create new opportunities for those who need it most. without a doubt, it will be women who lead the way. when women lead this fight, we will and poverty in america. only when america -- every american woman and family gives -- gets a fair shot to achieve their full potential, will americans ever be able to achieve there's. thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> can everybody hear me all right? senator, thank you so much. that was quite an exhilarating challenge to all of us. if i could summarize your agenda for american opportunity, it has five planks. paid leave, raise the minimum wage, affordable childcare, universal pre-k, and equal pay for equal work. they are all really important issues. i want to try to relate them bek to what we will discussing all day. you mentioned the war on poverty and the fact we are celebrating an anniversary and everybody is talking about that. one of the academics that is here today from columbia university. have recently done a study which you may or may not have seen. i found it is very interesting. although many people on the right have said that the war on , it did noterty won work. their study shows that the war on poverty reduced poverty appropriately measured by 10% or 11%. is another message coming out of that study and out of this discussion we are having now. a did pretty well creating safety net for people at the autumn who were not doing very well. we did not do as good of a job tochanging the labor market achieve middle-class status through their own efforts at comic -- becoming self- sufficient. there are some elements that speak to that. catching are just people and helping them when they are down like unemployment insurance is part of the safety net. pre-k programs are part of helping people climb the ladder. the head this study of start program that said it was not having the kinds of effects that we earlier thought that it would have. -- i am think about talking about long-term now. when you think long-term, some of us worry and think tank land, what do you think we need to do to improve long-term opportunities for people to be self-sufficient? it is not an argument against helping them if we are -- if they are down on their luck. the most important change we need to make is recognizing the change of the face of the workforce. most of our workforce policies of were set in place in the block had, 70s. if a 10 homes on it, seven of the husbands would he going to work and the wife would stay home. now five have two parents working. three have a single mom working. only to have a parent staying home with the child. if you create a work waste that has enough flexibility to accommodate families, you will thetantly be undervaluing underperformance of your workers. women are typically the primary caregivers for both caregivers -- children and aging parents. you need a more family-friendly workforce holocene. that means equal pay for equal work. make sure that they are not getting shortchanged for every month. you do not have women off ramping every time there is a family emergency. that woman never has a chance to give back to the economy. fortier percent of our workforce in new york state is women. you are chained -- shortchanging an economic engine i'm not giving those opportunities. flexibility. something as simple as universal pre-k and affordable day care, that is good for every child that she has. she will need that kind of support where she will not be in the work voice full-time. engines that are being entirely untapped for our workforce. it is a huge problem. >> it has been an enormous transformation, the fact that women have moved into the workforce. now 40% of the primary breadwinners. rosen wrote a book called "the end of men." one of the reasons we have so many single parents is because the men can no longer make enough money to get married and support a family. is that also a concern? rights tor women's climb the ladder and do better, what do we do about the men? >> they are still being paid a dollar on the dollar. they are being paid fairly for their work. we want work is policies for families. there may want to be men who want to be primary caregivers during their may be men that want flexibility if there mother or father is dying. if you have family-friendly policies that both parents will be able to take advantage and be able to be there when needs arise. for all of those single- parent families, they need that flexibility. they will help more women than men because it is more often than not the woman who has to sideline her career for family. there are many men in the same situation. this up for the audience to ask a couple of questions here. and yourate your name affiliation if you would. right here. right. >> my name is edna. the world organization for childhood education. i want to point out that robert samuels' column in the post. i want to caution you not to make a dichotomy between child care and early education. i don't think you were. quite often, people do. they see one as quite different than the other. all programs from children six weeks to six years are educational. children are learning all the time. they do not start when they go to school. >> universal pre-k is different than affordable day care. it is a different mechanism. my children were in daycare. i know the early childhood education they received was tremendous. was $10,000 a year. affordability is a huge problem. that are too many moms could not use the daycare available to federal workers because they could not afford it. saw the early childhood