. . including cyber attacks which we know could be devastating to an electrical power generating grant or any other grid that is

out of. if you could perhaps speak to that issue, protecting and hardening it to our terrorism's. >> thank you for the question, chairman smith. i will defer to my colleagues specifically in relation to power africa and those engagements. i can tell you the recognition that we encounter from energy companies and energy agencies, ministries in our international engagements to an ever-increasing degree recognize the importance of protecting infrastructure. one of the things the department of energy does is to enter into cooperative engagements with key international partners. we do this at their expense, at the expense of the host country

to help them identify older abilities, -- vulnerabilities. plan their systems so there is resilience to in the threats, at all hazards approach whether one is talking about severe weather, cyber attack or physical attack. we have found that this is an area where the united states is in a position to add tremendous amount of value from our experience. i will have to defer to my colleagues as to whether that is being done in the power africa case. so we don't know the answer myself. >> thank you for the question, mr. chairman. i will double check but i believe some of these exchanges, depending on the topic that are of interest to the energy regulators, the power operators or the utilities, some of these exchanges i will be send you details of have included those

topics. the other thing is the involvement of the private sector. a lot of the private sector investors have a lot of experience in thinking through these risks. and investing from offshore they're looking at all risks and that's a avenue on this topic which is the stand to lose a lot of money if they don't pay attention to these topics. we also count on them to be very involved working with local folks to look at. >> just to be certain, it's not an afterthought. it is integrated into planning, development and the like, implementation? >> i want to doublecheck on that. because i don't know if it's always been demand driven or whether it's integrated. i will come back with the specific -- >> i appreciate that. thank you. >> in the early stage of really developing electricity grid systems in africa, we have the

three power pools, east, west and south. there are different stages. i think in the process and working with the international financial institutions like the world bank and african development bank there is a lot of consideration about the security and reliability issues that are going into the development of the loan programs and specifications for what kind of systems they can put in place but clearly it's going to be an issue that is going to be with us especially as they begin to invest more and more in developing high voltage transmissions. >> with the expertise of homeland security or the pentagon or state department, diplomatic security be incorporated? after we got hit, i chaired the hearings with accountability review board after 1998 terrorist attack. i'll never forget when an

assistant secretary carpenter said that they will look for any vulnerability that nothing is off limits. i'm paraphrasing of course but he sat right where you sat in 1999 when i chaired hearings. out of that i wrote the embassy security act which became law and much of the setbacks were all finally included because they have not been implemented for years and they're still in process of course in some our missions abroad. it was a lesson i learned that people just thought it wouldn't happen here. let their guard down and, of course, those who wish us ill, these nefarious networks will look for any vulnerability, the usual word which i think is the right word. if you could give back to us if you would how the whole process of protecting. i'm glad you elaborate as well

that is not just against terrorism, against earthquakes and natural disasters. just so the subcommittee in anyway we can be helpful in promoting even more of that because i think of forward they will be increasingly at risk. the terrorists are not foolish. they will look for anything which will do maximum damage. if you could get back but i thank you for your interest as well. >> ms. bascom anything? >> anything you'd like to say before we conclude? >> i think i could speak on behalf of my colleagues both at the table and in our agencies that would just reiterate our thanks to all of you for your leadership and your interest. we are not going to collectively solve this challenge without their help and we very much appreciate it. >> thank you. it is a partnership. thank you for taking the lead and doing so effectively. the subcommittee is great depression of what you have accomplished and will accomplish going forward. and keep the like to welcome our

second panel beginning first with mr. walker williams as president and ceo of leadership africa u.s.a., and alternative marketing access. mr. williams is a management consultant with more than two decades of experience working with governments, corporations, ngos and multilateral institutions. his areas of expertise and strategic advice include energy, infrastructure, development, finance, management. he has worked with the we on the first u.s.-african ministerial in morocco and in ethiopia. i which is known as well he was also instrumental in bringing house and senate together. and the african diplomatic corps for an historic and ongoing set of meetings that we have had to meet with the african ambassadors and others from all of the in country and i want to thank you for your leadership in making that happen.

they will hear from ms. dianne sutherland who is come has been written with in africa the past 17 years. 13 of those years as a resident of egypt or she and her the oil and gas publishing business in 2001 and by late 2002 launched what is known as petroleum africa magazine. in january 2008 should launched alternative energy africa magazine. ms. sutherland offers services as a consultant resource development and financial consultant of ghana. we will be hooking up with her by way of the video but if you would, mr. williams, begin with your testimony. >> thank you, chairman smith, ranking member bass, member stockman. i appreciate greatly this opportunity to come before you

this afternoon to talk about energy. it's something that is of critical importance not only to africa. it's important to the u.s. economy, and i've got some prepared remarks i'm going to refer to and i've also submitted testimony. i want to start, want to take a different step than the first panel because i'm coming from the civil society side of the ledger, and i wanted to take a few moments and talk about leadership africa. we do programs around africa. before that osha instability working in the caribbean basin and worked on ago. i want to say to you any ngo or any civil society organization working in africa can only implement programs if there is energy and power and electricity. we are kidding ourselves.

my emphasis us was done education, and if we don't have electricity in the schools, we don't have computers, the kids aren't getting an education. so by necessity we have adopted and started to work and move into the energy sector in order to ensure that the programs that we put together can be leveraged in can be sustainable. chairman smith referred to some meetings that we did several years ago but a little background on that was, the african ambassadors have an african ambassadors group and they meet regularly once a month but they were not involved in the deliberations around ago a -- agoa. we started meeting with them informally and we wanted to hear from the african ambassadors. we wanted from the beneficiaries of these programs that we talked about earlier this morning what

their take was, what they had about solutions to some of the challenges that are affecting them and that they are confronted. with that in mind we spent some time working on agoa. agoa is up for reauthorization between now and september 15. and it's a very important initiative. but i'm going to say you this afternoon that we as the ngo community, we as civil society, we link agoa to energy. if you don't have energy you're not going to make the kinds of changes and have the kind of productivity that you want through agoa because you can't industrialize. you have the energy and the power to meet the metrics and salt with a solution. so i'm saying to you we link like the african ambassadors and heads did at the leaders of some of, the link agoa and the link energy. they ought to keep your base for

them and i want to suggest that when i mention in my prepared remarks references to agoa, it's because they see agoa linked to energy. we don't go quite that way but that's how the african ambassadors and that's of the african heads look at that, those two issues. but with reference to the u.s.-african ministerial. leadership africa had the privilege of coordinating that meeting in ethiopia on behalf of the u.s. department of energy. i was happy to do that you've department of energy and those who attended thought it was successful. yes, we did have 500 participants. had about 120 corporations, both the u.s. and african companies participate. it was successful enough that when i came back and what i heard in ethiopia, i've been

pushing, this is one i want to me, that we need follow-up. we need consistent intentional follow-up. we didn't get into it to coordinate with u.s. department of energy and we had 13 u.s. energy put this thing without there being follow-up. with the focus of that was power africa. they announced beyond the grave at that session in ethiopia and it is going forward but i'm going to suggest to pick up on what ranking member bass said earlier, that we also need to bring additional players to the table. in my prepared remarks i talk about small minority and women-owned businesses. and i talk about that in linking them with their counterparts in africa. why do i say that? if you look at what's going on in the continent, there is a policy which the african governments call localization.

