fix what i think is a serious problem that i talked about in my opening remarks, and i would just say that this will only get fixed if -- you hear this i and the legislative branch if we work together and i mean between the branches and with the private sector. so i just want to thank you all for being here this afternoon. i'm going to be introducing legislation on the clarence accountability reform act along with drinking member portman, mccaskill, johnson and others to bring more accountability to the security clearance process. hopefully that will help you do your job you do that is a key part of the legislation that will require updated guidance along with quality controls from you folks, opm and the odni. we require periodic reviews of guidance to make sure there's regulated updates with the requirements. i would say that -- i would argue in fact there is a lack of

guidance that has led us down a path where we now have 5 million folks with security clearances and access to the nation's most sensitive information and facilities. would you like to think about it, brian? go ahead. >> i do not mean to interrupt. i just wanted to clarify we are very sensitive to what you say about that number. as a 5 million number that you are referring to covers both people with security clearances as well as people eligible for access. and being sensitive to that number as you mentioned 5 million of anything is a lot. >> is. spin and because of that, recently and speak of the devil as you mentioned, on halloween, the dni signed an executive correspondence going out to all of the government agencies stating that they need to -- they are required to go through their clearance list and validate the numbers and come back to the people that are being decreased from the clearances and get back with us with that information.

>> when will they get back to you? >> they were given 90 days. >> okay. well, my next question would be if there's 5 million of you that have clearances that are eligible how many have clearances and you will have that and about, what, 75 days or so? okay that's a good. right-click. we believe the last few minutes of the hearing to go right to the heritage foundation now for a discussion on the latest in the air on nuclear program talks and the deal struck between iran and world leaders. >> on the heritage website for everyone's future reference as well. hosting the discussion today is stephen bucci, director of the douglas and sarah allison center for foreign-policy studies. he previously served here is the senior research fellow for defense and homeland security. he is well-versed in special

operations in cybersecurity as well as defense support to civil authorities. he served for three decades as an army special forces officer and top pentagon official. upon retirement for the army comes continued at the pentagon as the deputy assistant deputy t secretary defense, homeland defense and america's security affairs. prior to joining us here, he was a lead consultant at ibm on cyber security policy and is also an adjunct professor of leadership at george mason university and an associate professor of terrorism studies in a cyber security policy at long island university. please join me in welcoming doctor steven bucci. apostates back let me add my welcome to everyone both here and coming on for c-span. i have to tell you, we seldom get the timing of this right on an event. this event was planned thinking we would be commenting on the ongoing discussions. instead, we now have comment on what apparently is a deal.

you have a rare treat here with the panel that we have. i'm going to introduce them quickly so we can get to their remarks. we are going to start with my colleague here at here heritage, jim phillips, the middle eastern analyst. he's focused on middle east and international paragraph on its 1978. he is a former research fellow at the congressional research service. he was a consultant to the national security council, department of defense and the international republic institute and he is a member of the board of editors on the middle east quarterly. he will be followed by patrick who is the director for research and the director of the iran security initiative of the washington institute for near east policy, the largest u.s. think tank that focuses on the middle east. he has edited or written over 30 books and monographs and he speaks persian and farsi so he

can read stuff the rest of us can't. he's also served as a senior economist at the dod national defense university, worked for the world bank international monetary fund and for 18 years was the senior editor of the middle east quarterly and is on the distinguished advisory panel at the department of energy national laboratory which is somewhat troubled and because of the specifics of the discussion. then the cleanup is fred fleitz who served over 25 years in various government security positions with the cia, the department of state and the house intelligence committee staff. he is a specialist in wmd proliferation, specifically focusing on the iranian and north korean nuclear programs. he also served for several years as the chief of staff are both ambassador john bolton and

ambassador robert joseph who were serving as the under secretaries of state for arms control and international security and he's the founder and chief analyst of leaknet.com. i've asked each of the speakers to give ten or 12 minutes about opening comments and then we will get to the q-and-a and i will tell you the rules for that. )-right-paren we will start with jim phillips. >> the interim nuclear agreement with iran that was announced last weekend has been called a historic agreement. but it remains to be seen whether it is a historically bad agreement that fails to halt the drive for new year weapons or if it is just a bad start on the very tough negotiations that would need a firm pressure on iran to reach and sausage and acceptable and sustainable

agreement. i think the final answer won't be known for at least six months that i'm afraid that it's going to be closer to the former than the latter. it should be noted that this is not the first time that iran has reached a so-called historic agreement on its nuclear program. britain, france and germany thought that they had him historic agreement in iran in 2,003 when air on a grade to suspend enrichment activities temporarily and internet initiations. unfortunately, those negotiations went nowhere, and air on eventually dropped its negotiations to years later when it was in its interest to do so. the latest agreement is called a first step agreement but it's more a step towards a nuclear iran than a realistic steps to reverse the nuclear progress. unlike the 2003 agreement, this

one does not suspend enrichment activities and does not halt the end richmond program, that allows iran to proceed at a slower pace. it must be acknowledged that it calls for some steps in the right direction that deal kimberly barber was the uranium enrichment beyond the 5% threshold necessary for the civilian power reactors. it requires iran to reduce its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium by converting it into forms that will be more difficult but not impossible to further enrich. it requires more intrusive inspections of iran's peace with nuclear facilities and that's a good thing. and it obligate the iran to hold back on fueling the iraq heavy water reactor which is a particular point, particular headache because eventually it will give iran an alternative

plutonium route to a nuclear weapon. once it becomes operational. these are all steps in the right direction that can help limit the speed of iran's p5 progress on the nuclear front. the problem is they do not go far enough and they are easily reversible. the interim agreement requires temporary tactical concessions for iran that amounts to a litte more than a diplomatic speed bump that's slow but does not halt the nuclear program. all the most difficult questions are postponed until the final stage of the negotiations and the obama administration already has made major concessions that will reduce the prospect for getting an acceptable and permanent arrangement. the deal is a flawed agreement to risk reducing the sanctions, pressure on iran over the next six months in return for the easily reversible pledges some of which air on has already

given but has reneged on. it requires them to curb some but not all of its activities in return for what the administration estimates is about six to $7 billion of sanctions relief over the next six months. the danger is easing the sanctions as a part of an interim deal will diminish the pressure on iran, underlined the u.s. leverage and reduce the chance of getting a good agreement at the end. significantly, iran is not required to comply with the un security council resolutions that called for the halt in the uranium enrichment and that essentially rewards iran for bad behavior. instead, air on this continuing the fight present levels for its nuclear power reactor despite the fact that russia has been contracted to fuel the facility at least for the next ten years. another problem is the interim

deal that creates a six-month window for the further negotiations may hinder washington's ability to reach a good final deal. in fact there may never be a final deal. air on a string out the negotiations to buy time for new advances and engage in the tactics to force the eager obama administration to enter into one or more additional interim reports with corresponding sanctions relief. we have seen how temporary arrangements can do with permanent solutions in the middle east. the obama administration has been stunned by strong criticism from congress and u.s. allies are taking early israel and france who fear that washington has squandered its leverage by using st. james in return for marginal concessions that will not reduce the long-term threat of an iranian nuclear breakdown. to force tehran to make the necessary concessions in a final

deal, i think more, not fewer sanctions require that the deal requires the administration to refrain from imposing new sanctions over the course of the negotiations. and iran has warned of further sanctions will prompt them to abandon the interim agreement. the administration claims that easing the sanctions would be reversible if they default on their obligations but as long as iran keeps the talks alive even if they are just limping along it will be difficult to impose such about being accused of sabotaging negotiation. even before the interim deal was reached, the administration resisted bipartisan congressional efforts to impose new sanctions on iran's p5 nuclear program that white house spokesman jay carney warned that pressure on air on could derail the negotiations and lead to a march 2 war and i would argue

that on the contrary, not being tough enough on iran with the sanctions were further talks with geneva could actually increase the chances of the war and that israel will go alone and launch a preventive strike and air on's nuclear infrastructure. the israeli prime minister netanyahu denounced the deal as a mistake and warned that israel has the right and duty to defend itself by its self and i think this warning shouldn't be dismissed or treated lightly. and i think it's important, particularly important what happens in regard to the heavy water reactor of iraq which essentially is a plutonium bomb factory. the first agreement delay is, not halt. the final agreement accepts the continued work it could lead to a repeat of the north korean fiasco only in reverse. in 1994 the clinton administration will have closed

off north korea's path to a bomb through plutonium route and then subsequently discovered that north korea had hidden uranium enrichment programs at which it used to get a nuclear weapon and i think that iran could very well try to reverse. another important point is that iraq will be vulnerable once it is operational because striking it then could result in the release of such substantial amounts of radiation that's been called on the reactor meltdown and that will make a preventive strike virtually impossible. israel has twice launched strikes against civil reactors in the past before they could be put into operation. iraq you will see the reactor in 1981 and most recently in this

area, 2007. so it's particularly important to permanently halt the work on iraq. commissioning that reactor is actually what if iran a free pass and close the window on israel's military option. another landmine embedded in the deal is that it allowed tehran to pocket the recognition of its so-called right to enrichment three of its important to note there is no such right. the nuclear nonproliferation treaty gives iran a peaceful program but doesn't say anything specifically about the enrichment. in fact most or many countries around the world don't have enrichment programs that biofuel from elsewherbuy thefuel from ee tehran was truly interested in an economic solution to its energy problem, this is what it would take. but it's clear that iran has more than just peaceful intentions.

