2014. he had been a technician at a nuclear power print from 2009 to 2012. he had access to sensitive areas of the reactor. this calls into question whether their screening is sufficient for personnel who have access to sensitive areas. overall this europe is the finger on are we well-suited for the challenges of the 21st century. in particular i would focus on system design. when you look at the european security apparatus we put our fingers collectively on a number of problems that occur there. the problem is a patchwork of systems, no essential law-enforcement body and it means that terrace to operate trends nationally are at it in the vantage. overall the u.s. system is better than european system but it also has its problem. we put up a gram as one of the problems here. the question i would say, is our

bureaucracy, and our internal system designed to keep up with these small foes. are we as a legacy industry ready to keep up the startups that are going to be challenging us and trying to kill our citizens? >> thank you mr. watts. >> my final point would be what we wanted terms of counterterrorism. this comes and and goes. we had al qaeda, before them, after then we have the islamic state, today we're talking about europe, i think we are likely to be talking about north africa six months or year from now. yemen is on the rise as well. we go through these accelerated peaks and valleys where we get very mobilized around counterterrorism, we go flush it out and then we get upset again a year later when it comes back. so what is our objective and what is our tolerance for risk for terrorism? i don't we have a good handle on that. we get these emotional points right now where we react strongly and we take aggressive action. but what are the four by things we can do in counterterrorism

over the horizon to get this to a steadier state. i do not think there's any into the islamic state, i think it will just be called something else five or ten years ago just like we were talking about al qaeda ten years ago. what we want to achieve over the horizon? i would love to see the u.s. government holistic league comes to terms with that. i feel at a practitioner level national counterterrorism center, fbi, cia are center, fbi, cia are all pursuing counterterrorism on a day-to-day basis but what steady-state we want to achieve? that is why we are reacting to europe now and wherever it happens next. >> i cannot agree more. we have to have a commitment to offense and be relentless. we cannot ever back off. this is going to be a generational problem. you have to do it step by step. as we as we point out earlier the fact that caliphate exists the fact that they hold the territory is incredibly dangerous. that is one of the many first steps, we have to defeat the

caliphate. we have to defeat isis. that are ready has metastasize and spread. you have to cut it off at the head right now and continue to be relentless, don't back off, cause it will be a long-term struggle. i want to thank all of you. it has been an extremely good hearing. the record will remain open for 15 days for the submission of statements further record. record. this hearing is adjourned. [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] naudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up thursday morning, olivia colden, executive director director for the center for law and social policy talks about work mandates that are taken affected over 20 states. it may cause as many as 1 million americans to lose their food stamps.

and patrick mclaughlin, senior research fellow at the george mason university on their report that rings 50 states and the district of columbia by the effective federal regulation on the state's economy. the state government reporter for the montgomery advertiser on the articles of impeachment filed in the alabama state legislature against governor robert bentley. following reports of an inappropriate relationship with a former staffer. watch "washington journal" beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern's on thursday morning. join the discussion. >> the book tells both the story the fact that this national treasure is not what we thought while also trying to chronologically think about what would madison encountering at the time. keeping those two narratives straight was quite tricky for a

while. >> sunday night on q&a, boston college law school professor mary sarah builder discusses her book, madison's hand to which takes a critical look at the notes james madison wrote during and after the constitutional convention of 1787. >> madison took the notes on sheets of paper. he folded the sheets on half so he writes on the front, across the middle and on the back side. then at some point he sold all of these little pieces of paper together into a manuscript. one of the wonderful things we notice when we're down there was the last quarter of the manuscript, the holes that he have so did not match with the earlier ones. this confirmed my suspicion that the very end of the manuscript have been written later. but you cannot see that on the microfilm, it was a really wonderful thing to see that in person. >> sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's q&a. >> now a discussion on the form

policy focused on nuclear proliferation. a panel hosted by indiana university school of global and international studies offered foreign policy advice to the next president. the discussion includes former u.s. senator richard lugar and the former director of the los alamos lab. >> focus on the problem of proliferation, strategies and challenges. were looking at challenges in the united states has faced up until now, what we have done to meet those challenges and the degree degree to which those measures have succeeded or failed. we also going to try to look at emerging challenges that the next president will face and how he or she might deal with them. i from the department of critical science at indiana

university. we cannot have assembled for individuals in greater expertise and experience on issues related to nonproliferation than these two gentlemen. we are very fortunate they have agreed to participate. that said, it is my pleasure to introduce them. i'll be brief because these introductions could go on for maybe an hour. on my right, senator -- as many of you know he represented indiana in the senate from 1979 to 2013. he is the longest serving senator from indiana. he chaired the senate committee on foreign relation from 1985 until 1987 and 1987 and again from 2003 until 2007. he was a ranking member since

