for the mortgage companies to restructure loans to restructure the mortgages of people would have more reasonable payment plans, and where fell apart was the implication, getting the services to do it. that's happening right now as well. frankly, i think the big problem is that department of education owns this enormous portfolio of loans. is one of the biggest banks in the country. but it's a service organization to it's not a financial organization. it's giving the distance and getting people to college and that's what should be day. it should not be in the business of servicing a trillion dollar portfolio of those. who in the government collects money from taxpayers, treasury. it knows how to do that. i don't think ed do that. i kind of think this should be moved out of the department of education and summer else in the federal government.

what do you think about that? [laughter] >> well, spent i love nothing in government. spirit i will say the issues of engaging borrowers and getting the incentives right is hard. especially when using private firms. there's going to be their own economic incentives, and also i would add that borrowers, a process to walk through that come many borrowers need that individualized counseling that i think sometimes it's just hard to deliver for many, many countries may not be set up to do that per se. i really don't know what the right answer is. there have been -- >> they are not paid t to do it and that the country was department of education, and if education is a pain been up for

the time it takes to walk somebody through an enrollment in an income-based program, that's a contracting failure. >> what we saw in the mortgage market was that many of those services were working for other financial visitations or four trusts. it did not work so well. so figure out how that works, but related to point about payroll deduction, maybe there are ways to streamline the repayment issues and i know you've done some work on automating how that might work. i think those are all concepts that we have to rethink about. what i want to make sure though is very clear is what they borrowers having a tough time understood and loans, there may actually be bigger issues out there dealing with, financial

speaking, that might have more immediate consequences. for example, getting the car repossessed or making threats. i think we always have to remember that once people are in trouble, it is like a treadmill that sometimes get faster and faster and faster, and to figure out how to do with all of these many explosions in your life is really hard and that's why getting those repayment plans clear and the people about it and can easily enroll in it is just incredible. >> even if you have my dream of a universal income-based payroll withholding structure, progressive system, it would not deal with fraud. so if the our institutions out there that are selling a product, charging people tuition, didn' intended to postt not educating them, that's not going to get fixed by this. the regulation of the for-profit colleges in particular is not

going to get fixed by editing an income-based program for all it fixes is the backend. but how do we make sure people are getting the education that they are paying for clicks that is a separate issue that cannot be dealt with an income-based repayment. >> figuring out how to monitor them so they are not engaged in wrongful conduct. just today the ftc and the department of education took action, enforcement action related to devry. so of course the our issues, you're right, those repayment plans will not solve it. i guess the other thing i think is important to remember, there is a sense that everyone with student loans is having a tough time to actually think that's just not true. but there is, and for many people who graduate can make good money, sign up for auto debit on their loans, they don't, they have a good experience with rethink but

there are -- >> makes me very happy to pay my loans every month. good experience. >> in the sense they feel like they know what to do, whereas i think when people are really struggling, that's really where it gets tough. >> okay. we are now ready to go to the audience. the first question is actually from twitter. we've had a nice segue to get we've been talking a lot about the repayment approaches, and mentioned that's not going to fix everything. so this question is, is it possible to produce guidelines such as borrow no more than x dollars if you're getting a degree in a particular field, or if you're getting an associate degree. what are your views about that? [laughter] >> i went first last time. >> we essentially do have some

of that in that we have annual limits for undergraduates. we have some caps on it. we don't have caps on avalon such as the parent plus loans. so pretty much parents can borrow the entire contribution that they're supposed to be, that the former says that are supposed to be making investment housing lots of problems. ditto with brad plus loans. it ever going, so there's like should we do that? and would give a duet with i think it would be great if students have better information about what the payoff is to say a degree in education or a degree in social work or a degree in fine arts. that would guide them and how much they would borrow for that degree. on average is it worth it to borrow to go to medical school and not so much for some of the

decrease. is the government going to do that? i think that's kind of what the college scorecard is intended to do. is the government ever could have sort of hard caps, you know, you're getting a degree in animation, we will not lend to you. i don't see it happening. we just don't have that degree of regulation in our country. so i could see sort of advising system trying to promulgate that information to give i think practically we could have major by major, school by school the limits? i don't see it happening. >> a lot of people after this through rules of some about you should roughly not borrow more than this. i think the challenge about doing that when it comes to degree types, bachelor's first associates, the our significant variations in earnings within those degree types. so i think when it comes, this

is just my own quick thinking, when it comes to vocational training certificates where there's a pretty clear understanding of what the type of job you might learn afterward, i'm psycho the salary you might earn based on occupation. it may be simpler to come up with what's right about to borrow so that it's comfortable to afford. i think actually when it comes to a number of undergraduates, particularly for your bachelor's degree, we all have to acknowledge that so many people don't really know what kind of profession they are going to pursue several years later, and that's just huge complications in either developing rules of thumb for even frankly regulating on. >> the second question, and this is a question related to data. and that is come with those of

the data tell us? what do we know the differences by race? what as well is the kind of impact related to be hbcus? >> so i don't have that off the top of my head but my understanding is that some of the survey data suggests that minorities, particularly african-americans, borrow at higher rates and more. so the percentage of people borrowing and the average level of borrowing is higher. now, that being said, my understand is that it is not a similar framework like there is for mortgages where we have much more granular information on how much people are borrowing, and low-level data by race, ethnicity and some of the.

now, as i understand that's not, in fact, do. it's not. so there's a long history of racial redlining and so forth and because of that, that our requirements that race is included on mortgage application. the data i was describing they give all the insights that we now have come from the administrative data that the department of education has on student loans including the transport which you all know and love the eve remember going to out there's nowhere on that for raise. -- fafsa. so what you can say is you can try to piece it together. the facts are that if you look at it again for profit institutions, nonselective institutions, community college disproportionally, first generation students disproportionate are going to be nonwhite. going to be hispanics,

african-american, those populations also much lower wealth levels. for a given level of income if you compare an african-american family and a white family come to african-american to will have lower wealth because wealth is something that builds over multiple generations. so you need to have not only your parents what your parents parent to have had good income for many years for you to end up with wealth and also not have had appropriated in the institutionalized way that it has been in the u.s. ..

>> so clearly more work to be doneo understand those gaps. with the fail the lure of corinthian, what is the roll of the government shutting down institutions versus letting market take care of poor performing schools? >> yeah. so i think the, when i was the at cfbb i was heavily involved in a lawsuit against corinthian, which alleged number of types of misconduct related to their private loans. obviously they have shut down, and i think it has raised some questions how does oversight in higher education work? the history of oversight in higher education is referred to as the triad. where the federal government,

creditors, and states all play a role in doing so. i think there have been some legitimate questions asked about corinthian being accredited to the very end and what is the appropriate role of each and part of what i'm working on is thinking about what is the appropriate role of the states in protecting consumers from those closures. you were i think asking me a different question about the market closing. there are schools that do fail because of whatever, their own, not good management, or financial mismanagement and not providing good programs but i do worry there are some programs particularly where there might not be the level of transparency we would like and honesty in how they represent their programs to their students that some of them may be able to live longer than

maybe the market would typically allow if students really knew the full truth about what that program was going to deliver. >> i think it is also a bit -- if you have an image in your mind of the for profit college industry as being this competitive, private market, you're wrong right? because they get 9% of their income -- 90% of their income from student aid programs, right? through loans from the government and from grants from the government. so there is something called a 90-10 rule, which means institutions can't get more than 90% of the income from the student aid programs. the for-profits tend to be right at that margin. they get more money from people who are the abouting veterans benefits. that doesn't count in the 90-10 rule. this 90-10 rule is one of the few ways we sort of regulate the for-profits.

