>> it is not public funding. >> probably donations. >> i would say from my tax dollars. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiative. no government mandate or government money. >> president obama and russian president medvedev signed an agreement on monday. topics include the war in afghanistan and missile defense. this is about 55 minutes.

>> the signing of documents is about to start. [speaking russian]

>> chief of joint staff of the armed forces of russia, first deputy minister of defense, army general, and the u.s. side, joint chairman of the united states army. they are setting the framework document of the development of corp. between the armed forces [inaudible] and to improve military cooperation between the armed forces and the united states of america for the year 2009.

[applause] >> minister of foreign affairs of the russian federation and senior deputy of the united states of america are assigning an agreement between the government of the russian federation and the government of the net states of america on the

transit of weapons material, military property, and military personnel concerning the participation of the men states of america in efforts to enhance security, stabilization, and restoration of the islamic republic of afghanistan. >> also, the notes have been exchanged by the russian u.s.

commission on affairs of missing in action and prisoners of war and the memorandum has been signed. >> president of the russian federation, president medvedev, and president of the united states barack obama are signing a joint memorandum of understanding involving the continued production of the

strategic defence of weapons. >> during the visit by the u.s. president barack obama to the russian federation, also a joint communique regarding issues abm has been signed and a joint communique by joint presidents on corp. in the nuclear area and a joint statement by the president of the russian federation and the president of the united states of america on afghanistan as well as a presidential plan of action, and a decision has been made to set up a u.s.-russia commission on development.

>> dear ladies and gentlemen, distinguished members of the press, colleagues, we have just completed our negotiations. myself and president of the united states, it is the first

visit by a barack obama to russia and it has been a very busy visit. the first day demonstrated that we were able to touch upon virtually all of the items on our agenda. our agenda was quite large and would like to say from the very beginning, what happened was a very useful and opened business- like conversation. this has been the kind of summit that both -- that both this country had high expectations for and what the united states of america was expecting. a summit that the future of the nations depend on and global development as well. i would also once again like to emphasize something. indeed, the first day of our negotiations in both our personal meeting and it in past

meetings with a lot of participants were sincere and open, and that is very important. we will continue to communicate exactly in this kind of vain. it is both very competitive for our relationship and also difficult for our relationship because the number of issues that have accumulated over the last few years is quite aggressive. however, we were able to have both the mutual resolve and desire, given the principal positions that we adhere to and will continue to adhere to to make sure that such issues are discussed -- are discussed in a business-like manner. i would like to emphasize that each of our two countries understand its own role in its own way but also at the same time to appreciate both its role and responsibility for the

situation in the entire world, especially during a period of time with the level of globalization has reached parameters and scale and scope that frequently decisions that we make impact the overall situation. such powerful measures, indeed cannot bear special responsibility about everything that is happening on our planet. -- indeed, their special responsibility on everything that is happening on our planet. we have many things that we share. the desire to discuss these issues was mutual and that too is an important outcome of our interaction and communication because the work that we are doing requires both mutual respect and good will and honest

taking into account of the other's position. we have also arrived at the conclusion that the russian-u.s. relationship fall short of the potential and far short of the capacity of both of our countries for this relationship. the level that the relationship is at fall short of the requirements and needs of the current countries. unless our relationship progresses dynamically on the issues of the agenda, cultural, research, trade, and economic relations, unless our relationship continues to progress dynamically, we will not be able to build a highway into the 21st century. we have spent quite a few hours in a very specific way, talking about various issues.

we were also philosophical at times and i am grateful to my colleague for understanding the principles that we are setting forth, and accordingly, we are paying attention to the proposals laid down by our u.s. counterparts. we have agreed that we are going to continue unabated. we will keep moving and make decisions that are going to take for our relationship to continue to progress. we have discussed very specific matters and i would like to share some of them with you. obviously, we have covered international affairs and relations. we have such a conference issues like the middle east. we have agreed to keep working together, given the plans that we have discussed in

anticipation of a number of that market events. we also discussed the possibility of holding in moscow -- a moscow-based conference. we have covered a very important subject. one or core mission of our actions is extremely important. i am referring to afghanistan. in absence of joint efforts in this area, it is in my view that successes will be achieved in this area. that explains why we have agreed upon a joint statement. also, relations in the research and scientific and humanitarian areas is also important. these things have to be done. with determination, we will be working on these areas. some of the specific results of our negotiations, we have agreed

on most important item, the new agreement on the strategic defense weapons, which is the basic fundamental element to our shared security. the work has been quite intense. our teams, our delegations have worked in a very productive way in this area. they have achieved a reasonable compromise solutions and we'd like to thank everyone that has participated. we have both achieved a joint understanding of how we need to keep going and where we need to keep going in the future, but also we have reached the basic levels at which we will promote operations in these areas. we have agreed on the threshold for both warheads and delivery vehicles on the setting that this is a very strategic issue in the sense that the statement that we just signed with my