2007. much of the senator's work has has been devoted to the challenge of dismantling nuclear chemical and biological weapons. to this end, senator as you probably know is a republican worked with the senator from georgia, democrat. at the time he was chairman of the senate armed service committee to craft a became known as the blank act -- it was an exceptional example of bipartisanship. it created an institution called the cooperative threat reduction program. the purpose was to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction and the infrastructure in the state of the former soviet union. and among many other accomplishments this cooperative threat reduction program

resulted in the deactivation of 7500 nuclear warheads. the warheads. the destruction of more than 500 icv ends. a close to 500 submarine launched ballistic missiles. he was also a instrumental in getting approval of the less likely weapons treaty signed by russia, the so fall stark treaty of 20,102,010 which reduce significantly the number of deployable strategic nuclear weapons. professor is a research professor of management science and engineering at stanford university. he senior fellow at the institute for international studies in the center for international security and cooperation at stanford university. by training he is a nuclear scientist. from 1986 until 1997 until 1997 he directed the los alamos

national laboratory which have the chief mission of ensuring the safety and reliability of the american nuclear arsenal. in recent news professor hecker has worked with russian nuclear laboratories to secure the enormous stockpile of the are materials that russian had inherited from the soviet union. he is now compiling and editing a book that will serve as russian colleagues history of cooperation. that hasn't come out yet has it? his now compiled and edited a book in the history the history of cooperation between russian and american laboratory since -- at least if i understand it you can update me, his current research deals with the problem of reducing the risk of nuclear terrorism worldwide and the challenges that nuclear india, pakistan and north korea, as well as the nuclear aspirations of iran.

he has been an important contributor to public debate about nuclear issues in the united states and beyond. recent publications that got my attention included article entitled stop killing iran's nuclear science. >> george is next to professor hecker, and oppressive nonproliferation studies nonproliferation studies of the founder director of the james martin center. professor potter served as a consultant to the u.s. arms control and disarmament agency, the lan corporation and the lawrence livermore national laboratory. professor potter is a prolific author, he is written, edited or

co-edited at least 20 books and is contributive chapters and articles to more than 120 scholarly books and journals on subjects like it nuclear terrorism, nuclear arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear issues involving the states and the former soviet union especially the russian federation. he is an exceptionally well-informed researcher. to his writings i regularly turn >> last but not least is doctor george who is vice president for studies at the carnegie endowment for international peace. it is a nine profit organization devoted to promoting international cooperation and international engagement by the united states. i would say this is one of the world's most influential think tanks. the area of research include nuclear strategy and non-

proliferation issues and security. he is the author of a book, india's nuclear bomb published in 1999 shortly after the country second test of a nuclear device. more recently his published an important monograph and book on the subject of abolishing nuclear weapons. he works tirelessly i would say to educate the american public on nuclear issues, when i teach on on the subject of nuclear weapons, his articles almost always make their way. one is about the iran deal. it's 11 of the most impartial and objective analysis that i having countered, it's a highly controversial deal. i would say this is a study designed to help leaders make up their own mind

not to tell them how to think of what would be better. >> so that's the panel, this is somewhat unusual for an academic conference i've been asked to make some introductory remarks. i will keep them brief. instead of asking the panel as their per verdict, it's my job is to engage them in a conversation which i will do on a variety of issues related to nonproliferation and arms control. we will reserve at least a half an hour at the end for questions from those of you in the audience and especially, but by no means exclusively by students. at the end i will give each panelist an opportunity to make any concluding remarks he would like to offer. let me just start by framing the subject of the panel.

the development in international relations in the last seven years, then the actual or potential spread of their weapons. it has taken some significant steps to deal with an address this threat. i was saying this is a judgment question, i would say that the first and foremost of these steps was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which went into effect in 1970. this treaty as most of you know is limited the states authorized to the five at the time the treaty was open for signature. it also provide a for international inspection that aspired to maintain a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. at present 191 states or the

vast majority of the states and the international system are now a party to the treaty. an extremely important was the launching of the 2003 security which was a global effort to and from states and nonstate answers it was endorsed and supported by more than 100 states. we have a seas of a bilateral arms control and it has also helped to curb it nuclear proliferation. first by reducing the number of weapons and materials potentially available and this is what were reduced to

horizontal proliferation. the increase of number of international actors who possess these weapons and materials. and they haven't substantially reduced vertical proliferation by existing nuclear states. the cooperative threat and reduction program which was so important in establishing has made a profound contribution i would argue to international security by reducing and securing nuclear weapons and materials as well as other weapons of mass destruction. but important as the steps have been, the world world is i would say far from secure from the threat that some of these weapons might be used. moreover the challenges inherent in the proliferation of weapons of mass distraction sent it seems to be re-increasing rapidly. so if so

if we just take the president of tenure president obama's tenure in office we witness these troubling developments. i hesitate to use precise numbers in the presence of this panel and take the plunge and say according to one estimate, by the summer of last year iran had reached the point where the time it took him for that country to fuel a nuclear warhead was as little as two months. even as last year's iran deal in place that time appears to be extended to only one year. during president obama's time in office we expelled nuclear inspected for the country, it tested three nuclear devices including one that was a hydrogen bomb and conducted two tests of of a long-range missile which it claimed isn't capable of hitting the united states. during this period as well pakistan acquired sufficient