iran president has a deal in which the p5+1 have essentially recognized the rights to the uranium enrichment and this is a problem because it could set the stage for iran to withdraw from such initiations in the future if it deems that the west is paying insufficient attention to these commitments. at the bottom line is that this first step deal is a misstep because it leads iran's p5 nuclear infrastructure intact and essentially rewards air -- iran. in exchange for cosmic changes that did not substantially retire iran's p5 ability for a nuclear breakup and it squanders the bargaining leverage necessary to get to a satisfactory final deal. moreover, the administration has been to over backwards to court iran but failed to pay attention

to the concerns of its friends, which in recent weeks we have seen israel and saudi arabia raise alarms about the deal. and i think that a government that slights its friends while courting its enemies will soon find that it has less friends and more enemies. i will stop right there. >> thank you, jim. >> the editor of iran's p5 most influential newspaper is a hardliner and close confidant of iran's. he writes in these firebreathing editorials and i don't always agree with him. but his editorial the other day about this deal i thought had considerable wisdom in that he described this as a small deal, a small step that iran is taking

and that the p5+1 is taking. if we look at the text and not the reporting and the statements made about the deal, it is quite a small deal. for instance, much of the reporting about this said the states are committed up to impose new sanctions on iran and that isn't what the text says. in fact, let me quote from a background briefing that was made by the senior administration officials on the agreement on november 24, and whenever two people speaking said we have committed to refrain from posting nuclear related sanctions. that doesn't prevent us from implementing and enforcing our existing nuclear related sanctions which of course we will do. nor are we imposing new sanctions targeting iran sponsorship of terrorism and its abysmal human rights record. on that last point, there is nothing in this agreement that

prevents the united states from imposing new sanctions on iran and as often has it imposed sanctions for human rights grounds and sponsorship for terrorism, the u.s. imposed sanctions on drug trafficking. indeed i would suggest the administration established the principle the u.s. should do that to drive the point home that we observe agreements as they are written and not as iran wishes they had been written. furthermore, there is nothing in this agreement that prevents the united states from threatening to impose new sanctions in the future if no comprehensive solution is reached or if iran were to breach its obligations. so therefore, the legislation being considered by the senate you may think it is a good idea or bad idea, but i read in the legislation there is nothing in the legislation which contravenes the geneva court. you may say it contravenes the

spirit of the court but that would be a bad way for us to proceed into the negotiations with iran or for that matter any international negotiations. we should observe the accord, not to the accord that the other side wishes we find command particular if the iranians were going to reject that the united states is imposing additional sanctions on iran for human rights reasons or the united states is putting into law a threat to impose additional sanctions with no complaints of solutions reached we can tell them what you want to enrich the deal? fine, let's talk about it. and if you don't want us to do those things, what are the things you are going to do that go beyond what the text of the agreement says? let's get an agreement with what additional measures they will take which we want them to do that today refused him to give and take negotiations that didn't get included in the final agreement. we should certainly not give up

the planes that were hard fought in the negotiations. that would be my first caviar to the statement and then my second remark and more important i suspect in some ways is the official said that doesn't sayst prevent us from implementing and enforcing our existing nuclear related sanctions trade as part of the enforcement of the nuclear related sanctions, the united states has typically designated additional individuals and entities every few weeks because the iranians are constantly creating new routes in order to evade the sanctions, new front companies, new people they can work with to try to move the existing sanctions. and i think it would be very important for the administration to continue the process of designating individuals and entities under existing u.s. sanctions rules. why? because if the united states government slows down the pace

of such designations than iran will be able to evade the sanctions more successfully. and since the real motivation for iran to get into any kind of agreement whether it is this first step agreement or the prospective comprehensive solution is that iran is feeling pressure because of the sanctions and if iran feels this, then it will have less reason to reach a competence of solution. so, the success of the negotiation of the competence of solution requires maintaining that kind of pressure on iran that's only possible if the united states continues to designate additional individual entities for their invasion of these existing sanctions. and so, i would hold of the thae administration's feet to the fire about what the senior official said in explaining this agreement. it's not my interpretation agreement it is the official.

and i would like to see that actually done. let me just give one other example of a limited character in this deal. there are any number of things which the p5+1 countries pledged to do and which air -- iran pledges to do but there is the implementation schedule and iran would be within its rights to wait until 179th day of the agreement to take many of the steps that are outlined in this agreement because there is no obligation on iran to take these things immediately. that should be our attitude towards the obligations we have accepted which is to say that i think it would be a serious mistake for the united states and other p5+1 partners to feel compelled to implement a rapid pace the steps taken outlined here if iran is not implementing its obligations.

indeed, we have seen now incredible press reports about a high-level meetings involving the u.s. deputy secretary of state mr. burns and his iranian counterpart that were taking place parallel to the negotiations and the private ones seemed to be more important. and i would hope that in that kind of a channel there would be discussion about the implementation schedule and an understanding that the implementation by one side is going to have to be saved in response to the steps taken by the other side. and that it would be highly inappropriate and sometimes this happens in the past the united states feels an obligation to set an example by implementing the steps when there is no such commitment, and if we need to have an agreement with iran about the pace that we are going

to implement the steps here. by the way, much of the reporting about this agreement states that it is a six-month agreement. that is highly misleading. because in fact if you read the text of the planned action, what you discover is that the two parties commit themselves to the first. the first step would be coming up with a duration of six months and renewable by mutual consent during which all parties would work to maintain a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith. the only obligation is to have a constructive atmosphere for negotiations in good faith. we've been negotiating the climate change treaty for five years and we haven't gotten there yet. and when it turns to the description about a comprehensive solution, we are

told that a comprehensive solution which the parties aim to conclude that initiating and comments implementing no more than one year after the adoption is started. i aim to exercise more, and i aim to lose weight, so this is what the parties aim to do. that is a diplomatic phrase to say this is what we would like to do and we hope to do but we are not committing ourselves to doing it. so, in fact this agreement is an agreement which has an initial period of six months and i would just suggest that if at the end of six months there has not been a successful solution to the comprehensive solution, then what will be the political pressures? we give up. i don't think so.

i think that in fact there would be extraordinary pressures on the p5+1 countries to continue the discussions to say that what was going on for six months is going on for the next six months and let us keep talking with iran. he said it was great to take us a year to negotiate the contents of solution and to commend implementing it. so we have to keep going and at the end of the year i would suggest the same process. i would suggest the same would happen if the negotiations took off for six years and 60 years and i cannot see any circumstance that it would be politically acceptable for the p5+1 not to indefinitely renewed its agreement so long as it is being observed as long as we say it is being observed by iran and that is the greatest fear of many of the critics around the country and around the world of the joint plan of action.

certainly this is the big fear that we hear from the government. they are not saying you should have more on this and that and this, no. the core of the objection is this agreement is likely not to be the element o elements of tht step but instead the details. there isn't likely to be more, and i must say i am quite concerned about the focus of this document is on a process which keeps going. there is no sense of a time limit. there is no time. there is no statement that says at the end of six months the two sides recognize because of this is a permanent solution, everything goes back to start one. that isn't stated. now if you heard that in the statement by the spokesman, but i don't think that it's going to be very easy to accomplish that and if that is your objective,

then you darn well ought to say probably you should put it in here i don't think it was a good idea to put in provisions about the time extensions. and of the scum of the element of step had been defended by the agreement on the elements of the first step has been defended by many in the administration on the basis that well okay. but don't worry we will have a comprehensive solution. well, i hope so but i'm not sure that is the case. i'm not by any means sure that that is the case. furthermore i'm not sure that the solution would contain because when we turn to the description here about the elements of the final step of the company and the solution, everything is up for grabs in that way the text reads is that

there's going to be agreed limits on the scope of the capacity carried out on the enriched uranium for the period to be agreed upon. and that is empathized by the united states with the limitations and by the way the united states even says that when the document reads in the final complaints of solution, quote involved a mutually defined enrichment program and parameters and with practical needs. ..