colleague. it says that our countries can have between 511 hundred delivery vehicles -- 500 and 1100 delivery vehicles. we are hoping to achieve the final agreement which will be incorporated into the new document come into the new treaty. we have also agreed that the offensive and defensive capabilities of both countries should be viewed upon to gather. we have passed a joint statement on anti-missile defenses, which is also an important document. we were able to come up with a joint document that has been approved. we have discussed nuclear corp

oration and the most important thing we will continue cooperation in all of the areas. we have signed a statement on the military transit to afghanistan. we have decided to set up a presidential commission on cooperation, which will coordinate the relationships between various government agencies of the russian federation and the united states of america and all high priority areas, including the area of the economy and the military. as far as military, the respective heads of general chiefs of staff's will be engaging in that soon. all of these documents will be published and we will be able to familiarize ourselves with them.

there have also been compositions that have taken place today. my view in all of this is that of a first step and an extremely important step in terms of reinvigorating false scare cooperation between our countries were the beneficiaries will be both of our countries. in conclusion, i would like to specifically emphasized that my country would like to achieve a level of cooperation with the united states that will be truly worthy of the 21st century, that will insure its national peace and stability. it is something that is in our interest and we are thankful to our u.s. colleagues for the work that we have been able to jointly perform. a great deal of solutions to many global issues depend on

joint leadership of the russian federation and the united states of america. thank you for listening. [applause] >> good afternoon. i want to thank president medevac of and the russian people for their hospitality. michelle and our children are pleased to be here in moscow. we have just concluded a very productive meeting. the president and i agree that the relationship between russia and the united states has suffered from a sense of drift. we resolved to reset u.s.- russia relationship we can cooperate more effectively in areas of common interest. today, after less than six months of collaboration, we have done exactly that by taking concrete steps forward on a range of issues while paving the way for more progress in the

future. i think it is notable that we have addressed the top priorities, not second-tier issues. they are fundamental to the security and prosperity of both countries. first, we have taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. this starts with a reduction of our own nuclear arsenals as the world's two leading nuclear powers, the united states and russia must lead by example. that is what we are doing here today. we have signed a joint understanding for a tree before the start agreement that will reduce our nuclear warheads and delivery systems by up to one- third by our current treaty limitations. this legally binding treaty will be completed this year. we have also agreed on a joint statement on nuclear security cooperation that will help us achieve the goal of securing all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. the progress that we can build

upon later this week at the g-8 summit. these are important steps forward. as we keep our commitments, so west -- so must we ensure that others keep theirs. we have discussed north korea and iraq. north korea has abandoned its own commitments and violated international law, which is why i am pleased that russia joined us in passing a resolution that calls for strong steps to block north korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. iran also poses a serious challenge through its failure to live up to international obligations. this is not just a problem for the united states. it raises the prospect of a nuclear arms race in the middle east which would endanger global security while iran's ballistic missile program can also pose a threat to the broader region. that is why i am pleased we agreed on a joint statement on

missile defense and a joint threat assessment of the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century, including those posed by iran and north korea. we have taken important steps forward to strengthen our security to greater cooperation. president medvedev and i agreed on the need to combat violent extremism, particularly from al- qaeda. it would have signed an agreement that will allow the transit of lethal military equipment through russia to afghanistan. this is a substantial contribution by russia to our international effort and will save the united states time and resources in giving our troops the support that they need. thanks to the admiral and his russian counterpart, we have agreed to resume military to military cooperation between the united states and russia, providing a framework for improved cooperation and interoperable at the between our armed forces so we can address

the threats that we face from terrorism to privacy. we have agreed to restore a joint commission on prisoners of war and missing in action, which will allow our governments to cooperate in our commitment to our missing servicemen and women. third, we've taken important steps forward to broaden our cooperation on a full range of issues. president medvedev and i are creating a u.s.-russian and bilateral present to a commission to serve as a new foundation for this cooperation. too often, the united states and russia only communicate on a narrow range of issues or that old habits stand in the way of progress. that is why this commission will include working groups on development, the economy, energy, nuclear energy insecurity, arms control, international security, defense, foreign policy, counterterrorism, preventing in handling emergencies, civil