education built right in. from infant care right onto pre- k. affordability is as important as universality. >> one more question since we are running out of time. everybody knows you. >> i usually have a really loud voice. as you know, i am very sympathetic to this agenda you put forward. i am curious why this has not taken hold more within the democratic arty or maybe it will. are of the proposals obviously consensus proposals like the minimum wage. the package speaks to a lot of different aspects of what we are talking about. action, notmore just from women members but party wide? >> i think so. as women and mothers we have particular sensitivity to these issues because we see it everyday. i see what benefit my children get from daycare. i know that i could have done my job well without the flexibility that was given for hague family medical leave for both of my children. issues, iak to these speak very passionately about them. i know what opportunity is being missed for those who do not have them. heart andk from the also from real life. that is one reason i think these issues are coming to the floor now. i think the democratic and republican party will be able to wrap hold of these issues as a generational issue. tot do we need to do actually make a middle class that can thrive? both democratre and republicans. gave a veryt significant speech where he mentioned a couple of ideas just a few months ago. we had speaker pelosi do a very good press event with members of the house on this issue. i think these issues will continue to be talked about. i will do everything i can to make sure that i talk about them a lot. that is a good idea. that will have a real economic impact that will make a difference. we really wish you well on this agenda. please join me in thanking the senator. [applause] >> on the next washington journal, scott original discusses the congressional compromise. then, a west virginia representative looks at the ongoing response to a,: leaked. after that, somebody from the association of american medical colleges answers questions posed by many of our viewers. how many doctors are needed to implement the health care law? that is on "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. on c-span. of presidentembers obama's group will testify on their recommendations for changes in the government surveillance program. you can watch the senate judiciary committee live on tuesday on c-span3. by 1895, nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga. that was quite an economic base. the switching yard, repair shop. employment and money turning over by the workers prov stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. still move railroads an amazing amount of town age through chattanooga. -- trainns, chain after train. they go to the seaports on the atlantic coast and they are going to georgia. there is still a lot of commodities that moved by rail. they have to come through chattanooga. weekend, a look at the history of chattanooga, tennessee. tworday afternoon on c-span and sunday on c-span3. >> as the president for stated in march and reemphasized on tuesday night, the goal of the united states in afghanistan and pakistan is to dismantle and defeat out qaeda and its extremist allies and prevent its return to vote countries. gates served two presidents as defense secretary 2006-2011 and cia director in the early 1990s. a live book tv event. talked about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in a few weeks, look at women's history for beginners author bonnie morris. of january,he rest join our book tv discussion. .org to enter the chat. chair of the house budget committee was also at the brookings institution social mobility summit. he spoke about the war on poverty started by president johnson and why he believes it has failed. this is 30 minutes. social mobility including community resources like churches and volunteer groups. we have a long day of discussions, started this ,orning with senator joe brandt and now we are talking about thertunity and poverty in united states. in our relentless attempts to be nonpartisan or bipartisan we began today with the democrats have german paul ryan of the budget committee. here is something that might surprise you. knowledge counts for a lot in congress. paul ryan's career illustrates this claim. he was a former congressional staffer and we all know they are necessarily brilliant. second upon arriving in congress he looked around and asked himself, what makes this place run? the answer, of course, is money and the budget is the source of all money, so he decided he would learn more about the federal budget than anyone else. he knewn hour or two, more about the budget than anybody up on the hill. and of course the most senior positions on the hill are based on merit and logic, so it was natural he would become the head of the budget committee. another thing that might surprise you -- before he was so interested in me budget, he was very interested in issues having to do with poverty and opportunity. especially opportunity. he had top staffers in this area, which is always key to understanding what a member of congress is really concerned about. recently, he has been doing an amazing thing, or just spending a lot of time in inner cities and other poor communities meeting with people who run programs for the poor. this is not exactly on the top of the list for most republican members of congress, so it's quite an amazing thing. he is learning from these poor communities and what policies they are driving into. so, chairman