always in link in iran's nuclear activities, with this pursuit of delivery means for nuclear weapons. and iran has been developing missiles, which are too inaccurate to carry anything other than unconventional weapons and not useful for any military purpose. in which are designed to carry warheads that are large enough to be nuclear weapons. so the security council resolutions has always called on iran to suspend not only enrichment and reprocessing activities but also its missile program. until iran has demonstrated its intentions of its nuclear program. no mention here of missiles,

none. on any commitment by iran to refrain from additional tests of long range, large capacity, enacted missiles during the period of this agreement. they're so mentioned is going to be any kind of discussion about missiles and a comprehensive solution. and that's an example of the concern. by the way, one thing which certainly is not included in this agreement in which would be a series step for us to feel we need to do some kind of confidence building measure with iran is there's no mention in fear of what is -- what kind of role iran is planning to do. the great fear of the saudis and the gulf arabs, united emirates, and so on, in fact was going to happen is the united states will get a commitment from iran to make concessions on the nuclear front, and return the united states agrees to turn a blind

eye to iran's playing a major role in the region, or -- we were not at the table. we are on the table. and that we are the ones who made the sacrifice and these contacts involving iran's discussions about the future of syria is particularly delicate matter. the principles the obama administration has articulated is that iran is not welcome to participate in discussions about the future of syria until iran signs onto the principles that were agreed to in what's called the geneva one conference about syria. namely, there has to be transition in syria to a new government. pretty vague kind of commitment, frankly the russians agree to it and the u.s. intended that this would be a government that's led

by many of its people are now into a just not assad. the iranians have not even signed up. the great fear of the saudi is the iranians have by contrast spent thousands, thousands of soldiers to fight inside syria. and that is their concern. we often hear about foreign fighters in subsidy. most of the foreign fighters consider are, in fact, fighting on the side of the assad government, not fighting against it. it's hardly surprising that many are worried if the united states is prepared to have discussions with iran about its regional role in a time when iran is so vigorously sponsoring these foreign fighters in syria. as well as iran's long history of state sponsorship to terrorism. all right.

>> i'd like to first thank the heritage foundation for inviting me to talk about is very timely and very important national security topic. i'm very skeptical of the geneva deal but i want to first discuss the obama administration's justification for it and what appeared to be some of the underlying assumptions behind it. according to the obama demonstration this agreement is the first step to build confidence between tehran and the measure our sensitivity to be a bridge towards a more comprehensive agreement. i will say there is a certain logic to this. the obama administers and contends that the agreement may be an open to a wider deal, and i assume that they think this will give the iranian president rouhani maneuvering room to do with hard-liners in iran leadership were opposed to any compromise in the nation's nuclear program. a deal like this is based on many questionable assumptions. it assumes the iranian regime is

sincere in his state desire to curtail its nuclear program which it claims is entirely peaceful. it assumes president rouhani is a genuine moderate with a mandate from supreme leader khamenei to reverse decades of nuclear activities. it assumes iran will finally agree to cooperate with iaea inspectors and not cheat on its nuclear treaty obligations. it also assumes iran has a legitimate need for, and a right, iranian enrichment. i will get to that issue in a moment. for me these assumptions are quite elite. and in my opinion crafting an agreement with iran based on his both reckless and irresponsible. aside from these questionable assumptions, the actual provisions of this geneva deal in my opinion are deeply flawed and misleading. president obama has said the agreement with iran halted the progress of iranian nuclear program. deputy national security advisor tony blinken said this deal halts iran's nuclear program and

that the three pass iran can take to a bomb has been stopped in their tracks. these statements are inaccurate. the best that can be said about the geneva deal is that it freezes iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. the problem is iran is fairly far along this path and it will retain its large reactor grade uranium stockpile, that according to the nonproliferation policy education center, can be further enriched to produce three to five nuclear weapons right now. the geneva deal rests on it assertion that eliminates the iran's production of 20% enriched uranium and eliminating its stockpile will significantly rollback its pursuit of nuclear weapons or rollback so-called breakout scenario. this is false. the american enterprise institute, the institute for science and international security, and the nonproliferation education center packaged studies that found iran can today convert 20%

enriched uranium into enough weapons grade fuel for one bomb, in about one month, and can also do this using reactor grade fuel in only a few weeks longer. let me say this again more clearly. the geneva agreement stops iran from producing 20% enriched uranium that experts believe could be quickly converted into weapons grade fuel in about a month. but iran will be allowed to keep its reactor grade stockpile that can be made into weapons grade fuel in about two months. so this agreement extends the breakout period by only about four weeks. at the heart of the elements in this deal, concerned uranium enrichment and the so-called right to enriched uranium. the iranians claim that's the agreement gives them this right so to the russians. secretary kerry and other administration officials adamantly deny this. let's look at what the agreement actually says. the agreement passed in geneva agreed to in geneva says a final agreement will involve a

mutually defined enrichment program. this sounds to me that the united states has signed an agreement with iran recognizing its right to enrich uranium. i don't see another way to interpret that. provisions of the agreement dealing with the arak heavy-water reactor are troublesome. this reactor when completed will be a source of about two weapons worth of plutonium per year. president obama and his national security aide anthony pinkas is the agreement halts work on this reactor but the agreement does not say this to its says iran will not make any further advances of its activities on this reactor. so does that mean halt? doesn't not mean a? this is what the arena said according to the head of the nuclear our money agency. activities of iraq -- arak heavy water will continue. iran has been offer some sanctions relief i if it complis with this agreement. the obama admits he says this really is my and will amount to only about 4.2 billion. some experts think the amount of

sanctions is much higher, possibly as much as 20 billion. while the sanctions relief offer to iran might be minor, this is still a significant achievement for tehran sensible undermine international port for tough sanctions in the future. additional sanctions are also now more unlikely than the deal gives iran to riddle down existing sanction to the obama administration concedes with the geneva convention is not perfect and is -- to rein in iran's nuclear program. however, the so-called first step will make a meaningful follow-up agreement difficult if not impossible. since it accepts iran's right to enrich uranium. it does not call for work on the arak reactor to be halted and it a lot and i agree with jim from it allowed iran to make week irreversiblreversible concession exchange for sanctions relief. in short, this first of

agreement has the some very bad precedents for any agreement we try to negotiate with iran in the future on its nuclear program. to make matters more confusing, and this has become an issue today in the press, adam writes in the washington freebie can today the agreement will not come into force in the six-month clock on this agreement will not begin taking until a follow-on agreement is struck on implementation. the "washington post," iran and major powers will meet next month to our and added these details of the agreement can start genuine. what does this mean? it means an agreement was struck with the iranians putting some limitations on the nuclear program which i think are very weak, but iran does not going to start letting them until this fall will program is negotiated. they will continue to enrich 20% uranium. there will be no limits on their reactor grade uranium and toughest follow-up agreement is struck. more importantly what it was agreed to over the weekend ignores, and jim and patrick have said this, six yuan

security council resolutions and years on u.s. policy called for iran to halt all uranium enrichment. the reason is obvious. both reactor grade in 20% uranium is a serious proliferation risk that iran cannot be trusted with. this position abandons previous western instances -- insistence that all uranium enrichment be removed. this is undermine western resolve especially american resolve on the iranian nuclear program and has made it look as if the west has no firm position. we need a firm position on the iranian nuclear program. a sensible agreement that ends the threat from iran's nuclear efforts to protect the interest of our middle east allies must in all iranian uranium enrichment. must renew iran's enrichment uranium from the country, must shut down its centrifuge plants and must stop all work on the arak reactor permanent. it also must require iran to provide full access to iaea inspectors to all of its nuclear

sites. getting a sensible agreement with iran on its nuclear program will be difficult. there are no shortcuts. the geneva deal is nothing but shortcuts. instead of setting stage for resolving the threat from the iran program, we have instead weaken support for sanctions and increased iranian influence. this is already driving tensions in the middle east. is already hurting relations with israel and saudi arabia, and could cause regional states to start their own nuclear deterrent program because they're concerned about where american policy is heading. in conclusion, i believe the agreement reached on the iranian nuclear program is a deeply flawed deal that will do nothing to stop iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and esters eroded american credibility. i believe it is imperative for action by congress to force president obama to take a much tougher approach to repair the serious flaws of this agreement in future talks with iran. in my opinion is that he is much

worse than no deal. >> thank you. all right, we have microphone folks. right down here. this gentleman in the corner first. i'll hold my questions because there seem to be more. please, when you ask a question, please identify yourself and if at the end of the second since i don't very question i'm going to ask you to stop. so no speeches from the floor. just ask questions. >> stanley kober and. caking at the statement just now by the iranian foreign minister, quote what has been released by the website of the white house as a fact sheet is a one-sided interpretation of the agreed text of geneva, and some of the explanations and words initiate contradict the text of the joint plan of action. that is, the formal geneva agreement to the iranian foreign minister has denied there are one and one talks, just

bilateral talks. this is in the tehran times. this suggests that some power struggle disagreement within the iranian leadership itself, the foreign minister has come out so forcefully. and i'm wondering if the panel can discuss that? also, has anybody seen any statement from khamenei? >> there was a letter written by rouhani to khamenei the day after it was signed come and khamenei responded the same day. you can say that it's kind of a lukewarm endorsement, which it was. but until today, the main response -- no big deal. you are quite right at what we see from the foreign ministry today, several things the foreign minister said, your quote, are some scurrying backwards. legally binding commitments, we can always back out.