society, science and technology, state, health, education, culture. it will be courted by secretary clinton who will travel to russia this fall to carry this effort forward. to give you one example of this cooperation, the new memorandum of understanding on health. we have learned that most recently with the h1n1 virus that a disease that emerges anywhere can pose a risk to people everywhere. that is why our department of health and human services will cooperate with its russian counterparts to combat infectious, chronic, and non communicable diseases while promoting health. finally, i am pleased that russia has taken the importance that of lifting restrictions on imports of u.s. livestock. the cost of these restrictions is over $1.3 billion and we have now made important progress to restore that commerce. i will pretend that the united states and russia agree on every

issue. we have had some frank discussions in other areas where we still disagree. we had a frank discussion on georgia and i reiterated my firm belief that georgia's sovereignty must be respected. even as we work through our disagreements on the borders, we do agree that no one has an interest in renewed military conflict. we must speak candidly to resolve these differences peacefully and constructively. president medvedev and i are committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past so we can advance the interests that we hold in common. today, we have made meaningful progress in demonstrating what a more constructive u.s.-russia relationship can look like in the 21st century. tomorrow, i look forward to broadening this effort to include business, civil society, and the dialogue among the american and russian people. i believe that all of us have an

interest in forging a future in which the united states and russia partner affectively on the behalf of our security and prosperity. that is the purpose of resetting our relations and once again want to thank president medvedev and his entire team for being such wonderful hosts and working so effectively with ours. thank you. >> now the joint press conference of the u.s. and russian president is about to begin. two questions from each side are to be asked. please make sure you introduced yourself and indicate whom you are asking the question. >> thank you and good evening to both presidents. i would like to ask you about the issue of trust.

having spent time with president medvedev, do you feel like you have full trust in him and have you settled in your mind who really is in charge here in russia, the president or prime minister putin? president medvedev, polling shows that the american people have some -- i am sorry, that the russian people have some hard feelings about america. i am wondering what you think that president obama can do to try to change this. >> well, first of all, this is now my second lengthy bilateral meeting with president medvedev and we have also had a series of telephone calls and other exchanges. throughout our interactions, i found him to be straightforward, professional, he is clear about

the interests of the russian people, but he is also interested in finding out what the interest of the united states are. we have found, i think, an ability to work together extremely effectively. yes, i trust president medvedev to not only listen and to negotiate constructively but also to follow through on the agreements that have been contained here today. i am very appreciative not only with the manner that he has dealt with me but the manner in which our teams have worked together. it if you think about the strong framework of time that we have met together and the fact that we accomplished all of the goals that we have set in london -- that we had set in london. these are not in substantial

agreement. i think it is a good sign of progress in the future. tomorrow, i will be having breakfast with prime minister putin. i am looking forward to that meeting. my understanding is that president medvedev is the president and prime minister putin is the prime minister. they allocate power in accordance with the form of government in the same way we allocate power in the united states. so, my interest is in dealing directly with my counterpart, the president, but also to reach out to prime minister putin and all other influential sectors in russian society so that i can get a full picture of the needs of the russian people and the concerns of the russian people. my strong impression is that

president medvedev and prime minister putin are working very affectively together. our interest is dealing with the russian government as a whole in order to achieve the improved bilateral relationship that i think can be accomplished. >> first of all, i would like to thank president obama for the words that he has just said regarding the spirit and degree of openness that exists between the two of us. i have once talked about it. i am happy to talk about it again. it the personal relationship is not the most important but in the absence of one, we cannot build normal interstate relationships. it is great when both a personal relationship and the interstate relationships are harmonious. i am hoping that my colleague,

president obama, and myself will continue in this similar vein. as far as the russian sentiments regarding americans, that is a normal feeling of friendship. it is a different situation that when the political relationship is cooling off and problems arise between the two nations, obviously, it impacts the respective people that are watching and following the political process. this is something that is unavoidable. the better the relationship is between the two nations, the better the neutral feelings between the nations towards the other will be. we are cognizant and aware of beautiful. the time when our country's work together and solved very, very complex issues, issues involving the restoration of peace globally.

i am referring to the post-world war two era. we also had a complicated periods in our relationship at times that were dramatic. there is the awareness of the great deal that depends on our relationship. depending on how far we are able to move forward, how successful we will be in making our relationship more adequate in regard to the current situation, and the degree in which to impact of global world, so to speak, that the attitudes of our nations toward one another depends as well given the fact that people have always felt sympathy and like the other people his darkly. -- and like the other people historically. >> 95% of the global nuclear arsenal is accounted for by

these two nations. the frame work of the agreement of the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons has been in existence for decades since the 1970's. it will our countries be able to maintain the situation regarding non proliferation under control especially given the fact the situation has deteriorated recently and the nuclear threat has been proliferating world wide? >> the non-proliferation issue is the most important issue for our nation's because the united states and russia have the bulk of responsibility in this area. the bulk of the nuclear potential and we are not shying away from our responsibilities. unfortunately, it is difficult for me to disagree with you. the situation globally has been changing for the worse, not for the better, and that has to do

