animus and bias that motivated this. So, all around race, was involved in both the denial of racism as a particular motivation here, but also the broader network of racial association where racial stereotypes prevail. We know now that you can have have a jumble of stereotypes in your mind and you can profile somebody and that can have lethal consequences. We've seen this time and again in African-American and Latino communities. And the tragedy is that it continues.

SCHIEFFER: Do you see Trayvon Martin becoming an icon in the civil rights movement like so many others who died in this long struggle?

DYSON: I think so - and this - oh, I'm sorry.

JEALOUS: It's all right, Michael, please go.

DYSON: Yeah, no, no, no. I think that in one sense absolutely so. In the 21st century, in the so-called alleged, ostensible, post-racial era, where we know race continues to make a huge difference, Trayvon Martin's body cries from the grave for us to not only grieve but to get in to action and to motivate ourselves, not only African-American people, but all good- willed and good-intending American citizens to make sure this his death is not in vein and that we continue to prosecute some of the issues that Ben Jealous has referred to.

SCHIEFFER: I'll let you, Mr. Jealous, have the last remark here.

JEALOUS: I am so proud of the young people across this country who have stood up, multi-racial, all colors, together, and said, it's time for things to change. Those people and the family of Trayvon Martin have already made our country a safer place. Sanford, Florida, is better off. They have a new chief. New York City is better off. They have tough anti-racial profiling laws. States across this country are better off because for the first time in almost 10 years we did not pass any new "stand your ground" laws last year. And those young people need to keep on standing up, keep on pushing our country to move towards the day when we will be one nation.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think in the long run this helps or hurts racial relations, Mr. Jealous, in this country?

JEALOUS: Yes, I think ultimately it is already helping us move forward. It had been a long time since we had had an honest conversation about the way in which too many people in our country use color as grounds for suspicion. And as a result, as I just cited, various cities and towns are dealing with this differently, and trying to move to a place where, quite frankly, young people of color don't just have to fear -- you know, don't have to fear the good guys and the bad guys. They just have to worry about the bad guys. And we have got enough of them to deal with that whether you're an officer or whether you're a self-appointed community watch volunteer, we shouldn't have to fear you, too.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, I want to thank both of you for being with us this morning on short notice. When we come back, we're going to talk about the big story overseas. And that is Iran and its continuing effort to build a nuclear weapon. We're going to talk to the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, that is only on CBS.

SCHIEFFER: And now to the big story overseas, the Middle East, where instability in Cairo, the still raging civil war in Syria, and the continued push for nuclear weapons in Iran has left Israel right in the middle. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joins us this morning from Jerusalem. Prime Minister, thank you so much. We'll get to Egypt and Syria in a minute. But I want to start with Iran this morning because you said last September that Iran would have the capability to build a nuclear weapon by this summer. It is summer, are they there yet?

NETANYAHU: I said if they continue to enrich at the same rate they will get there. They have taken heed of the red line that I sketched out at the U.N. They're still approaching it and they're approach after the Iranian elections. They're building ICBMs to reach American -- the American mainland within a few years. They're pursuing an alternate route of plutonium, that is enriched uranium to build a nuclear bomb. One route, plutonium. Another route, ICBMs, intercontinental ballistic missiles to reach you. They don't need these missiles to reach us, they already have missiles that can reach us. They're doing that after the election. So they haven't yet reached it but they're getting closer to it. And they have to be stopped.

SCHIEFFER: There are reports in Israel, and our sources confirm, Prime Minister, that you want the United States to harden its position on Iran immediately and convey to the new government there that if Iran does not halt the nuclear program, its regime will not survive. NETANYAHU: I think the important thing is what the U.S. has said. They said the words won't influence us, what really counts is what the Iranians do. And what they have to do is stop their nuclear program. They have to stop all enrichment of nuclear material, to take out enriched uranium, to dismantle the illegal -- and shut down the illegal nuclear facility in Qom. These are the right demands and those should be back up with ratcheted sanctions. You should ratchet up the sanctions and make it clear to Iran that they won't get away with it. And if sanctions don't work then they have to know that you'll be prepared to take military action. That's the only thing that will get their attention.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you believe that the United States, there are reports that you feel the United States has been too patient, a little too tolerant in dealing with the Iranians. Are you asking the United States to take a harder line?