the idea somehow market forces will compete them out of existence i don't think is accurate. the 9-10 we sort of -- 90-10 rule we make sure no institution is completely living off federal aid. it is a pretty week rule but i don't know what you think about the future of regulating with this rule? >> one of the things i've been closely following for years is, we can't deny the fact that there are a number of people post-9/11 who have returned from service and have a generous, an appropriately-deserved g.i. bill and i think because what, what you've said about the 90-10 rule, the 90 is only related to student aid programs that are part of title 4 of the higher education act but monies from

the g.i. bill, especially other military-related programs they do not count and the obama administration has actually supported closing that loophole because it is, i think, leading to targeting of those individuals and i just think that the last thing we want to do is have someone use their benefits on a program that is not going to help them get ahead. after world war ii we, the g.i. bill was actually a key instrument of transitioning those from service into productive civilian life and, i mean, many people believe it was part of the engine of growing the economy, of getting people in jobs that pay and i think it's, we have to fix that. >> okay. it visiter allly impossible to discharge -- virtually impossible to discharge student loan debt through bankruptcy.

doesn't that make that situation worse than the mortgage crisis in some ways? what are your thoughts about that set of challenges? >> yeah, so, main area i worked on in the student loan context as it relates to bankruptcy is the 2005 change which treated private student loans like federal student loans. it is worth noting that federal student loans do have income-driven repayment, which is a, i'm not a lawyer but kind of a like a chapter 13 style repayment plan but private loans don't have that. and a study published by the department of education, the cf cfffpb a few years ago, the change in the bankruptcy code did not lead to lower prices nor did it lead to expanded access to loans. so because of that it probably did not meet its intended goals and it is something that really

needs to be looked at again whether it was an appropriate change. i will say though that, i think bankruptcy is very well-known that it is not dischargeable, i'm not sure if in any way, when i talk about before, single-issue cure-alls i don't think it is in any way a panacea what is going on because many particularly young people, even if they could file, would not because of some of the other effects it might have on their credit. when it comes to a lot of the federal student loans, i would like to see that people really are able to get into those programs that help them avoid delinquency and default. >> when you can't get into income-driven program for your mortgage, right? >> yes. >> if you lose your job and your earnings drop as a result, your mortgage company is not going to say, okay, well, you know, because you're not earning much, no payments, just stay where you

are, and that -- you can do that with the student loans by getting one of the income driven programs. indeed, the reason, rationale, not being chargeable in bankruptcy, may have you have another bad year in earnings, you still have a education and at some point you could be doing fine. as society we want to make sure people that are doing fine are contributing so they can be helping other people get access to college, right? the idea is, we have a pool of money that comes from people that win and -- >> you can catch the rest this program online on c-span.org the we'll break away live to take you to the atlantic council in washington. just arriving governor jerry brown of california and former defense secretary bill perry. they will talk about new approaches to reducing the threats posed by nuclear weapons. this as the nuclear security

summit gets underway in washington. live coverage on c-span2. >> welcome, everyone, i'm vice president of the atlantic council and president of the brent scowcroft center on national security. we're honored to be here with two very, very distinguished guests, california governor jerry brown and former secretary of defense william perry. they will engage in a discussion reducing threats posed by nuclear weapons. i would like to thank governor brown and first lady, ann brown and william perry and joe zirin sy i don't know and plowshares fund, thank you for partnering with us on this event. the honorable jan yodel, working on these issues so long and former board director and president of the atlantic council. she will take the stage to have introductory remarks and all of you that are here today. thank you.

this is obviously timely topic assist sift nuclear security summit kicks off a few blocks from here. i assume none of you had traffic problems or anything getting here but nonetheless, a vitally-important set of topics that in particular that numerous administrations, but in particular this administration has been quite focused on for quite a while, vitally important in today's context from increasing challenges from a variety of state actors and non-state actors around the world. realizing greater nuclear security is the issue at hand for the dozens of international leaders in washington today, and tomorrow. for the fourth and almost certainly final summit of its kind, in this administration, the 2016 summit will include a dedicated session on reducing the threat that non-state actors like isis could acquire and use nuclear materials, might pose. we can only imagine the horrific effect of introducing nuclear materials or weapons into the

types of attacks that we have recently witnessed in brussels, istanbul, paris, et cetera. governor brown and secretary perry recognize grave danger posed to all nations by actors threatening to acquire nuclear materials and same questions for heads of state at today's summit. they're here today to how to address these problems. after the conclusion of the 2016 what are the opportunities to build off results of these four summits? in what key areas have the summits, could the summits have done more work? what are some new frameworks, new mechanisms, new approaches that can better secure the world against nuclear weapons. i have to say, coming as the obama administration was coming in, this was a very significant agenda item, even before inauguration by this administration and having run the nuclear posture review, when i was at the national security council, in 2009, 2010, this issue had the most prominence

i've seen in our government in such strategic reviews for quite a long time. now let me turn to introducing our speakers briefly. mathematician by education. one of the few things i share with secretary perry. secretary perry has previously served as undersecretary of research and engineering, as deputy secretary of defense and of course as the 19th secretary of defense for the united states. he is now the michael and barbara barian professor emeritus at stanford university. a senior fellow at the institute. director of the preventative defense project and many, many other endeavors that secretary perry engages on. governor brown is a native of san francisco. is currently serving historic fourth term as governor of california. he previously served in a variety of position from trustee for the los angeles college district to california secretary of state to mayor of oakland, to california attorney general and the list goes on and on.

a number of accomplishments in all of those areas which you will see in your biographies that you have in the materials you have today. before their remarks honorable jan yodel will provide an introduction. mr. yodel served at council in 2005-6. distinguished fellow with the atlantic council and chairman of lodil and company. he served variety of positions from serving henry kissinger on the national security council and principle deputy undersecretary of defense, number two person in policy in the clinton administration. a number of other areas. this is public event. we're tweeting, when i'm not asking questions. #is ac defense and account@a scowcroft.

without further adieu. >> i want to say a few more things about our two speakers might not be so obvious and might not be in their biographies. you know, even i, when i first saw this, i thought, jerry brown's coming here on a nuclear thing, on the day of the nuclear summit. this is terrific. maybe el go to the nuclear summit and pick up its energy for us today. it really is very, very fortunate for us to have him involved in this issue because he has been involved in this issue for his entire life and his entire career. he has made it very clear he sees this issue, along with climate change as being perhaps the two most important existential issues mankind faces. and bill perry has had exactly the same path in his life. he has recently written a wonderful memoir called, my journey at the nuclear brink, and in this memoir, he states that he has seen throughout his

whole career, the challenge of preventing the use of nuclear weapons as being his greatest challenge, and what he has most focused on. since he has left office he put almost his entire focus on this particular issue. so we have two gentlemen here have lifetime of experience dealing with this governor brown particularly focused how to get the public to understand it and to appreciate it. and get more public involvement. dr. perry has focused on that significantly, particularly with a focus on young people and bringing them to understand it better. he has had a distinguished career in academia. he ought many of us what we know about this subject. and many others as well. and tried to spread the knowledge more widely within the academic community as well. governor, i think governor brown, of course has not shied away from working on trying to

