so these are not small matters. these are ones we all need to be very concerned about.

it is something i hope you have given thought to over the course of the week. before i take your questions, let me just end with a story that i have always thought was pretty special. it is the story of benjamin franklin who, as you know, was one of the key members of the initial group of men who came together to write the constitution and to write most of the initial foundational premises upon which our democratic republic was built. as he was leading one night in the deliberations about our constitution, and woman in the crowd yelled, "mr. franklin, have you decided what will it be a monarchy, or will we have a

republic?" he thought a minute, and he yelled back to the woman in the crowd, "ma'am, we will have a republic if we can keep it." that has been our charge for 200 and years, to keep this republic. there are only two ways to do it. one is to fight for it when you have to, and over a million americans have fought for it over these 220 years, and the other is to work at it every day. it is the responsibility of the members of congress of course to work at it, and as hard as it is to work at it these days, especially in times of polarization and reaching consensus, that challenge has hit new heights. it is the responsibility for us all. each of us in this room has responsibility. you know that, or you would not as a be here. i am glad you are. i hope you have had a good week,

and i look forward to taking your questions. thank you all very much. and [applause] >> thank you so much for being here. my name is michael arthur. my question relates to gerrymandering. what reforms have been proposed, and what do you think would be an effective solution? >> a great question, and i would say that as you know it is largely a state responsibility. some states have taken it very seriously, iowa in particular. and in iowa has made this as nonpolitical an effort over the years as they possibly can, and requiring that all the him and counties within a him counties within a congressional district the

balancentiguous and exists in large measure as a result of boundaries that already are in existence rather than carving up and deciding new boundaries as one goes. they have had enormous success. they have an equal balance between republicans and democrats in iowa today in large measure because they have felt so strongly about this. another thing that has been done in recent years was done in california, which now requires that the top two vote getters in the primary run against each other. it is probably too early to tell whether that has worked as well as people have hoped. but the early signals are, the early indications are that it is working reasonably well so far. those are the kinds of things that have to be done if we are going to get this thing addressed.

i also think we have got to be concerned about how primaries function today in dealing with low voter turnout, and the influence that certain groups can have as a result of that low voter turnout is something that has to be addressed, and that is partly a function of how much we spend in campaigns, which is also a big factor. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is mike. you touched on the filibuster i knowyou touched on the filibuster already, but as a former senate majority leader, how do you feel about harry reid's decision to take the nuclear option? >> it is a very difficult decision and i support it. i think senator reid had little choice. i have to say i think it is , unacceptable for a nominee who has been vetted and nominated by the president of the united states, any president, to be required to put his life on

hold, his or her life on hold, for a couple of years without knowing what the circumstances are going to be. you cannot do that. and so, number one, i think that that factor is one of the most important. that as i said in my comments we i also believe, given the fact thatthat as i said in my comments we have had more filibusters on nominations in the last five years than in all of history put together. the trends are not good. so senator reid limited this nuclear option, so-called, eliminating the filibuster only on nominations. my concern is that this could slip into other areas of legislating as well, and i would be concerned about that. the two things that i think would cure the problem, but they are hard to do, is, one, require members of congress to hold the floor if you're going to be filibustering, and, two, not move on to another piece of

legislation. we call it dual tracking. stay on a particular issue until the issue is resolved. those two things are one of the reasons why we have had so few filibusters in the past. >> thank you. thank you. >> hi. i was wondering if you could share some ideas you might have about decreasing the debt. >> decreasing the debt. i think as you know we have got a chasm between what we spend and what we raise today. we are at about -- it is getting better. the economy is getting stronger, and as a result, and i will come back to that in a minute -- as a result, the spread between what we raise and what we spend is different. in recessions we spend more

because there are a lot of safety net programs that are used more frequently. in essence, what i think we have to do is to bring our revenue to the historic levels we have had in the past, around 20% of gdp, and bring our spending -- and it is currently right now between 16% and 17% -- so we have to raise revenue and bring down spending, not only on the discretionary side, on the amount appropriated, but on the entitlement side, from 22.5% down to 20%. that would bring us roughly in balance. it is not necessary we be exactly in balance, but that would be my choice. how do we raise revenue? there are three things that have to be considered. first is the most important -- to keep growing the economy. the more the economy grows, more revenue will be raised. secondly, i think we have got an imbalance. you do not have the purpose of