nuke material for more than 200 nuclear weapons and repeatedly blocked negotiation of a proposed material cutoff treaty that would abound in the production of any more materials of nick their weapon. it also failed to prevent taliban linked groups from attacking tightly guarded and military, some of which are located near important nuclear facilities. syria and iraq, both the assad regime and the islamic state have been using chemical weapons , albeit so-called crude ones despite president assad's claim to have destroyed those in syrian territory. in belgium, last week the government revealed his concern that the islamic state was seeking to attack, sabotage or taint nuclear material from its nuclear facility. that has a history of severe nuclear -- to employees at

another belgian nuclear facility joined isil. the same terrorist network that carried out the recent attacks in paris and brussels. it may have been planning some kind of operation at a belgium nuclear's facility, possibly one that uses highly enriched uranium. president obama is concerned, tomorrow he'll be open the fourth nuclear security summit in washington and this gathering of world leaders will focus on the subject of securing nuclear materials. these are just a few so kinds of challenges that the next president will confront. i expect our conversation will explore some of these and without further a do, let me sit down and begin posing some questions to our panelists.

i would like to start with senator lugar? as i mentioned you have been working on the problem of securing nuclear materials and weapons for two and half decades at least, maybe more. so how is the international community doing with regard to this issue in your opinion? is the problem being addressed in promising ways, if so, how? >> without going to the whole history of the situation let me just say that back in 1986 president ronald reagan felt that after he meeting that there is a possibility that the united states and former soviet union might begin arms control negotiations. he asked about 16 senators, to go to geneva switzerland and he was wise because the treater would require two thirds

majority in the event that it could be negotiated, i i was selected as one of those as was sam nunn who have become a partner for a long while in this. also bob dole and senator byrd, we went over and met with a lot of russians. it was in a educational experience for all of us. this was this was not to be in 1986. we are not close really. it took several years, during the. of type sam and i sam and i visited with the number of russians we had met and we heard stories about the deterioration of the former soviet union. not a total surprise that when 1991 came that a group of these russians came to sam's office and we met at a roundtable and they said to us, you folks in the united states have problems because the people that are guarding the missiles on which the warheads that are located,

those folks are deserting in good numbers. they are not getting paid. as a result, some of those weapons might be unguarded and there could be an accident, there could be a firing inadvertently. let me just say that this came after the so-called 40 years, they thought that the united states and the former soviet union each had close to 10000 nuclear warheads, not to cover every military installation in either country and likewise most of our major cities. as a young mary of indiana for eight years, i had no idea that a couple of those weapons were aimed at indianapolis and could have obliterated the whole place. none of us understood that. when you ask how things moved, they moved from a time when i was shocked when i went into a

pit where they have pulled a muscle out in siberia and down at the bottom of that were the guards relocated were pictures of american cities. and i went back to ask if indianapolis was one of the targets and it certainly was. with that reduction act, bipartisan situation lasted through 45 administration over 25 years. it has been about at least 7500 warheads aimed at the united states has been removed and the from the soviet union and the missiles that were fired them. and correspondingly we have reduced on both sides roughly 1500 warheads. still a lot of material aimed at each other but nonetheless 1500 and that's a big difference. unfortunately the situation came to a conclusion in june 2013. i went to russian 2012 trying to

plead that we needed to keep talking and the soviet rather the russian office said sure but the war office said no. no no more americans, were tired of you folks. so that was the end of that trail. that was one story. a huge amount, potential destruction of countries including our own. now we are at a different point at this nuclear security summit meets in washington starting tomorrow. as the the fourth time around the track. a lot of the discussion will come to things much more like you have described in belgium recently. i don't want to skip over everything intervening but nonetheless, the fact is that in belgium during the last attack the belgians wisely shut down to situations that are power

stations, dismissed all of the employees. he said why would they do that? because at least in previous weeks they found that there had been to employees at one of these places that had gone to join isil. as a matter of fact that was a real problem that there could be out there at the stations, people that were not very loyal to the belgium governments. and could create more of a problem then already occurred there. in essence, many, many people taking a look at the summit are saying we are at a point where you can count major nations that have warheads and this is bad enough. now we are at the terrorism stage. the extent to which people are able to get to realize radiological material. the the points which some terrorists might expect try to create dirty bombs. some radiological material that would not create a nuclear explosion but would in essence

render a square mile of new york city uninhabitable, or the florida keys. this type of situation is to frequently discussed and to frequently comes up without too much of an answer. what is to be the answer? is there going to be a new international organization, whether a new international agreement? or will it be much more than a situation internationally than is respected by all of the nations involved. i would just conclude this long answer by mentioning that sam nunn and richard and this is a group and i have officiated being a member of the board for a long time and especially the work that has occurred recently in the publication of this nuclear security index which is

an essential book because it goes through really what is happening in all of the countries on earth that have any sort of potential. and there go through them one by one and the amount of danger that is still there. i appreciate this because it's a situation in which mpi is collaborated with the economist and magazine and data which is tremendously important for each student for all of this. plus the indicators of how extensive it is. how many countries are involved. >> ..