solve problems that he sees. and he has done things that make it clear to people how dramatic these problems are. when california faced its water crisis more than a year ago, reason just complaining about it and whining and so forth, he immediately put in place a 25% reduction. everyone said it wouldn't work. in fact it did work. and he knew that it was going to work. this is the kind of energy that we all hoped to see put on the nuclear program as we go forward. the same thing is true about dr. perry. he has for many years focused on the issue at its core. of course with secretary shults and senator nunn and secretary perry, the four of them wrote this path-breaking editorial near the beginning of the obama administration calling for an end to nuclear weapons and a world without nuclear weapons

which really changed peoples way of thinking all together about this subject. so it is my honor to turn the floor over to dr. perry, who will make some comments to you and after that, governor brown and then we'll open it up for, as barry said, for a open discussion. thank you very much. bill. [applause] >> thank you very much, jan. i am a child of the cold war. as are many so of the rest of you in this audience today. and as such, i have always had a deep concern about nuclear issues. about the danger we faced of a nuclear catastrophe during the cold war. but my main message to you today is that the danger of a nuclear catastrophe today, i believe, is

greater than it was during the cold war. greater than during the cold war. that'sfy first message. the second message is i believe our public, if that's true, our public is generally unaware of that. they are blissfully unaware of that. consequently the policies that country follows are no ways commensurate with the danger. so i see my job as trying to educate the public on this issue which is a huge task but nevertheless that's what i'm undertaking. now to make my point, to this sophisticated audience, let me explain briefly why i made the first statement, why i think the dangers today are greater than during the cold war. i will compare them during the cold war. it is hard to do it without

looking at different way as nuclear catastrophe could occur. during the cold war we believed we were in danger of what we called a boob, a bolt out of the blue, a surprise strike. in retrospect seems that danger was greatly overstated. whether it was real or not real, it was absolutely clear, that our poll is were driven by that belief. it's the primary reason why we ended up with 70,000 nuclear weapons, were just driven by the belief there would be a surprise attack and we had to prepare for it. whether or not that was true, there was certainly true a great danger we would run into war by

miscalculation and certainly the cuban missile crisis was a primary example where we almost did blunder into nuclear war by miscalculation. at the time i believe we avoid ad nuclear catastrophe more by good luck than good management. everything i learned then i only confirmed my view that is true. beyond miscalculation we all during the cold war were at risk of a nuclear war being caused by accident. there are many ways that accident could occur but the most obvious was through a three false alarm. we had three false alarms in the united states i'm personally aware of. i don't know how many there might have been in the soviet union. one of these false alarms i personally participated in and i

got a call from the watch office at the north american air defense network in a sound sleep, telling me, he started his conversation by telling me, that his computers were showing 200 icbms on the way from the soviet union to the united states. now an event like that gets your attention, and i have never really forgotten that morning. of course it was a false alarm. why was he calling me. i was at the time undersecretary of defense of research and engineering. why was he calling me? he knew he had to brief the president in the morning and trying to figure out what in the world went wrong with his computers, and hoping i could figure that out. without dwelling, that i was not able to over the phone that night. took us two days it discover it was human error. the sergeant coming on watch that way, put the wrong tape into the computer. he put a training tape into the

computer. that is a real story. so during the cold war we had. the danger, a real dangers of a war by miscalculation or a war by accident. i, we still have those dangers today. a miscalculation, we don't have a cuban missile crisis but we have ukraine and we have potentially have the baltics. if there is a russian incursion into the baltics, god hopes that doesn't happen, if there is russian incursion into the baltics comparable to what they had in ukraine that would bring nato troops and russian troops into some sort of a military conflict. the danger of a military escalation to a nuclear is very real if that happens. we also have the danger still of a false alarm.

what sets policy of a false alarm, was launch on warning. we still have a polly, launch on warning. whether a faults alarm would lead to launch depends on many factors. mostly depends on what i would call context. reason three false alarms during the cold war did not cause a launch was context. there was nothing that suggested to be an attack of the had any of those false alarms occurred during the cuban missile crisis for example, or the mid-east crisis we had it might have been a very different story. technically the launch on warning is still in place and could happen. what about the context? >> i think the context today is about as bad as it was during the cold war. what context am i talking about?

let me give you a few examples. first of all russia conspicuously dropped the no first-use policy and sort of suggested the nuclear weapons would be their weapon much choice if they were faced with some sort of a military crisis. i think more importantly they are now undertaken a major rebuild of their nuclear arsenal, major rebuild, well-advanced in it. and publicly declaring it, almost flaunting it. i have no doubt that the united states is going to follow suit on that. we have another nuclear arms race underway, comparable to the one we had during the cold war. i have more to say about that but that is context that i'm talking about now. and the third part of the context is the rhetoric. mostly in this case one-sided. mostly russia to the united states but not entirely. i look, for example, to the head of russia media stating publicly

is only nation that can turn the united states into radioactive ash. that is obviously true. the question why would head of russia media would think that is good thing to state publicly? i looked to the leaked announcement about the amazing robotic submarine they have and all the catastrophe it would be able to inflict on the united states. and perhaps most dramatically, the russian scientists who suggested wouldn't it be interesting if they drop ad nuclear bomb on yellowstone? why on yellowstone? because there is a huge dormant volcano at yellowstone, if erupting could cause immense damage. there is idea that using nuclear bomb and trigger a volcano and destroy the united states. this i believe is bluster, simply bluster. the question though why does the

russian government believe it is reasonable to encourage such bluster? >> -- that is the context i'm talking about. the context is very concerned that we need to be about them. let me go on then to the accidental nuclear war. i said we still have the launch on warning. we still have the context. we need to be concerned about the day, just as we were concerned about it during the cold war. to be clear i think danger after nuclear war by accident, by miscalculation is lower today than it was during the cold war. , happily, but beyond that. we have two possibilities of a nuclear war which did not exist during the cold war. one is obviously nuclear terrorism. which i place as very high probability. sometimes in the next couple years. it is simply an event waiting to

happen. so the threat is real. in a sense we're living on borrowed time. the threat is much, much more consequential than most people understand. people think of it as a big 9/11 big is not the right term. two orders of magnitude consequential of 9/11. beyond the fatalities and casualties that would occur from it, there are the social, economic and the political consequences which should be very considerable. in the preface to my book i lay out what i call, nuclear nightmare, my nuclear might mayor. i imagine -- nightmare. i imagine a nuclear terror attack on washington, just a few blocks where we are sitting and i imagine the consequences, the political, notes just the casualties, but political and

economic and social consequences. they are really astounding. i would call that to your attention. lives prepare ad little five-minute video imagine that scenario unfolding i call to your attention. if you look on our website, the wjperryproject website, i encourage you to watch the video. besides possibility of nuclear terrorism which is new and different from the cold war, there is problem of a regional nuclear catastrophe. the most obvious example being a war between india and pakistan which escalates into a nuclear war. that is all too easy to imagine. the consequences of a nuclear war india and pakistan besides causing tens of millions of deaths in pakistan, which would include worldwide the possibility of a nuclear winter effect which could affect the whole planet.

beyond india and pakistan, there is always present worry about what in the world is north korea doing and what might they do in the future. again their rhetoric is just of off the scale. this was only a month or so ago they were promising to drop nuclear problems on the united states. a lot of that is bluster but should not underestimate the potential of north korea or india, pakistan, blundering into a nuclear war which we would be, which would suffer significantly. so those, that is the context i make my comment. that, which i repeat now, which is the possibility, nuclear catastrophe today is really greater than the one during the cold war. we are supremely and blissfully unaware of that.