of the taxressivity code like we had before, and i think we have got to continue to build to make it more progressive. third, i think we have to eliminate a lot of these crazy loopholes. we have amended the tax code. we have passed tax simplification in 1986, probably before most of you were born, and we have had over 8000 amendments to the tax code since 1986. most of them have had to do with creating more loopholes. it has got to do with the loophole challenge. on the spending side, we can do a lot with the entitlement programs. the legislators really have two choices. they can cut and shift the programs, and that is what we have done in the past, cut them back and shift the cost of something else, or we can improve their efficiency. health care is the best example. we spend about $800 billion

unnecessarily. there is a lot we can do on the entitlement side by redesigning and improving. that is what i would do. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> senator daschle, earlier you spoke about silence and how people should not be locked in this silence in our country. my question, we've been talking about immigration a lot this week, what do you propose we do to ensure the millions of undocumented immigrants fighting for citizenship are not lost in the silence? >> that is such an important question now. i think it is tragic we have the circumstances we do today with regard to undocumented people in this country. they are denied health care. they are denied insurance.

it is illegal for them to be denied health care per se, but oftentimes it is tantamount to denying them health care, because they do not -- they are not likely to be received well if they do not come in with insurance or documentation, even in an emergency room. about 25,000 people a year die simply because they do not have insurance in this country. it starts with basic life-and- death issues like that. i think it is important that immigration has historically been one of our greatest strengths. i look around this room and i see an impressive diversity. i think i see more women than men which is a good thing, and i , think diversity in this

country is something we have almost taken for granted. that diversity can be because we have such an open policy with regard to immigration and we have migrated from different parts of the world. i think that has always been one of our greatest strengths. but yet there is a lot of resistance to that belief today. so i think there are three things to ensure that we really have to -- number one, there has to be more congressional focus on the perils of living in this country as an undocumented person today. i do not think the congress has focused adequately on that question. what happens? how do they live? and one of their circumstances? number two, advocacy groups need to step up to the plate and be more visible. and, three, i am hopeful that

these groups can organize themselves more effectively than they have in the past, and if not, have direct political influence, at least in an indirect way by increasing the visibility and the understanding and the empathy of the challenges that they face and as a result our country faces by this dilemma. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. you mentioned earlier that the debate is really over the role of government in this country. but what is your opinion on the role of this country in the world? in your opinion, will the next generation or even the current legislatures and executives in office, will they continue military action or will we see more negotiation about diplomacy, and sort of a bipartisanship worldwide?

>> we are seeing a dramatic change in the world landscape over the last 30 years. it used to be a very bipolar coexistence in the cold war between communist countries and non-communist countries, and that bipolar simplicity was both good and bad. there were great dangers like the cuban missile crisis and the possibility of a nuclear exchange, but that simplicity i think lulled us into a complacency about how we look at the world. today there are four levels, not just one. we have the military level, which will continue to be dominant in for a long time to come. there is an economic

competition. china has become very powerful as a nation, not because of any military strength, but on the basis of their economic strength. i think that is different than it has ever been before. i think that change has really made a difference. i think that is a realization that we have not fully absorbed yet. i'm thinking with regard to our own strategy. at the third level, there is a then new nationalism that is taking place all over the world with smaller countries that are trying to exert themselves a lot more effectively. i would list countries like israel, taiwan, singapore, and a lot of other countries -- brazil, clearly -- that have had sort of a newfound prominence in the world as a result of their success. and then the fourth level is the one that is the most troubling