>> >> so i will pause so this fellow panelists that i have enormous respect can be included in this panel. >> professor, abruptly in

the middle of 2013 they are not interested in collaboration with the united states and if you open the front page in what does this portend with the activities? >> is it something we should be worried about? >>. >> before i respond to your question i want to put it into historical context. >> but one of my real heroes

and as he knows i have had the privilege to nominate the two of them for the nobel peace prize. but first i'd like to applaud the two senators that have been able to promote over there in and out of government. >> i will respond to your questions and again technology and to focus on soviet affairs and the point that is tremendously important -- important this is the nature of u.s. relations is that for many decades probably with the negotiation of the

non-proliferation in treaty which was concluded 1968 to but after the peaceful nuclear explosion. so it began a very concerted and routine collaboration and cooperation for non-proliferation every six months at the assistant secretary level. with activities and concerns at the london suppliers' group meeting united states in the soviet union collaborated much more closely than the traditional allies including the french in the german.

with the non-proliferation treaty review process it routinely acted in concert for the most part they were both nuclear weapons states and that applies to the national atomic energy agency but this corporation and persisted democratic and republican administrations and even during the cold war. and the soviet union invaded afghanistan all other bilaterals were shut down. and then it was continuing in the non-proliferation sector so unfortunately it is unknown to some americans

so these meetings ceased in the latter part of the '80s. end of a different nature. indeed that they would not be at the nuclear security summit russia believes it no longer needs to formally cooperate in the united states but to identify it is still possible and i would say non-proliferation remains a promising area. next week in monterey we will have officials joining

experts from both countries to talk about these matters in the doctor will be one of the participants in this meeting. and that deals with nuclear terrorism. about 10 years ago i co-authored a book with these different facets of terrorism that people talk about as of the dirty bomb by conventional means. with a tax under sabotages of nuclear facility.

ed is not even very sophisticated. for the theft or the seizure to seize them from arsenals those are very different forms of terrorism which i don't think it has received enough attention. so for those non-state actors the don't attempt to build a nuclear device of any sort.

the two wheen countries with nuclear weapons in the best example clause in the incident that occurred in 1995 when it was launched off the coast of norway with their plans but that was not made to appropriate command and control and as a consequence when it took off they had a good reason to think so but one could well imagine and the concern for me is that is the only

existential threat i concede at the moment we are concerned of the of potential of isis or others to make use of idiological sources but if you are talking about the existential threat and a number of regions which is south asia. >> which countries are facing the greatest dangers? >> first address of meshed issue what has happened over that time.

en then you go back to '92 entertaining the russians with the russian nuclear weapons. and then with the secret city. but most of it is addressing the security issue that we had. so what went back in 198192

with u.s. government actions better very important with that initiative with that visionary legislation to come out ahead of the government to push into action but they knew it would take a lot of cooperation. so what we faced in 9192 the soviet union coming apart

with those that made up the soviet union. and then to have access at a time it is literally coming apart. to be in total turmoil. so really it is the making of the perfect nuclear storm. with 37,000 nuclear weapons russia last somewhere 1.4 billion kilograms of fissile materials to make bombs out of. with highly enriched uranium.

nagasaki by 6.2 kilograms that is this much. that's it. hiroshima was more it was highly enriched uranium but smaller than a soccer ball. we're talking 1.4 million and to this is not for knox. that is what really bothers me. [laughter] why don't we just lock up? there is waste. you work with them. so the problem is there was all of this.

and the loose material could it get away? in 1982 i didn't know how we we get through the next few years but then we were worried about experts the soviet complex has 1 million working in the nuclear complex. and in the fourth is the exports. now you look back 25 years later it didn't happen. it doesn't take much but incredibly small amount.

basically nothing. and exports are a bit of the problem in the 1990's to be a responsible nuclear exploiter. so those four things did not happen in this significantly improved from '91 or '92. the nuclear materials are much better protected in dated back it paid six months at a time. oh into export legitimately

but they have made much progress which of them -- much is focused on his people. stop focusing on as. that is good news but the bad news is talk about nuclear safety your nuclear security just when you thank you are done you are complacent. in this country more so than russia. address to continue to work together to the weapons to the materials that doesn't just require the government action.

but in this case we had two senators to cap looking over there but all the way down the line several thousand scientists and engineers thousands of trips back and forth. literally thousands. >> a place for a nuclear device how accurate is that?