NETANYAHU: I think we've spoken many times, President Obama and I, about the need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. I know that is the U.S. policy. What is important is to convey to them, especially after the elections, that that policy will not change and that it will be backed up by increasingly forceful sanctions and military action. Now mind you, there is a new president in Iran, he believes -- he's criticizing his predecessor for being a wolf in wolf's clothing. His strategy is, be a wolf in sheep's clothing. Smile and build a bomb. He brags about the fact that he talked to the Europeans while completing a nuclear conversion plan in Isfahan. So I think they can't be allowed to get away with it. They're getting closer and closer to the bomb and they have to be told in no uncertain terms that that will not be allowed to happen. I think it's important to understand that we cannot allow it to happen. You know, our clocks are ticking in a different pace. We're closer than the United States. We're more vulnerable. And therefore we'll have to address this question of how to stop Iran, perhaps before the United States does. But as the prime minister of Israel, I'm determined to do whatever is necessary to defend my country, the one and only Jewish state, from a regime that threatens us with renewed annihilation.

SCHIEFFER: Well, the United States has said that we won't tolerate a nuclear Iran. What else can we say?

NETANYAHU: I think it's very important to make clear to them that you won't allow them to have this weapon and to demonstrate that by action. That is, you can also make clear that the nuclear option which is -- the military option which is on the table is truly on the table. The Iranians take note of that. Right now my sense is in the international community as a whole that because so many things are happening in the Middle East, things are happening, as you say, in Syria, in Egypt, with the Palestinians, there are many important issues that we have to deal with. And I have a sense that there's no sense of urgency. And yet on Iran -- and yet Iran is the most important, the most urgent matter of all. You should just talk to many of the leaders in this region and they will tell you that. Because all the problems that we have, however important, will be dwarfed by this messianic, apocalyptic, extreme regime that would have atomic bombs. It would make a terrible -- a catastrophic change for the world and for the United States, of course, for my country as well. So I think we have our eyes fixed on Iran. They have to know that we're serious. They have to know that there won't be an alternative route that they could reach the bomb if they think that, and they think we'll let them do it, if they think that Israel will let them do it, they're sorely mistaken.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what -- how close are they right now? Are they within a month? Are they within six months of having the capability? How close do you think they are?

NETANYAHU: They're closer. The most difficult thing in making a bomb is making the fissile nuclear material that is at the heart of the bomb. That is really the 90 percent of the effort, if I have to just put a thumb's rule on it. And they're getting closer. They have now about 190 kilos out of the 250 kilos of 20 percent enriched uranium. They had six, seven months -- eight months ago about 110 kilos. So they're edging up to the red line. They haven't closed -- they haven't crossed it yet. They're also building faster centrifuges that will enable them to jump the line, so to speak, at a much faster rate, that is within a few weeks, once they get to that critical mass of 250 kilos.

SCHIEFFER: When...

NETANYAHU: They're not there yet. They're getting closer. They should be -- they should understand that they are not going to be allowed to cross it.

SCHIEFFER: When will you make a decision on whether to attack Iran, because you have said, this will not stand?

NETANYAHU: Well, I can tell you I won't wait until it's too late.

SCHIEFFER: All right. I guess we'll leave it there. Let's talk a little bit about Egypt. You were worried when the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt and installed Morsi as president. He's now gone. Are you happy about that?

NETANYAHU: Well, look, we've been concerned with one thing. That is the maintenance of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. It's been -- it's been the cornerstone of peace between us and our neighbors, and it's also been the cornerstone of stability in the Middle East. And our concern, through changing administrations -- first Mubarak changed; Morsi came; now Morsi went, and we will see what develops in Egypt. Our concern throughout has been maintain the peace treaty. That was and remains my principal concern.