they are saying to our u.s. companies if you really want to work in our country and if you're looking for business opportunities in our country, you need to find a way to train our local citizens. you need to find a way to participate. so it's in our self interest and i think there is a nice marriage between our small business the community and the african business community to share, to work together around and under power africa and, of course, in sisi program because there so we refer to the private sector a money sock. why there is money you know you get paid. we just need to make sure these programs encourage those companies, our u.s. congress and others reaching out to their small business communities to make sure the opportunities for them. also in my prepared remarks i talk about something that i

think needs to be better and more focused on. that is what i call regionalization. i believe, and i put forth a suggestion that the way to really deal with energy, electricity and power is on a regional strategy, working with the regional groupings that already in place in africa. because in some sense you might find it easier to take electricity from god -- kind of and she put into a neighboring country that is to use it internally. i've been in conversation with d.o.e. and i think that's a strategy that if they can find a way to do that it starts to lead to some of the things which we call trade civilization. electricity is so powerful that if you came to me and said that we're going to regional approach

on electricity it starts to get to civilization among the leaders because of something they all share a need for. get them talking and you start to break down some of the barriers around working across borders in terms of these priorities. i didn't as you notice repeat the statistics. we know that over 600 million people in africa are without electricity. we know that africa needs resources but the other thing ethic does need, it needs training and capacity development. that is something that the u.s. government and our agencies are very capable of providing and doing. we just need to make sure that they continue to work together like they're doing with the power africa working group which is an excellent program. i'm pushing hard for the eaa

program, electrify africa program, because it sort of stabilized and puts in place a long-term solution. and i am also saying that we need to encourage and listen to our african partners. we need to hear from them and we need to look at more partnering relationships to maintain our competitive advantage. when the agency's talk, and i'm a little bit involve in the industry, the agency so control any energy. they don't control any oil, and so you really do need to find a way to create public-private partnerships and be supportive of those entities in the u.s. to have access to these resources and hear from them like i'm listening to the african ambassadors and the african heads on what they think will help them do a better job and create employment opportunities,

not only in the u.s. but in africa. i think with that i will be for two of the counterpart if she is here. >> mr. willen, thank you for just one. without objectionable statements will be made it part of the richter. i want to welcome from houston, texas, dianne sutherland. you are recognized, please proceed. >> i'd like to express my appreciation to the subcommittee for the invitation to testify at the same today on africa's energy future. since into the africa energy industry over 14 years ago i have witnessed a vast transformation in both the continent's fossil fuel and alternative energy sector it in parallel significant growth in international investment. although applicablapplicabl e and abundance in fossil fuels and renewable energy resources, the continent is slowly underpowered, --

[inaudible] despite the continent's -- oil reserves, 10% of global production, the majority of africans do not reap the benefits of those sources. many of these underpowered countries earned incredible sums of revenue from hydrocarbon, agricultural and mining sectors but very little is interned to power infrastructure. the companies opening up africa's oil and gas potential offered him a small to midsize independent firms with limited capital. they security exploration licenses, conduct physical work and market their findings to larger multinational firms to secure funding and minimize their risk when it comes time to drilling. in the past 10 years significant oil and gas have been discovered

in countries such as ghana, kenya, mozambique, tanzania, uganda, and others. improved technologies has also played a large role in aiding these discoveries. while natural gas was not too long ago considered a nuisance byproduct in southern africa the resources increase we utilize and large scale operations such as lng, our generations and transport of pipelines. and also in smaller gas of occasions such as lpg and cng. natural gas moves across south africa. the continent is in natural gas to be reckoned with in the future but in mozambique and tanzania alone there is reasonable top of the two areas together hold a result of a lease 190 trillion cubic feet to those expectations that proven

reserves could more than double with future exploration. the shale boom is not -- [inaudible] as to alternative energy that is literally hundreds of small scale projects established and in the works, not to mention that doesn't largest the projects on the drawing board. these translate into billions of dollars of investment for the continent. the sector is making progress with new renewable specific legislation emerging in many countries, facilitating development of the industry. in addition to the major wind farm and solar objects online or at a construction in egypt, ethiopia, kenya, morocco and south africa, the continent

power resource is enormous, 12% of the world's potential. the chinese are heavily invested in africa's hydropower and their funding 500 billion. ethiopia is looking to develop six gigawatts of power and the democratic republic of congo will be the world largest influences. not to be left off is geothermal. kinney is constructing new geothermal power plants by december 2015, and, in fact, it's strategy would make of the number one geothermal producer by the year 2033, if executed accordingly. having a near-term tangible impact for small scale off grid rural projects, these projects are varied and include household solar projects, waste energy,

biofuels and biogas applications. perhaps the grace achievement over the decade will be seen in the manufacturing sector which is slowly emerging to meet a growing regional demands. this has led to technology transfer that africans -- provide service to the committees. other small projects have allowed typical low income villagers to become a small business owners and in turn have technology in their communities. this is certainly a success story for the continent. in closing, the hydrocarbon renewable energy set forth by african government as well as by the global partners are paying huge dividends. much progress has been made, there's a long road ahead to bring them up to the standards of living. american know-how and investment can play a major role in making

that happen. thank you. >> ms. sutherland, thank you for testimony and insight and your expertise. i'd like to now yield to ms. bass. >> thank you. i appreciate you going out of the sequence were meant to work as the couple of questions i first one, mr. stockman, your concerns are raising about china and i think one of the first things that we can do hopefully before lame duck is over is to take care of two things, power africa over in the senate and then also agoa. to the extent that we can increase our participation because i know i've heard from many african countries how much they do want to do business with us, but sometimes we put our own roadblocks up. [inaudible] exactly the mr. willen, i wanted to ask, i was asking the first panel about power africa and its

reach into urban areas in the residential area, not the commercial. and also in the rural areas. you representing civil society i just wanted to know your take on the same question i asked the first panel. >> i believe it's anecdotal to some extent but i do believe having coming out of u.s.-africa ministerial and looking at the the typical role in the amount of discussion we talked about with grids, many grids, and getting electricity into rural areas, and then at the leaders summit i attended a session that ge put on call after rising and there were many, many entrepreneurial -- entrepreneur, sustainable. going into rural community and

creating opportunities for young people to supply electricity and make a little bit of money to keep it going and keep their incentives up. it's happening and it could be expedited but it is happening and it is part of come which get beyond the grid, the power africa agenda to expand this. >> ms. sutherland, would you like to respond to that as well? >> i'm sorry, i thought the question was addressed to my colleague. can you repeat that again? >> it was, but it was the, too. i was just wondering your opinion on how power africa and her efforts to reaching beyond commercial areas and going into urban residential and rural areas. >> i'm not that familiarized with that aspect of the industry is my focus is on the petroleum industry. however, i do know that the african communities to

appreciate american investment. to our other investment fell to them from the likes of china, but they do like getting with the americans better. i know that there are several small-scale projects emanating from the united states to find off grid, such as the solar lanterns, taking the clean cooking stove, and they are really quite receptive. i will go out of order and recognize -- >> i'm glad you're from houston to represent houston, and they you know fracking was a critical part of george mitchell's portfolio. i think that he really changed and revolutionized the world when he developed advanced to fracking. i think we lost her.

that's okay. i would like to ask mr. williams, and on our side, your free market, can you be polite enough to tell me how it is that competing, in what ways we can undo something to make it more beneficial for both sides? i mean, a lot of times we have passed laws here that i very well intended meaning but ultimately it ends up impacting your industry or other industries, quite frankly in a negative way and i would like to know what path we passed that were meant to be for good but are not? >> in response to be undiplomatic, i don't think anyone ever passes a law that they don't think it's not going to work the way they intended to work. so we will start with that premise.