and intriguing, and that is what i would call the transnational level. transnational level is dominated by people who have no national identity -- terrorists and hackers, whether it is al qaeda or someone hacking into systems that may exist somewhere in the world and does enormous damage. we have to be concerned especially with that fourth tier. our security will be more affected by that fourth tier than the first. the question is, what do we do about it? my solution is, to the extent that anyone can do it in a distinct way, it requires four d's. first is defense. there is a need for military strategy and infrastructure. second is diplomacy. we need to put more emphasis on nation-to-nation relationships. third d is development, recognizing how important it is to allow the tide to rise on votes anywhere in the world,

especially in the developing world, putting greater emphasis on development is critical. the fourth is democracy. that fourth d is critical. we have minimized that. unfortunately today we put more , resources today in the first d then all the others put together. we need to find a better balance that is a long answer to your to go forward. question. >> thank you. it is a good question. >> thank you. >> hi. in the past few years you have been a voice in the role of

health care in our country and how we can look to cover everyone in the country. a news reporter praised chris christie for firing people after they lied to him. there was a lot of criticism over obama's responsibility for assigning responsibility in the slow rollout of the health care. i would wonder about that and how obama did not criticize his administration for the health- care rollout. >> that is a valid question. i think what the president would probably say, and i have not talked to him personally about it, but have had many conversations with people around him, and i think what they would argue is that, number one, there was not any one person who was responsible who could take all the responsibility to the extent that he or she should be fired as a result. it was a team effort. the team failed, and as a result

the team all is being held accountable. what the president would but i think emphasize is it is almost like a sporting event. the first month was the first inning. the second month was the second inning. we are now in about the fifth inning. the game is not over. the question is how it looks by the time we reach the ninth inning or the end of the game, to use a baseball analogy. but i think today circumstances are dramatically different than they were on the 1st of october. about 2.5 million people now are enrolled in the exchanges. about 4.4 million people as a result of their eligibility for medicaid are now enrolled in medicaid for the first time, since october 1. about 3 million young adults have signed up on their family plans. you have almost 10 million

people since the first of october who have insurance, if not for the first time, who have insurance in a permanent way and far better insurance than they probably ever had before. so i think to take any rash action with regard to disciplining somebody before the game was over would have been premature, and i'm very hopeful and somewhat optimistic that circumstances are going to get that are as these months unfold. >> thank you. >> hello. campaign finances. mr. glickman made a comment how he dislikes having big contributions. mr. bennett was in support of large contributions.

what problems have you faced and what would you try to do to fix this problem? >> first of all, i think we have compounded the problem dramatically by allowing large contributions. it has not done anything but accelerate the arms race with regard to money in politics, and that is unfortunate. a typical member of the senate today has to spend 2/3 of his final two years in the senate raising money if it is a competitive race. you should not have to do that. i personally would favor a constitutional amendment that would allow us to put severe limits on the amount of money that is raised and spent. i would not allow any fundraising while congress is in session. i would put individual limits much more constrained than they are today in an effort to bring down the cost of campaigns. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> cody cooper. you are talking about the media having more of a participatory stance rather than a referee approach. i was wondering how you would influence the media to adopt the referee approach since they have a profit motive? >> that is one of the big issues that really defies any simple solutions. it is really a paradigm. -- it is really imperative. when i talk about leadership, it is imperative that it is not just government leadership that we need. it is private leadership. we need to ensure that the networks and that others in the media take the responsibility and show the leadership to ensure that there is good balance. i remember the day we lost the fairness doctrine which required balance. -- i lament the day that we lost the fairness doctrine which

required balance. while we had that requirent, there was a lot more of a level playing field with regard to political rhetoric and all that came from it. that will probably never happen again. it is imperative that we try to encourage leaders to step up and be responsible more than they are today. >> i come from the nation of nepal, and after 15 years of uprising, the country has seen a path to democracy. what is the one major piece of advice that you could give to a new democracy? >> i am inspired and excited

about what i see. it has been a rough and uncertain road. you have made real progress. i think there are four pillars that countries interested in building a democracy have to be cognizant of in order for democracy to succeed. the first pillar is in many respects probably the most important, and that is tolerance a willingness to accept the fact that somebody disagrees with you, that you do not agree with them, and accept the fact that you may agree is great, a tolerance of other people's views and beliefs is fundamental to success. that is number one -- tolerance. the second is respect for the rule of law, because you make a mockery of democracy if you pass laws and do not abide by them. respect for the rule of law is the second pillar. the third pillar is