that is why i feel particular responsibility to try to educate the public on this issue. the other issue is -- joe zirin zirin -- joe sir rinse -- through plowshares. what should we do aside from sounding alarm. i suggest a few significant actions we should be thinking about. one of them, fundamentally is try to deal with this context problem. , nothing that can be done in that area unless we seriously reengage russia at the highest political levels, president to president. i'm urging that on our own president to date without success. we're urging it on the russian president. everything we can do to try to promote this idea that until our two presidents re-engage at

least on the issue of nuclear dangers, we're not going to change that context. we have to provide the conditions which will set the stage where the rhetoric will be toned down. secondly, i think we should be rethinking the starting of a new nuclear arms race. i lived through the one during the cold war. i think one in this century, one in a lifetime is quite enough. particularly in a modest way i proposed one action which we could take which is in our own reconsideration of rebuilding our cold war nuclear arsenal, if we decide to omit the one element of the triad which i think is most dangerous which is our icbms. i argue two points. first of all that we have sufficient, more than sufficient deterrent capability between our submarine forces and our bomber

forces. and secondly, the icbm forces have one peculiar quality, quality peculiar to them not to the other two, their susceptibility to false alarms. as long as we have icbms we'll have something like a launch at warning policy. as long as we have launch on warning policy, we have possibility of a false alarm. in the wrong context, a false alarm that could lead to a nasty nuclear war. i and others for years tried to affect changes to our policy how we deal with a warning that are largely unsuccessful. so i'm going to supreme conclusion is the simply eliminate the icbms and launch on warning will go away. this is what i'm proposing to little effect, but i will keep on proposing it anyway.

we need to learn to control fissile material. i'm happy to say one really major successful policy of this administration has been the nuclear summits, directed precisely to the action which could greatly reduced the possibility of nuclear terrorism, by controlling the amount of fissile material. if we are successful in that we greatly reduced probability of a nuclear terror act. one of the things which i and others have been proposing we do not stop this effort with this fourth and final nuclear summit. we find some way to continue future summits or at least way of institutionalizing what has been done so far, with the good done already by these summits. and finally, there is a question of, again, focused to a nuclear terror attack, the key of course in any terror attack as the good intelligence, so that you can prevent a terror attack from taking place. in this case the intelligence

ought to be very precisely focused, to the question of fissile material. what is happening to it? who is trying to get it? who might have succeeded getting it? so a very sharpened focus on our intelligence in this area. those are four modest recommendations i would make. i'd like to conclude my comments here by noting this has been a long and i should say very frustrating battle. many encaged in the same struggle will share frustration is good results. i have been asked my colleagues why in the world that we pursue, particularly at our somewhat advanced age. this is my golden years in that guarden of eden known as

palo alto. [laughter]. i say well, this is serious problem and time is not on our side. besides which i helped to create this, i have some special responsiblity, some official knowledge about what can be done to try to back away from it. i end by quoting robert frost, which in the woods, lovely dark and deep, but i have promises to keep, and miles to go before i sleep and miles to go before i sleep. thank you. [applause] >> turn the program over to our friend and colleague governor jerry brown, who has had distinguished career as governor of california, to my point of view, he not only led the nation and led the world in efforts to

get climate change under control. and now he is putting some of the same interest and attention to question, what do we do with the other existential problem which is nuclear catastrophe. governor brown. [applause] >> thank you, bill. i am here because bill told me to be here. [laughter] and i'm glad to do so. so, i come at this thing obviously not from the point of view of a national official or a scientific expert. i come at it from someone who's observed the democratic process, the political process, the politics, campaigning, public opinion, propaganda, and all that goes into that general

hourly, burly world i spent most of my life in and sometimes succeeding that. that is one -- i have been up and i have been down. i'm up right now. i've been in and i've been out and i'm in. i can tell you better to be in than be out so. most of the people i started with are not here anymore. so i don't know what satisfaction that is but most of my adversaries have departed this world. at least the early ones in the '70s. so here i am. kind of a survivor. so i speak from the point of view of survivorship. and, i do want to comment on a couple of concepts of former secretary perry. one is danger has never been greater and the public is blissfully unaware. and, that is something i've given a lot of thought to.

big dangers, public unawareness. and the topic that i first really looked at in this regard is climate change. just a couple years ago, there was virtually no news on climate change. in fact i would hold meetings and agreements with scientists and doing lots of things on this topic, and there would be media there and would i say, you, you will not write about climate change. climate change is not news. and thinking about the nuclear danger, it struck me that the end of the world is not news either. so it is not something you're going to hear about. so the big, big issues are very hard to grasp. the small minds of the political world do much better on very conventional kind of issues. there is a certain rootization

about the political pros session. you can't just talk about anything. what is thrown out what you show up in and those become the issues. and it just happens that before the paris conference, leading up to that, there wasn't really much talk about climate change. that didn't mean it wasn't important, that it wasn't something we had to deal with. it was, but, these large, possibly, or inevitably catastrophic outcomes if they're not handled are not something that the political media, or the political mind very easily deals with. and so working in the field of climate change where california has taken a real lead, a lead under both republicans and democrats, very significant and now in california we have

initiated a memorandums of understanding with over 130 states, provinces an even countries to commit each of the signatories to keeping to arriving at a level consistent with a rise of only two degrees centigrade or two tons per capita, greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. so this is a move where, while, nation-states who deal with it, states also can play a role. in fact many states are playing a role. it is this issue, yes, it is local but it is also global. so no matter what california or the u.s. or any other country do, it really requires real global commitment. that is climate change. now in the nuclear proliferation or nuclear materials, and terrorism getting ahold of these materials, that is also something that one country can't

deal with alone. it does take cooperation. so whatever the politics, are, there has to be cooperation with almost, hopefully all the countries in the world. there is conflict if you look at presidential campaigns, certainly with russia and the united states the fact is without russia and u.s. collaborating we'll not deal effectively with the threat of nuclear materials getting in the wrong hands and those materials fashioned into a nuclear device around the device going off and causing catastrophic damage. that is the threat. the solution does not just lie in washington. it lies in many respects contributing to the solution. lies in all those other capitals.

we have to have dialogue, negotiation and discussion. that is the problem you run into all these issues, ukraine, syria, all sorts of things. but the fact that these issues are real doesn't mean that the danger of nuclear terrorism isn't equally real ordaininger of miscalculation. last night last night we saw first preview of command-and-control. many of you may have seen that first book. it talks about a accident in arkansas in 1980, which didn't get much attention which happened, they blame it on human error, but a machine that had a warhead capable of doing having more firepower and weaponry from world war ii including russia and nagasaki. that warhead could have blown up and killed hundreds of thousand of people in arkansas.