ryan? [applause] >> thanks so much, ron. over in thell hallway. talk.d i and ron had a i'm a big fan of their work. these jokesack about coming out of the incubator of the conservative think tank, but this is my fifth time. i do not think i can make those jokes anymore. i feel comfortable. i am here to give a report on social ability, the opening. it came out six years ago. i read it last week. i'm grateful you invited me here. i'm very pleased to see this conversation occurring. they asked me to do two things. the issueow do i see of opportunity? ways towhat are some increase opportunity? what is opportunity and how do we get more of it? behind every opportunity is someone who takes a chance. you mentor a child. you advise the student. you hire someone. two people, normally strangers, pay for a bond and create value to spread knowledge, to help each other. so, i would say the key to andrtunity is trust. government, when used wisely, can increase that trust. take one example. the interstate highway system. that is something we can all agree on. of course the federal government should build the interstate highway system, because that would encourage interstate commerce. it did for >> reason. the more -- it did for a simple reason. the more people interact, the more they trust. the more there is trust, the more there is collaboration. the more there is collaboration, the more there is economic growth. for me, when it comes to judging a particular policy reform, i have a really simple test. does it bring people together, or pull them apart? does it encourage trust and collaboration, or does it stifle them? powerfult is a very tool. too powerful, you might say. just as it can build and encourage, it can frustrate and it's her. as a conservative, i look at ronald reagan and his insights. one of his insights is that tax breaks do not just take money out of people's pockets. they can take people out of the workforce. just as government can increase opportunity, government can destroy it as well. and perhaps -- there is no better example of government's missty to disappoint, to the mark then lbj's war on poverty. this month marks the 50th anniversary of that work. for years politicians have pointed to the money they have spent for the programs they created. but this way our spending trillions of dollars, 47 million people live in poverty. of seven people. that is the highest rate in the generation. it'se spending a lot, and just not working. it is missing its mark. well, why? i think it all goes back to opportunity. poverty is not just form -- some form of deprivation. it is a form of isolation. if there is anything i have been learning, it is that. what we know about the poor? ron would say three things. they are less likely to have graduated from high school, they are less likely to work full- time, and they are less likely to have gotten married before they had kids. they have been taught off from three crucial sources of support -- education, work, and family. government is not solely responsible for these trends, but in other ways government is deepening the divide. for the past 50 years it has built up a hodgepodge of programs in a furious attempt to replace these missing links. and because these programs are so disorganized and dysfunctional, they pull families those are two government and away from society in so many -- they pull families closer to government and away from society in so many ways. our goal should be to reintegrate the poor into communities, but washington has been locked up like they are in some massive quarantine. we need to bring them into our civil society. they are not fulfilling their potential, and we, we are all missing out. povertyto remember that is not some rare disease from which the rest of us are all of me in. -- from which the rest of us are all immune. expression of a widespread disease, economic insecurity. most families worry about making insmed me. that is why concern for the poor -- it's not some policy next. -- it's not some policyniche. it cannot be -- it is not some policy niche. checked onome box the next contract with america. so, how do we bring in the poor? i'm afraid i don't have all the answers, but a little humility in washington might be a good start. today i would like to talk about a couple of ways to improve our ending poverty efforts. here are two ideas. complicity and standards. i think it would help us with one big problem that we call the poverty trap. you see, it turns out the central planners are not very good at planning after all. washington attacks problems with a haphazard, whack a mole approach. is no exception. it is the nature of the beast. before johnson became president, we have social security. johnson added programs. after he retired from office, washington kept adding to the alphabet soup. the list goes on. urban institute, a man has done interesting work on the problem. because these programs were developed at different times, there is little coordination among them. are meanse they tested, poor families face discouraging tax rates. the government actually discourages them from making more money. what does this mean? with two kidsmom in colorado. if her income jumps, she will extraep much of her $30,000. according to these calculations if she enrolled in lands like her stamps, s-chip, marginal rate will be as high as 15%. thehe is another programs, rate will reach about 80%. in other words, you go to work and you will keep less than $.20 of every extra dollar you earn. i'm sure she's not going to walk around with a calculator going where