participation. the quality of our democracy suffers in primaries with very low participation. so it is true in developed democracies like ours and in developing democracies like yours, having high levels are participation is really critical. and the fourth is what i just said about leadership. you need leadership in the public and the private sector. that is an important pillar. without leadership you have anarchy. you need leadership to give that participation direction. those are the four pillars. we all strive. i do not think the united states is as tolerant a society as it should be. i do not think we respect the rule of law as we should. we certainly lack participation sometimes in our elections, and there are times when i think we can do better with regard to leadership. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> hi, senator. i want to say i'm not usually nervous to ask questions, but i grew up watching your government and i appreciate your contribution to our country. i am impressed with the knowledge that you have about our government and how it was formed and the history of it, and you have used several examples that created an image of how that applied and what that did. it really hit me how important it is that we know where we come from and how we got there and what worked and what did not work. but my question is more in line with next week, which we are doing media, but in my lifetime, social media changed with the election of presidents kennedy and nixon and how people can use media to get their point across. i remember -- and i cannot

remember the issue and i cannot remember the resolution, but i remember one time that you had a public meeting in the mall, i think it was either with a group or an individual, and you tried to get people watching to understand the point of what you were talking about. it might have been response to the president's address to the congress. but it so hit me and i have noticed that you use symbolism to explain things. you create a picture in our minds so that we understand what you are talking about. from an educational point of view, you want your citizens to be informed and understand the decisions you're working on and making. and i appreciate that, and i was wondering if you always had that or if that is something that you learned as you governed, that you wanted your constituency to understand it, and what kind of how did that come about benefits , have you seen because of that

ability to govern? >> thank you for your kind comments. partly it is acquired. you see many different approaches to communication in politics today. some fit the individual better than others. but i think it is important to the extent you use the description paint the picture. it is important to paint pictures. that is an acquired ability that i'm still trying to learn. i think it is important to speak in ways that people understand, that allow sort of a picture to be painted. and i think the more one can do that, the more effective one can be as a communicator. i am flattered that you would call attention to that. as i say, i still have a lot to work to do, but that is one thing i have attempted to do -- claude pepper was one of my mentors. he was a congressman from

florida. he loved metaphors and pictures. he was such an eloquent speaker. mo udall also had that capacity. it is a tool that you want to be able to acquire as a public speaker and a public servant in particular. >> i appreciate you telling people in my generation to take part in what is going on. >> thank you. >> hi. we have been talking a little bit this week about education and especially the voucher system. as a future teacher, i was wondering what your opinion of school choice and the voucher system was. >> i generally think that having school choice is a good thing. i think sometimes it is overrated. i think vouchers can be a good

thing, but i also think they are overrated. i do not think -- i think if everybody got to go to a charter school or a private school things would be resolved is too simplistic. we need to look at all the tools we have available to us. i know extraordinary public schools that have served their communities extremely well, but i also know there are charter schools and private schools that have served their communities well. i do not think there is any one solution. i think we need to find the test in all of these models and apply -- the best in all of these models and apply them where they work best within a community. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a graduate student at the university of san diego. i appreciate your comments. i have been at a lot of political events, and frequently when you ask a representative questions, you seem to get the

rhetoric of the canned answer. i really appreciate the fact that we can ask questions and they are contemplated. it makes a difference. i'm really interested in a couple of things. i relatives have always asked why does congress have different why does congress have different types of health care packages , that when in the constitution we are not allowed to have any favoritism within the congress that the people do not have? that would be the first question. and why there is not a momentum, if there is such a low rating for congress right now, why would the congress not band together to show good stead to the people that they would make that change that they are equal to the populace they represent. the second question i would have is it seems was so much -- with so much conversation about cutting back expenditures or increasing taxation and those two bipolar conversations, why

there is not more emphasis on the contributions that the are getting as corporate-fare, or wealthy fare, that there is such a move to cut welfare, when on a budget - sheet, when you continue to give tax incentives to only one edge of the population, that is the same effectively as giving benefit packages to the wealthy. it does not seem to come out in the media. i am a republican and a conservative republican, but as i have studied this, i recognize that is pretty absent from the argument. it is just to not tax. but on the balance sheets, you either -- if you get an incentive or a benefit, it is coming from the revenue streams that come into the country. >> that is such a good point. i will take the second part of your question first.