SCHIEFFER: The United States -- some here are saying we ought to cut off military aid to this interim government now until they have a democracy there. Do you think we should?

NETANYAHU: Look, that's an internal American decision. But, again, our concern is the peace treaty with Egypt. One of the foundations of that peace treaty was the U.S. aid given to Egypt.

SCHIEFFER: Had you talked to people in this interim government? Can you deal with them? Do you trust them?

NETANYAHU: We maintain contacts with -- formal contacts with the Egyptian government throughout the last two years, and including now. And the important thing from our point of view is not merely to maintain the peace but also stabilize the Sinai peninsula, which is Egyptian territory that is adjacent to our southern border, the Negev. It's been fraying there. There are a lot of terrorists. There are jihadists. There's Al Qaida, Hamas, you name it. They're all over the place. And our -- our concern is to prevent attacks against our territory and against our city, our southern city of Eilat. We've been doing that and will continue to do that. So our main concern in our contacts with the Egyptian government is to make sure that the peace is preserved and that terror is prevented. And this remains uppermost in my mind.

SCHIEFFER: Reports this morning that...

NETANYAHU: Well, not uppermost, Bob; uppermost in my mind -- uppermost in my mind -- uppermost in my mind is preventing the greatest terror of all. And that is that the radical Islamist regime in Iran gets the weapons of ultimate terror, nuclear weapons. That has to be prevented for the sake of peace, world peace, not only our survival but your vital interests. And I think the flow of history will judge us if we're able or unable to prevent this catastrophe.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you just one question on the Syrian civil war. Reports this morning that Israel carried out an attack in Syria this month that targeted advanced anti-ship cruise missiles sold to the Syrian government by Russia -- can you tell us anything about that?

NETANYAHU: Oh, God, every time something happens in the Middle East, Israel is accused. Most often, it's accused -- and I'm not in the habit of saying what we did or we didn't do. I'll tell you what my policy is. My policy is to prevent the transfer of dangerous weapons to Hezbollah and other terror groups, Hezbollah in Lebanon and other terror groups as well. And we stand by that policy.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Mr. Prime Minister, thank you so much for joining us this morning. Wish you the best, and I'll be back in a minute with some thoughts on Washington and why it can't seem to get anything done.

SCHIEFFER: America has always led best when we led by example. We built the greatest arsenal of weapons the world has ever known during the Cold War, and those weapons kept the Soviet Union at bay. But it was not the weapons that won the Cold War; it was the example we set. When the people on the other side of the Iron Curtain were finally able to look across it, they saw that our system provided a better life. And so the wall came down. They didn't want rockets and bombs; they wanted dishwashers and better schools. The Communist system couldn't provide it; our system could. They wanted the American model. But as I look at the growing list of things Washington has made a mess of lately, immigration reform, food stamps, farm aid, student loans, deficit reduction, a tax system, regardless of its fairness or unfairness, so complex no one can understand it, a health care plan that even the administration that passed it can't figure out how to administer, an Air Force where a third of the combat squadrons are grounded because Congress can't figure out how to fund them, I have to wonder, who would want to be like that? In this day, when we are telling others how to run their countries, what do other countries think of the model we are currently presenting? I still think America is the greatest country in the world, but convincing others of that is probably a harder sell than it used to be. Back in a minute.