it didn't go off. it still blew up. people were hurt but what caused it? somebody dropped a bolt. and the bolt bounced and put a hole in the tank and the tank started leaking, and that reduced pressure and pretty soon the thing could have blown up. i can't give you all the technical reasons but there it was. this is a serious thing. of course they said the bomb was perfect. the machine was perfect but the human beings were in error. human beings are always going to be in error. we're creating machines when in the hands of human beings can go wrong and will go wrong. only a matter of time. not just secretary perry said we made it by luck, without a nuclear catastrophe. robert mack -- mcnamara said it, and others have said it that we

made it by luck. that is political philosophy based on luck, that is not good enough. it is also well to remember something i noticed, there are a lot of dumb ideas that get currency, and things we think are so important in one period they're not so important later. that is one of the things i noticed since i started, i started my statewide political career in 1970, when i ran for secretary of state. here we are decades later, and i noticed many ideas that sounded then don't sound so good now. let's take the idea of building 70,000 nuclear weapons. now that is a dumb idea. we had to back away from it. was a dumb idea but it was dumb then but we didn't see it. that's why we got so think, what dumb ideas are we so embedded in that we don't have enough

distance to knots their stupidity? we heard about the phrase bolt out of the blue. secretary perry said that was not. of a threat but that was a big thing. i've been around long enough to remember, massive retaliation, that was the doctrine. then mutually assured destruction. then i heard of window of vulnerability. back in 1980 presidential campaign. that is one of the issues, mx missile. take it around on trains. i said instead of carrying around mx missile, why don't we get a bullet train which we're now doing in california by the way. [laughter]. a lot of these ideas people took them pretty seriously. in cuban missile crisis, russian submarine that had nuclear torpedo and american ships going after that submarine, forcing it

to surface. the submarine thought it was under attack. and two of the three decisionmakers said fire away that nuclear torpedo. well if that had happened, that might have been the end. that might have started the escalation cycle but it didn't. again we were lucky. so luck is a big part of that. and how long is the lick going to go on? you can't rely totally on politicians, either know what they're doing or telling you the complete truth about what they're doing or about what they're concerned about. they're human like anyone else. we're dealing with very inhuman technology. namely the power to blow up the world, blow up a city, ability to spread radioactive material,

a dirty bomb, these are serious issues that are not rhetoric. a lot of the campaigning is about, stories and rhetoric and all sorts of things but there is some real stuff going on climate change is real. look at "washington post," "new york times" about the western antarctic, how the sea level just from that alone will be up three feet, within the lifetime much many people alive today then you get two or three feet from other places. this is serious stuff. whether people in florida want to believe in climate change they're at risk. as the people in new york city, beijing, hong kong, many other places. so big risk, but are we mobilizing to deal with it in a way that is commensurate to the challenge? answer, no. not at all. we're getting there but we're not there.

same thing with the nuclear danger. we have to get serious and leaders have to get out the comfort zone and do everything humanly possible and technically possible, to reduce the threat, the threat of terrorism. the threat of mistake, threat of accident, miscalculation, all these things are possible. human beings make mistakes. and we're building such immeasurably powerful machines, how can human beings ever contain that? only by reducing and pulling back from where we have advanced to. that is not easy. these are human problems and human beings can solve them. when all the other things we're talking about, when i say we, the political class dealing with various campaigns and speeches. there are big issues, and

climate change and nuclear catastrophe are real. just because you don't read about it every day, it is time to think about it, reflect on it and do everything possible to avert. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, governor brown, for a very inspiring and important remarks and thank you, secretary perry, for your thoughts as well. i wanted to ask a couple questions, really open it to the audience. when it is time please race your hand. secretary perry, i was taken by your sort of core remarks regarding danger of nuclear terrorism. i think you said it is very high probability that we might suffer

an attack by a terrorist i think you said within the next few years. i really wanted to get sort of your sense you're a mathematician for life as all mathematicians are. what data points are you seeing. what specifically are you seeing that makes you so concerned about the threat within such a short amount of time? what sort of are the major trends that you're seeing that worry you most about that? i've been concerned -- >> i've been concerned since the formation of al qaeda and particularly the discovery when we defeated them in afghanistan, that they were actually planning and studying how to get a nuclear weapon and use it. i have no doubt had they been able to get one they would have used it. fortunately they were not able

to get one. today i'm more concerned about it, that the primary perpetrator, potential perpetrator would be isil. the difference between isil and al qaeda, isil is larger, better organized, most importantly much better funded, with much greater resources. so the probable of their being able to get fissile material is much higher than it was for al qaeda. i think probability is higher than it was with al qaeda. isil is better funded and better organized. if i put myself in provision, god forbid, isil head, what would i be doing to carry out this plan, it is easy for me to formulate a plan to do it that has a reasonable chance of success. i do not see this as remote

possibility at all. we have people that want to do it. they have the resources to do it. just a matter of time whether they get enough fissile material. if they get enough, 50 pounds or so of highly enriched uranium, i have no doubt they can build what is called improvised nuclear bomb. don't mistake this bomb goes off with the power of a her roy seem ma bomb, improvised is way it is packaged. they will not make it compact to put it in a warhead. it will be a big clumsy apparatus goes on a truck, not from a warhead. from our point of view, suffering from nuclear terrorism the truck is quite sufficient to do the job. in my hypotheticallable scenario attack on washington, that was the means of delivery. so the motivation is there. the mines of getting the fissile material are not that difficult if you have the resources. they have the resources.

they have the motivation. that is why i say it. >> i want to comment on this. here you have, former secretary of defense materials are out there in the world, there is group with motivation and capability of getting it, and if you look at video, what is the web page? >> wjperryproject.org. that is our web page. if you go to the web page you can click a six-minute video imagines the scenario taking place, nightmare scenario. it is very effective video. go to the web page, click on the video and watch it. >> the fact that the former secretary of defense has a video like this ought to get our attention. we know in history great leaders, great educated leaders, great moral people, do really stupid things. just take world war i. you had a lot of good, christian

european leaders who probably had great educations and they really screwed up things in ways we're still paying for. we ought to know that human being can do some pretty horrific things. now with nuclear. it is more catastrophic. think of a terrorist nuclear bomb in washington. boy up half the congress, kill the president and vice president. what happens to america? is there america left as we have noted since the founding of the republic? probably not. so is that a risk? one in 100, one in 1000? whatever the risk that risk is too high not to do every single thing possible to avert it. are we doing everything possible to avert it? no. we're engaged in a lot of other activities blocking focus on this excity essential threat that we know, at least we

believe, we believe, bill perry, this is real. yet if you look through your paper today. it is not too real. there is a summit. that's good. that doesn't mean they even have a plan to deal with all the nuclear material that is loose in the world because they don't. and if they don't, is that important to do something about it? i would say yes. so, hopefully we get a response here and because it is real and if they don't do it tomorrow, i will keep bugging them as long as i'm around, i will tell you that. >> great. let me drill down on a part of this that i think is really important. we'll spend a little more time on your sense, both of your senses of conditions leading to this certaining danger, the sort of amount and sort of locations of loose fissile material that you think can be developed into a bomb. one of the trends you're seeing there, easier now to get your hands on these kinds of

materials than it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago? if you could also, part of this is education. can you also talk about the difference between a dirty bomb, a radiological device, and what you called an improvised nuclear weapon. those two issues i think worth spending some time on. >> i think it was much easier to get the material five or 10 years ago as it is today. another thing the action of the nuclear summit has gone material off the streets and under greater control. the most significant and important thing we've done, do welling the problem i'm concerned about has been done as a result of the nuclear summit. i think that has been tremendous achievement. it hasn't gone far enough. i'm fearful it is going to stop with this meeting today. so, we need to do something to keep that effort going. it is not something you are doing and it is done. it's a process you keep working