is my implicit marginal tax rate? but she gets it. the government is holding her back. this has to be addressed. the good news is, there is a better way to do this. policy makers are working on a solution to the problem all the way around. simplicity. in 2012, britain produced a far reaching reform. the government is putting this idea into practice. erupt.oing to there are no two ways about that. the basic concept is very simple. we should learn from their experience. it took six programs ranging from housing to income support and collapsed them into one overall funding. familyre cut off once a made a certain amount of money with the old programs. with the new program, they are tapered off gradually. eitc gives workers a boost without hurting their prospects. yeah i.t. see increases employment among low skilled workers. ite the universal credit, gives families credit. it helps them take ownership of their lives. there is certainly room for improvement. just last week my friend senator marco rubio propose that workers get assistance once a month instead of once a year so it's easier for them to plan ahead. that is an idea in my opinion it makes a lot of sense. but whatever form it takes place, we have to encourage work. there should be standards. concept.a novel in 1996, congress began to require people on welfare to work. and welfare rolls dropped dramatically. child poverty fell by double digits. the problem is, we have not applied this sensible far enough. we need to do more. man whoikes to say, a is involved at that moment, what works his work. way we to change the think about work. it is not a penalty. it is the shortest, surest route back into society. if you are working, you are meeting people. you are learning new skills. you are contributing to society. that is the westway -- that is the best way to get a raise or a new job. we want people back in the work or so they can share their talents and their new skills with the rest of us. we are losing out as much as they are. in short, federal assistance should not be a way station. it ought to be an on ramp, a quick drive back into the hustle and bustle of life. we have got a lot more work to do. we have to tackle a host of issues. education, criminal justice, criminal reform, health care. performers at the state and local level are already doing a lot of this artwork. federal government should let them take the lead and learn from their example. said here is very radical, but you can already hear the howls of protest from certain corners. all i would say to the critics idease criticizing new and perhaps new thinking in a more effective war on poverty, all i would say is, we want to hear their ideas, too. good intentions are not enough. concern for the poor -- concern for the poor does not demand a commitment to the status quote. it demands a commitment to results. we should not measure our results by how much we spend on welfare. we should measure our results by how many people we helped get off of welfare. later this year, i plan on saying a whole lot more about this subject. but before i rollout any policy prescription for were families, i need to hear more from the -- for poor families, i need you hear more from the real experts. the families themselves. if there is one thing i have learned from 15 years in congress, it is that washington does not have all the answers. in fact, sometimes they are right under our noses. my mother used to tell me -- son, you have two ears and one mouth. use them and that proportion. sometimes in congress i have lost sight of that. heed that kind of advice. just as we need to run the numbers and study up on the issues. we need to help -- we need to listen the people we are trying to out, because they are the ones on the front lines. only the people in the community can solve the problems facing their community. trust is the bedrock of opportunity. federal government has to trust them with all of the respect to all the brilliant minds here at brookings and capitol hill -- we need all hands on deck. we need to enlist these poverty fighters, the people who never come to washington. we need to enlist these community leaders and working families in the real war on poverty. there is only one way to beat artie, and that is face to face. for too long -- there is only one way to be poverty, and that is face to face. to themselves, i'm working hard. i'm paying my taxes. government is going to take care of us. in so many ways, the government has reinforced and encouraged this view. that is not going to cut it anymore. we need everybody to get involved. every person, community to community, face to face. the truth is in you are helping people in need, you are helping yourself. into reintegrate the poor our community as we will reinvigorate the country overall. with healthy, growing families will have a healthy, growing economy. at its best, collaboration does not just build a growing economy. -- it builds better character. it will make us a better country. le, thank you for your invitation. i look forward to the conversation. i think it is vital we make every family part of the american experiment. and if we have a vibrant battle of ideas, we will get there and make this moment what it is. thank you very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you. interesting remarks. at that a lot of people in the audience are reflecting on them and thinking about questions it would like to ask you. but i'm the one who gets to ask you the questions, so -- a lot of what you say has the ring of white used to be called compassionate