by the way, the white house statement on the agreement was wrong. on a couple of points. and that was embarrassing, because those who are relying on that -- said wait a minute, wait a minute, had to go through it line by line and compare. so yeah, it was good the white house rushed that out right away, but guys, wasn't right. as for the bilateral talks, well, i can either believe what the tehran times has brought completely own eyes. i can talk to reporters who saw these people. i mean, they are in geneva and they were talking. the greater point is the power struggle inside iran, there's certainly many skeptics in iran this is going to work out. will they try to scuttle a deal? frankly, we should -- the iranian leadership -- where

their self interest lies and if they were to scuttle this deal, oh, oh, world opinion would be so negative against. it would be disastrous for iran's interest. but they've done other things that were disastrous for iran's interest. trashing the british embassy was a really, really stupid move. for that plot to kill the saudi ambassador here in, by pulling up a restaurant on my street in georgetown. again, it was a really dumb idea. if they've gone ahead and succeeded it would've been disastrous for iran. so they could do something disasters, but until this morning i would've told you know signs, i would have to say this morning, okay, some interesting scurrying going backwards going on. >> anything to add? >> if you compare the white house fact sheet on the agreement a with agreement actions has on the iraq -- arak heavy-water reactor, there's

dissimilar. there's a series of steps -- the steps are not in the agreement. >> the parchin site for instance, which the white house says is in agreement. it's not. don't rely on the white house statement. >> i would just add iran, as patrick making, the leadership often takes actions which rebound against iran's national interests and the interests of iran's people, but to advance in someway the narrow ideological interests of the elite, and delete it government lying to us but they are all falling to the own people. that's why the iranian press i think is an echo chamber that is even more confusing than washington perhaps. >> other questions. back in the center and then we will get you next. >> invite of what you said, first, is the gini realistic

thing that congress could really do to stop obama since this agreement does require that the united states do anything? obama can just sit there? and related question, what is the realistic probability that if the iranians cheated, no matter how seriously, that the administration would actually take any action? >> i think that there is pressure congress can put on the administration. the administration wants this, wants to sell the deal to the american people. i think it's a strong bipartisan opposition and i think that's building. i think that they can make a case. they're not going to force the president to abandon this because it's not a treaty that hasn't been ratified in the senate. it's going to be an uphill battle but i just think members of congress and their staff have to read this very carefully come and approach the president and pressure him to do the right

thing. >> i would just add that the agreement explicitly recognizes the role of common different roles of congress and the executive. so while he says the administration will refrain from opposing new nuclear related sanctions, it does pay lipservice to the role of congress, or congress in fact could ratchet up sanctions, particularly if the sanctions are held off until either iran violates the agreement or if, you know, if the negotiations actually and. but i agree with patrick. these can just go on forever, but congress could ratchet up pressure independent of what the administration does and hold the administration's feet to the fire. >> by the way, having said that, every government is not always so good at calculating itself interest. sometimes it applies to the obama administration. had i been an event obama

administration my approach towards the current discussions about new sanctions would've been to say to congress, well, we all want to see the progress come to a comprehensive solution, and the best way to achieve that would be got bigger carrots and bigger sticks. so you're talking about a bigger stick in the event a conference solution is not reached, fine, great, but let's parent with a bigger carrot. and so pass such legislation but insert the present different with all existing sanctions. it's going to be very difficult to get congress to vote on that kind of a waiver authority from the president on its own, but if i had been in the ministrations issues i would have paired that with this bigger carrots, bigger sticks. because that's what you, the way to do it, advanced negotiations to be able to have both a bigger carrot and a bigger stick.

>> austan ms. biggert. how much will six to 7 billion in sanctions really, really help iran? >> look, the administration has been thrown at them into the number shows to get the top but $4.2 billion that's unfrozen from bank accounts. they talk about an extra $400 million that's unfrozen for student expenses. they estimate that allowing petrochemical sales will be 1.2 billion. they say gold come with the big deal? iran has every stockpile of gold and iran can use it. had difficulty using that gold because i just sanctions legislation, and it would not be difficult for iran to make use of well over a million dollars in gold. i don't know where the figure came from because that's way below what iran's petrochemical

exports were pre-sanctions period. and furthermore, i mean, the sort of consensus estimate on oil trade is iran is going to be able to increase its oil exports summer by 300,000 barrels a day, which of the $500 billion. so if you throw in a bunch of gold and did so in one petrochemical exports and windows extra 3000 a day, person to get up to something which is well above 10, and conceivably 15, which is why the as we say let's annualized as we can understand what it means and basic 40 million. i think that's pretty high. but it's certainly going to be at least 20 billion a year and probably 30 billion a year. well, iran's import goal is only something on the order of 30, 40 billion a year. so if they get access to that kind of money, as was the other

exports which are not sanctioned, then probably model through. it's going to be tough for the government budget because the government budget gets a lot of money off the oil sales to answer yes, there will be a large deficit by iran goes into this situation with national debt-to-gdp ratio which is, i mean, i agree that their books have got to be not very transparent and they've understated it so they are declared debt of 10% is wrong. but it's certainly way below the debt to gdp ratio here and the united states. nothing like that in european countries in crisis. so yes, iran will have to run large deficits but they can do it. >> anybody else? okay.

other questions? right here. >> thank you. i'm with people's daily. my question is, could the painless provide us with perspectives of the display of different interest that this administration has in the iran nuclear talks and in the middle east as a whole with the previous administration's? >> well, i would say one clear difference is the bush administration relied more heavily on bargaining leverage afforded by the credible threat of a military option. and it's no clinton's that iran did freeze its nuclear program between 2003-2005. after the u.s. invaded iraq and afghanistan on either flank of iran. i think iranians thought they might be next, and they prudently chose to freeze the. and i think one of the mistakes

the carter -- the obama administration is making -- [laughter] >> that's a natural mistake. >> one of the mistakes the obama administration is making is actually downgraded the leverage afforded by the military, the potential military threat. i mean, to the point where the white house spokesman denounces more sanctions as a road to war with the american people don't want. well, the american people don't want a war with a nuclear iran after its armed, either. that should be borne in mind. i think the obama administrati administration, by saying in very weak at terms that the military option is on the table, fails to really press him that button and iran.

and thereby loses leverage in the negotiations. >> i would add almost an obsession to get a deal the first in the present came in office and i think basically taking the threat military, a maryland three attack on the table is something which i think the iranians recognized. >> right here in the center. >> thank you. christian austan. understanding this is a poor first step towards an actual resolution, if this fails what likelihood is that you have towards either leaving the iranians open towards further negotiation are stricken negotiations, or moving more wholeheartedly towards completing a nuclear program? >> that all depends on who gets blamed. in other words, if the perception around the united states and around the world is that iran walked away from the deal, iran cheated or iran wasn't negotiating in good faith

for a conference solution in this going to be pretty tough atmosphere for iran. it will be isolated internationally and that creates an atmosphere in which israel, for instance, might well consider military action against the iranian plant. much discussion about limitations israel faces because ithis military is quite small, t israel has twice destroyed heavy water reactors like the one in trenton. twice been advised not to do it, and twice has been told by the u.s. it would be a disaster if they did and twice as been success. i'm sure they would listen to our vice. iraq reactor has got a big sign on it saying bombing. it's unprotected. is easy to do. that becomes conceivable. but on the other and if there's perception that it was the united states which was at fault

and provocative actions by the united states which led to the breakup of the talks in the u.s. is being unreasonable, i think creates a very difficult one. so the shaping of public perceptions about what's going on is very important for shaping what are the options going forward. >> i think talks will continue, even if it looks like this deal is collapsing. the administration and the europeans will never admit this through the end of this administration, and i think that the rouhani regime likes dogs and they will continue and try to engage in talks and what appeared the failed talks followed by more talks and this will probably continue. >> i agree with that and reminds me of a "saturday night live" skit, the guest that would not leave in which john belushi comes by and plots down on a sofa and is always there. as long as he's there eating his