and keep working because there is huge amount of fissile material out there, some still under very loose control. we still have people who have research reactors using fissile material. it is just not necessary. you can use research without using fissile material. there are a lot of things we can done to improve. we have made improvements but a long way to go yet. with the dirty bomb questions i don't talk about that, because i don't want people to be confused of a real nuclear explosion with relatively bad news of a dirty bomb. order of magnitude, two orders of magnitude different. the dirty bomb of course is putting radioactive material on a regular bomb and blowing it up. so maybe a few people are killed by the bomb but the dirty bomb cause as contamination of the area and renders some area, maybe some reasonably large

area, a couple blocks in the city, economically unusable for a long time. so it is what is called, a weapon of disruption rather than destruction. i'm not minimizing that. it does not compare with the catastrophe you have of a real nuclear bomb going off. >> i see. governor brown you've been very passionate about -- >> even if cases of dirty bomb there are a lot of things we can do we're not doing now. radioactive material they can use, caesium, that is used in thousands of facilities for medical purposes. a lot can be done to get control of that. i want to separate it of a problem of a nuclear bomb going off. >> i see. governor brown, how can we all go about sort ever closing the gap you've been so passionate about between the danger and sort of relative apathy of a public, of policymakers? should this be discussed in the ongoing campaign?

what do you think are the best levers for us achieving this goal of education and then action? >> well, i think this is quintessentially a role for national leaders. it is really something, certainly primarily of the president and the president's of other countries. the ball is in their court. they have the power. but there are subsidiary leaders in the united states senate and the congress. there is a budget process to consider the next, the nuclear arms buildup. that is an opportunity to talk about what the goals are, what are the alternatives to what is being proposed. i think that's there. i think there are people in the media who write about these things. there are questions and debates. if you go back to do a word search what is talked about in the presidential debates, you will see virtually nothing about

the range of nuclear dangers that has been talked about just in the last half hour. . . questioners baby leav -- they be there would have been some questions of follow-up on the topic. so that tells you that is an area where there should be -- where there could be some initiative. so, i think that there are levels and then people have to just as a matter of the formation of the public opinion what is the hierarchy of the threats or issues? what's the most important thing and you think about the issues

people are talking about. decapitating the american government, how would you raise that along with the issues you read about today in the paper or the nuclear one of these actions that have occurred many times about the nuclear action. bill talked about context. there are some 200 missiles coming your way maybe that's a mistake but if you are i were ie cuban missile crisis and things come up to take the time to follow up i just think what is needed for anybody that has access to opinion or power to put into the bad ones of

consideration the weight of the nuclear danger. >> and i would add climate change. down the road if you wait for down the road it is too late. you have to operate before you don't have complete and full information about the decisions we are making now in the momentum to build over the next three decades close to a trillion dollars of nuclear investment that the momentum and we won't be by ourselves, there will be a response and other countries that will do that and if we think of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty in article six, the nuclear power is supposed to engage on the disarmament.

so i think that there is a lot of awareness that will be very useful starting in the political going to the media and then whatever organs of power exist in the society. >> let me ask one initial question and turned the clock back to 2009. i think it was april when president obama gave a speech that laid out his vision of a nuclear weapon anthenuclear weas recognition of the importance of attaining a safe, secure and effective u.s. arsenal as we are moving towards that. because the regional conflict hasn't gone away since then i think you said, secretary, a lot of progress on the track of securing into getting a handle on the fissile material but i have to say on the other track, the trends have been very bad.

the u.s. did come to an agreement on the s.t.a.r.t. treaty that was helpful so the warheads were cast into there were various other limits. but every other country has been building. china and pakistan is building at a rapid rate and for france and the united kingdom and russia included is increasing the role of the security strategy and increasing their arsenal. so how can we now support up restart a process where the towers that do have nuclear weapons brought the acceleration reversed in a difficult role for the united states to try to sort of advance the initiative

because no one else is doing it. >> when the president made his speech i thought to be present for major progress in this field and for a few years we did have major progress. the treaty and the summit started. very important changes were made but then everything came to a grinding halt. i can't give you a full geopolitical explanation of why that happened but it's probably true that the president after two or three years after the speech he was a political loser and he gave up following up on the treaty trying to get it ratified and that was a political judgment on his part that he couldn't succeed. it seems to me that's the most

critical thing some of us have influenced by the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the united states and russia it seems to me without a doubt of the firs the first this to be done is to address that problem and i don't know a better way of addressing it than i said before. the difference between the two countries we have a common interest in the catastrophe and they should be the engaging on that issue focusing on one specific point to baltimore to the countries d due to prevent e nuclear bomb. i think moscow is as much as washington is. that's something we have in common and then we can deal with other issues as well. let me tell you one other thing

i. the second month after he became secretary oi becamesecretary oft over to ukraine. ashton carter and i started a program to try to dismantle all of the nuclear weapons which are in the threwere in the three co, ukraine, belarus and the biggest way went to oversee the beginning and we arrived at the site and the general in charge of the site took us on a tour down to the control center and there were two young lieutenants sitting there asked the control center and they have been told to do a show and tell. so what they did is went through a practice countdown up to but

not including the last step. those two lieutenants set off 200 warheads aimed at targets in the united states. they could have destroyed the united states basically. i sat there watching that and it struck me in a way that it's neveit neverstruck me before, te absurdity and i never forgot that moment. it's one of the factors that has driven me to where i am today to write that book and educate other people. it's how people can vicariously experience some of the things i've experienced maybe they would have a view on how

dangerous this is and the imperative of taking action. >> if i could add a scenario that you paint as a sort of fictional and very possible scenario is very gripping and i strongly commend the book but also i think that these are real things that could happen in a very concerning picture to reduce the danger. first question in the middle. >> from the "los angeles times," secretary, you have been promoted the idea of eliminating the land-based icbm. it reduces the vulnerability in its economical so i would like to be a political analyst and analyze the pushback on the lack

of traction tha that you've gotn and governor brown, is this an issue that you plan to spend more time on coming off just icbm at the nuclear issue in particular what can a governor do and what can a post governor do blacks >> a post governor can do more than the governor. [laughter] a postsecondary -- secretary can do more. >> what is the political. >> i may be perceiving mission impossible that the pushback on this as you might imagine is enormous and making little to no headway. the rationale is twofold. first of all, between the forces

we have more than enough deterrence capability and reliable assurance and a second as i said there is a peculiar problem in the sense that it's a false alarm leading to an accidental nuclear war. it is a low probability. during the cold war it was a risk we had to take and i didn't pursue it then. today i believe we don't have to take it. the logic is simple, not effective but simple. >> do you think for those who don't know the russian forces, a significant portion of their

triad is based on land so would you recommend the move regardless of russia? >> i would have no reason to believe the russians would follow suit but also their patella tory forces although they are starting to move. >> you were in charge of one of the largest in the world. the question was how do you plan to pursue this agenda. >> the regions that are defining the next generation modernization and also to the home of where the nuclear bomb

was actually developed a so we have a lot of connection to the nuclear war pulled. having been through this conversation for many decades it seems like a ideas that were obsolete 30 years ago are brought back and one of the words i haven't heard discussed today is escalation which is the more you do the more i believe and the more i do, the more you will do a. it's a form of addiction. the next one isn't like the last one because you need more and in the nuclear escalation, you have

to keep rising and upping the ante by the tim that by the time moved up the ladder and a much more dangerous place, the complexity is high. this is what was said about heading in the direction of hell at a high rate of speed with a positive rate of acceleration and he was thinking of the notion of acceleration so does reason i heard all these ideas need long time and i think a lot about the notion of deterrence. the effective deterrent and

extended deterrence are all kinds of brands of deterrence what is the deterrence. if you do something to me, i'm going to do something to you. now the question. the only thing you can do is do a lot of damage. you blow us up, we will blow you up, the mutual assured destruction. we haven't really escaped from that as far as i can tell. we thought we needed a 70,000 weapons of all kinds and now the number is down. somewhere between five to 10,000 warheads. so now do you need that many?