conservatism -- has the ring of what used to be called compassionate conservatism. are you a compassionate conservative? >> i am not a fan of that term. it implies that conservatism is not compassionate. i think that it is the most compassionate form of government because it respects the dignity of the individual. it aims to have -- to help the most people have the best life. the condition of your birth does -- determine the outcome of your life. that is how i was raised. irish catholic family, from immigrants who came from the irish potato famine. wellave documented this so -- stewart over at heritage -- we are losing sight of it. we are losing mobility. we understand that. that whole generations of americans do not know what this is. when you explain it or tell it to them, they don't think it is for them. that is a problem. i do believe that conservatism is the best answer for this, otherwise i would not be who i am. answer to know the the next question, and it will get a laugh anyway. tony blair said the only difference between compassionate conservatism and conservatism is under compassionate conservatism, they tell you they are not going to help you, but they're really sorry. [laughter] i'm going to guess you disagree with that. the leftdoes show that makes jokes about the sort of thing. i realize you do not like the term. but many things you discuss i think our part and parcel of what people think of as -- local, working face to face, helping people in the place where they live, listening to them. people ono you say to the left to say that is not going to cut it? are advocates of the status quo or who advocated for the status of where we are right now say just you more of this, that does not cut it. for those who say it could be worse, that is hardly an effective answer. do we mean when we say conservatism? or why do we have better ideas? i truly believe that we have made the mistake in this war on poverty with the unintended consequence, mind you, that we have displaced immunity. that we have crowded out and pushed aside what many of us call civil society and we have told people in this country it is no longer their responsibility to help care for others. that is not saying this is just a convenient excuse for cutting a program or stopping the federal government's role role. government'sl roll. no, i'm not trained to say that. i think the left made the mistake of thinking this was all about material deprivation. we isolated people in our communities and they put a wall separating people from integrating with each other. we need to tear down those walls, look at how these programs are doing harm, trapping people in poverty, and how we can refocus on an agenda of upper mobility, turning that escalator back on and getting people back into life. i always hesitate to say this because as a person in government, it sounds preachy, but you cannot ignore the culture. you have written all the stuff about marriage, the breakdown of family. these things cannot be ignored. it is not someone in washington who was going to solve this. this is media, churches, everything. barriersmove a lot of that are harming our culture. we can remove a lot of barriers that are slowing down income mobility, harming economic growth and opportunity. that is what we should focus on. that to me is what a proactive positive conservative solution would look like. that programs. many people see you as a hero in this effort does you have tried to balance the budget. is that a necessary part of your war on poverty, to cut programs? >> it has nothing to do with a line on a spreadsheet. it has nothing to do with what the number ought to be. it has everything to do with is this working or not? working means people getting on with their lives and hitting their potential. our people having the best chance to make the most of their life in this society? i do believe that freedom, free enterprise rock or by keeping -- free enterprise brought forth by keeping government limited is the best way to do this. that does not mean we believe no government. we men -- we believe a government that is effective. weare biting off more than can chew. we are crowding out civil society. we are presuming we can replace these missing links and civil society that just can't be replaced i anything but families. have --t this fight we i do believe we will lose this century. it does not matter if you read charles murray or any of these folks. we are on a dangerous trajectory in this country. the economy is a big part of that. slow growth is part of that. the greatest casualty is the least among us, the poor being trapped in poverty. i really believe we need to take a look at this. when we apply our principles -- liberty, freedom, free enterprise, self-determination, subsidiaries -- along with solidarity and community, you can have a rich, vibrant mosaic of a society where people can really make the most of their lives. we can get back to those days of upper mobility where people come to this country or are born in this country and say, i can make it. i can be who i want to be. we can get there if we really compete for these outcomes. if we measure all the stuff, how much money we throw at it, what the spreadsheet looks like, we will miss the mark. but if we measure based on outcome and results, i feel like we can make a difference. let's assume you are right and the real problem is government and too many programs and removing too much authority and responsibility from local levels in churches and so forth. can you actually foresee that you could convince some