various snack foods, the host is obligated to continue feeding him. and that's one of the reasons i'm concerned with some of the sanctions relief that will give the regime at least, if not the iranian people, adequate sustenance. >> go ahead. >> this is really cited it had to attack, can they rely on the saudi for support? and second part, what does that support be anything more than political? that is, do the saudis have any weapons, any real military assets to put on the table? i would still be into doing it by itself? >> let me just take a first shot at this. there was a story in bill lunde -- the london "sunday times" two

sundays ago about alleged meetings between the israelis and the saudis in which the saudis gave israel permission to use their airspace. i'm a little skeptical of those reports, but i think if israel did launched a preventive strike, the saudis would privately welcome it, if not publicly. because they feel just as threatened by iran, as israel. this isn't just an israel question. the saudis and other countries, turkey, even iraq, although it's kind of falling in the shadow of influence by tehran, doesn't want to see kuwait, those countries do not want to see and iranian nuclear weapon. but i'm not sure that they would be explicit saudi israeli cooperation. it may be more, you know, we won't stop you when you go through, but i doubt they'll be

any kind of written agreement on that. >> the fact that they just talked about the size and israel collaborate, the fact that the stock of the saudis trying to acquire a nuclear weapon from pakistan shows how serious is this. i don't know if these reports are accurate, but i think it's in the shows the direction of u.s. policy towards iran is alienating to our most important allies in the middle east and this has to be fixed. >> all right. i have one, and i'll ask this and then you guys can segue from this answer into your closing comments. a lot has been made by the administration that oh, gee, this is not a big deal, if this doesn't work out at the end of the six months what can just set up the whole sanctions regime to gain and everything will be fine. i'm not a big fan of sanctions. they haven't really worked very well in other circumstances, but this was one of the tightest sanctions regimes have ever been able to establish.

how accurate do you think it is that we could turn the sanctions back on once we've allowed the europeans and asians and everybody to start selling, buying things from iran? >> it depends on who gets blamed for things. if it's a perception there in his walk away from a deal in some spectacular fashion, which supreme leader khamenei can do, and i think that the reaction around much of the world is going to be that they've brought it on themselves. and don't forget a lot of the reason why we've gotten cooperation has nothing to do with government is concerned. [inaudible] it's had to do with private companies designing -- we don't want to thank with the united states about things like the banking system. financial transfers. and i suspect that another factor involved here is how

clever iran is at offering good terms to foreign companies. certainly their track record has been -- [inaudible] >> i don't think sanctions alone are going to stop the iranian nuclear program. they didn't stop north korea, and iran has a much stronger economy and the north korean basket case economy. and i think one of the reasons that many countries went along with the sanctions was because they could rationalize that it keeps those crazy americans from attacking iran. but it's clear to me by now that the obama administration is not exactly crazy about using leverage afforded by military threat. and so that will actually increased temptations to back off the sanctions elsewhere and lead to kind of the reassertion of business as usual. and i think it will be much more

difficult to reestablish the sanctions afterwards. >> i agree with that but i would add another factor but it was easy for the europeans to justify sanctions against iran when the president of iran, the former president, ahmadinejad, is running around claiming to wipe israel off the net. the new president is much will media savvy. with the sanctions being weakened with a western oriented president and foreign minister, they will be very difficult to read element the sanctions. i think the global consensus to push the sanctions has been broken by this agreement. >> all right. we will give you one last chance year, audience. any of the questions? all right, please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] >> i would encourage all of you to follow, if you have additional questions, send them to us but we'll get them to gym or to either of the other panelists. thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations] >> a quick reminder you can watch this discussion again at our website, c-span.org. as it comes to clothes, the hill is reporting on congress as possible reaction to the iran deal. worried lawmakers are trying to set tough conditions for a final deal with iran, fearful that president obama's in an agreement expose of the u.s. initial the danger. key democrats and republicans have decided not to fight the deal reached over the weekend despite lambasting as a giveaway. they are writing a bipartisan bill that would redouble sanctions if iran businesses mailing its nuclear program six

months from now. earlier today we spoke with a reporter to get an update on what lawmakers may be thinking. spent a lot of skepticism about this to from both democrats and republicans. there's currently an effort ongoing in response to this deal to write a new sanctions billtos that would impose conditions on around that said, goes back on condit his word of this deal and alsobh wants to make sure that whatever final deal is reached between the obama administration, theadn other world powers and iran, that attacks result in iran this assembly is never program. there's concern that iran is getting too much sanctions really fight now and not doingre enough to stop attempted program. as result they will be able to o kind of deal with freezing it in place and then just ghostwrite back towards a nuclear weapon.an >> administration official consecutive state john kerry, president obama himself has pressed lawmakers saying they t need to let diplomacy run its course rather than imposed a sanction.

what's been the response to these latest has been the respoo lawmakers who want to do just that? >> efforts they want to head off aw sanctions. of a has not been a threat veto if congress pushes the bill forward but they do not think a new bill is needed, even if it theimed until the end of interim agreement. it is a fight that we will see play out over december and january where you have lawmakers like chairman menendez of the foreign relations committee, chuck schumer -- the administration will try to convince them to wait six more months to see if iran follows through on the deal. do you believe there is a chance for this legislation to make it through congress? just a few working weeks left. be interesting if they can get it done in december. the house will be on one week after the senate comes in.

menendez and senator kirk, the leading proponents, are working on legislation. they will try to have it ready to go in december when they come back. this has always enjoyed bipartisan support. a similar bill passed in the house >> we expect two more on the issue when congress returns from the thanksgiving recess next week. another story where phone today is the sprint corp. announced from the ap, the supreme court has agreed to hear arguments on whether businesses can use religious objections to escape a requirement in the health care law they must cover birth control for employees. the issue that divides the lower court in roughly 40 lawsuits from for-profit companies. the court will consider two cases one in which the businesses want and which the company's conservative to the white house released a statement and it reads in part, earlier this year the obama administration asked the supreme court to consider a legal challenge to the health care

law's requirement that for-profit corporations include birth control coverage in engines of able to their employees. we believe this requirement is lawful and essential to women's health and are confident the supreme court will agree. also coming up today here on the c-span networks on c-span2, 1:30 p.m. eastern, the canadian military second-in-command will discuss a defense partnership between the u.s. and canada as well as climate change and its impact on the arctic. it's hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and again that will start at 1:30 p.m. eastern. at 3:15 p.m. on c-span, coverage from california of remarks by president obama. 's next stop on his fund-raising swing. he will be touring dreamworks animation and the impact the entertainment industry is played on the economy. dreamworks is run by top obama campaign could trigger and movie producer jeffrey katzenberg.

you can catch that live on c-span. >> the '60s were -- the '60s were different us mac -- [laughter] there were a lot of things happening involving race, the breakdown in the structure of society. i was suddenly out of the seminary and in new england. and there were no rules. things were falling apart. and without structure is very difficult to navigate. i was extremely fortunate to be at holy cross. i was extremely fortunate to still have had better residuum of the way i was raised, and the structure that the nuns had given me, structure the seminary had given me. i was also extremely fortunate because i had already been in

predominantly white schools. i was the only black kid in my high school in savannah. show the transition to a school with very few blacks in a very difficult set of circumstances, academically and otherwise, i had sort of a jumpstart. i was ahead of the game so i have something. so it allowed me to continue to do well, even though it was a very difficult. >> thanksgiving on c-span, hear from two supreme court justices, clarence thomas at 9 p.m. followed by elena kagan at 9:45 p.m. eastern. also, four days of booktv on c-span2 including the life and art of norman rockwell. the 150th anniversary of the gettysburg address.