the things that i feel that we miss out on is that we don't really listen to the beneficiaries. i'm talking about in the u.s. but the u.s. has great reach. if i was to ask an african energy minister to pickup your conversation about china, where would they like, who would you like to work with quacks unanimously you would be with the united states. but we do put in place, not the law but then it is the policy of the law is going to be intimated that creates obstacles and the obstacles, in a global economy. remember, oil is a global economy, supply and demand. so no one country can really control the whole industry. so if we put up obstacles of the coast where there are less obstacles or they can get what they consider to be a fair shot

but the preference, for instance, if an energy minister comes here and they want to work on something and they would prefer to work with u.s. department of energy, oftentimes the state department and that means have to involve the minister of foreign affairs or they would prefer to keep it in the energy house. so some of the things that we do create obstacles for us going forward, and then there are issues within some for agencies where we can't be as supportive as the private sector would like because of regulations that are in place, and industries, the agencies themselves don't want to show favoritism to company data over company b. in some respects the playing field is not level and car industry to get the benefit of what we could do. >> we can just look at, and no offense to the state department, the previous band, but you can

look at the time and length that's taken to discuss just the pipeline here in the united states. it's unfortunate the state department is interceding and free commerce by ic-3 p. diddy as you know i met with, years ago, met with the drc energy minister, and that was a complaint back 18 years ago and it hasn't been resolved. i'm not going to be here in january. i'm going to work as an intern for congressman smith, but my hope is we can do some kind of legislation where we step back and allow companies to work together. it's true by the way can they do want to work with american companies. they feel like what they get a fair sheikh. americans to something the chinese don't. the americans will employ local labor and trained them in the technologies and the skills, and even invest in infrastructure. they love that.

the chinese are more parochial. they will bring in their own labor as you know, and own labor is almost in itself that locked up in the don't even to intermingle. i would request to give time for you can administratively get us back some the policies you think, and you don't have to be diplomatic. just you, me and connie chung. we'll keep a secret. if you can get some of things that congressman smith down the road could facilitate where we are doing a better job of trying to our industries, i would appreciate that. i think some frankness would be in order. >> you take power africa, again, you just outside of what to turn on a switch. it takes years to develop a some of these infrastructure projects. but the country needs the electricity now and we have a lot of technology we can come in

and drop almost instant generated and tight right into the grid and start to feed it while we are building out the more permanent, sustainable power supply. the are a lot of things, and i'm happy to respond to you with some of those kind of shortcut thoughts that i have about how we can be more effective. >> i am so on your side. i go nuts when i go visit there because i really want to help them. i have great compassion for them, and they want what the rest of the world wants and yet i see time and time our government is interceding in a way that is a disruptive and harmful for the very people we claim to want to know. i'm thrilled that you've dedicated your life to this and i really appreciate the sacrifices you made, and i apologize to the bureaucracy and inconsistency from our side. >> i appreciate that but i also

say i get a lot of help from your side, don't get me wrong. i have come and have knocked on the door and i've received some help. >> but we can do better. when i go there and i hear privately some the conversation to hear from their side, it is excuse my expression, but i am really, use of profanity, i'm plenty upset that we are time and time again shooting ourselves in the foot. i yield back. >> mr. stockton, thank you. a few final questions and mr. willen, thank you for your testimony and your leadership. do you have any insight as to the participants, especially non-government actors were selected for the ministry will? you made a good point about the importance of power africa having the aspirant and women-owned businesses involved. pashtun the aspirant. is it self-selection? two people know it's coming and they get themselves onto a list and have access to? is a by invitation only?

secondly i'll ask this of ms. sutherland when she gets back on but you might want to speak to it as well, for most of my career in congress, i've been in congress for 34 years. i've been an ardent proponent of waste to energy initiatives believing that it takes care of municipal garbage while it also produces clean energy and with modern technology being what it is, what comes out of the smokestack at the end of the is as pristine as it can possibly be. it's not always perfect but with the right controls and write environmental safeguards it is cleaner. we know as a continent and country to an industrialized nation or continent, there's going to be people want to cut corners. it would be much waste. industrial waste is one thing but municipal waste will go a number.

i'm wondering how well you think power africa is incorporating the waste to energy initiatives as a way of powering up africa as part of a mix? let me also ask you, i am very worried about cybersecurity issues and about terrorism. it doesn't take much if improper safeguards are not followed whereby a whole infrastructure can be demolished very, very quickly. ms. sutherland, i guess she still got on but she has spoken about china. we all know that china demands a great deal of repayment. ghana, to get the oil and have access to the oil come we know that countries like sudan and others, often weapons are in the mix in exchange for their raw

materials, especially oil. i'm wondering do you feel we have competed well enough with the people's republic of china to say as both my good friend mr. stockman and others have said, the africans as a want to do with the united states of american with a private sector as well, but if we're not in the making of a deterrent they turn to? they turn to the chinese. have we turned that corner? are the chinese still outcompeting us on the subcontinent? >> thank you, mr. chairman. your first question on the u.s.-africa energy ministerial, leadership africa was responsible for the outreach and marketinthe marketing of that et took place in ethiopia. the u.s. department of energy handled the government agency participates, does it become to participate. i can tell you we reached out to everybody. we went to a commerce department

the we got this from all of the agencies, small, large businesses. we made it inclusive. then we made it easy or even the african businessmen to attend and we have different price differential so they could be something but it was a pittance so we made sure it was a meeting that both africa and u.s. businesses participating and benefiting. so it was on us. if there's complaint about who could not commen, or could not t there, it's on leadership africa u.s.a. your second question was waste to energy. we've seen over the years because we are an ngo a number of waste energy projects that work in rural communities where there is a collection of waste and the cogeneration of waste turning it into energy. if they are very effective, particularly with plastic you

will find it in egypt. there's a huge project going on. we were working with another ngo and they had a competition on an annualized basis and a lot of the people who one the competition working with energy but to deal with removing waste and it was at university level. its attractive young people but attracted young people in rural communities if they can clean up their communities and also have some money coming from that and generate electricity. it is a win-win for everybody. >> just a couple of final questions. dr. ichord, in response to a question about gaps, listed five. one of them was the urban subnational part is whether or not are we reaching out to states and local governments? a decent it's becoming more and

more important. i wonder if you might want to speak, you work with the central government but don't the capital center, lucas other key players. you might want to expand upon that. the competition with china if you could touch on that one. and, finally, how do we measure success? we will know it when we see it, or are there metrics that can be employed to say okay we have now seen such and such number of municipalities in people having access to electricity? does anybody have a backdrop in mind to determine whether or not we are succeeding in this effort? >> picking up on the china question, is half-full half-empty kind of thing. china has a totally different system than we have. they go at it differently. when you're talking to a company that says we are a chinese

company, you don't know if it's a chinese company or a company is partially owned by the government or representative government. when you put our companies into that mix it's hard to compete. everyone wants to work within the bounds so that your very clear that the activity that you are taking are not going to put you of how of that law would be very helpful. we can overcome what i think is china's vast amount of financing that had available because we really make better partners. we are there for the long run and i think that the african governments understand that and we need to work to pick up on your second question, we need to move out of the leadership in

defense of the ministries and government officials and move into a level where we are talking to the business people who, like business people here, can go talk to the government but they need the support and the help and assistance we could provide them. >> i see ms. sutherland is back so i would just ask her, you mentioned the issue in china. so a more general question would be how well are we competing in your opinion with chinese initiatives? you also mentioned waste to energy which is something i just asked mr. williams before you came back on. how widespread are those projects which obviously due to great things at one time, produce energy but also take care of a municipal waste problem? landfills as we all know are ticking time bombs because what they do the aquifers and water systems that the reach. if you could respond to those

two, i would appreciate it. >> okay. with respect to china, we are competing pretty well with china. however, as others have mentioned the transparency issue is very big in africa, but there's only i believe 17 or 18 countries who have signed up. so those who have not yet signed up to it or who have not met the requirements to be approved, chinese money is very attractive because it comes with right little strings attached to it. that's just a fact. it's very attractive to some african governments. on the other hand, chinese technology while it has vastly improved over the last decade is still lacking behind american

technology. and many of the savvier national all companies in africa would much rather prefer to work with american service affirms an oil and gas exploration companies. as regards to waste to energy, project are popping up all over the continent. for our small-scale and medium scale. i know of one project that its waste to energy that comes from a prison facility and that wasted energy powers that facility. there's also municipal waste to energy. so municipal waste to energy has a very high potential on the continent, and i believe you'll see many more projects cropping up as investment comes along, the technology transfer is made to these countries. >> thank you so much for coming back on line, and --

>> sorry about that. technology fails us sometimes. >> let me just ask you hydropower is still a major power, factor but major problems -- regional implications that make it politically difficult to how do countries such as ethiopia and egypt do with conflict over such major power and water projects? >> well, it's basically a governmental power play. i don't think that the ethiopia project would have made it as far as it has if it weren't for the arab spring and the resulting multiple government disarray in egypt. generally, i think that you would have seen that project not advance as far as it has come

had a chip not had difficulty. it would probably still be a debate amongst the countries i would to for several years to come. that having said, you may find egypt in the not-too-distant future trying to go in and circumvent the progress that has been made. >> one final question to both of you. 10 years from now can you make any kind of guesstimate or projection as to how many people on the subcontinent will have access to electricity? >> in the next decade? >> yes. >> i don't see a huge increase. i would say maybe a 15% increase in the next decade.