>> i think some of the things that we talk about is the logic is that the states including pakistan and their leaders have greater motivation even than we do to maintain a the crown jewel. the pakistan the army it may not be fully competent but i said there the safest thing and pakistan. that may not be enough you may say they're still not safe but what more do want

to do? that if they address them they are more safe and secure. >> is very quiet the other is the ongoing department of energy cooperation is very difficult because the military we worry the most about terrorist and they worry about us. with the osama bin lot of trade within hours they started to move the nuclear weapons because they thought the u.s. was coming after their nuclear weapons. so they can secure those materials in their securing them against other people as

well so the psychology is different than you might first think it is fairly positive in that openness to cooperation in now the more that u.s. cooperates with india is a bipartisan objective then the pakistan nisei and when they have all of this capability it is part of a plot with the indians. we have to be aware of that. >> you published an article

and editorial said the everyone deal. no better alternative. what would the other panelists like to tell us or how much more secure does it make us? >> but to focus on that issue but i share the assessment conveyed in the title. actually it is probably a better deal than what was possible a few years ago in the midst of these negotiations. the real problem is the implementation of the deal.

they are unparalleled and i am quite confident that side will be all right but it is the opposition of both countries by large important factions to the deal in principle. that is something we cannot take for granted if we're going to sustain over time but if you were going to ask about the non-proliferation ledger then did good news is in the iran deal. let me share with the unanticipated consequence of that deal because most americans and particularly those in the government have

a very negative view of the rand with international negotiations with good reason. but in the area i focus on is the non-proliferation treaty review process. for either every five years they review the implementation looking forward it is striking there are all kinds of progress -- programs i recently wrote an article a subtitle it was 100 ways to say no and french and arabic that was the problem. has the leader of the movement was a constructive

force in those negotiations ended is telling him of the disarmament committee all of the nuclear weapons per furred a resolution from iran to the resolution of put forward by the allies so there is a very unusual dynamic that is as familiar to most folks for obvious reasons with those esoteric reasons. but what is the consequence of the iran nuclear deal? >> what i find amazing is how much division is there almost everybody has a

strong opinion and quite frankly don't understand the underlying technical issues. we give them the life in 10 years to have the industrial weapons capability. the second concern is i wish we had as many people talking about north korea. [laughter] that is the real problem. they have lots of nukes and have been building them up the failure of the international community. it is the very bad move.

and i had a chance to interact with the technical people so what has happened is over the last 30 years essentially when the ayatollah made the decision to reconstitute a nuclear path if you watch what they have been doing, they are putting in place the capabilities to build a bomb. if you add all the pieces together as to why they're doing what they're doing to put that in place and regardless of what happens politically.

so what happens with the iran deal the administration agreed david separate the problem in by separating the problem the good news was that is the only way they could get the rest of the world to come on board particularly china and russia there is no way to get a rush job board if you focus on the nuclear peace you get them windups and now you have the making of a nuclear deal. at the time they started the discussion in a month or two

could have midinettes highly enriched uranium but to build a couple of years something more sophisticated but they want to make the materials for the bomb. and what the deal does i kept telling them you have an open space but the space that they opened it is pretty good so now with the ideal it takes the year and if they want to cheat or sneak out instead of the breakout that is more

difficult that is more rigorous it would have been plutonium producing reactor to the core of fact to make america since was concerned so they took all of those steps komen nuclear standpoint. if integra 15 years they want to go back they can do that and they have the capability to do so that is the good news. the bad news is aggregating so if you believe the sanctions? what will happen in the next tender 15 years so my bottom line is i don't know we

don't know which way i ran will go but i would rather not face the next tender 15 years with them having nuclear weapons. so this was by far the best you could do. >> we are about to get to questions but i am indebted to my colleagues today on the stage for the arguments in play the fact of life is as the deal came up every single republican had opposition is day situation the white house called and asked it was much more strongly than this. so we have the op-ed and

then another from louisiana. and john kerry said i will make the case for a national audience is secretary kerry gave a tremendous speech point by point everything that has been suggested to date on the democratic side is to get across the finish

line to not have an arms control treaty that is when subsequent to that it is a miraculous but it was very important and i just excluded a buddy from the process. >> i want to take you of to talk about north korea. just how close are they to strike at american territory [laughter] >> there are many, many reasons you can tell my response.

it doesn't motivate me very much we know what they are for a long time. depending on how you measure at the latest so i was still young what will you do about it? but to me that is the biggest problem. we can have an adult conversation we have to have they pretend conversation to dismantle everything to verify it will all go away and in my view and went away for a long time ago so as long as that is the precondition to even have a

discussion we will not have a discussion it is a bipartisan democrats are no better than republicans that they have to give everything is the promise and that is fantasy like to talk to a three year-old because you don't want them to understand the real world. [laughter] that is what we do now. >> all-star by backing which he said about bipartisanship north korea is a great example of the bipartisan failure. if you go back to assess the blame of somebody start with the reagan when they laid the foundation.

then bush got a ready and with clinton it was the plutonium but then george w. bush they built the first bomb. they said we will never let them get one but they did then we have president obama by the time he goes out there are between 16 and 20 i am not worried about north koreans getting to the united states they cannot do that at this point and if they could why would they want to? that is a death wish. they went from having a

crude bomb to an arsenal that they believe then. with each nuclear weapon and they build so i look at them like pakistan if you have an arsenal of 10 or 20 weapons weapons, that is really dangerous they are building an arsenal not the chinese or the americans are doing anything. >> i did agree but we run a higher risk of exclusively on the dangers of north korea.