SCHIEFFER: Some of our stations are leaving us now, but for the rest of you, stay for the rest of the day's other news. House Republicans Mario Diaz-Balart and Mike Kelly will talk about immigration reform. We'll get reaction on all of it from Senator Dick Durbin and our panel of analysts. Stay with us for a lot

SCHIEFFER: And welcome back to "Face the Nation. Well, the news from Washington this week was more again about what didn't happen than what did. The Republican-controlled House served notice it wanted no part of the comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate, and in a real stunner, passed the farm bill, giving millions in federal subsidies to farmers but stripped the bill of any funding for food stamps. What do Republicans envision as the next step? Well, we're joined by two Republican House members, Mario Diaz- Balart -- he's in Miami this morning -- and Pennsylvania's Mike Kelly here in the studio. Congressmen, welcome to both of you. Congressman Kelly, let me just cut to the chase on this immigration thing.

KELLY: Sure.

SCHIEFFER: Do you see any way that the House can come up with some kind of a bill that provides a path to citizenship for the 11 million people who are in this country illegally?

KELLY: Yeah, we had quite a conversation on Wednesday about that. And I would just say this -- and I know Mario has been working on it for many years. Where I'm from people still worry about border security, and they say, "Listen, we were promised before, in 1986, that we would have border security, everything would be taken care of." At that time, I think there was 3.5 million undocumented immigrants here; now they say 11.5 to 12 million. And we say, you know what, you look back at history, and the old saying is, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. So is there a path to citizenship? I think there is. But I think our plan is about breaking it into separate pieces, having a really thoughtful and a healthy debate about it and then doing something that makes sense for the American people. If we can't do that, then shame on us. But we've got to be able to get to a situation that makes sense for the American people. Now, back home, I don't have people asking me about that every day, until I ask them -- I say, what's the most important thing about immigration? They say, "Oh, my goodness, our borders are too open; we have too many people coming in." So I think the first part we need to deal with is border security.

SCHIEFFER: Well, what would you do with these people? I mean, would you put them all in jail? Would you...

KELLY: No, you can't do that.

SCHIEFFER: ... get buses and haul them back home?

KELLY: No, no. We already know deporting -- that -- that doesn't make sense.

SCHIEFFER: Well, of course not.

KELLY: And I've talked to Mario about it and I've talked to Raul Labrador about it. Listen, there's a way to get there, but I think that way is decided after we have a very thoughtful discussion, everybody has a chance to weigh in. The speaker has been very adamant that everybody will have a voice at the table. Some people don't like that...

SCHIEFFER: But this discussion's been going on for years.

KELLY: Well, it has been going on for years, but it hasn't reached the peak that it's at right now. And I think, because the country is looking for us to do something, I think it's important for the American people to understand, especially after last couple months, you've got to be able to trust the people that you sent to Washington to represent you. But they also have to be thoughtful and they have to do something that makes sense for every American. So you start then to pull back and say, but some of my constituents don't want it at all; some of my constituents don't care about it at all, but at the end of the day...

SCHIEFFER: At the end of the day...

KELLY: It's critically important to the country, from an economic standpoint, that we get these -- get this -- the situation handled. So...

SCHIEFFER: But at the end of the day, nothing ever happens...

KELLY: Well, you know what...

SCHIEFFER: ... Congressman. I think that's what people are -- let's go to Congressman Diaz-Balart.

KELLY: I think we need to change that, though.

SCHIEFFER: Well, that would be a good idea, I think. Congressman Diaz-Balart, do you think that the House can come up with some sort of plan that deals with the 11 million people that are in this country now? Because it seems to me, until you can come up with some realistic plan to deal with them, the rest of it doesn't really matter.

DIAZ-BALART: No, I think we will reach that -- that point. I agree with my colleague, my dear friend, one of the -- by the way, one of the brightest people in the House. What he says is absolutely true. Look, there is distrust of the federal government. Border security was promised and never delivered. So I think we have to do a couple things. Number one is we have to show to the American people that it's going to be real border security, enforceable border security, that also deals with the folks who are here and overstay -- how do we deal with that. Number two is that it helps our economy. Number three, that we have a system, a legal immigration system that works. And number four -- this is key -- that it protects the rule of law. And lastly, we have to deal with the folks that are here. Ignoring the fact that they're here does not make them go away. So we have a total agreement on that. Now, one of the things that was just said, which I think is key to, kind of, like, focus on, in the House, we're going to do it right. We're going to do it methodically. I think, ultimately, we're going to get a better piece of legislation; we're going to get a bill that the American people understand is responsible. And, by the way, we're going to read it. We're not going to have to pass it to find out what's in it. We're going to take our time, get good legislation, and I think, ultimately, we'll get there with a piece of legislation that fixes the broken immigration system, which has to include dealing with the folks that are here.