>> i have to share her assessment, that there's not going to be a substantial number of people who will have access to electricity in africa if we stay on this current level that we are on right now. it is estimated by 24 you still may have 500 million people on the continent without electricity. >> thank you. that means we need to accelerate and beef up our efforts. i think we and on that point. anything you'd like to add? >> i just want to thank you for the opportunity and privilege to be here and to testify. i'm hopeful that some of the things i said, and i will be back to you and hope tocome and applaud your leadership, both of you, and congressman stockman. >> thank you. spent thank you very much. >> hearing is adjourned. thank you very much.

>> thank you. [inaudible conversations] today a speech by nrc chair allison macfarlane on the safety of nuclear power plants in the u.s. at his life at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span2. after meeting with european union officials thursday, attorney general eric holder announced the justice department prosecutors have been deployed to the balkan states, the middle east and north africa. he said they were with local officials in those regions to pursue and prosecute foreign terrorist fighters. this is about 40 minutes.

>> to the members of the doj press, with visitors from another country today so let's be nice, okay? [laughter] i got no response, okay. thank you all for being here. it has been a pleasure to welcome so many of my colleagues and counterparts to washington, d.c., for this week's important ministerial meeting. over the past two days, we have discussed the considerable work that's currently enabling the u.s. and the eu to coordinate on common threats, in addition to the steps that we can, and must, take together in the days ahead. in the last year alone, our nations have taken tough, coordinated action against cyber criminals, online child pornographers, and transnational organized crime. we had the privilege of hearing today from some of our lead prosecutors on the game over zeus cyber investigation and the action against tor dark markets, including the second edition of the silk road website, that have

taken place over the past few days. both, of course, involved u.s. authorities and multiple eu member states. and we also have heard how we have worked together against traditional organized crime groups, including 'ndranghta where our coordinated work with italy led to 25 arrests in new york and calabria earlier this year. importantly, we also discussed a number of steps that the u.s. and the eu and its member states can take together to address the issue of foreign terrorist fighters, including through information sharing, investigations and prosecutions, and countering violent extremism. one important area, we agreed, was developing the capabilities of our partner governments to deal with foreign terrorist fighters. the department of justice is part of a u.s. government-wide effort in this regard. i can announce today that, with the support of the state

department's bureau of counterterrorism, the department of justice has detailed federal prosecutors and senior law enforcement advisors to reside in key regions, including the balkans, the middle east and north africa, to work with countries seeking to increase their capacity to investigate and prosecute foreign terrorist fighters. the department of justice has advisors residing in four balkans countries. and we will soon be placing a regional counterterrorism advisor in the area. justice department prosecutors have also been placed in ten countries in the middle east and north africa. these personnel will provide critical assistance to our allies in order to help prosecute those who return from the syrian region bent on committing acts of terrorism. our counterterrorism prosecutors here in the u.s. also travel to other countries to collaborate with their counterparts. and we have assigned a u.s.

prosecutor as the interim director of the international institute for justice and the rule of law, or iij, located in malta, which provides a forum to discuss the foreign terrorist fighter problem and work with international partners to arrive at solutions. the justice department provides vital expertise and support to the iij, in partnership with the state department's bureau of counterterrorism, and in collaboration with the u.n. counter-terrorism committee executive directorate. finally, we are working with other partners, including the u.n. office on drugs and crime, to help build the capacity of partners world-wide to engage in mutual legal assistance on cases involving terrorism and transnational crime. our goal in all these efforts is to build the capacity to fight foreign terrorist fighters

within the rule of law so we can stop the flow of fighters into conflict regions, stem the tide of violence, and aggressively combat violent extremism. as our discussions have shown, in all of these areas, we can succeed only as partners. and i am happy to have partners such as these on both sides of the atlantic. i appreciate this chance to join so many invaluable colleagues and counterparts here in washington, as we keep advancing these critical discussions, and building on the great work that's underway. and i look forward to all that our nations must and surely will, achieve together in the months and years ahead. thank you. at this point i'm going to ask the minister of justice of italy to say a few words. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: hello to

everyone and thank you, thank you to eric holder who was fundamental in the work that we did this month. the italian presidency took advantage of the occasion today to talk about the work that's been done over months. the precondition for work to make better work between the two countries and to talk more about the things that we spoke about today. there were moments of success and strengthening of our ties. in this sense it was very opportune, the choice to put together, put together our two agendas for a common cause. the collaboration to fight against cyber crime, the

collaboration against the fight against organized crime, putting that law enforcement together with italian law enforcement. the subject of the collaboration in fighting against terrorism which is an important threat with our two countries. we talked about the protection of personal data. we still have to go into these points more profoundly. what we talked about will permit the next presidency to make more progress in the directions to homogenize, to treat equally all citizens and equal treatment of american and foreign people. i want to conclude indicating a

fact today we consolidated an important point, the management of security for our countries that collaboration between two countries on either side of the atlantic, europe and the united states, is a common, strong pillar for global security and for the security of a single state. in this sense today we can say we made progress, even though we have a lot of work to do. thank you. >> i would love to speak in my native language but -- first of all, let me start by saying how

delighted i am to have made my very first trip out of europe as the very first also european commission or migration, home affairs and sedition should here in the united states of america. europe and the united states our long-standing allies and partners. we share the same fundamental values, namely freedom, peace. our joint meeting here yesterday and today is another concrete example of how together we can be more effective in upholding and defending our common values. needless to say, the relations between the european union and the united states in the justice and home affairs area are

various and reflect the strategic part of our partnership. not surprisingly our meeting this morning with attorney general eric holder and his team was very successful. very friendly and very productive. i also had a very fruitful meeting yesterday with the homeland security secretary, jeh johnson, which helps make today's meeting a real success. today, as was said before, we discussed the future of the european union u.s. relations in the justice and home affairs, which we intend to further develop and strengthen during the next five years. the two main topics in the home affairs, and our agenda were the

foreign fighters, not an organized crime. both are burning issues in europe and in america. and both integrate aspects of our cooperation spreading into areas such as security, information exchange, border management and visa support. we looked into how we can better exchange information involving europol, and to see how our law enforcement agencies can better cooperate and use the available tools even more efficiently. our law enforcement agencies have a strong track records. just yesterday as you know, people suspected of supporting isis and other extremists were

arrested. and i would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the law enforcement for the excellent work. the arrests in germany also underscored the importance of our joint work here today. ..