how do other states respond how will solve carrier respond? will battery five that nuclear weapons program that it has? how will china respond to the behavior? it is a very dangerous world and from what north korea chooses to do or not to do. >> can we learn anything from the deal? >> what do we do? i have been to number three is seven times. the first time i had the great pleasure of reporting to my senators after the fourth visit i said they are serious. what we ought to do is they

will not given up settled make it get worse. just stopped digging so i came back no more bomb is no better bob santa no exports. so ellis' you have to address the security concerns so you need to have that adult dialogue if they would stop making more in 2008 we would not be in the fix that we are today. >> they continue to make progress the folks have done a lot with the imagery that

has been a disco ball that is claimed to be a hydrogen bomb. >> very briefly with no bombs and then he talks about the deal that our policy is just say no like the late anc reagan how to deal with drugs. wishing that it goes away. and there isn't that much of a bargain. >> i really think we should open this to the audience so desisting to in your question for comments and

wait for the microphone. >> thank you for the extremely informative panel. i'm looking around this room we could be sad or think of it as a great triumph and a credit to all of you. the scientist and the scholars made a possible it is this something to worry about. i was worried of the first nuclear bomb and when it created dr. strange love. >> how times have changed.

you may be even more nervous or even happier at the end i am very worried about north korea that we may need to let them go but to go back to that such a description but a q:does not come up much these days and at one time there seemed to be a logic having a hard time to keep a straight face so what happened to make him a thing of the past? >> ad is a fair question

referring to the leader of the pakistan the enrichment program beginning in the late '80s and '90s he was selling either blueprints for the centrifuge are those that were broken into iran. basically it relied on imports and then realized you could hit the reverse which export and make money. so we know that was state sanctioned so the army knew about that.

but that affirms my point natalie a business but a strategic transaction we were not worried about north korea to acquire because that was no threat. >> iran was also authorized by the army chief at the time and thought they shed improve their relations with the shiites to widen the parameter and it wasn't like they're giving them a bomb but selling a centrifuge. [laughter] but then there was a change once it was exposed it was humiliating for the pakistan meet army they realize they

had a problem so since then the revamped the system now he is under house arrest while they bring them in for her interrogation? so the discussion doesn't go very far. but i think things have changed a great harm was done to their reputation. the u.s. welcomes india with 45 countries. but at the pakistan is also want to be part of that with a q con you have to make more restitution before that.

and there are forever after to say if we're never treated like a normal responsible state where the incentives? >> we're always the outcast and we cannot redeemer selves what do you want us to do? to into knows what the next administration improves. >> two points i would make it is tremendously important because we face a lot of proliferation challenges today beyond our ability to control. but the issue in my mind

with the nuclear deal of the changing of the export policy and now the talk about the full fledged member in my mind is self-inflicted punishment. vital sea redeeming quality and one reason it basically the values of benefit to be a non-nuclear weapons state in the non-proliferation treaty. now you have representatives of three different legally binding soane's or ignoring the legal obligations not to engage in nuclear trade. that is not our was planning to say but i felt obliged to make a comment. i believe notwithstanding in

the minds of that network there other illicit trafficking networks out there but there are so for you prosecution's for in teaching in nuclear trade it is almost inconsequential when asked to comment and make reference to the fact that in almost all countries there is penalties for driving under the influence than to drive with fissile material it is unjust of question of the developing world in the most industrialized countries as well to provide meaningful disincentives' to engage in it nuclear trade.

>> but since that time the pakistan each trying to clean up their act with the very important issues the concerns that you have with nuclear weapons in the hands of governments with nuclear assets out of the hands of government out of the hands of the pakistan government they're not willing to deal of the security aspect.

but there could be the india pakistan but you have a chance to make big gains on the nuclear security peace. that we are not after nuclear weapons just make sure you control all of your assets i think we have a chance. the first is what do you think they want that for?

presumably it is the defensive move against south korea. because they fear the apocalypse that they're building an arsenal they believe in. i don't know what you mean by that. and that seems like a good thing very often you can do that with every your answer is because every single negotiator with north korea or special envoy than the less sure they feel that they understand.

that is a serious comment. for the third question i always wondered why and ending the korean war we did not just say yes? i and the standard is a bargaining chip but if we care about we don't say yes we agree it is over what it have made a difference? >> on monday we had a session at stanford with the discussion about north and south korea with the chinese

for the first time the only reasonable reasons for the third question why not just give them the peace treaty was my feeling a comment was with the u.s. government is concerned about is the signing of the peace treaty of the armistice is a mechanism the north would like to split from the united states to create space between u.s. and south korea. i am not that worried about it. >> but on the first one my view had always been as the

second reason is for a siege. but is number three if they did not play the role so getting rid of the weapons would be difficult why do they want them still primarily with the discussion somebody at the fact that kim jong-il recognize that south korea is so far out ahead economically it is gone.