SCHIEFFER: But what is it that gives you hope that something is going to get done? Because, up until now, there's a lot of talk. The Senate passed a great big bill. But at the end, it appears nothing is going to happen. And -- and I just -- it's hard for me to see how this House is going to come together with anything that will be meaningful in the end. What are -- why are you hopeful that it will?

DIAZ-BALART: I understand why you -- that's very good question. I mean, the reality is that, when the Democrats controlled, they didn't want to do it. When the Republicans controlled in the past, we didn't want to do it, either. I think what's changed now is that there's a realization, first of all by the American people, that we have to fix this broken immigration system that is affecting us. It's affecting our economy, our national security, et cetera, number one. And, number two, the congressional leadership -- look, the Republican leadership understands that we have to pass responsible legislation that secures the border, that protects the rule of law, and we're going to have to deal with the folks that are here. So unlike when the Democrats controlled and unlike in previous years when the Republicans controlled, I think there's the realization, particularly by the Republican leadership, that we have to get it done. But more importantly, we have to get it done right to protect the economy, to protect the rule of law, dealing with the folks that are here while not violating the rights of the folks that have done things legally, and obviously in a way that's thoughtful, responsible and very clearly enforceable.

SCHIEFFER: Let me just ask, Congressman Kelly -- and we're very short on time this morning because of all the news. You pass a farm bill in the House that gives billions of dollars, much of it to large corporations that own farms. It's almost like welfare for the wealthy. But you don't include a dollar for hungry people, for food stamps. What kind of a message is that?

KELLY: Well, I think the message was -- so we try to put the bigger piece through, bigger for our bill. We couldn't get enough agreement on either side. So Mr. (inaudible) said, why don't we break it in two pieces? Let's address the ag piece first and then we'll do the SNAP program, the nutritional piece second. It made sense to me because we couldn't get agreement on how we should do it. Now, the frustrating for me -- listen, I'm not -- I'm not a politician; I'm an automobile dealer. And my whole life has been based on sitting down across the table from somebody who actually wanted to get something done and then compromising to...

SCHIEFFER: Do you want to pass money for food stamps?

KELLY: Well, listen, we already have money for food stamps. And what bothers me, Bob, is that one in six Americans, right now, are on this -- this program. Now, either the economy is not growing at the rate it should or this program is so badly flawed that we're letting too many people in. The sustainability of this is what concerns me. You can't keep promising things to people that, in the future, you know you can't sustain. I think it's unfair and I think it's un-American to do that.

SCHIEFFER: Do you think there will be money for food stamps passed by this...

KELLY: Oh, absolutely. I have never talked to one person that says we don't want to take care of the most vulnerable; we don't want to take care of those people who need it the most. But I have talked to people that said the system's broken. And when we look at what's going on, we're wasting -- wasting billions of dollars on a program that doesn't seem to be lifting people out of poverty but keeping them in a state of poverty. That's not right. That's not American. That's not the way we worked in the past. And that's not what our future should hope for. It should be one of blue skies and strong winds at our back and a nation that has everything that God could possibly provide for us here. We have tillable soil and potable water. As far as providing food for people, my goodness, we shouldn't be vulnerable in this country any place.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, we'll stop there. We're going to turn to the other side of Capitol Hill and talk to the number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, who joins us this morning from Springfield, Illinois. What's your take, Senator Durbin? You all passed the big immigration bill. You saw what the House did this week. You also saw this farm bill that was passed. What, as a Democrat, do you see now?