we have spent over $1 trillion on tax loopholes. it has become far more expensive in recent years. the proliferation of tax loopholes has been phenomenal in the past 20 years. it has not only complicating the -- complicated the tax code, but it has created a lot of the inequities that you so eloquently addressed. that is why we need meaningful tax reform, but we do not score those tax loopholes the same way we do as direct spending. it does not get the same attention. i think that is where it starts. it is relative to terry value tax loophole has is exactly the same as a direct expenditure. they are not looked upon budget --ribly in the same way

-- budgetarily in the same way. they really should start with thisbecause it would go it in proper perspective just as you have suggested. ,egards members of congress sometime they do things for which they do not get much credit. you may not know, everybody in congress is now required to participate in the health exchange. --y are not able to be dental longer eligible for the system as it was designed. they can still access it but it has to be through an exchange, probably through the district of columbia exchange. you can probably sign up in your own state as well.

i think they're trying to atempt a greater effort doing what you suggest, finding ways in which to ensure that they are not treated differently . they have a nine percent approval rating right now. i think that approval rating in by the reflected extraordinary polarization and what appears to be somewhat of a picayune attitude in finding small things about which to fight or argue instead of raising the level of debate to issues of real magnitude that people care deeply about, whether it is energy or immigration or the economy. i think that is part of the problem as well. it is not just that they set themselves apart, but they are not accomplishing all that needs to be accomplished in this great country of ours today.

your point is well taken. how can we ensure that they relate more directly to the people of this country. we have a big job to do in that regard. >> thank you very much. i have enjoyed your questions for much. like you all and have a great weekend. [applause] >> senator daschle, thank you very much for being with us today. we have a token of our appreciation. i want to say and publicly thank you, as well as your colleague, former senator olympia snowe, for supporting our program. it was senator daschle who folks atd us to the the bipartisan policy center when we had the idea for this academic seminar and they have been such a wonderful partner and thank you for your leadership and thank you for your friendship to the washington center area thank you very much. [applause] senator kirsten gillibrand talks about her proposal to help

families. is paul ryan -- she will be followed by her representative paul ryan. >> with government funding expiring on wednesday. rayhalltative neck talks about a chemical leak in his state of west virginia. doctors are needed to implement the health care law? your e-mails, phone calls and tweets on "washington journal." >> as a president first stated in march and reemphasize tuesday night, the goal in afghanistan and pakistan was to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al qaeda and its extremist allies.

return to both countries. the international military effort to stabilize afghanistan is necessary to achieve this overarching goal. served twoates presidents as defense secretary from 2006-2011 heard and c.i.a. director in the early 90s. friday at 6 p.m. eastern on c- span two, a life book tv event. secretary gates talks about his management of the wars in iraq and afghanistan and his relationship with the white house and congress. women's weeks look for history author bonnie morris. online for the rest of january, join our book tv book discussion "the liberty's amendment." >> state department deputy spokesman maria harv responded -- january 20at

marks a date that iran's nuclear program is scheduled to come to a stop, according to the --eement negotiated in the in geneva. here's a look at monday's briefing. it was a busy weekend. they told us that it fell short of what they need to investigate. what kind of access would you like to see? if they do not have the access alsoif they do not have the access, to do this properly, what do you arguing for greater say to those in congress who are sanctions? >> i have not actually seen the iaea comments. in terms of verification