of the people in this audience and the people in the media and voters of wisconsin and the rest of the country, especially states like new york and california but that is true and the government is really in the way and if you that that is true and government is really in the way and if you balance the budget there will be a better result? >> why would i be doing this if i didn't believe that? [laughter] honestly. >> some people call it an heroic act and know you probably cannot convince people, but you know you are right. once said, of mine you do not want to be sitting on rockingnt porch in your chair with your grandkid on your knee and say, you know what, granddaughter? to hell ina went handbasket, i want you to know that i voted no every epoch the way. [laughter] majorityeve that the of americans understand what is going on today is not working. that society is fraying at the seams. that we have to do something different. that the status quo is not working. and i think new ideas based on these ideals that were the founding principles of our country that made us special in the first place, i do believe the majority of americans can agree with this, can embrace this. if i did not believe that, why would i be doing this? what is the point? do i believe the principles of welfare reform that were majority principles in 1976 can the gun again? yes. they were. the results are very effective. do i believe that americans want a safety net that is effective, that is truly their for people in need? yes. conservatives believe that, too. i think what happens in these lump someone into a character. this is a liberal who cares nothing about growing -- who cares nothing except about growing government. is person just want to help the rich, who wants no government. you know what? it's probably somewhere way in the middle between those two spears. -- those two spheres. on those caricatures, we will just do this all the time, we will just smash into each other. if we have a conversation about how to or economic development, a conversation about our culture, which is inherently nongovernment, i believe we can make a difference. and i believe a majority of americans still believe in the american dream, the american idea, and if they knew they could do something to build their communities, they will do it. i believe it can be done. yes, i do. end by inviting -- when you do want to say what your agenda is. and i'm sure their audience will want to hear the specifics. >> after heritage, right? >> no, before heritage. [laughter] >> for joining me. >> by 1895, nine different railroads terminated in chattanooga. that created quite an economic base. we know that a switching yard or a repair shop was a great terminal in the southeast. all of that employment am a all of that money turning over by the workers to provide an economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. railroads still move an amazing amount of tonnage through chattanooga. train after train loaded with the seaports on the atlantic seacoast or going to power plants in georgia. a lot of still commodities that moved by rail. they have to come through chattanooga. atof this weekend, a look the history and literary life of chattanooga, tennessee. that is sunday at 5:00 p.m. on c-span three. >> state department deputy spokesman responded to reports that u.n. inspectors are concerned about the amount of access they will have two iranian nuclear sites. january 20 is the date that the iranian nuclear program is supposed to come to a stop. here is a look at monday's briefing. >> it was a busy weekend. they told us that they -- that it fell short of what they need to investigate. what access do you need? and if they do not have the access to do this properly, what you say to those in congress arguing for greater sanctions? >> i have not actually seen the iaea comments. on january 20, when the joint plan of action is implemented, we are going to have the most access we have ever had to these sites. that's to these sites. daily inspector access. monthly access in iraq. the iaea is taking the lead on verifying and confirming what the iranians confirmed to doing. i think it is significant to note that for the first time in almost a decade next week the iranian program will come to a halt. in terms of the congressional aspect of this, i think the fact that we have taken a concrete, tangible step in implementing this agreement. all the things you mentioned, stopping 20% enrichment -- all the things they have committed to will start happening on the 20th. we will make the case to congress that for all the people who have talked about diplomacy, we are making concrete and tangible progress. no one should do anything that could possibly derail the progress. this is the best chance we have had for diplomatic resolution forever in the iranian nuclear program and who knows when we will get this chance again? we need to get this done. >> [inaudible] to be able to do their job? we have known the limits on the iranian team before. do they need full access? >> we have not -- i have not seen those comments. we believe that full transparency was a good step forward. it gives us daily access. monthly access in iraq. things we have never had before. insight we have never had before. clearly this is not enough. the first step is not enough in any of these areas. for the first time, we will have transparency into their nuclear program. why would anyone want to do anything -- especially something that does not even go into effect at the current time -- that could possibly close the