his son is a young man the economy is doing reasonably well so it isn't clear that there are some thoughts to build up the arsenal he looks at that as a mechanism so i would not rule that out and that is very worrisome. >> wave your hand. >> if this is the case pakistan and north korea for wanting to acquire nuclear weapons and technology with a continuation is that

argument applicable to other advanced industrial economies? is this why britain pursue nuclear weapons? >> it seems to have with these discussions but they shouldn't have nuclear weapons at all even of the strategy. >> let me take one small slice of that. i wrote a piece a couple of months ago there she will survive better in my opinion

they put them into the background to understand how iran fits. the only one left standing. unless they pursue nuclear weapons. >> that is exactly right one thing to topple the regime that some of us interpreted a long time ago but if you see them through the verdict to go to war after saddam

hussein was removed what is their problem? economic attack them because of the nuclear weapon there is incredibly intense loathing between iran and soda -- saudi arabia so the iranians see them basket compared in every possible way the only thing that they could do to equalize but if we don't and that is what

they're apoplectic and then they said washington one day later. they have a monarchy. they have a lot more going on. with increased rhetoric talking more and more but it is clearly for them for rush

says great power. >> and as much as some would like to give the last word i will take one more question. >> and to place upon nuclear weapons but i was wondering if we could be self reflective to talk to day what does the united states government would to replace some of the nuclear stockpile with that

incredible military use? is that still considered incredible military tool what is the u.s. stockpile today? >>. >> let me say that with some accuracy we are the country has to make possible security for everybody we're in a unique situation and part of that the military authority are a part of that.

with the of bargaining power that if things go badly with russia or china we can be counted upon to getting into a debate and the engine the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and it has been suggested that to go into a nuclear reduction in situation about our role in the world that there is no desire to talk about that at

all so regardless philosophically we will have what we have for a while. >> the viability of the nonproliferation regime we have 190 years so parties of the non-proliferation treaties assad from the ndp are k we have well over 180 countries better the states parties that it was a bargain it's so it is very difficult so when they give

that analogy to tell other people not to smoke it is difficult not to preach those virtues with their current nuclear arsenal. we would be remiss at a major educational institution i even heard that mentioned once but the point raised to of the major challenges that we face today is complacency to our elected officials but

international and to counter that we have to invest far more than we have with the disarmament and education that everybody has to embrace the mission but how many major universities which has more courses and instructors teaching it is so difficult for the young people undergraduates to pursue a formal program of training in this realm and dido's sleeping very well that night given the field that i focus on though it gives me hope is interacting with the young people to have the energy and idealism and there is one that this marvelous new school levy yetta to be a non

proliferation. >> and diplomacy age to focus on. >> thank you very much i really appreciate the panel and you coming to the conference. [applause]

committee chair senator, johnson. speeleven.

[inaudible conversations] >> we will get the hearing under way. we will start to buy wilton the administrator mr. neffenger today. march 22nd terrace associated to detonate three bombs one in an airport in one in the busy metro area. 35 people were killed inre this cowardly attack. the victims of these attacks are in our thoughts and prayers the threat from isis and al qaeda in some butter and flour dash sympathizers israel to prevent deadly attacks.forts of the tra into safeguard the areas

outside of passenger screening checkpoints., i undera administrator mr. neffenger nine the stand you were at the airport at the time of the attacks and share your thoughts so we can prepare for similar thoughts i & your written testimony talks about the pipeline but i hope you will sharen additional and formation how to improve additional security. savvy it is clear that terrorists associate to identify the soft targets and looking for ways to improve security in those aviation network and with us a checkpoint.

claman to identify a threats to mitigate concerns i live for to hearing from the administrator of the risk based analysis.ion. this should never be at most significantmus leverage the most significant threatsere. and the visible security efforts make ted difference in this is a viable and though these teams are allocated and other transportation systems. tsa is charged with protecting ports railroads am pipeline infrastructure.e infr this is crucial components of our economy.

we received high marks from grove road eight operators to work to identify threats.and operat public-private partnerships have been viable with the networks for god deviation front rehabed them leading oversight to successfully manage the security credentials will lead the committee to approve bipartisan legislation to airpot tighten the vetting of the workers of serious criminal activity so they don't accept sensitive airport areas. some of the perpetrators of aad the deadly attacks were previously known as authorities and we believe isis is recruiting criminals to join their ranks in europe. with an aviation insider

those separate clause with financial gain is a good place to start.suring that airpr in to see it is trustworthy as a a believe they have killed on the passenger w plane leaving egypt with the help of an airport employee. the committee has improved legislation the pre-check expansion act to expand participation of the pre-elct check application program that as a result more vetted passengers will receive expedited secreting -- screening and is not an easy target that is exploited at the brussels airport i believe both measures should be in the administrator, tha

administrator neffenger thank you for being here today you are faced with a great challenge to get a right every time of four to hear from you how the tsa is meeting that challenge. >> in the last 10 years right after 9/11 1900 attacks were carried out against transit systems around the world resultingng in 4,000 deaths and 14,000 injuries. id and aviation almost 15 years terrorists are still finding the vulnerabilities which the chairman has noted.