i sincerely hope all relevant authorities will offer proportionate response to this issue which will not hinder travelers of good faith. i also hope that our common work on the enlargement of the visa waiver program will not be affected and we will soon achieve full reciprocity and the european union and united states. full visa reciprocity should become a tangible example which underscores the of importance much our strategic partnership. moreover in the absence of our commissioner, i also discussed with my american colleagues a

number of justice-related issues. we focused primarily on data protective issues and umbrella agreement. we would be more than happy to see the united states adopting legislation on judicial and we finalize all the other open points in our negotiations. our teams here in washington will continue the negotiations form tomorrow and i hope we achieve progress. we should also con tin to urgently address the shortcomings of the safe harbor arrangements. we can also had some good exchanges on mutual legal assistance. it is vital that our agreements in this area including extradition really work and that

we use their full potential. this is the only way to be able to addressee effectively the challenges of organized crime. of course the topics that we discussed today did not cover all aspects of our cooperation. other issues like drugs, migration, cyber threats, more efficient border checks, or victim as rights, also require our attention. and it will be the sub speck of our discussions in the future. on behalf of the european commission, i look forward to a close and constructive relationship with attorney general holder and his successor as well as with secretary johnson. i also to welcoming our american friends at our next eu, and

justice and meeting in brussels at this time. thank you. >> thank you. if you can identify yourself and organization and direct your questions. >> to the attorney general, the americans you said that will be going overseas the prosecutors, will they assist countries bringing their own charges or will they be there to bring u.s. charges? >> well their increase the capacity of thosemations to investigate these kind of cases and to work with them in partnership and then determinations made at that point as to where, if charges are to be brought, where they can be most effectively brought. that is the nature of a law enforcement partnership, and investigating together and if jurisdiction law is in two places determine where most efence tiff prosecution can be

held. >> mr. attorney general, can you update how many foreign fighters are he had haded to syria and iraq and how many americans are included in that group? >> there is recent documentation that has been shared. the numbers that we have, i think, i would say they go back and forth necessarily but they're not as precise as perhaps as we want. we have a good sense of what the number of people are in the categories that we have, we have identified. and i think ncpc has released some information i think accurately owe reflects our best knowledge of today. >> reminder. identify yourself and organization and direct your question. >> eric tucker, with the associated press. mr. attorney general, i guess back to you. is it your sense these justice department lawyers will actually be crafting new statutes on the books in those nations where none exist similar to material support walls? is that sort of this overall premise here?

>> there are a number of ways i think these prosecutors will talk about abuses. pete williams talked about the possibility with regard to investigations and determinations which prosecution was occur. also we look at what you have raised. are there statutory changes that might be made in particular countries to increase the capacity of that nation to detect and hold accountable people who would engage in these kind, these kind of activities. >> can we have one from -- >> mr. attorney general, kevin johnson "usa today." can you tell us how many are in this group and when they will begin their work here? >> how many? >> how many prosecutors and advisors will be placed in those areas and when they will begin their work? >> we can get you that information in terms of when they will actually be there and the overall, overall numbers. we can get you that information. >> we'll have it fromfrom right

here. >> brian barry. euro politics. question on the visa waiver program. how realistic you can get reciprocity with all the member-states included when in fact the pressure is in the opposite direction to restrict the program? also for mr. holder, how are you getting right of e.u. redress from the united states congress. >> can address both. >> not that difficult. the answer is quite simple. that's why we're here and it was very clear before when i talked about visa waiver and all these issues. what is our vision? what do we want to do in the future? to adopt the principle of reciprocity at all levels. and we really want to see one day europeans travel towards the united states without any bureaucratic obstacles. the same way the american

citizens are traveling to europe. there are major security concerns. we share this with american authorities. during these days we talked a lot about it but answer is very clear. we're here to find solutions on this issue. our discussions were based on mutual respect and good faith with full recognition of the reality with which we're confronted today. on the other hand, as i told you, we must focus on the future and what i said before, is our vision. and let's hope that this day is not far away from today. >> with with the legislation, as i'd indicated to my friends, the united states government has pledged, the obama administration has pledged to introduce such legislation. that legislation has been drafted. it is now being circulated in

congress await their input before it is actually introduced but legislation has been drafted and is now being reviewed by members about congress. >> attorney general, with word out today that white house is readying on your recommendation and dhs recommendation, immigration executive action, can you just talk at all about from a legality standpoint, are you concerned that, if you give a president authority to take such a broad policy bite, you know, do you set stage for future presidents to do something maybe rolling back voting rights or civil rights or environmental things, that you care for so much about? are we setting a precedent here as we go down this road? >> well, i mean, first say, matt, that i'm confident that what the president will do will be consistent with our laws. we have been interacting with the white house on what i would

call a rolling basis to look at the proposals. what somebody can do with executive action is far more limited than what congress can do. a president could not by executive action, for instance, roll back, let's say the civil rights act of 1964. that is why the need for comprehensive legislatively-crafted immigration legislation is something that i think is still the hope of this administration but in the absence of congressional action as the president hasn't indicated, he is prepared to use in an appropriate way the executive power that he has. >> you're not worried about a standard, you're not worried that this is going, republican president in future administration is going to use this to take executive action in a direction, you know, would maybe you would disagree with?

>> i'm sure there will be executive action that is a democratic, republican president will take in the future that i will disagree with. the question is whether or not it is lawful. one looks at the history of executive action teddy roosevelt i think used executive action a thousand times. i'm sure within that 1000 there would be things that i would disagree with. there is awful lot he did i think was good. i'm not sure that any of the things that that president did or others have done i would consider necessarily unlawful. >> [inaudible]. >> cnn. i would like reaction from the european ministers perhaps that the u.s., the u.s. requirement, increasing requirements for information that travelers must provide as part of visa waiver process. if you give us your reaction to the increased requests for information from people who qualify for these visas? mr. holder, if you would also tell us your, whether you're

satisfied with the laws that exist, for instance, in italy and other countries with regard to material support and those similar laws? >> well i understand that, in order to make this program more successful, we all need more information but it is good for you to know that in europe there are two basic principles upon which the european edifice is built, respect of fundamental rights and privacy. now we have to put together these two elements. it is not an easy thing to do but what guides us are the principles. and here we are to talk with the american administration, government, how can we find the best solution? let me tell you something that comes spontaneously as an

answer. all these measures to be taken should not become obstacles for the free movement, as i said before, between europe and the united states of america. i can not imagine visa coming back in europe. we must defend and protect an achievement that we're here together. esta is very successful. it has given very tangible, positive results in the way it functions. the fact that we are in front of a new reality to be sure it puts us all in front of a responsibility to enhance this program, by providing even some more information but information that will not touch the heart of the principles and values of the

european democracies. >> i would simply say, evan, in response to your question, i don't think it is appropriate for me to necessarily pass judgment on the state of the laws in a particular country, other than we, i think have come together as a group to understand that we want to examine the state of the laws in each of our nations so that we can have the most effective statutory regimes possible. and so we will share information about the state of the law in the united states as we are exam inning and learning from the state of the law in other countries. >> philip schwartz with the "washington times." isis seems to have some growing support in some sections of egypt. is there a concern about this becoming a possible new gateway for of the organization and was that a topic addressed during the discussion today?