>> i remind will have live coverage of the discussion on the defense partnership between the u.s. and canada coming up at the bottom of the hour at 1:30 p.m. right now a roundtable on the state of poverty in the u.s. and how cuts the government core programs are impacting the poor. >> welcome back. i'm joined now by isabel sawhill of the brookings institution and robert rector of the heritage foundation. will have a discussion about the state of poverty in america. robber, i want to start first with you. figures show one in six americans are in poverty. what does that mean and who was the hardest hit? >> the average listener when they hear the word poverty are thinking of people that expensive significant material deprivations. typically in a tv news story will talk about one in six americans in poverty and then flashed to a homeless family. the reality is that of those one in six americans, roughly

46 million americans who are labeled by the government as four, only about 1% of them are homeless in any given point in time. in fact, close to 50% of all poor families actually own their own homes which is different a three-bedroom house with one and half bath. the typical poor family according to the census own numbers in the united states, lives in a perfectly large house reporter that is in good repair, but the% of them have air-conditioning. two-thirds of them have cable or satellite tv. half of them have a computer. half of them have internet access to about one-third of them have widescreen hdtv. if you ask them during the course of the year were your children ever hungry for even a single day during the course of the year, 96% of the poor parents would say no, not even for a single day. four out of five for a total say they were not hungry for a single moment during the day. this does not mean that these families are not struggling.

they have to work very hard to make ends meet, but the normal picture of significant material deprivation, not having t food o put on the table, living in a home that's cold because you can't keep it or has a hole in the roof or a homeless family in the back of a van, that has nothing to do with poverty as the government defines it. >> host: can you explain how the government defines poverty? >> guest: the way the government defines poverty is to say that it anyone below a certain income level that was arrived at by looking at the cost of a basic food budget. and then adding a little more for shelter, clothes and other necessities. for a poor person's family, the poverty line is around 22, $20,000 a year. so a poor person family is expected to have that much money to meet their basic needs. it had more than that, they are

not poor but have less are considered poor. >> host: would talk about poverty in america with robert rector and isabel sawhill of the brookings institution. want to bring into the conversation. for democrats that number is (202) 585-3880. republicans, (202) 585-3881. for independence, 202-58-5388 q. bring it back to you. is it commits when we think of poverty we think about inner cities. is a concentrated they are where? >> it's defined, it is more concentrated in inner cities, slightly more. des moines -- the main point is we have a picture about poverty and as this condition of extreme deprivation and i don't want to suggest that those families and extreme deprivation don't exist at all. that would be ridiculous, but to

say that they are one in six families in the united states is just wrong. there's much, much smaller portion of things. one of the problems when the government goes to define poverty is that as a society we've been close to $1 trillion on antipoverty programs providing cash, food, housing and medical care to low-income americans. roughly one in three americans receive benefits from this antipoverty system. the average cost is around $9000 per recipient for 100 million recipients. and when the government goes to count poverty can when they got could get how much income household has, virtually none of that massive amount of assistance which is larger than the entire economies that most nations of the world, none of that is counted as income. i think it's a very misleading depiction i believe. >> host: as i understand correctly the obama administration rolled out a new

way of measuring poverty. how is that different? is a more effective in the wake poverty has been thought of in the past? >> guest: i think it is an improvement and what it does is it shows if you include all of the non-cash benefits, food stamps and health care that the poor get, you get a slightly different picture than you do if you just count cash income. so we have moved very far in this country away from providing people with what we used to call welfare or cash income for providing services and towards making any assistance they get, conditional on work. most of the assistance we get now except for the disabled and for a few other groups is condition now on work. i think that's a really important, for people to understand. >> hostunderstand. so i would say that poverty is in the eye of the beholder. i think robert is suggesting

that the art that many truly poor people in the united states. and we are an excellent country after all. when you think about know, could you live on say, $22,000 a year and have to support a family of four, you have to decide for yourself is that a regional standard or is it not. >> host: $22,000 for a family of four is different here in washington that a lot of other places. are the guidelines the same? >> guest: there's some attached to geographic variation. and this new experiment to measure that the administration is using now, but it has not been traditionally the case that we have done that. >> guest: additionally it's flat across the board. but i would disagree that this new measure introduced by president obama is a better measure, because what it is is a race with a moving goal line.

as soon as you get close to crossing the finish line, they move the back so you can never cross it. the way that they do that is they define poverty income level relative to the average standard of living in society. as the average living us living goes up in the poverty level goes up to its a pretty good way to ensure that the poor always with you. one of the consequences of that under this new measure, if we were both, all three of us together to get a magic wand and way that at everyone's income suddenly doubled, which will be a good thing, right? everybody's income doubles, there's no reduction in poverty at all because the poverty income levels would also double. i think that's extraordinarily misleading and it doesn't really get us closer to the truth but we do want to know how many families are hungry. how many families are malnourished. how many families live in housing that is really

unhealthy. but this doesn't answer that. we also need to get an honest count to understand how much people are really receiving in government aid. we spent close to $1 trillion a year on assisting poor people, cash, food and housing but it isn't all that instantly converted it into cash, it's close to six times the amount needed to raise every family's income above the poverty level. even if you just take a cash, food and housing income is more than twice what's needed to wipe out poverty in the u.s. we spent a lot more than people realize and effectively the government doesn't give a taxpayer credit for that expenditure. >> guest: we might have some disagreements about all of that but maybe we can get to that. >> host: we want to bring some of our viewers into the conversation. let's go to oklahoma on our line for democrats. >> caller: hello.

i was listening to your conversation about the $23,000 a year being poverty guidelines. i wonder where you feel that individuals that, say, their social strategic or their small retirement check our, say $600 a month as opposed to the amount that you are thinking, where does that leave them? i mean, where does that leave us? i mean, people struggle everyday, and yet there are many people that don't have the housing, don't have the medical and the other things that you just mentioned. your conversation sounded very rosy and cheerful. but that's not the way it really is. >> guest: well, i think that there are some people who don't have medical but we do spend close to half a trillion dollars

a year getting medical care to low income americans and that does not include medicare or so of the elderly generally have medicare. and i mean, i'm not saying that there's nobody out there who's not struggling but, in fact, i think most people definitely are struggling day to day to make ends meet. i'm just saying that if you ask for people, for example, were you hungry any point during the year, four out of five of them will say no, we weren't hungry even when the going to you. if you ask them did you have a medical need that you couldn't get attended to, almost none of them will say that they do. most poor people again have satellite, cable television, have air-conditioning, computers, internet access. so the picture is just much different than you ordinarily see on the network news. not to say that there are no families that really do face deprivation. but there are a much smaller in

number than the 46 million we usually hear as being in poverty. >> guest: but i said something about all this? we've got to recognize that one of the reasons that people are poor is because they've lost a job or can't find one. so they might have a television or an air-conditioning unit or what have you, because you don't, you know, move your consumption every month to fit what income is coming into the household. so i'll law -- huge insecurity, not knowing where your next job is going to come from, how you going to get one, and whether you'll be able to keep it. and particularly during this period where unemployment rates are very high. i think what really got to focus on the fact that a lot of people are jobless and would like to work they can't find a job, or can't find a full-time job, or

can't find a job that will enable them to support their family. >> guest: i agree with that. i think the lack of jobs as well as insecurity is actually a bigger issue. it doesn't did you that much good if you have internet access and the computer and the cable tv and air-conditioning, you're really worried about whether you be able to keep those things. that's a very significant problem and i recognize that. >> host: dayton, ohio. let's talk with julie on our line for democrats. >> caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i appreciate it. i'm listening with a little bit of disdain this morning because the robber to sit here and say one in six americans are not going without, and 46 million are not poor, he's completely out of touch with what is happening. we just came to one of the worst recession since the great depression. we've got one of the highest unemployment number is we've seen in a long time, and right

now food bank shelves are empty because people are not getting enough money through snape to get their children back. to get their families fed. we are also seeing more and more people that are working people that aren't getting enough money for food. and a lot of them tell me because i work with these people. clearly, robert needs to get in touch with a few them. because i'm talking to people have lost their jobs and have to take between food and heating their house. they have to pick between an inhaler for their daughter and putting food on the table, or paying the bill to make sure their lights stay on. so that is a real problem within the united states. and making additional cuts and allowing the snap program to expire, go ahead and expire with one of the worst things you could do for these people, especially so close to the holiday season. and look at wal-mart.

wal-mart are having food drives for their own employees who can't afford to put food on the table. wal-mart sells food. their employees don't have enough money to buy that food. it is a problem with the working poor in this country. we need to recognize that part of the solution is having a minimum wage that mimics our inflation and doesn't stagnate for years. we have to help americans, not make them feel criminalized because they're not making enough money. >> guest: well, it's very simple for advocacy individuals such as that to say i have seen this, i've seen that. i've seen things, too, and the information i am getting directly from the agriculture department, which runs all of these programs, and the agriculture department tells us that when they asked for people, do you have enough food to eat, were you ever hungry, 96% of them, even in the midst of this

recession, say no, our children were never hungry, even for a single day. and 80% of the adults will say no, i wasn't hungry even for a single day. i feel very sorry about the 20% that were hungry but i do think in order to shape the policy that meets the needs we have to be honest about what's actually out there. i'm not making these numbers up. they come right from the agency that runs these food programs, and spent a lot of money feeding poor people. look, we're spending close to $9000 for each person in the bottom third of the u.s. population. if we can spend close to a trillion dollars a year on these individuals and still have massive numbers of people who don't have enough food to eat on a daily basis, that's a huge, huge indictment of the welfare state got anything that i could say. it's simply not true. we spent a lot of money. the money goes to assist the poor people, and we did a

reasonable job with that, not a perfect job. more substantial problem is in the long-term, i disagree that these programs promote work. the are over 80 different programs are poor people. only two of them have worked requirements. i think in the long-term we have to work toward a system that helps give aid but also requires more of the poor to help themselves in the long-term. >> host: an article in the new york times earlier this month. ..