with the emergence of new nuclear players. many of whom have not applied for membership in the nuclear club. the dream of doing it and doing it openly or preparing for its secretly. this is not making an improvement in the global situation for obvious and clear reasons. there are regions in the world where the mere presence of nuclear weapons is capable of creating colossal problems. it is on these avenues that we must work as closely as possible with our american partners. these regions are known. there is no point in pointing them out. it is clear to everybody that depending on the situation in the middle east, the korean peninsula, the overall climate and the overall situation on this planet depends on. it is our shared responsibility

that this is something we have to do extremely thoroughly. the russian federation is prepared to do that. based on our conversation today, based on negotiations with president obama, the u.s. seems to want to be engaged in the effort as well. >> i think president medvedev said it well. this is an urgent issue. it is one in which the united states and russia have to take leadership. it is very difficult for us to exert that leadership unless we are showing ourselves willing to deal with our own nuclear stockpiles in a more rational way, and that is why this agreement is so important. i am hopeful that we can reduce our nuclear arsenals by as much as one-third and hopefully can move even beyond that in subsequent agreements and

treaties. the critical issue that president medvedev identified is the fact that we are seeing a pace of potential proliferation that we have not seen in quite some time. he mentioned two specific areas. in the middle east, there is deep concern about iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capabilities, not simply because of one country wanting nuclear-weapons, but the fact that if iran obtained nuclear- weapons, it is almost certain that other countries in the region would then decide to pursue their own programs. we would then see a nuclear arms race in perhaps the most volatile part of the world. in the korean peninsula, we have already seen in north korea

flout its own commitments and international obligations in pursuit of nuclear weapons. in all of these cases, as you see more proliferation of nuclear weapons, the possibility is not only of state actors targeting populations with nuclear weapons, but the possibility that those nuclear weapons could fall in the hands of non-state actors, extremist organizations, poses an extreme threat to both russia and the united states. i am pleased on the progress that we have made so far. i think the fact that we have a joint threat assessment in terms of what ballistic missile capabilities and nuclear-weapons could pose to our country's, that we will be conducting a review on that and making assessments to find ways that the unit states and russia can cooperate more effectively, that

is going to be very important. pursuing the cooperation that already exists between russia and the u.s. on loose nuclear materials and making sure those are secure, i think that will be very important. structuring a new, reinvigorated, a tree that applies a set of rules to all countries, allows them to pursue peace for -- peaceful nuclear energy without having to weapon is that nuclear capacity will be very important. we have actually suggested a global summit that we intend to host next year. i discussed with president medvedev the strong possibility that in a subsequent summit, it could be hosted by russia, where we bring all the countries together around the world to start making progress on this critical issue.

>> deep divisions over a proposed missile shield have contributed greatly to the deterioration of u.s.-russia relations in the years and it does not seem that you gentlemen have finally resolve that issue either. president obama, you have said very clearly that you would not accept a linkage between the missile systems and arms control talks. president medvedev, are either of you gentlemen willing to budge on this issue? will this contribute to a blockage or obstacle to reaching a final start agreement? president obama, i was wondering

if you could give a reaction on the chinese crackdown on the northwest of the country on writing that has killed more than 140 people? >> with respect to the china situation, unfortunately, i have been traveling all night so i have not been fully briefed and i don't want to comment until i see all of the information. i assure you that our team will get a statement to you as soon as i have been able to do that. on missile defense, we have agreed that we are going to continue to discuss this critical issue. that is part of the joint statement that we have signed. i also believe that it is entirely legitimate for our discussions to talk not only about offensive weapons systems but defensive weapons systems.

part of what got us through the cold war was a sufficient sense of parody and determined capability that both sides during those very difficult times understood that a first strike, the attempt to use nuclear weapons in the military conflict against the other, could result in an extremely heavy price. so, any discussion of nuclear strategies, security kerry has e defensive and offensive capabilities. -- of nuclear strategy capability has to include defensive and offensive.