mechanisms and transparency in monitoring on january 20, when , the joint plan of action is implemented, we are going to have the most access we have ever had to these types. -- to these sites. daily inspector access. monthly access in iraq. much moreese are frequent than we have ever had in the past. the iaea is taking the lead on verifying and confirming what the iranians confirmed to doing. i think it is significant to note that for the first time in almost a decade next week the iranian program will come to a halt. in terms of the congressional aspect of this, i think the fact that we have taken a concrete, tangible step in implementing this agreement. again, you asked about access. things that iran will be doing in terms of stopping 20% enrichment -- all the things they have committed to will start happening on the 20th. we will make the case to congress that for all the people who have talked about diplomacy,

we are making concrete and tangible progress. we have a long way to go, but no one should do anything that could possibly derail the progress. this is the best chance we have had for diplomatic resolution forever in the iranian nuclear program and who knows when we will get this chance again? we will take -- we should tell congress to not take any steps that would derail this process. we need to get this done. >> how much access do think to they need to have be able to do their job? we have known the limits on the iranians and this team before. do they need full access? >> we have not -- i have not

seen those comments. we agreed to the joint plan of action. believing that the increased transparency was a good step forward. it gives us daily access. iraq things wein . have never had before. insight we have never had before. clearly this is not enough. the first step is not enough in any of these air -- the first step is not enough in any of these areas. for the first time, we will have transparency into their nuclear program. again, going back to the congressional piece why would , anyone want to do anything -- especially something that does not even go into effect at the current time -- that could possibly close the doors on this progress? why would you want to do something that could possibly result in inspectors not being allowed in on a daily basis? that would possibly derail the negotiations? it defies logic if you support diplomacy, you should not be doing things to actively

undermine it. it is the argument we are certainly making to congress. >> is it your understanding -- they are not dismantling the facilities because the iranians have said that they have invested almost a decade and -- in it? >> a couple points on a rack. a the first step -- there are couple of points on iraq. all whole host of things they cannot do on the first plan of action. there will likely have to be some dismantling. that will be negotiated over the next x months and a comprehensive agreement. what we have found is there will be a complete halt and we will increase monitoring. if the goal is to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, building a road does not do anything to impact that one way or another.

we will have the conversations about all of those detailed issues as part of the agreement. >> you could not hear me. i was here yesterday. >> i know. i meant to call on you. was that your question? >> yes. >> yes? amglad you got to ask it. yes? >> you were not forgoing any enrichment level? is that good enough? >> good enough in what way? >> he said that iran would not have any kind of enrichment level above five percent that would allow for weapon eyes programs. >> we have always said the iranians, if they said they were

only wanted a peaceful nuclear program, they could prove it. that is part of what this process is about. if they fall fill their fulfillnts -- if they their commitments under the plan of action, that is certainly credible. words are not enough given the history here. that is why we need to see actions. that is why it is so important that on january 20 we will see iran take concrete, tangible actions that could be to a comprehensive agreement. -- that could lead to a >> [indiscernible] do you see that as a positive agreement with iran and the region? >> we see this as a separate one. we have been very clear about that.

also in places like syria and lebanon -- iran has created a stabilizing role in many of these countries. i do not have a comment on prime -- on foreign minister zarif's visit. obviously he has been part of the nuclear negotiations. more on iran? anything else on iran? ok, lucas. then i will go back to you on iran. >> they have said they will continue to enrich beyond 20% until the january 20 deadline. is that in keeping with the spirit of the negotiations and the temporary deal? >> the current status of iran's nuclear program -- including specifically its nuclear program and the reactor -- regardless of what they do between now and then, they will halt production of 20% enriched uranium.

they will start to dilute half of the 20% enriched uranium and convert the rest to a form not suitable for further enrichment. at the end of the six months, they will have completed the dilution of 20% enriched uranium or conversion to oxide by the end of the six months. regardless what they do between now and then, if at the end of six months if they are faithful to their commitment, they will have completed the dilution of their 20% stockpile of enriched uranium. >> do you think this is equivalent to binge drinking or eating before you go on a diet? >> i don't and i'm not going to use that term. they have an obligation to fulfill their commitment. we have a clear idea about the difficulty, but they have committed on their own to do these things. so, we expect them to stand by

their word and fulfill their commitments and again that speaks very clearly to the 20% uranium stockpile. they are very acidic, the -- details about what they have to do in the six months. >> [indiscernible] >> i'm not going to guess what their motivations are. yes? >> today we will have a hearing -- our new home mortgage rules. a subcommittee will examine the new qualified mortgage and ability to payroll. i've coverage at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span three. >> nine different railways andinated in chattanooga that created quite an economic base. every railroad had a switching yard.