DURBIN: Bob, you know what we discovered in the Senate? If you want to pass an historic bill to fix a broken immigration system, it has to be a bipartisan effort, four Democrats, four Republicans. We sat down for over 40 meetings; we worked out an agreement. It includes border enforcement and security, a path to citizenship. And we passed it with a strong bipartisan roll call. That should be a message to the House. That's how this has to be done. This can't be done by the Republican Caucus in the House; it should be done on a bipartisan basis. When it comes to the farm bill, twice now the Senate has passed the farm bill by strong bipartisan votes, sent it to the House, where it failed last year because they couldn't even call a bill. And this year when it was called, even the Republicans wouldn't vote for it. Now they've stripped out food stamps. I listened to the explanation from Congressman Kelly. He wonders why so many people are receiving assistance, SNAP and food stamps. It's because their wages and incomes are so low. They're working but they can't afford to feed their children. Elderly people on Social Security are not receiving enough to really keep food in the house. That is a problem we should face squarely. It isn't a matter of defrauding American taxpayers. It's a reflection on the weakness in our economy for a lot of hardworking families.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you see any kind of farm bill passing the Senate that does not include money for the food stamp program?

DURBIN: No. Let me tell you, for 50 years -- 50 years we have had a partnership of those living in the cities who are interested in nutritional programs, whether it's food stamps or school lunch, and those who represented rural areas, which I did in Congress. They came together in a farm bill. It was a winning formula. Now the House Republicans have given up on that. That's a mistake. Let's not only grow the food; let's make sure it's distributed fairly across America, particularly so our own people don't go hungry. Separating out these two issues is not in the best interest of our country.

SCHIEFFER: Getting back to the immigration bill, it apparently, or it looks like that the house is going to pass some sort of bill or a series of bills. But at this point it look like, I don't see very much sentiment for anything that deals with the 11 million people who are in this country undocumented, the so-called called illegals in this country. It's hard for me to see how the Senate would pass anything that didn't deal with that.

DURBIN: I agree with you. And we started this debate -- started this conversation among Democrats and Republicans with two basic understandings. First, a path to citizenship. It's long, it's tough, folks have to come forward and register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, be monitored to make sure they have no criminal background that troubles us. Give them a chance for 10 years to pay taxes and not receive government benefits, and then an opportunity of a three-year path to legalization. I think it's fair, it's certainly not amnesty. And we said to the Republicans, all right, I will give when it comes to the border. Do I think we're overspending in our bill on border security? Yes, I do. But on the Republican side they insisted on it. We agreed to it, and came up with 14 Republicans who said this is fair way to reduce the likelihood of illegal immigration. Couple it with the E-Verify system at the employment place, couple it with checking on visas, entry and exit. It's a sound, solid system. I'm afraid when it comes to this border security there's never enough for some. They say it's about border security, that's the reason they can't be for immigration reform. I think it's about something else.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you quickly about what Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said this morning. He said the United States is going to have to take an even tougher line with Iran and let them know that if they proceed with this nuclear program that it -- that the United States will simply not tolerate it, that this regime cannot survive. What is your advice right now to the administration on that?

DURBIN: I think the administration position is the right one. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. The notion of a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable. It will not only create a threat to Israel, the Middle East, and even the United States, but it will trigger this arms race in the Arabian Peninsula of others that will now seek nuclear arms if Iran has them. We cannot let that happen. We put sanctions in place but we made it clear to the Iranians there is a point beyond which we cannot allow them to go. Neither the American people nor Congress are seeking a war, we're not looking for one. But the Iranian leadership shouldn't push us to the brink. There will come a point where United States has to stand up for our best interest and the best interests of our allies and friends in the Middle East.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, Senator, thank you so much for being with us this morning. And we'll be back in one minute with our panel of analysts.