keep food in the mouths of the children. so it is a much more mixed picture then i think that you are getting. on food stamps it is one of our largest anti-poverty programs. in fact it is the basic program that we used to put a minimum under people's standard of living and it was cut back on november 1. it had been bumped off as a result of the anti-recession program that was adopted to fight unemployment, and it's now been brought back to where it was before, and i'm not so concerned about these recent cuts that occurred in november as i am about what is on the congressional agenda right now, which is a farm bill that would

further reduce the safety net in america in particular at the food stamp program. there is a difference between the senate and the house. the house bill is very restrictive. there will be a debate and i think there should be a debate about the work requirements in other words do we require people to work in return for getting food stamps especially if they are able-bodied and don't have children and i think the issue is going to be are there jobs available, are there training programs available for those who can't find jobs? we need to have that dee bates, but i think until we have jobs and training programs, we should be very careful about imposing work requirements on families who don't have any other income. >> host: madisonville kentucky online.

>> good morning ma'am and sir. i have to hit up four of the food banks and there are no jobs in this country. i go to different states and half of them are shut down and the other side is up and runni running. obamacare is so expensive and i can't afford. am i going to pay a fine or wind up in jail, what can you say about obamacare? i think that we should vote a president of the united states and in peach him -- impeach him. this is trouble. you guys want to cut down on

food stamps. stamps. >> i think it's important to recognize -- while i sympathize and recognize that there is a huge problem at the time about a lack of jobs, these cuts in the food stamps constitute about one half of 1% of current spending on poor people. and i would be willing to postpone those in exchange for some fundamental changes in the way that food stamps work and the way that welfare works. 96% of americans believe that with an able-bodied adult who receives cash food, housing or medical care from the government should be required to work or prepare for work or look for a job as a condition to getting back eight. we have over 80 different programs assisting poor people and only two of them require any type of work. and i realized that -- it sounds a little bit odd to be talking about requiring work in a

climate where there are so many of the lack of jobs -- >> we will go live to the center for strategic and international studies in washington for a debate on the partnership in the u.s. and canada from the general tom larson, the canadian military second-in-command. we also expect an examination of how climate change might affect. this is just getting underway. >> general tom lawson has had a career in the canadian armed forces serving in his current position since october, 2012. prior to the recent promotion he served as the deputy commander at peterson air force base in colorado, so he's no stranger to the importance of the u.s. canadian defense cooperation. he's also held such distinguished positions as assistant chief of the air staff into the commandant of the comme military college in kingston. he led the standup of the strategic joint staff as a part

of the canadian armed forces transformation team and served as the commanding officer of 412 or the four or 12 scott squadron. he graduated from the military college of canada with a bachelors of science degree as well as a master of science and electrical engineering and while attending the armed forces command and staff in alabama he completed a master masters in pc administration at auburn. thoroughly educated by think it's fair to say. on that record of service and expertise, general laws and agreed to share his thoughts on the defense relationship. secretary last week called this relationship one of the strongest in the world, and indeed our friends have fought alongside american troops in the volatile kandahar province in afghanistan at the height of the conflict and continue to deploy some 950 troops in their capacity. just this past friday the

secretary and the defense minister signed by canada, u.s. asia-pacific framework. to increase the security cooperation in this important region. this will be done in the framework of the permanent joint board on defense has been in existence since 1940. this is the context in which the general address to the bilateral defense relation and we all look forward to hearing what he has to say on the subject. before i bring him up to the podium, i want to ask everyone to please write down on index cards that we have provided any questions that this opportunity for dialogue evokes and if you don't have a card, please raise your hand and we will distribute them now. after the general completes his prepared remarks i will ask the staff to collect your index cards and we have the senior fellows come as anthony kostro and sam brannen who will combine the questions and facilitate a follow on discussion. with that i want to think again general loss in and please join

me in welcoming him today. a. [applause] >> thank you very much for that warm welcome, kathleen. absolutely delighted to be here. feeling very affectionate towards washington regardless of that atrocious weather the washington capitals just gave to canada and got beaten by both the montréal canadiens. what a wonderful city. with all of the extensive traveling, my family and i have done across the united states among the great states and cities, this is our favorite. and all of you that are based here will know exactly why that is. ladies and gentlemen, i thank you for having me here at the institution that is so forward

thinking. and let me thank the organizers, your hard work behind the scenes. over the course i had many opportunities to work with great men and women of the armed forces. and that all the way to just as a year and a half ago when i was happily in colorado springs during my duties when i got called out for another posting area during this past year as canada's new chief of defense staff, i've been able to view our relationship from a slightly different perspective and i must say i have a renewed appreciation for just how close and just how important and just how far reaching out the bilateral relationship is. there is a spirit of partnership and collaboration that permeates the defense relationship and the government and militaries are

connected through a network of orange bits and joint institutions that really do form a fabric that is very impressive. large ago the companies learn how to leverage each other's strengths and how the mutual prosperity and security depends upon our military being truly connected and answer up trouble not just at home but also abroad. the canadian armed forces for its size is one of those few with the capabilities that allow us to be engaged anywhere in the world come at child, deplorable and responsive come into being a reliable partner in continental defense is certainly one of our most important priorities. at the same time, we in canada are also committed to doing our fair share on the international front. and it is my hope in you leave here today you will have a better appreciation of the canadian armed forces on the world stage and here in north america as well. what speak about the foundation of the canada u.s. relationship

as we see it. canada and the u.s. have a history of cooperation on defense and security issues. the strong ties between the militaries were developed in part by fighting side by side in most of the major conflicts over the past 100 years. we have fought together and both of the world wars. we were both founding members of nato in 1949 and fought together as battle buddies 40 years ago and that theme has been found over the last decade throughout the mission in afghanistan. as a result, we've developed a close personal bonds, we've learned from each other and we see the end organs of making sure the forces are truly interoperable even allowing the soldiers of our donations to be led by the general officers from the other armed forces, and that is a bond of trust that you will only find between the very closest of the nations.

the ultimate foundation of the interoperability is anger anchored in nato where we are working with our partners for over 60 years now. it's more than interoperability. it's a political alliance of like-minded democracies united by common values and principles and it has demonstrated the political will and it has the capability to do so. it can be a force for good and we need to be sure that we, the u.s. and canada uphold trans-atlantic commitment with our european friends and allies. between the two nations, our long and close partnership has allowed at the same time required the establishment of the joint institution to help us continue to strengthen our defense cooperation. canada and the u.s. have a forum to discuss the policies in the form of the present joint board on defense affectionately known as the pjbd founded by u.s.

president roosevelt and canadian prime minister king in 1940. since that time they've examined virtually every important combined measure undertaken between the two countries since the second world war until now. including the construction of distant early learning the creation of the aerospace defense command as well as the response for the attacks of 9/ 9/11. the next pjbd will be held in auto of this december and will be the 232nd meeting of this group and its 73 years of existence. but the most impressive cooperation is without a doubt something very warm in my heart north america and the aerospace demand created in 1958. many nations have bilateral relationships as for instance canada and the united states have with other allies.

but the agreement is a unique construct in that it is the binational agreement. norad brings the aerospace under the same roof and for purposes of continental air defense actually does away with the border. imagine that. when you read about norad history for you will see that the government officials in the late 1950s to great pain to work out and determine just what this could mean. this he raising of the border in the worst case. this potential loss of sovereignty. to stand up, none of these concerns have come to amount to anything. in fact in 2,006 in the universal recognition that this agreement has been mutually beneficial or countries agreed to add maritime warning functions allowing us to share sensitive information on activities conducted off the north american coastline and i

can tell you that the work being done side-by-side is of our friendship and commitment to the cooperation and nature will trust. as the defense relationship grows, these institutions grow as well. with the norad strategic review, canada and the u.s. are looking at emerging defense and security challenges and how our countries can prepare to meet that. north america is not a simple task. together, we cover a lot of land. that's why we try to be a contributor to the defense and a good example of that is radar too. this provides the canadian armed forces with all day and all night surveillance in areas where other equipment is challenged and simply unable to operate in harsh and unpredictable arctic regions for

example. as the replacement of the radar sat in constellation mission will enhance worker and surveillance capabilities by allowing real-time tracking of the ships approaching the mutual shorelines. canada is the only partner other than the u.s. was able to contribute to the satellite surveillance such an important way. this is the capability that is good to be the key to the north american security and to the joint missions abroad. that is what leveraging each other's strengths is all about. let's talk about canada and the operations to be at our interoperability and task sharing the cost stronger to defend the continent and this translates to a strong partnership on the international front. the canadian armed forces have contributed to the u.s. efforts to address illicit trafficking in the past year since 2,006 to the operation. recently canada enhanced its observation to the operation by

increasing the number of deployments conducting the counter drug detection and monitoring of the caribbean region and the gulf of mexico as well as the central eastern and central pacific ocean the armed forces are proud to participate in the international effort and intercept and see the millions of dollars of illicit drugs every year. the spread of drug trafficking and organized crime in central america is the key to keeping our hemisphere safe and promoting secure waterways and essential parts of the canadian and u.s. economy. canada and the u.s. are more sufficient in the fight against the organization. canada support is only one example of canada's work in the americas where we are always ready to assist in the case of the natural disaster.