>> it is one of the topics we discussed during the last two days. and right now our services in europe welcome this issue. i'm not in position to give details on that, that very soon we will be in a position to make some announcements. >> paula kobin from "politico." on topic of cybercrime, we're coming six months after you was here and announced indictments of pla officials hacking american companies and we would see more of the same. why haven't you done anymore indictments to crack down on state-sponsored espionage? >> state sponsoring of espionage is something we take very seriously as you referenced with prior indictments. we have ongoing investigations and when they are appropriately

ready for dissemination we'll announce them. but it is something that is of great concern. not only to the united states government but to our partners, our allies as will. >> fox news. question for e.u. european minister s turkey the weak link when it comes to foreign fighters, sir? also to mr. attorney general, do you think there is 100 american foreign fighters to the region? are you reading that number as being high or low or more than that? >> answer is very simple. what we tried to do we must engage also turkey. turkey is located in the very sensitive area. we know that in the past jihadists have crossed the country but we cooperate very closely with the turkish authorities and so far, the

results are very, very positive. what i said before we must engage turkey is because turkey is one the major stakeholders in the region of the they know this situation better than anybody else on the ground. and it is said they have, they tried to erect a wall in order to protect us and european borders. this cooperation at this point in time is becoming deeper and deeper. but the answer is clear. we cooperate with turkey. turkey is engaged. turkey is committed and they we will be in this fight together. >> -- question. i think as i said, i believe the ntpc released a document that really kind of breaks down very specifically the categories of people, those who attempted to go, those who we have under

investigation, those who have gone and returned. i would just refer you to that document because frankly i don't have the numbers off the top of my head. >> dave mcglothlin, "bloomberg news." mr. attorney general, yesterday a group of banks agreed to pay more than $4 billion for manipulating foreign currency markets. i was wondering if you just might be able to provide an update on the department's investigation and if you perceive your investigation resulting in a similar level of fines, penalties? >> that matter is ongoing. i expect that we should have a resolution of that, or at least the beginning stages of a resolution of that relatively soon. and i would expect that we will have resolutions on both the civil and criminal side with regard to our investigation. but we, the investigation is ongoing. >> nancy. >> can i ask you a question about ferguson? can you tell us about your

telephone conversation with officials out there yesterday? and what assets is the federal government offering? >> i thought i had a food conversation with -- good conversation with officials that represent the people there at both the state, local and federal levels as well. our community relations service has been in ferguson since the, since the shooting. ron davis, who is the head of our cops office has been out there and done a really great job in interacting with people in law enforcement so that whatever the results of the grand jury determination, we can hope, hopefully have a law enforcement response that is appropriate and proportionate. and we are prepared to help in any way that we, that we can. as i said, we have been there since the shooting. obviously i was out there but, our presence there has been continuing. we have our own investigations that are ongoing, both criminal

and the civil rights investigations. so we have fbi agents. we have prosecutors. and investigators out there as well. >> did you have a message though for both the law enforcement community and for the community itself? >> you know, certainly we want to insure that people who have first amendment rights have the ability to protest as they deem appropriate, while at the same time, making sure that we protect people in law enforcement and that we minimize the chances that any legitimate protests devolves into an, into violence. >> cbs news. voters in the district recently voting to legalize marijuana do you intend to make any push to congress to register marijuana has a less dangerous drug or initiative before you leave office? >> the question is where marijuana ought to be

categorized is something for congress to ultimately determine. i think in response to a question like that before, i said that this ought to be done on the basis of science and experience and, we should look at what category is are, one, two and three are, what drugs are in those categories and on the basis of the knowledge that we have make appropriate determinations but that again is for, hopefully for congress to do. >> time for one more question. in the back. >> [inaudible] would you hold for greater

border patrol cooperation and what cooperation will that take? >> as far as this is concerned you know we have deployed there a program, it is, treaty program. it is main purpose to protect and house european borders. before it was not enough to program, adopted by the italian government that time. but we also have prontx. that is playing a very important role. not only in defending european borders but beyond that in providing member-states with assist and support for search-and-rescue. so from political, but those are from an italian point of view the job is done in a very, very

efficient way in this part of the med trippian. -- mediterranean. it is not mean the problem is resolved. on the contrary, according to information we have gathered more than one million regular immigrants, some of them victims of smugglers, they're on the shores of the eastern mediterranean. the countries are cooperating and they can tell you that that the european union has taken the helm on that. now under the italian presidency, one more step forward has already been done. but the authorities, all the members states and of course the european union agencies work very hard in order to intercept all direct or indirect threats that could penetrate through the immigration issue as it has

appeared during the last 10 years. last but not least, i want to tell you that this problem in the beginning, five years ago, was considered to be a problem only of southern european countries. now it has become a pan-european issue and with the dimensions you all know it has become a global one. given all these new conditions that have occurred in the meantime. >> with regard to the four countries i have them in my mind but i see bruce schwartz back there sweating. i'm sure he is concerned that i'm either going to put somebody in that category and leave somebody out and rather than do that and create an international incident we will provide you with the names of those. but i'm not going to do it, bruce. i won't, but bruce schwartz is right there. i'm sure he can share with you, those names. i will talk to you later, bruce, to make sure in fact i had them

correct. all right. >> thank you so much. >> thank you very much. we go back there? >> yes. [inaudible] >> today a speech by nrc chair allison mcfarland on the safety of nuclear power plants in the u.s. that is live in the national press club at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. on monday, robert gallucci, former assistant secretary of state for political affairs gave his assessment on nuclear proliferation threats facing the

u.s. mr. gallucci served as chief negotiator during the north korea nuclear crisis in 1994 and worked on non-proliferation and nuclear issues with russia during his tenure. johns hopkins university hosted this discussion. it is about an hour and 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, good evening. i'm duncan brown with the johns hopkins university nuclear apply physics lab. this year the series is sponsored by the johns hopkins applied physics lab. each year the rethinking seminar focuses on an aspect of national and international security issues. our seminar theme this year is

rethinking global security constructs, threats and responses. specific topic areas we will try to cover this year include, potential threats adversaries and strategies the u.s. should consider over the next two decades. when, where, how and should the united states engage mill tearily? post-world war ii international order, u.s. leadership, international organizations and multilateralism, and finally the economic, trade and security relationships between the u.s., the e.u., and east asia. before introducing tonight's speaker, a couple of quick announcements. first all of our seminar talks are videotaped and posted on our website. additionally, we do post bullized notes as well as any presentation speaker materials our speaker provide us. type three words into google,

jpl, rethinking seminar and will show up as the first site in google. the second announcement in order to properly videotape the events we use wireless microphones and unfortunately your pdas, cell phones, blackberries, that uses wireless directly interferes with those microphones. would ask everybody at this time please shut off all wireless communication devices. now for tonight's speaker. ambassador robert gallucci is a distinguished professor in the practice of diplomacy at georgetown university. previously he has served as the president of the mcarthur foundation, the dean of the school of foreign service at georgetown university, and ambassador at large and special envoy for the u.s. department of state. in the latter position he dealt with threats posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. he was the chief u.s. negotiator during the north korean nuclear crisis of 1994 and he served as an assistant secretary of state

for political mitt tailry affairs and did, military affairs and deputy secretary of u.n. commission overseeing disarmament of iraq following the 1991 gulf war. for the rethinking seminar, ambassador gallucci will discuss nuclear proliferation, iran its nuclear program, north korea and its program, strategies to prevent proliferation and his views on the way ahead. please join me giving a warm welcome to ambassador robert gallucci. [applause] >> thanks, doctor. ladies and gentlemen, i am, i know it is required for me to say this but it is actually true. i'm very happy to be with you tonight. i understand from duncan you all voted with your feet and pretty

much volunteered for this. so i'm, i'm grateful you're here and i'm happy to have the opportunity to speak with you. so the truth about my remarks tonight are that they are not exactly as advertised but they're close. as duncan said, i, for the last five years, have not been doing things related to international security very much. i was at the mcarthur foundation and, in that, in my role there, i was concerned with reducing maternal mortality, improving k12 education in the united states, juvenile justice reform, biodiversity around the word and of course we're always very busy finding those geniuses we announce every year at

mcarthur. so i haven't been thinking about international security that much. so when i left mcarthur in the summer and went to georgetown where i now am with teaching a seminar in international security and i was, by necessity reading in in that area. i'm teaching a graduate seminar this messer and i was -- semester, and i was struck by something and the something i was struck by is nuclear weapons. i was instruct by the fact and if i was titling this, it would be nuclear weapons, colon, they're back. i was surprised by that frankly. that was my area of expertise when i was in government for all those decades and i thought there was a progression downward and now they're back in most interesting ways. what i would like to do tonight if you all will bear with me, is to go through a little bit of

where we've been. to get ate per appreciation of where we are. and by that i literally mean that. i would like to take you through a horseback ride through 70 years on our thinking on nuclear weapons, theories deterrents, vulnerability, stability and credibility. i don't think without this, without an appreciation for this historical context, we're best able to understand where we are today, given complexity for the current situation. cut me some slack here is what i'm asking for. it is 70 years quick ride up to where we are. i will do it by decade to make it more packaged as a presentation.