we must deal with the possibility of a missile coming in from iran, north career, or some other state, and that it is important for the united states and its allies to have the capacity to prevent such a strike. there is no scenario from our perspective in which this missile defense system would provide any protection against a mighty russian arsenal. in that sense, we have not thought that it is appropriate to link discussions of a missile defense system designed to deal with an entirely different thread unrelated to the kinds of robust abilities that russia possesses. having said that, president

medvedev has been very clear that this is a point of deep concern and sensitivity to the russian government. i suspect that when i speak with prime minister putin tomorrow, he will say the same thing. what we would like to do is to work with russia to advance a system that insures that a stray missile, whether it was one or 10, or a handful of missiles coming from a third source, that we have the capabilities to prevent those from doing damage. i think we can arrive at those kinds of understandings, but it is going to take some hard work because it requires breaking down longstanding suspicions. with respect to this particular configuration that was proposed

several years ago, as you know, we are undergoing a thorough review of whether it works or not, what has been proposed. that review should be completed by the end of the summer. as soon as that review is complete, we will provide the russian government our assessment of how we think we should proceed, and that will be the subjects of extensive negotiations. so, alternately, i think the more progress we make -- ultimately, i think the more progress we make on non- proliferation, being able to track ballistic missiles coming from other sources, to the extent that we are building deeper cooperation on those fronts, i think the more effectively we are going to be able to resolve this issue. i believe that over time, we

will end up seeing that the u.s.-russian positions on these issues can be reconciled and that we have a mutual interest in protecting both of our populations from the kinds of dangers that weapons proliferations is posing to date. >> i will just add a couple of words on this subject. of course, anti-missile defenses and to be more specific and accurate, not the anti-missile defenses itself, but a third position area is a fairly complicated item for our discussion. i would like to call your attention to what president obama has just mentioned and subbing also that i would like to note. our joint understanding refers to the linkage between offensive and defensive weapons.

this itself is a step forward. only relatively recently, all we had was just differences on this matter. now, this linkage has been stated and now there is an opportunity to start bringing relationships closer to one another. nobody says that anti-missile defenses are harmful in itself or create a threat. it is designed to tackle a number of practical objectives. the question is whether or not certain configurations of anti- missile defenses can be synchronized with the interests of other countries. i would like to note that our u.s. counterparts, unlike what has taken place over the last few years, have called a timeout and are now investigating and researching the situation in which they will formulate their final position.

at the very least, this is a step forward in terms of approaching and achieving a solution on this complicated matter. what we heard until then is that all of the decisions have been made. they do not concern you and do not create a threat for you. our position is somewhat different. here are very aware of it. what our position is is that these decisions affect us. this is somewhere where we will probably have to reach an agreement on. we understand that in terms of threats coming from medium-range missiles and ballistic missiles, those threats are not diminishing. they are increasing. we together have to think about what configuration a defense system can accept. this is something that during our meeting with a few participants, i told my colleague about.

>> just one more question. >> this is a question for both presidents. a lot has been said about the concern regarding the situation in afghanistan. could you be somewhat more specific on this area? what do both presidents think about the situation there, which what we understand it is quite complicated? in what way can russian-u.s. corporation in both transit and relation areas be helpful and overcome the situation? >> the subject of cooperation in the area is very important which is why we have spent so much time adjusting this issue during our negotiations and which is why an agreement has just been signed regarding transit. this is it an important area and we will definitely cooperation

with our american partners. as far as the current situation, the situation at hand, indeed, it is not a simple situation. in many areas, progress is either to femoral or there is no progress. we do appreciate efforts being made by the united states of america and other nations towards preventing the terrorist threat which has emanated and continues to emanate from african soil. in this regard, we are prepared to engage in a full-scale cooperation with both our american counterparts, including in the area of transit. we are prepared to provide assistance in all kinds of directions and on all kinds of enemies. i don't know how quickly it will be possible to change the situation. to a large extent, it depends on how quickly the political system

in afghanistan evolves and how successful the economic development and the policy will be. but there again, the situation is not easy and we will continue to work with our partners. recently, i had a meeting with the president of afghanistan and pakistan because both of these problems have to be looked at and solved to get there. if we are able to focus our efforts in the economic area and in terms of giving support to the counter terrorist operations, success will be hours sooner or later. at the end of the day, success will depend on how secure the african state is and how ready the society is for change. >> as you may be aware, as soon as i came into office, we undertook a thorough review of our afghan strategy to that

point. in consultation with not only our nato allies, but all of the forces internationally that have to tear it to the efforts. we concluded that we have not made as much progress that we should have given the direction in which we have been in afghanistan, and that we can improve it. so, our approach has been to say that we need to have a strong security system in place for the afghan elections to be completed. we have to train afghan nationals for the army and police said they can effectively secure their own country. we have to combine that with more effective diplomatic efforts, and we have to focus on development. for example, the people of afghanistan don't have to grow

poppy but have other crops and goods that they can have a living with. i think it is too early to gauge its success so far. i think by the time we have completed the next election, and either the president or another candid it has taken his seat, we will be able to i think do an additional review and see what other efforts we can take in order to approve -- in order to improve the situation. i can tell you that russia's participation in contributions to this effort could be extraordinarily important. obviously, russia has its own concerns about extremism and terrorism. russia also has deep concerns