there was a great terminal in the southeast. all that employment, all that money turning over by the workers provided an economic stimulus to the growing city of chattanooga. still move railroads an amazing amount of tonnage through chattanooga. , train after train after train loaded with grain, going to the sea boards on the atlantic coast or going to power plants in georgia, etc.. there are still a lot of commodities that moved by rail, again, due to the terrain they have to come through chattanooga. >> this weekend on book tv and american history tv, look at the history and literary life of chattanooga tennessee. saturday at noon on c-span2 and

sunday at 5 p.m. on c-span three. >> senator kirsten gillibrand spoke about her proposals to help working families, including paid family and medical leave, a higher minimum wage and universal prekindergarten. the senator spoke at the social mobility summit hosted by the brookings institution for about 40 minutes. [indiscernible] >> good morning. i hope everyone is feeling bright and cheery this morning.

it is sunny and a reasonable temperature again. i am the codirector of the center for children and families here at brookings. we have invited a group of experts from around the country to join us today for the first annual summit on social mobility in the united states. it was organized by my colleague richard reeves. we are delighted to have so many wonderful experts here to talk about this issue all day. if we are going to put social mobility on the agenda in the united states and figure out what to do about it, we need help from people in public life. it is a tremendous honor to have someone with us today to begin to help us address these questions. senator gillibrand was first assigned by the governor after hillary clinton left her post. she was elected on her own in

2010 for a six-year term. she has worked on all kinds of issues. i have read her biography and there are so many there that i looked at her website and cannot begin to list them all. i think she is best known for her advocacy of ending sexual assault in the military. now some people have referred to her as the next hillary clinton. harry reid, very uncharacteristically, once referred to her as the hottest member of the democratic caucus. i can't imagine senator reid saying that but evidently he did. as the mother of two young children and one of only 20 women in the senate, she is especially focused on the needs of women and families.

she believes the women's movement has stalled out and wants to see at least half of all senate seats and half of all governorships be women in the future. i want to heartily endorse that goal. i would also add that i would like to see a woman president of the united states before i die. maybe it will be you, senator. it is with great pleasure that we welcome you to brookings. i think i speak for all of us when i say we are looking forward to your remarks. [applause] >> thank you for your leadership and for hosting today's forum. it will be a very interesting conversation. i want to thank the brookings institute for bringing us all together to talk about a topic that is vital to the future of

this country and talk about some fresh ideas to get more children and working families the opportunity they need to achieve their full potential. last week marked the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's declaration of an all- out war against poverty ushering in a new era of commitment to security and opportunity for every single american. no matter the circumstances they were born into or whatever life dealt you. the same week we mark this milestone in american history the senate and the house had a , chance to do one simple act to live up to that promise by extending a lifeline to 1.3 million jobless americans. 1.3 million americans, who through no fault of their own, who want to work, who need to work, and are diligently looking for work.

they were denied this lifeline, this basic lifeline that keep -- that keeps them afloat during tough economic times. for no reason but politics, democrats and republicans may well have honest disagreements on the best way to grow our economy and create jobs for all those americans that are ready and willing to work. we should be able to agree on a core principle. basic core principle. we should stand by those who are struggling and never leave anyone out in the cold. but all too often this is exactly what happens in washington for reasons most would find inexcusable. it is the same old political game being played with food stamps. the house of representatives would like to cut $40 billion over 10 years. they would have us all believe that they are cutting ways to

cut fraud, abuse, end free rides on the taxpayers' dime, but the reality is when you are cutting food stamps, you are just taking food off the table of families in this country. taking food out of the mouths of hungry children. taking food away from seniors who are on fixed incomes. from veterans who gave their lives for this country and everything for this country who are at a time of need. that is who you are taking food away from. it makes me angry because all we hear from the other side is that those on government assistance are somehow scamming the system or are lazy. i have never met a lazy child who is hungry. have you? i have never met one man or woman who is on unemployment benefits or who needs food stamps who wants to be there.