beginning then, naturally, in the 1940s. this was a period marked by two of the words we'll be using, vulnerability and deterrents. as you all know, this was a period in which two things came together in technological innovation. one was the delivery vehicle, the v-2. it became clear that a ballistic missile will get through. i know there is a phrase that goes to bombers but the ballistic missile does get through and one could argue it still gets through if there are enough of them certainly. and the second innovation was the atomic bomb. putting these two things together, what 1940s meant to us in our thinking was a unique vulnerability which this nation had never seen before.

i could develop that. that's another talk but it goes from the 19th century and all we went through and the early 20th century, the mid 20th century and at that point we recognized that we had actually no way to accomplish what the strategists had called defense by denial. we had no way to deny access to the united states of america. the ballistic missile will get through and the, what we call the atomic bomb would mean one sortie or one launch means one city and that was a unique vulnerability for the united states of america, which had been protected by a state it could dominate to its south, a state which was friendly to its north, and oceans on either side and a very competent navy.

that setting which made our involvement in two world wars controversial for some people, was no longer the setting in which we lived and that's the message of the 1940s. it meant we were without defense by denial, so we were accomplishing defense by deterrents. we had defense by deterrents before, right? but it was, deterrents by denial. there is a great book by george qestor, deterrents before hiroshima. right. but that was deterrents by denial. by having a very substantial defense so that anybody presumed to attack would have to overcome that defense and by simple cost benefit analysis did not make sense. it is also the swiss theory of defense. they can't actually accomplish absolute denial but they can

raise the cost, right? this was a different kind of defense of deterrents. this was deterrents by punishment. this was conceptually a critical difference. this meant we could not accomplish denial. there was no cost there. we could accomplish though is punishment. it is a psychological concept, we were trading awful lot, ships, armies, all kinds of things that gave us physical defense by denial, in exchange for no ability no ability to really deny but ability to punish to act on the mind. to whack, in southern vernacular, the whacker can get whacked by the whackee. and that is what the 40s month.

another. another element the possibility knowing with this kind deterrence works. if i presume here to deter duncan from attacking me, by telling him that i have a knife and that if he attacks me, i will survive sufficiently to stab him and punish him. and i'm going to say i'm deterring dop can from this. -- duncan. i will never know whether deterrence works, because i have just deterred duncan or i haven't. it is counter fax all. the proposition which i did not have this spider knife that i have came to have, that is not true because he doesn't attack me. so i never know. i only know when deterrence fails. if duncan gets up and whacks me,

i know my deterrent failed but i never know when it succeeds. i can claim it succeeded but i can't actually prove it. all right. some elements of deterrence. we move into the 1950s. a decade, you might call it the dullest years in the term we're now talking. marked by words of credibility and stability. we move in technological terms from the figures weapon of the '40s, to the thermonuclear weapon of the '50s. and orders of magnitude here, if the nagasaki weapon was close to 20 kilotons, 1,000 tons of tnt equivalent. we're moving to thermonuclear weapon, the nominal thermonuclear weapon was 100 times greater, two megatons. bigger but also smaller. 100 times greater. if you refer those pictures of hiroshima and nagasaki,

everything is leveledded. chimneys up here or there, stone things that surveyed. that is a weapon. hiroshima, maybe 12 kill low tons. nagasaki 18. multiply by 20, you don't see chimneys. you see a crater. different level of de, have. in addition to that, many more ballistic missiles, submarine-launched ballistic missiles. we thought and hoped in terms of these weapons would allow us a theory of deterrence, a policy, a doctrine. massive retaliation an with that theory, we could deter everything and repel some things. during the 1950s, the truth emerged we could actually compel nothing and only really be

confident of deterrence, an attack on the homeland. but other things, very hard to deal with. we wished apparently to kept french at dem-fu. strictly nuclear weapons were not going to do it. we thought we might have wished to do something about the russian move in hungary in 1956. these weapons had nothing to do with this we could claim they were a deterrent against the soviet union, but remember what i said knowing whether a deterrent is working or not. it was a proposition that it was working. but we weren't sure. there was also the realization as we understood, the tech turf deterrence that are claims for extended deterrence, that we could actually extend the nato

umbrella, to north korea, japan, and south korea and by the way the philippines and australia eventually. that was the proposition but that other word comes in here. what is the credibility of the deterrent? would we, as our allies said, that not literally figuratively, would we trade pittsburgh for paris? that is just an alliteration, that is all i'm going forward with that. we had somebody write about tactical nuclear weapons as a bridge. that would be henry kissinger, nuclear weapons in foreign policy, in order to reassure the allies that were worried that we would not engage in stratnuclear war in order to protect them from a conventional invasion in europe which we could not stop with conventional forces. so the proposition went. so the tactical nuclear weapons also brought us to a new place. not only was this the deterrent, the massive retaliation, but now

we're deploying weapons for actually use, for war fighting, the tactical nuclear weapons being the first ones for that. then there was a concept of stability as it emerged and began to get defined. initially it was a very simple concept. you may have heard the metaphor, two scorpions in a bottle, us and the soviet union. one scorpion bites the other scorpion, the bitee, bites back and they're both dead. doesn't pay to bite anybody that situation so everybody is deterred. there is this happy concept for a while. and then the truth of the situation was captured in that very influential piece written by wolfsteader, called, the delicate balance of terror. then everybody began to understand, stability, now the third word, the stability of the strategic relationship depends

upon the survivability of your capacity to strike back or your second strike capability. just about when that is sinking in, to our mind-set, the russians orbit this basketball-sized entity, sputnik. the wonder of putting something in space is surpassed by the horror they could put something in space they could put something any place on the ground in the united states. so we leave the '50s, with an appreciation for the limit of nuclear weapons. i understand the difficulty of sustaining credibility, of fragility of stability. it was not a happy place to be, at that point. you remember there was something important in the election, called the missile gap, which was very big. just before the election and

completely disappeared after the election. it was a myth in fact. in the 1960s -- by the way what you should be thinking about here and holding on to it, i find the history interesting. you may not. the history we have in northeast asia, north korea, south korea, japan, south asia, india, pakistan and middle east with israel and iran and perhaps others, right? so, in the 1960s, which might be called the mcnamara years, we are again dealing with conceptually with deterrents, the credibility of deterrence and concept of stability and concepts of vulnerability. mcnamara, offers the phrase, flexible response. it is actually used in two ways at least. one is, in the conventional

forces, more flexible response but it is also used to cover the toppics we're talking about which is, our nuclear weapons establishment. and what mcnamara says we need is a strike capability which is not limited to a spas moddic response that destroys the cities of the soviet union. this is not credible to do that. what we need is something that will be more precise, that will be more limited. he profounds the concept of second strike counter force. we always had before that, second strike, counter city or counter value. which is horrifying as it is at that say it out loud, meant that we that we were planning to incinerate roughly 50 million

innocent soviet citizens. i say innocent because they didn't roughly vote for the policy so make them victims of the policy. 50 million is a nice round number. all we have are round numbers. he said this is wrong. we would in fact be better off with a more ethical, moral posture of attacking their forces, their military, something of their industry though that has a lot of collateral damage with it. that became one of the first important insights of the mcnamara era. second strike counter force instead of counter city. it was supposed to be captured in something that was born in the early '60s, '63, i think, single integrated operational plan, or the ciop and which would match targets with our weapons system so when they were put before the president in a critical moment, mr. president,