many people think you need the icbm. the china only has 400 or so but now they get asked, too. if is a concept that undergirds the entire topic of the nuclear escalation. when is enough enough plaques in the addiction, enough is never enough and the outcome is usually used up by letting it go. those are the two ways you get off it. i'm interested in this topic because i like to survive and in

the prevalence of dumb ideas in politics i've seen a lot of them and the approach to such an overwhelming catastrophic danger inclines me to think about it, speak where i can and join the secretary when he asks and try to nudge people into a more coherent direction and i do think that this issue is not the prerogative or the problem of the nuclear priesthood. we are in a democratic society and public issues should be publicly debated and the issue of survival deserves to be debated and as the elected executive that has been elected by more votes than anybody else

in the president i feel i ought to speak about it, and so i will. [laughter] >> this gentleman is next if we can bring the microphone to him. >> both china and the u.s. are accusing each other. is there a miscommunication from the south china sea and the other issues because barack obama is meeting with the chinese president today how would you advise. >> question about the south china sea there is renewed competition among the great powers in the united states that makes the danger more concerning and miscalculation.

>> i think it is highly unlikely that they would wander into a nuclear war. what's going on in the south china sea concerns me because it does provide a context again. i don't believe for a moment they would contemplate against one another but i do believe it could lead us to some kind of military conflict. not one which the president in china or the united states wants thaus to have those forces out t sea breaking into each other and the decisions don't get made by the president to ge get me to py to ship commanders. and they can conduct actions which cause some kind of a military conflict and then you have to worry about the

escalation. i am not concerned that they would enter a nuclear war but i am concerned we are in a situation now where we could blunder into some kind of a military conflict. and i think that is unnecessary and the wa that they could dealh that is what can we do to resolve the conflict. it's an issue between china and the nation that we have to have a lot of ship traffic so we are concerned but i think that it's

dom we have this kind of problem facing us today and we are toning it down. >> microphone from the second row please. >> thanks very much from the council. governor brown when your father was governor i remember being taught to duck and cover at our elementary school in santa monica. so, that was not very useful. i have questions about iran and north korea. what would you do to strengthen the nuclear agreement? are you concerned -- >> what would you do to strengthen the iran nuclear agreement beyond what is already in? are you concerned about the missile launches for example and what is your advice on north korea, how can we be engaged this country given its frederick, his actions? it seems impervious to the

influence. thank you. >> i don't know how to add much to the first question. i think that the iran nuclear deal was a wise move prior to both countries both in terms of delaying at least the time to ty could have a nuclear weapon delay a considerably and creating an environment where we might be able to have some improvement which could lead to the relation between the united states. there is no reason for the united states and iran to be enemies. it's a great country and a great culture and we should find a way for them to live together peacefully. and the iran nuclear deal was a positive step in that direction so i would applaud the leaders of both countries and come to that agreement but it's just a step.

so rather than looking at it at the end and then north korea i have lots of advice what to do and none of it was taken and i think we are facing a terrible problem today which is entirely unnecessary and it could have been avoided had we taken the right actions 15, 16 years ago. but we cannot read their history. we are where we are now with north korea. the best thing that our government has been able to say is we should restart the six party talks. i look at the history of the six party talks and say why. it's been 112, 13, 14 years they've had the complete exercise of futility. i do think we should find a way

of restarting the discussions that i wouldn't do that, i wouldn't advise the president to do that unless he took the step. that is how serious the discussions with the chinese government i would hope even that is one of the issues because if one of the reasons they are so successful is because the united states and china have different views of what to do but of what the problem was. i think there've been enough development in the last decade china may be rethinking their views and we might be able to come to an agreement with china and then with what to do about the problem. if the united states and china could agree on a policy dealing with north korea than i think we would have a chance of success.

any diplomacy will have to involve what they refer to as carrots and sticks. we don't have any but we are willing to use. china has sticks and then they are one of the principal suppliers of food and fuel. if we could agree on the problem than the united states and china could begin to put together diplomatic strategies that have both involved. it is a problem that is getting worse every year. north korea announced they were going to drop a nuclear bomb on the united states. it does have some basis behind it and that it soon may be able

to do that, not that they could do that without suffering damage in their country but still come out why should we let ourselves get in that position. so, the basis for the deal with north korea cannot simply be you give up your nuclear weapon and we will do these things. that was the basis for many years that could have worked back ten, 15 years ago. the basis today has to be something more like what was suggested mainly you start at the interim position when you are asked where our position is you may not do three things and build more bombs were better bombs are attracted nuclear technology. and then in return, we do if we could get that agreement.

it also provides a platform for how we give up their nuclear bombs. but the present agenda and the present approach to the six party talks has been an exercise to utility for the last 15 years and will continue to be unless we make a major change in approach. >> i think that we have time for one last question. >> she's saying that if we avoid certain actions, we might have been able to get them to avoid the nuclear bomb. as of again, assuming that the secretary is right, it underscores this reality of making big mistakes and i think it's imperative that we reflect not only on our success and our indispensability is not if we had done some things that were

really not smart and acknowledge that so we cannot make more of them and i think that is a very difficult thing to do in the political process where there isn't much debate going on like if we have a party that won't get a vote on the comprehensive test ban that is an impediment that goes back for what you need in the deterrence and do you need more experiments and tests and if we have new tests where this goes forward so that seems pretty logical that a there is a proven pathway forward but i wouldn't say that washington ann all of its fullness for the branch are on the track.

>> my position is clear and straightforward in the national security interest of the united states nevermind the diplomatic aspect is it and on national security interest to them we are not doing it. >> i think we should end there especially on this last point that gets almost no attention there should be debates when the issues can have such catastrophic consequences for our security and allies and partners in the world and really just again, thrilled to host these leaders who are passionate about an agenda item that isn't getting attention. please start the debate one side or another. we want you to engage because this isn't an issue that is going away anytime soon. the trends are quite worried some supremes join me in

thanking governor brown. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] governor brown and the former defense secretary part of the related events to the nuclear security summit getting underway in washington today hosted by the white house. for related coverage online.