SCHIEFFER: Well, it's very busy news day as it were, but if we ever had a panel that could handle it, certainly none better than this one. We're going to talk about all of it, Peggy Noonan, our friend, columnist for The Wall Street Journal; John Harris, also our friend, editor-in-chief of Politico; David Sanger, one of my oldest friends, chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times; and Bobby Ghosh, also a good friend, the international editor of TIME magazine. Well, friends, what should we talk about here? I mean, with all of this, Peggy, what's the most important thing here?

PEGGY NOONAN, COLUMNIST, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Oh, I think probably the story that everybody in America woke up learning this morning, which is the Zimmerman verdict. Funny thing, everybody thought, oh my goodness, the verdict is going to come, and everybody will know within 20 seconds. Well, in fact it had come overnight, rather late last night. I think it's a big story. I think we'll all be talking about it and America will be sort of deciding what it thinks about it over the next 12 hours.

SCHIEFFER: Is this another O.J. Simpson verdict and will we -- so far no reaction like that.

JOHN HARRIS, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, POLITICO: Well, it is like Simpson in that it leaves a lot of people confounded, I'd say dumbfounded, and some people frankly have ash in their mouth over it. But I suspect it may also be like Simpson in that people, as emotional as they get, do reserve a certain detachment, a certain coolness. They understand the criminal justice system, as mad as they get. I remember at the time of Simpson in '95, people worried there was going to be huge explosions of anger, it was going to rock the system. Actually it didn't, people brush off and move on. So we'll see if that's what happens in this case.

SCHIEFFER: You think this was about race, David?

DAVID SANGER, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: What struck me the most about the trial, Bob, was that race was the discussion outside the courtroom with everybody, whether or not this was racial profiling that Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in or not, whether or not he harbored an intent to go out and confront Trayvon Martin. Inside the courtroom, race was the subtext but it never really came up explicitly except in a few flashes and few moments. And, of course, the whole nature of the system, as John said, is to decide this on a narrow sort of facts in which race was explicitly sort of excluded as being the issue. And so I think that partly explains why you're seeing such a differing sense outside the courtroom than in. There was really two trials going on.

SCHIEFFER: Bobby, you watch mostly international stuff. And you've been following Egypt and all that. But how do you think this is going to be viewed? Is this something that people around the world will talk about or is this something pretty much that people in the United States will be fixated on because certainly they have? Certainly cable television has.

BOBBY GHOSH, INTERNATIONAL EDITOR, TIME: People worldwide are interesting. There is a lot of sense of, what, this again, in worldwide opinion. Didn't we go through all this with the O.J. Simpson trial? I think there's a lot of the same dumbfounded response that you see in this country. And I think there's a dissatisfaction probably felt here as well about not hearing from Zimmerman. That is the one thing that hopefully we'll hear from him in the next few weeks and months maybe when this thing goes to civil court, maybe if some federal investigation takes place, or maybe if Mr. Zimmerman puts himself out there with the media. We haven't heard from him. And that feels unsatisfactory.

SCHIEFFER: Well, you heard, John, Ben Jealous at the NAACP, said they're going to push the Justice Department to file some sort of criminal action here, like a hate crime kind of action or something.

HARRIS: I think there is going to be intense pressure from the civil rights community on Attorney General Holder and, by inference, also on President Obama.

NOONAN: Which means it will be political. And we're trying to talk about justice and the doing of justice, not political stuff. We try as much as we can to be keep them apart. It seems to me, you know, I was one of those the past few weeks watching cable TV, constantly looking for Egypt, because I wanted to know what was happening and what appeared to be a second revolution. Instead it was the Zimmerman trial. Three weeks, talented lawyers, everybody alert and listening, only six jurors, who had a lot of responsibility on them. It seems to me in our own awkward American way we attempted to get something like justice, came up with a decision I think probably to go beyond that will seem a highly political choice as opposed to a choice in pursuit of justice.