about the drug trade and its infiltration into russia. russia has extraordinary -- russia has extraordinary capabilities in training police forces, armies, so our hope is that as part of a broader presidential commission structure that we put in place that we are going to further discuss both the military efforts in afghanistan but also the development efforts and the diplomatic efforts so we can make progress. president medvedev is right, that this is important for afghanistan and also important with respect to pakistan. we are going to have to think regionally in terms of how we approach these problems. there are countries along the border of afghanistan and in central asia that are very important strategically. i just want to thank again the

russian government for the agreement for military transit that will save u.s. troops, both time and money. it is i think a gesture that indicates the degree to which, in the future, russian-u.s. cooperation can be extraordinarily important in solving a whole host of these very important international issues. thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you. see you again. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> here is a look at the

president's schedule for tomorrow. in the morning, he will meet with prime minister putin for breakfast and visit with former president gorbachev. later, he is expected to speak at the new economic school and meet with business leaders. on wednesday, president obama travels to italy for the g-8 s ummit. he is expected to meet with the italian president and the pope. he wraps up his trip on saturday when he flies to africa for a visit to the capital of donna. check our website for the latest on the president's trip, including c-span coverage of the vents along the way. i-- of events along the way. more on his trip to moscow coming up next, with a look of issues to be discussed between president obama and leaders.

that is followed by remarks from senator elect al franken. later, henry waxman. now, a discussion on issues likely to come of this week as the president continues his trip to moscow, including the negotiation on a new agreement. this event was sponsored by the arms control association. it is one hour. >> welcome, everybody, i think we are going to get started. thank you for being here.

this is wanted by the arms control association. i am the research director, newly minted at the arms control association. this is my second week and i am very happy to be here. i have been in the community working on these issues for about 20 years for various organizations. i am very happy to be here. if you are not familiar with the arms control association, it is an independent association dedicated to practical solutions to the solutions on the most serious global challenges and we work to strengthen u.s. and global security by reducing threats posed by the world's most dangerous weapons. today, we will be talking about some of the world's most dangerous weapons, which is of course the u.s.-russia nuclear arsenals. if you are like me, you just

finished watching the summit over there in moscow. it is sometimes easy to forget that the nuclear arsenals are there, given the lack of attention that has been paid to these arsenals over the last few years. the summit reminded us that they are indeed there. at the end of the cold war, and the bush administration's lack of attention to these arsenals, a lot of fun tennis business has been left. these weapons have been left off of the front pages but not all of the firing line. since a treaty was signed by president bush in 1991, there has been some significant progress on personal reductions, but a lot of missed opportunities. in many ways, today's talks between president obama and president medvedev in moscow are really about unfinished

business. more than that, these talks are bridged between old threats and new. it was designed to manage those cold war arms race. we are more concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons to countries and terrorist groups, which president obama has called the most immediate threat to global security. the treaty process bridges the gap between the old to the new. if these negotiations succeed, this would be the first verifiable arms reduction agreement completed since 1991, 18 years ago. we are really making up for lost time. on the other hand, this is the first that in president obama's pledged in prague to "seek peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons." this is at the start of what we hope to be an ongoing arms

reduction process in the years ahead. this resumed u.s.-russia process serve to rebuild the relationship on arms control and arms proliferation. this would build international support, we hope, for dealing with iran and north korea nuclear terrorism and other proliferation challenges. . . this will also strengthen the non-proliferation treaty which h&

>> we will review the key issues in moscow and discuss the further nuclear discussions that are forthcoming. to help us do that today we have two of the most prominent experts in washington. first up is martin, a senior society of the institute, and a member of the strategic posteur in the united states, that was released in may. and served on the administration for arms control. next up is the executive director of the arms control and publisher of the arms control today. and has worked on this for over 15 years and a leading analyst

and quoted on start and other issues. without further ado, martin, the floor is yours. >> thank you very much, it's a great pleasure to be here and i thank the arms control mission for this event. as you know, robert mcinier died this morning and it seems we need to acknowledge the critical role that he played in this agreement. when he was secretary of defense in 1961, the official policy of the united states was that nuclear weapons were conventional and would be used in any conflict. when he left office, nuclear weapons were a weapon of last resort. and that's still where we are today in this policy. he played a major role in that

switching policy. he played a critical role in the change of nato policy, that would move policy that we use nuclear weapons at the start of any conflict. to the notion that we would fight a war with any means necessary. he played the critical role of the decision of the united states, to start the process that is called start. that is engage russians in serious negotiations intended to reach agreements about controls on strategic offensive and defense weapons. and he fought hard against the ballistic missile deployment that he believed would be more difficult to negotiate agreements even today. and played an essential role in the nonproliferation treaty, of the state department to begin the process of negotiating the