we have a under attack, we have a launch attack posture, just push this button here, we're good. well that, there was a problem with that. it did not match up with flexible response. it was essentially the same spasmodic response. the siop, the siop was around for a good 30 years, actually, 40 years, the soiop would begin to reflect a certain flexibility, but for the first 20 years it really didn't. it was quite spasmodic and enormous collateral damage in the soviet union about it were ever executed. the second thing about flexible response, second strike, counter force, it didn't take to long before the soviets were to understand, if the states of america were expecting its forces to survive a seven yet

attempt to destroy them in the first strike and have residual retaliatory force which we could deploy flexibly, targeting their remaining forces, their conventional forces and their industry, it was highly likely we had the capacity to do that damage to them if we struck first and that we had, what strategists called a first-strike capability. that is to say we could destroy their offensive forces such that they had no means to punish us to retaliate. meaning they had just lost deterrence. that is, was a deduction of the soviets and i would suggest to you, a correct one, from the mack mara strategy of the '60s. we dominated, overwhelmingly dominated soviet union during this period in terms of our strategic nuclear pores forces of the russians in the '60s

were very unhappy. the second thing that made them unhappy is something that sort of rhymes with what happens these days. it was mcnamara and his colleagues enthusiasm for defense. it meant we explore the abm. we did that with a number of architectures. the first architecture was sentinel it was called and that emerged or evolved into the safeguard system. it was not designed to stop a full soviet attack. it wasn't defense by denial. it was intended to stop accidents, maybe unauthorized launches. then eventually hit upon the chinese. oh, it was designed because the chinese might attack us. they're so weak, this might actually deal with the chinese threat. but the actual architecture was not appealing to everybody.

it involved two missiles, both of them with nuclear warheads. the first was called a spartan missile and the idea was if we detected, do line, detected a launch by soviet union which would come over the poles, and attack the united states of americas, we would launch a missile that had a five megaton warhead. we would launch a bunch of these and detonate ex-sew atmospherically and destroying the incoming warheads. brilliant. and warheads that might penetrate, multiple five megaton detonations, there was another weapon on the ground, the sprint, get-go up, getting missiles coming over the poles, get remaining missiles with the yield, warhead in kill ton range city busters detonating in the atmosphere. among people thinking this is not such a great idea were the

canadians, which i think you can appreciate i think. so we left the '60s with the u.s. in dominant position. the soviets concerned and building fast, having had a romance in ballistic missile defense or anti-ballistic missile at the time, going into the '70s. the decade of the '70s was the decade of schlesinger, brown, two secretaries of defense and these were years of the what i call search for credibility. that word again. it began early in the '70s, early in the decade with arms control, and the first major strategic arms treatment, salt, which i guess you could say aimed at shaping the competition in offensive forces and accompanied interestingly by an abm treaty. counter intuitively limiting extent to which either side

could defend itself. counterintuitive, people say what about defense. later what exactly ronald reagan would say. people understood what vulnerability meant and the strategists were saying, our vulnerability is an assurance to the other side that they can always punish us. their vulnerability is an assurance to us we always punish them. therefore deterrence is firm. therefore we have a stable strategic relationship. not everybody got. that the abm treaty permitted both side to deploy, it changed but eventually, a system of their choice, defending one area and the soviet union chose to defend moscow. and where did we choose to defend? where? washington. no. >> north dakota, montana. >> north dakota, montana. not so naturally. a lot of people didn't get this.

a lot of people were thinking washington, maybe not, new york, possibly their hometown but they weren't thinking montana and north dakota. but that is where of course we had icbms deployed. what we were doing is making sure our retaliatory capability survived. we were really thinking like strategists. unfortunately as we were doing all of this wonderful strategic thinking, designing this very complex treaty and abm treaty we were working on innovation which was arguably destablizing any technology we put on the ground and that is multiple targeting reentry vehicles or the merv. to fraction 8:00 the warhead. put a number of warheads on one missile, whether submarine launched ballistic missile or icbm. that meant one missile could destroy a multitude of targets. all of a sudden, what is called

a missile to target ratio switched. if used to be if you wanted to sure take out a target, use three missiles. it was an advantage to not striking first, it was said, right? that is called stable. once you put self warheads on one missile you get advantage to striking first and that is called destablizing. and we deployed mervs first and others deployed mervs, others being the soviet union. so this was a period in which the schlesinger brown period we went through arms control. we went through defense and interestingly, in, what is called national security decision memorandum 242 we focused very much on war fighting. we were moving away from, and this is a very important concept for later in our lives in south asia and northeast asia and middle east, instead of thinking of weapons, nuclear weapons as the weapon of last resore, we

would never use, it was a deterrent weapon, it was minimum deterrent weapon, no, we were moving to war fighting with our weapons. this was a function really, of looking at, and it was being used. we were thinking of what is a war going to look like? how will it end? who will win the war. there were not concepts we had been comfortable with before but we started thinking that way. we thought it, started thinking that way to add credibility to our posture, the thinking that the credibility would then lead to stability. the diversity of targets, the counter force capability, the precision which we could destroy targets were all emphasized by schlesinger, during his period as secretary of defense. when brown became secretary of

defense in the carter administration he had presidential decision memorandum 59, pd-59, in which the counter veiling strategy was framed. we were aiming at this point to be sure whatever it is the soviets valued, we could target. there was no point in us having as we did in the siop, from the very first days of nuclear weapons we had three target sets, we were imagining what it is that it would take to deter the soviet union. we started getting extra insight during the carter administration because we were watching the soviets build some very deeply buried bunkers for their leadership. it became clear what the soviets valued most themselves in the leadership world. so we worked very hard at being

able to target that leadership and to make sure that they knew that we could. very heavily counterforce. lots of emphasis on precision. lots of emphasis on capability to do so with confidence. we move decades, we are now into the 1980s and the reagan years. and this is really the high point in nuclear weapon deployment in terms of numbers and capacity. we were deploying on both side roughly 30,000 strategic weapons on each side. that was probably enough. there were over 16,000 targets in 1983 in the siop that we were thinking we had to deal with to deter the soviet union. the soviets of course, were going heavy. they were moving from a big,

ugly missile, ss-9, to aing bigger more uglier sis missile, ss-1. increasing their accuracy. high levels of fractionation, high level of warheads per missile and there was great concern about what all this offensive capability meant on first strike capability on either side. first-strike capability you can target get the other side's forces and destroy a sufficient number such that they can not retaliate the second strike and cause you the striker, unacceptable damage. that is little contorted, but that is how it goes. there was surprise attack fear. gorbachev and reagan meet in reykjavik and they hit it off. there is new book by ken adelman about those days at reykjavik. i recommend it to you.

the atmosphere is very good for these two gentlemen eventually and much to the horror of both staffs, it looks like they're going to agree on serious reduction in nuclear weapons but there is one enormous stumbling block. ronald reagan is deeply committed to defense. he has been briefed on "star wars." he now is aware that there are other physical principles not written in the stars. there are architectures he can barely imagine. there are physical principles he can't imagine but the idea that he can end nuclear weapons and instead deploy a defense is just incredibly irresistible. he does not understand he claims, gorbachev's reluctance to not be so enthusiastic about this. gorbachev is saying if we do this, they will not have an

ability to deter us. we will, if we decide to strike them, disarm them. whatever residual forces they have left will not be able to penetrate the impenetrable "star wars" defense. don't laugh. it was serious. it is laughable in a way. one of my colleagues al, who some of you may know in this room, said at the time, through the mid '80s, the soviets were panicked over "star wars" which got a lot of press. . .