they don't want to be there. they would prefer to be working, providing for their children, feeding their children. i have never met a mother whose children are well fed who was on food stamps. on top of these economic hardships, a lot of these families -- it is a loss of confidence and dignity. that is all the motivation they need to work as hard as they can to find a new job and to regain that stability that their family needs. that is what the 1.3 million americans are fighting for -- a job. an opportunity to work. this assistance is meant for them as their safety net. when politicians attack those receiving government assistance, they are not attacking the nameless and the faceless, they

are attacking our kids, our seniors, our veterans who have given so much. it is not who we are as americans. we are all in this together and we have to create the federal policies that reflect those core values. i know we will hear a lot of politicians finding a new sense of compassion over the weeks and months ahead. when you look at their policies, they fall short of those words. we see policies that trade off cutting food assistance to families that need it to protect billions of dollars of profits to companies that do not need those profits. if you look at the policies, there is not a parent in america who does not know that early childhood education is the difference between their child

reaching their full potential and not. you will see policies that are designed to cut medicaid. what is medicaid? it is access to health care for those who need it most. simply put, these are not the priorities of a nation that has a moral obligation to those who need help. these are the policies of the nation that does what we can to support americans who have fallen on hard times. children and families who are hurting and hungry need more than a slogan, so we should at least agree on this. let's do more than just find the right way to talk about it. let's actually look at democrats and republicans for policies that focus on our families and protect those who are struggling to make ends meet. i have traveled around my state of new york and the stories of struggle have not stopped.

parents are working their hardest to get by and provide for their kids but the reality is that things seem to be working against them. for all those that have been lifted up since lbj took poverty head on, the fact is inequality has come to record levels. college affordability is slipping away. seniors are working longer hours for less money. contrary to the basic american values that we have reported reward work in this country, the real value of workers' wages is on the decline. families are having a tough time as a result. but all along the american dream has not changed. we still all as americans dream of getting an education, providing for our families, raising our kids, paying for college, and making sure we have money for retirement. the rules of earning the american dream have changed.

the skills and tools that all but guaranteed our parents and our grandparents were placed in -- a place in the middle class will not cut it today. the world has changed and our economy has changed. most importantly, the american andmost importantly, the american family and the face of the american workforce has changed. significantly. that is where i see the greatest potential for reviving a middle- class, and opportunity for all those who are fighting to make it there. the new faces of our workforce over the last decade are now women. women are increasingly the new in fact family breadwinners. , women are the primary wage earners for a growing share of homes. in 1960, only 11% of families had the mother being relied on for her wages to provide for the kids. today, that is 40%.

40% of wage earners in america are mothers who are the primary wage earners to provide for their kids. 40% of the families with children under 18 rely only on the mother to pay the bills, make those tough choices at the kitchen table, and feed their kids. but you wouldn't know that by looking at american workplace policies today. they are stuck in the past. congress and state capitals across the country simply have failed to keep pace with the new economy and the modern american workplace. the key to creating a growing economy and the key to an american middle class is women. without a doubt, if given a fair shot, women will be the ones who ignite this economy and lead america to the revival of the middle class. that is what i want to focus on. it is called the american opportunity agenda. it is a set of five basic

principles that will modernize the american workplace that empower women and families and give them the chance to earn their way and get ahead into the economy. basically reflect the values of our nation. first, rebuilding our american middle class relies on keeping every woman who wants to be in the workplace in the workplace earning a paycheck. now this is a situation that many in this room may well have faced. for anyone who has ever had a new baby, or a sick family member, or a dying mother or father who needs care around the clock, you know what that feeling is like when you have to make a choice between providing for your family and staying in the work place or caring for your loved one at home. choosing between your loved one and your career is a choice that no person should ever have to make. but this is a