treaty to prohibit any additional countries to get nuclear weapons. this treaty that the two leaders reaffirm the commitment to is a tribute to mac ininara, and it's critical that he is remembered for this issue. in this treaty agreement announced today is an important positive step forward. it reaffirms where we were eight years ago. that is that the two sides have legally binding, legally verifiable agreements controlling their strategic weapons. we came through a period of eight years that the american administration rejected that notion, withdrew from the treaty and not binding and that

expired at the end of the treaty. period. we now have a commitment from the two leaders to reestablish a system of legal binding agreements to apply to both numbers of deployed war heads, as well as to delivery systems. and to back that up with an effective verification process and effective accounting rules to determine how many delivery vehicles there actually could be. this is a very modest step with numbers just slightly below those that the bush administration was contemplating. but my view is that was the right way for the process. and it's fully in the recommendations of the commission, that recommended this, that the first step should be a modest one. but that it should include

legally binding limits on both delivery gr]vehicles and warhea. and it gtshould be verifiable a lead as one hopes and expects this agreement will to future treaties that involve much deeper and more substantial reductions. and it's notable that the two leaders found a way to bridge their differences on ballistic missile defense. as i read the agreement, the russians have agreed to go forward with this agreement on offensive forces without a binding agreement on ballistic missile defense. at the same time the united states has committed itself in a more formal way to seek to find the missile defense problem. that's cooperative to the russians and doesn't pose a threat to them. there are still lots of details to work out, and we should not

assume to have a treaty by the deadline of the end the year. but the steps to have that agreement by the end of the year, and an agreement that i anticipate that the senate will overwhelming ratify. and pave the way for deductions that are appropriate given the current strategic situation. >> thank you very much. i am daryl kimbell, director of the arms association. i want to join mort in recognizing the contributions of robert mac namera, that was huge in contributions and he be missed. i will be describing more about the issues that two presidents

need to deal with as they move forward in this negotiation on a start follow-on, as it's called. and this summit marks progress. the negotiations between the two sides on this follow-on agreement just began in april. there have been only four rounds of discussions, we are at the beginning phases. as we heard today at the press conference at moscow, they have limited the achievements of the delivery system, that's the bombers and launchers, and it will move the limit between 500

and 1100 each. and i will come back to that, it's a quite large range of 600. and discuss what that means. currently the united states has about 1,100 strategic delivery systems. russia has about 800. as mort said the deductions they are talking about is modest if they are in the upper range. but could be more substantial if the lower range. and said that the new agreement will achieve lower limits on the number of deployed strategic warheads on those missiles and bombers. the agreement will move the ceiling down from 2,200, where we are today. down to 1,500 to 1,675. so roughly a one-third deduction. and along with that, it would

be wkçñverification on exchange provisions based on the 1991 start treat that's been in place for two decades. that should be simple to carryover in the agreement, but there may be things they debate on. before that, the key issues that they need to resolve. note that overall this should be seen as an interim agreement. as mort said this is a stop-gap agreement that consolidates the approaches that were pursued under george bush the first in 1991, under start. and the approach pursued under george w. bush in 2002, in the moscow treaty. the start treaty limited delivery systems. the moscow treaty of 2002

limited deployed warheads. we see the current president seeking to negotiate an arrangement that limits both deployed warheads and strategic delivery systems. that's important, because if start were to expire in december, the two country's arsenals would be virtually unregulated. because the 2002 treaty establishes a limit that only goes into place in december of 2012, the same day it expires. it's very important for the two sides to conclude this interim agreement. what is important, is not the size of the deductions, but the fact that there is a continuation of a system and regulation and verification over the world's two largest

nuclear arsenals that comprise 95% of the world's stock piles. given it's a modest agreement, the arms control association feels it's important that they not stop with start. at the end of the negotiation, that will hopefully conclude by the end of the year, they begin to work on a new round of comprehensive negotiations. that include not just the deployed warheads but also the non-deployed warheads. both have sizeable nuclear warheads in storage that give them the capacity to reconstitute the arsenals. and there are the large stockpiles of tactical bombs created in the 50's and 60's to

fight a land war in europe. something that is no longer likely at all. and these arsenals are obsolete weapons that should be regulated by both sides. so there needs to be a new round of comprehensive deductions that substantially reduces the total arsenal of both sides in the coming year. another point before the details of the negotiation, doing nothing as some would suggest, as some anti-arm control anti-arms suggest, is not a realistic option. to allow the start agreement to expire in december, would add to the already difficult u.s.-russia relationship that in