>> i think that it's important to be involved especially with an incumbent. i know a lot of people have been voting to send the polls on tuesday. i am excited to continue to be involved in the selection. the reason i decided to vote in this primary is this season for most people has been the most captivating after and i feel it's important to be represented in the process. >> i'm voting because with the extreme disparity as well as the economic inequality.

the wife of senator ted cruz into the former candidate meet with voters at a pizza restaurant in appleton wiscons wisconsin. livapply that 1:40 fives getting underway shortly. then bernie sanders speaks at a campaign rally in new york city that will be live at 7 p.m. and that is here on c-span2. next arguments in the case of lewis versus the united states about the governments of the body to freeze the defendants assets even those unrelated to criminal activity at the pretrial stage prohibiting from having the money needed to too high you're a lawyer of their church. wednesday the court decided 5-three the sixth amendment forbids the government from freezing the assets not related to criminal activity when the

defendants need the funds to pay for an attorney. this is about an hour. >> louise versus the united states. >> thank you mr. chief justice may i please the court. the amendment has always recognized the individual's rights to spend his own money to obtain the advice and assistance of counsel. at the time of the adoption of the bill of rights, that was the core right when the right to the appointed council had not yet been established by the court. we submit that the right for the representation by the private counsel must allow the defendant to use assets which she rightfully owned. there's no dispute that she has googood title so that she may be represented by the lawyer she deserves. >> what do you do about

monsanto? spinnaker those were cases involving tainted funds, drug money. >> what is the logic that doesn't violate but it does if it is untainted? >> no one has a rightful claim. no one can claim a valid property right into drug proceeds. wanting to use assets that are for the lawful assets that are not connected in any at all. >> the one where a bank robber goes in and he has a pile of money now and monsanto says even though she wants to use the money to pay for an attorney, too bad. now a bank robber goes and has a pile of money and he puts it into a separate bank account and uses data bank accounts t accouy his rent and other expenses and

he uses the money that would have gone from other expenses to pay a lawyer why should they be treated any differently for the sixth amendment purposes? >> because no amount of dissipation the government would suggest would negate the interest in the property she owns apart from any alleged criminal activity. >> and the substitution rule if you have $10 million of drug money and you have the $5 million spent 10 million uk and say i spent the drug money. you can't touch the 5 million. that is what the statute is doing when it says it is a reasonable substitute for asset substitute. >> mr. chief justice if there is a conviction if the defendant is found guilty after the conviction when the punishment is determined there may well be the opportunity for the government to seek punishment

that includes the financial penalty associated with the crime. in the defendanwhen the defendar of the untainted assets. can you follow the assets tainted or untainted it is a simple answer because here we have a stipulation on appendix 161 that the assets that are the subject of the dispute here today are assets that are undisputedly untainted and not traceable to the crying and include for example family,

jewelry, not traced in activity and include real estate that was acquired before the allegation of the conspiracy. what we ask in a different way. we have two brothers. they rob a bank and gets $10,000 split it up $5,000 each and on that same day it happens to be their birthday and their uncle gives each of them $5,000 as a birthday present so they go out and party and one of them they both spent $5,000. your position is the one who spent the money from the so-called tainted assets the money from the bank robbery is entitled to use the remaining $5,000 to hire an attorney but the other is out of work.

what sense does that make? >> the property interest if the property rights are not negated simply because they have allegedly committed a crime or because there is probable cause -- >> spent the bank robbery money first. that's your position? [laughter] the government is concerned about what is described as the so-called widely criminal who spend the money they face perhaps even more punishment at the end of the day or the end of the conviction either through the money laundering charges were otherwise so the courts keeping in min mind of the forfeiture has as its primary component punishment ways to disincentive i is these kinds of financial transactions that justice kennedy is referring to but it doesn't affect the property interest in the assets that are a part from any criminal activities. >> i don't know how these things work.

the defendant has daily expenses in the order what does she get, and allowing for something? >> as of right now she gets nothing. >> so putting aside lawyers, if the tuition bill comes due, she can't pay that? >> she can do nothing. >> she can pay the rent or the mortgage. >> the statute as it is being construed by the district court allows no exception. the government could prevent the payment for the tuition but not for the council. >> there's a constitutional right under the sixth amendment to retain counsel. >> so the government can stop the payment i was not the paymet council. >> i would think there may be other cases i can see if it is life or death matters a different defendant might come before the court and say there

is a strong compelling need for other reasons but if it is ordinary claims today it reaches the sixth amendment issues. >> you really don't have a statutory argument, because if it were a statutory argument, it would be you can't restrain the untainted assets. >> the statute that is different than the drug forfeiture statute 1845 is on page two. >> i understand what you're going to say i read your brief. you are saying the government has no property right. it's your money, it's not their money until they secure a

judgment. and so the logic of your position would be, i think, they can't restrain the assets constitutionally or statutorily. it's very nice that you limited but once we had allow the rule have to carry it to its logical conclusion. >> i suppose there is no sixth amendment right at stake if there is no constitutional right to use the assets today i don't know of any prohibition provided that there is due process that would prevent the court from restraining assets to be used for other purposes. >> but you said that this is her property if it is tainted you say she doesn't own it and it's not her money but if it is untainted and it is her money.

so i think that the justice is a fair question is it the logic of your position the assets can be used for whatever she wants to use it for. >> from a constitutional perspective i don't think that that is necessarily correct because the courts can give power to restrain assets even those currently belonging to the defendant. our objection is that when such an injunction interferes in the constitutionally protected right to maintain the counsel of choice and so while the statute could allow provided that there is adequate hearings etc. the restraint of even a defendant's woefully owned assets that principle can't extend the assets she needs to use the council. >> what if the woman is a devout

muslim and she makes an annual trip every year wouldn't she have a constitutional right to use the money for that? >> certainly should have a constitutional right and whether she could obtain the assets free from the injunction immediately would raise a separate question. the sixth amendment because the deprivation will be permanent meaning we need those assets now before the trial and the immediacy of the need for the assets. >> if she doesn't get it now she won't be able to fulfill what she regards as a religious obligation. i don't know how you can limit your principle to the sixth amendment. >> the amendment is important in the context of the adversarial proceeding that will determine the ownership of the assets at the end of the day so unlike the first amendment and unlike any

other amendment, the sixth amendment guarantees the defendant will be represented where that property or liberty is at stake and with regards to the travels goes while significant in the amendment failed to bear on the ultimate outcome of the criminal cases because the need for assets that we are requestinglimited to the amount needed for the counsel of choice, limited to the amount for the legal defense of the very charge. there needs to be an accommodation. that goes back to the chief justice question it seems the distinction you're making as well as the court rejected the court said it is the exact same thing as the first amendment.

it's a very powerful intuition behind your argument but it's a powerful intuition that is explicitly rejected by us and doesn't seem to present any different circumstances than that one. >> they are quite different because of the property that was at issue in monsanto. first we know the money had been established by the clear and convincing evidence. second, the court recognized that the defendant doesn't have a property interest in drug money no different than a bank robber doesn't have an interest -- >> about your earlier argument is the would have the right to establish what is in drug money. >> that was your answer to the justice. the money is untainted.

>> that the rule that you are proposing. >> it is consistent in the courts observation. there are two elements to establish the ability there's a crime committed in the second is the traceability for the majority of the opinion. here we have untainted assets, not traceable to a crime. in monsanto, the defendant doesn't have the right to use drug money for the counsel of his choice. >> this may be the point. your argument i understand, i just don't understand that if you can despite the sixth amendment, i don't understand why it's not the same rule when they are untainted when they have statutory arguments but if you have arguments it is nothing thasnothing to do with the constitutional right to counsel.

>> it is everything to do in the sixth amendment because at its inception the sixth amendment only encompasses the right to spend one's money to be represented by counsel. there was n no right to no righe appointed to council so of taking away the defendants assets whether it be that pensiothe pensionfunds or an ine labors of to take that away at the exception of the nation would have meant they would have been left with no counsel at all since the notion of the appointed lawyer is a notion of the more recent vintage in the 20th century. so indeed, to take away the property rights and pretrial of a defendant at the time when he or she is under indictment and needs those to maintain the counsel we are not talking in this case about a particular. >> what if the prosecution is for the