SCHIEFFER: You know, in our own awkward American way, we also saw again the Congress manage to not do anything. I mean, they pass a farm bill but they gut it of any money for food stamps. The House says, no way, no how will they have any part of the immigration bill here. What happens now? I mean, my sense of it is, is I don't think we'll have, at the end of the day, an immigration bill, I think it just won't happen.

SANGER: A few weeks ago I was somewhat optimistic that there would be a bill. I think that today it seems much more doubtful that by the end of the year the House will come up with something. It's possible it could get cobbled together. In the end, the president, I think, would have to be out a lot more than he probably has been.

SCHIEFFER: Talk about the political fallout from this, John. I mean, what does this mean for the Republican Party?

HARRIS: Well, I that is the crucial variable in this, Bob. There's no question long term this is a terrible problem for Republicans if they're seen as hostile to Hispanic Americans. But there's a big question as to what it means in the short term. Do people who want comprehensive immigration reform, can they impose a penalty on Republicans in the timeframe that matters, i.e., the 2014 elections? A lot of Republicans I think have made the calculation, this does not hurt us in 2014 in terms of holding the House or expanding our margins.

SCHIEFFER: But what does it do for 2016 and Republican chances in the presidential race?

NOONAN: We'll see. It's 2013 right now, and there will be a few congressional sessions in which you can probably work out at least parts of this bill, or maybe something in the end you can call comprehensive. But I'm starting to think, as I look at this whole thing, 1986, last big comprehensive immigration reform took place within a context of unemployment going down, the economy getting stronger and people having a sense of economic dynamism. This is the first bill since then, comprehensive immigration. It's not taking place in the same context. And it doesn't have the same feel around it. And I think, among Republicans, surely, there is an increased sense, wait a second, you're going to take low-wage workers who are here now who are Americans; you're going to put them under added pressure with this thing. We've got to rethink this whole thing. It ain't perfect. Americans want immigration reform. I don't sense they want this bill in the same numbers by any means.

SCHIEFFER: Let me talk quickly about Bibi Netanyahu this morning. He came on pretty strong, David, saying the United States needs to take a harder line here.

SANGER: He did. I heard him doing two different things, Bob, during this. The first was obviously put pressure on President Obama, who has said very little about Iran in the past few months, in part because you've had Syria blowing up and Egypt blowing up. The last thing he's looking for right now is another confrontation. And I think that Mr. Netanyahu senses that the administration knows that, if they put out a very big comprehensive offer to the Iranians, beyond what they have done so far, and the Iranians reject it, it puts the president in the position of having to make a decision on military action. I heard the prime minister do one other thing, too, in response to your question about his red line, when he held up that big, sort of, cartoonish image of a bomb. I think the Israelis now recognize that the prime minister, when he spoke at the U.N. last year, set the red line in the wrong place. He did it with one narrow way that the Iranians could get to a weapon. As he himself said, the Iranians are making progress in two alternative routes, and they're not quite sure how to go deal with that right now. And so I think you heard him try to set some new ones.

SCHIEFFER: Bobby, why do you think Benjamin Netanyahu decided now was the time to come on American television and say this?

GHOSH: I think he's trying to, sort of, head things off at the pass, a little bit. His fear is that, now that there's a new president in Iran who seems to be saying some of the right things, he worries that American public opinion and the administration might feel a little conciliatory towards the new regime. And so the quote that I took away that was quite significant was when he said "The previous president was a wolf in wolf's clothing; the new president is a wolf in sheep's clothing." And I think that was the key he wanted to -- he wanted to head that off, a little bit.

SCHIEFFER: Well, I want to thank all of you. We could go on for the rest of the morning here, but...

(LAUGHTER)

... we have to take a break. The clock caught up with us. We'll be right back.

SCHIEFFER: That's it for us today. We want to thank you for being with us on "Face the Nation." We hope you'll stay with this CBS station for the latest on all of these developing news stories and also be sure and watch "CBS This Morning" for the latest then. They will have the lawyers from that case down in Sanford, Florida. Thanks for being here. We'll see you next week.