as we did in haiti three years ago. they are actively fostering in cooperation with mexico and indeed we hosted the first trilateral meeting of the north american defense ministers in march of last year. this meeting led to the establishment of a framework to develop the cooperation between canada, the u.s. and mexico on issues of mutual concern, including efforts to address the transnational criminal organization and respond to disasters in the hemisphere. we are really looking forward to the second tramadol defense ministers meeting which will be hosted by mexico next year. let's look at some of this international cooperation as it applies to europe, africa and the middle east. ladies and gentlemen, one of the best examples internationally is nato the central alliance for both of the nations in a place that we work closely with our european allies to advance our shared global security interest. thanks to nato, canada, the u.s.

and many allies have a practical infrastructure to answer the request of the arab league and the united nations to take action over libya two years ago. and the nato structure of our partners outside of the alliance particularly to join us in this important mission. the canadian armed forces were proud to assume the command in providing the air and maritime report. the canadian contribution to the u.s. security coordinator for israel and the palestine authority is another great example of the american efforts that are getting real results. having visited the mission myself i can tell you that we put together canadians and americans are making a difference in the lives of both the palestinians and the israelis and indeed contributing to the middle east peace process. in that mission, canada and the u.s. are working closely

together leveraging each other's personnel and expertise to achieve success. to me this is what the defense relationship is about. we come together and we get things done together. these are high-profile examples, but the countries also cooperate in some areas that don't often get much attention. last month for example the canadian armed forces responded to requests from the united nations to deploy a royal canadian air force 17 gold master heavy lift aircraft to transport ten armored civilian vehicles between the u.s. and lebanon to assist in the efforts to eliminate chemical weapons into syria in line with the mandate of the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons. nearby in the arabian sea, canada love with th with the u.8 other nations contributed regularly to the maritime security and counterterrorism. a few weeks ago the ship in that region the canadian ship toronto intercepted and boarded a suspicious vessel and discovered 154 bags of hair when.

that's 154 bags that will never reach the streets of the two great nations. a small victory in the heart of fight against drug smuggling. let's look to afghanistan and asia pacific for more cooperation. ladies and gentlemen, some of you might remember what the former u.s. ambassador to canada, david jacobs said in the aftermath of 9/11. he said our shared of security into the belief that the oceans on either side of us and the warm relations between us kept us distant and protected from the world outside of danger came crashing down on that date. that feeling was hardly felt across canada. remember a few days after the horrible events of new york and here in washington, 100,000 people gathered together on the parliament and ottawa for an actual date of mourning. those canadians came together not just to honor the thousands of victims have lost their

lives, but also to display their solidarity with their friends and neighbors in the wake of such loss. this was only the beginning of the support to the u.s. in the wake of 9/11. once the crisis of september 11 had been dealt with to the best of our shared abilities, we turned our attention to the terrorist network that have inspired and orchestrated the attacks into the regime that gave the terrorist network the sanctuary. as the international community quickly rallied behind the united states in condemning both al qaeda and afghanistan taliban government, canada took a leading role in responding to and had boots on the ground as early as december of 2,001. for 2,006 to 2010 can our efforts in afghanistan brought us to the volatile kandahar province. beginning in 2008, the u.s. backed us up with reinforcement and these were u.s. soldiers places under canadian command. that's right very powerful

degree of interoperability and trust for the existence between the armed forces. from the demanding, environment in kandahar we transitioned to operation attention to the training mission devoted to supporting the main strategic objectives, that of preparing the afghan national security forces to take responsibility for the afghan security by themselves. canada has been the second-largest contributor to the training mission after the united states. as kathleen said, roughly 950 of the troops focused on getting the afghans the tools they need not only to fight the taliban and its affiliates, but also to train their own forces to this effect. indeed, the afghan forces are not only planning and leading most security operations across the nation, but 90% of all of the military training in afghanistan is now being conducted by the afghans themselves. that is a strategic and

operational success, one that would pay dividends over the long term i helping ensure that afghan forces can sustain their process and also help prevent afghanistan from ever again becoming a safe haven for terrorists, took her wrists that would pose a threat to us, our citizens and our allies. another area of the world that has a large impact is the asia pacific region. canada is long recognized the importance of asia, its continued peaceful rise not only upon the economic growth but fundamentally upon its security and stability. canada and the u.s. share with our partners a vested interest in containing the stability. and this drives our efforts to maintain and build on our history of joint cooperation. we have made a commitment to pursue opportunities locally for increased cooperation, but also coordinated and targeted efforts to build capabilities and to bolster conference among friends

and neighbors. as you might be aware just a few days ago the nations find a canada u.s. asia-pacific defense policy cooperation framework to enhance bilateral cooperation and collaboration in that region. this new framework provides the basis upon which the two countries agreed to coordinate defense related activities with our asian partners in areas of mutual interest while maintaining each other's ability and flexibility to take independent action or position. it's the latest example of how canada and the united states are urging together to make our joint efforts complementary and judicious while avoiding the duplication. ladies and gentlemen, as you go forward to sharing your thoughts and ideas, i hope you will remember you needed to only look north of the border to find a reliable, committed ally and friend, one that is making a meaningful contribution to our common security, whether here at

home in north america as key transatlantic partners in nato or elsewhere on the world stage. the link between our countries and the friendship between our militaries is truly unique, and it's also precious. by working side-by-side, we accomplished moraccomplish moreg alone and going forward we will continue to find more opportunities for cooperation so that together we can make a difference to th you ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. i would be happy to entertain your questions. [applause] >> if you have your cards we

will have folks coming around to collect them. if you will raise them up we will continue with our conversation and collect those for the follow on q-and-a. >> thank you very much, general. that was a wonderful speech and a great overview and a reminder of how much canada first of all is engaged in the world, canadian forces and certainly how close we are in our own goals and objectives, the united states and canada with regard to engaging the world. i wonder if we could talk first maybe about the end of combat operations in afghanistan. you spoke about afghanistan and you spoke about all the other priorities that there are in the

world. but also how afghanistan and libya provided real world opportunities to work closely together to be interoperable. following operations in afghanistan, what are your thoughts about the best ways we can continue to ensure? without that laboratory if you will having continue to ensure a forces remain interoperable. >> that is a great question and a challenge that faces the chair man and i as we go forward. we leave afghanistan probably as interoperable as an air force and army especially as we ever have been. and back to my earlier stays in germany flying with the americans and watching our troops and working with the americans still it doesn't come close to where we are as we depart afghanistan right now. so the challenge is to capture that doctrine and hear back on

the continent exercise it is easy for us from the time that we step in and canada the canadian troops are looking to come down across the border into a great training area and americans can often be enticed after april as well. but i think bigger than that, we have been engaged. tactically i think that will come easy but we've been engaged at the very highest levels operationally and strategically and that will come through some larger exercises the americans hold impact of course off the west coast and canada seeks to be a very large part of their impact and the senior leadership there and also in our large exercise that is held every two years we seek and i'm sure will find a willing group of american leaders who will come up to help us with that creates it is an entire range of skills we have become good at it that we want

to hold in the coming years. >> you also mentioned, as i think i did in my remarks the new canada u.s. pacific framework. and you just mentioned the impact and another exercise of opportunity. what do you think this new framework provides for the perspective of u.s. and canadian forces but also maybe more on the political geostrategic level what does it mean and how does canada think about asia as a priority area as a best strategy? >> for cooperation framework itself we have a couple of them already between canada and the u.s. one to central america and another the caribbean and they've been useful to us because what they did is they laid out a framework by which we can overlap efforts in operations where that's required or best divide our capabilities

so that if one area or one issue is being well looked after with or without the support of the other nations that can free up certain capabilities for the other nation to focus on a different area. so i think certainly from an operational point of view, it would be very helpful. ..