doors on this progress? why would you want to do something that could possibly result in inspectors not being allowed in on a daily basis? that could derail negotiation? it defies logic if you support diplomacy, you should not be doing things to actively undermine it. >> is it your understanding -- they are not dismantling the facility is because the iranians have said that they have invested almost a decade in it? >> a couple points on iraq. the first step -- there are all whole host of things they cannot do on the first plan of action. there will likely have to be some dismantling. that will be negotiated over the next six months and a comprehensive agreement. what we have found is there will be a complete halt and we will increase monitoring. if the goal is to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, building a road does not do anything to impact that one way or another. >> you could not hear me. i was here yesterday. >> i know. i meant to call on you. was that your question? >> yes. >> i'm glad you got to ask you. yes? >> you were not forgoing any enrichment level? is that good enough? >> good enough in what way? >> he said that iran would not have in enrichment level above five percent. >> we have always said the iranians, if they said they were only wanted a peaceful nuclear program, they could prove it. that is what this is about. if they fulfill their commitments under the plan of action, that is certainly credible. words are not enough given the history here. that is why we need to see actions. that is why it is so important that on january 20 we will see iran take concrete, tangible actions that could be to a comprehensive agreement. >> he is meeting with everyone there. do you see that as a positive agreement with iran and the region? >> we see the nuclear issue as a separate one. we have been very clear about that. it places like syria and lebanon iran has created a stabilizing role in many of these countries. i do not have a comment on prime minister sharif's visit. obviously he has been part of the nuclear negotiations. more on iran? anything else on iran? ok, lucas. then i will go back to you on iran. >> they have said they will continue to enrich beyond 20% until the january 20 line. is that in keeping with the spirit? >> the current status of iran's nuclear program -- including specifically its nuclear program and the iraq reactor -- regardless of what they do between now and then, they will halt production of 20% enriched uranium. they will start to dilute half of the 20% enriched uranium and convert the rest to a form not suitable for further enrichment. at the end of the six months, they will have completed the dilution of 20% enriched uranium or converted. regardless what they do between now and then, if at the end of six months if they are faithful to their commitment, they will have completed the dilution of 20% of the stockpile of enriched uranium. >> do you think this is equivalent to binge drinking or eating before you go on a diet? >> i don't and i'm not going to use that term. they have an obligation to fulfill their commitment. we have a clear idea about the difficulty, but they have committed on their own to do these things. so, we expect them to stand by their word and fulfill their commitments and again that speaks very clearly to the 20% uranium stockpile. they are very specific, detailed about what they have to do in the six months. >> why would they continue to enrich up until the deadline cap out >> i'm not going to guess what their motivations are. yes? west virginia representative nic k rahall looks at the ongoing response to a chemical leak in his state. after that, someone from the american association of medical colleges answers questions from our viewers. how many doctors are needed to implement the new health care law? journal" live at 7:00 eastern on c-span. on tuesday, we will take you live to a house financial services subcommittee meeting the on mortgage rules that take effect this month. our live coverage starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. members of president obama's review group testify about their intentions to change government surveillance programs. this will be live at 2:30 eastern, also on c-span3. >> as the president for stated in march and reemphasized tuesday night, the goal of the united states in afghanistan and pakistan is to dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its allies. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve its overarching goals. twoobert gates served presidents as defense secretary and as cia director in the early 90s. a live book tv event. secretary gates talked about his role in the wars in iraq and afghanistan. also, "women's history for beginners" author bonnie morris. that will be feathery second at noon eastern. join our book tv book club discussion. go to thetv.ort to chat. next, our first lady ladies program featuring nancy reagan. and then a service for former prime minister ariel sharon. that is followed by a discussion of the midterm elections.

Related Keywords

New York , United States , Germany , Iran , Afghanistan , California , Georgia , Wisconsin , Syria , Columbia University , Lebanon , Washington , District Of Columbia , Pakistan , United Kingdom , West Virginia , Iraq , Tennessee , Colorado , Ireland , Capitol Hill , Britain , Americans , America , Iranian , German , Irish , American , Iranians , Marco Rubio , Al Qaeda , Ariel Sharon , Joe Brandt , Ronald Reagan , Robert Samuel , Tony Blair , Bonnie Morris , Paul Ryan , Nancy Reagan , Hannah Rosen ,