we have two types of vulnerability is before us. the vulnerability of thebi airport is sponsored by the two members at the front of the dis. airport security perimeter because of an air flow -- an airport to employee and the same with the gun running scheme in atlanta two years ago. flights. were smuggled onto 17 flights that was the last

quarter 2014. with the airport security enhancement and oversight act of 2015. in that will be attached to the faa bill hopefully. now we have an additional security problem and that is where passengers are bunched up to him in a soft area like the alliance going through tsa like the crowded lines at the check-in counter or a bus or train station where people are huddled up trying to get through to security.ess than 2%a

in 2016 less than 2% of tsa total budget is dedicated to protecting the surface protection networks with the bus and the train and road we have yet to suffer a recent attack on the massnother transit system brussels is just another reminder. tsa can take immediate action of the 9/11 commission which were enacted into law in 2007 and we have an opportunity to improve the of lot coming up in this current faa bill

with the soft targets and it is time to reexamine the strategy and refocus our efforts. hearing >> administrator neffenger record to hearing your opening remarks. please proceed. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear for the critical security of our trees rotation system. i will add my condolences to the victims of the brussels attack.as there for a mee i was at the airport on the day of the bombing but being

there on that day with the airport environment is a stark reminder -- environment to protect travelers. when i arrived i was confronted with the results of the covert testing but what i found the 60,000 dedicated professionals itun was immediately clear00 whether we need to tackleal what is wrong it was thereon to build in the fall of what is right if come along wayailure in retrain the entire work force to establish the first tsa academy the we are

focused on the counter terrorism mission.terrorism as an integral member of the network to continuously have vetted travelers prescreen an average in nearly 440 airports all are trained being tr with the nature of the threats that we face with comprehensive training at the new tsa academy. and it is a rebuild a a connection to better t understand that the recent attacks remind us we remain committed and at present we

have no incredible intelligence but to remain departure airports to inspect compliance with international standards the attacks embezzles further highlight thus beyond the checkpoints we work with federal state and partners to provide a presence route the airports according to those countless agencies through the trees rhodesian never. with intermodal invention

with a specialist in with a deterrent in response capability. we're focused on insider threat to ending collaboration with the stakeholders with the advisory committee to take a number of actions to enhance security within hands criminal records check with the capability to provide continuous background checks with the assessment airport by airport that everynw employee could be stopped every day. as a complex undertaking with collaboration between transportation operators. opera, this information sharing and identification of vulnerability is exercises to assess readiness in through those securitys programs.

re into protect the nation in with the summer travel. into place enormous pressure. with the front line workforce in that high volume of travel. to keep points travelers security comes first secondto co there will be longer waits during peak periods. y >> thank you for your

continued support for the men and women on the front line and record your questions.ou mentioned, of c >> as you mentioned the brussels attack was an aviation infrastructure but also of metro cars between stations that killed 13 and injured more. very open systems like the areas of the airports how have you communicated about the potential attack on u.s. transportation system and do you believe those systems will be repaired for attack?'s.

th >> day is on everybody's minds. it is one of the fundamental questions for a number of years.th i will tell you that it starts with goodod intelligence there is an extensive network with the transportation and threats so begins with an assessment of the current threats and the potential groups and who the individuals are in the neck step is to identify those will the abilities with those partners across the system. and then beating with the

police chiefs and there was the extensive network of law-enforcement security professionals that leveraged from tsa to establish a higher level of standards across the system will great deal of shared intelligence and the help facilitate many w of the groups to do that. and by definition at risk there is a great deal to be done. >> as a follow-up less than 2% it was directed to the surface transportation and i

know that we all the understand the aviation sector is very real but do you believe in the resource allocation to insure the security of the systems? >> we can leverage this superb local and state law-enforcement entities in that sector with the new jersey transit police it is more than i can mention.operatoe if you basket operator, yes i would but i would use in support of those entities doing really good efforts out there. any work to increase our ability what might be

happening. and to share that information to declare resources most effectively. >> with our viper teams nationwide by contrast the budget request called those 23 related positions. it has updated the concept to focus on risk-based to plan this. released commit have they convinced the administration in that it was needed to redress current threats?

>> i appreciate the attention to resources. tell yos i would put them to use more effectively with our partners and deploy them to more public areas. >> one last question in the past year-and-a-half receive repeated abuses the of the airport workers axes but the badges used by workers to bypass the checkpoints and facilitate cavanaughin activities and smuggling of raise a lot of questions to the insider threat and with other senators introduced

the oversight act to counter these threats by improving the inspections of the workers. i do think it is important to to update the criminal background checks that have access to secure areas of the airport. . .