addition that arms control and the expansion of nato and energy issues as well as missile defense. so we need to move forward with this agreement. not just to send a signal to the world that the u.s. and russia are reducing the number of nuclear weapons. but important to restore better u.s.-russia relations. now there are several tough issues they will have to resolve. as the joint statement today noted, there was a range that they are looking at, between 500 and 1100. the united states has a relatively larger nuclear delivery system stockpile than does russia. russia in these negotiations is putting a priority on finding a way to limit the so-called upload potential of the united

states. it's ability to theoretically take warheads out of reserve í and put on the systems. that can be achieved by reducing the number of bombers and missiles and by reducing the number of warheads on the delivery systems. and we have to see how the two sides resolve their issues. one limiting factor of the united states, the obama administration is in the middle of a nuclear review, that is to be completed by the end of the year. it will be difficult for the administration to make any radical changes in the nuclear force structure before that is completed. it's likely that the u.s. side won't want to make deep deductions until that nuclear

review is completed. in addition there are differences that have been known about for some time. the two presidents didn't mention relating to the possibly conversion of nuclear systems to conventional payloads. there were talks in the united states that arms were conventional payloads that make it useful to the threats. but that's a concern to russia. they believe that these missiles that have very capable of striking accurately, could have the potential to knock out their commanding control systemx they are worried about these conventionally armed i.c. m. one solution is to count the

number of missile armed missiles in this agreement. after all the united states is not moving ahead with this approach yet. and if the united states were to arm with conventional warheads, those of nuclear warheads. s -- the numbers are low. another challenge is which start provisions to carryover. the good thing that both sides have experience of monitoring the on-site inspections. but have different views of which is most important. we didn't get to the clues of what the disagreements or agreement is there. i think we will hear about that as the negotiation moves further down the road.

into the missile defense, as you heard in the press conference, the question was asked about whether the old plan from the george w. bush administration to deploy a handful of deceptors in poland and might interfere or be a stumbling block on completion of this negotiation. i think it was clear from the exchange, this does not have to be a stumbling block to conclude this agreement. the two presidents had a joint communication on missile defense that makes it clear they will continue a dialogue that is taking place on and off for the several past years on a joint early warning system. for third country missiles that could threaten the united states and russia. and they are likely to continue

on and off discussions on utilizing russia's weapons to see if there is an iranian missile. and they will continue to discuss a joint-threat assessment. the russian argument is that there are no long-range iranian missiles that can threaten the united states. the russians have a point. and i think it's important and useful for the united states and russia to evaluate jointly the missile threat es that might face the united states and europe.gjj the president did not make a commitment if he would go ahead with that third site. in eastern europe. he noted there is a missile

defense policy review ongoing. he mentioned it would be done by the end of the summer. i assume that means by the end of september. i do not suspect that the united states will commit to russia that they will do that with third site. we have it remember given that system has not been tested, the united states is in no position to move ahead with the deployment of that third site. the two stage missile that would go into poland has not been tested and that he won't be finished for years. the united states and russia have to discuss threat assessments and find ways to overcome their past issues. missile defense should not, need not become an impediment

to these ongoing discussions right now. but it will be something that the two sides need to clearly resolve before they move on to the next round of more comprehensive, deeper deductions on all types of nuclear warheads that we hope they will move towards by the beginning of next year. let me stop there and take your questions. tom. >> morton and daryl, thank you very much for doingvjñan excellent job of looking at the issues before us. we would love to take your questions, would love to start with media in the room. if not, we will take general questions. from anyone who has them. questions out there? yes. right here. >> hi, [inaudible] my question is.

thank you, you both mentioned this was a modest agreement. do we need the nuclear posture review to be done before we ratify this in the senate? and if not, does this mean we nuclear posture review, and the following agreement we can get down to deeper cuts? >> the nuclear review, it's a congressional.j9ly mandated rev of nuclear policy. my understanding that the administration's explanation where we are. the nuclear posture review reached some interim conclusions that enabled them to begin the negotiations with the russians and reach these numbers. these numbers have been approved as i understand it, in the nuclear posture review as

an interim set of conclusions. since they are modest deductions, they did not require any fundamental thinking of the nuclear posture. i think the timing is good, i don't think we need to slow down the process. the intent is for the review to be completed by the end of the year. it's designed to provide guidance for the next round of negotiations with russia about further deductions in strategic forces. i think it's important that we begin those talks as soon as this treaty is completed. but i also think that politically in the united states it's important that those talks not begin to the nuclear posture review is completed. you will hear some criticism from some senators that even this agreement should have waited. and the administration's answer is that it did wait. and they were able to conclude

a quick round of the nuclear posture review, and reached a conclusion that xthe modest deductions were consistent with what nuclear weapons might be used for. it's essential before the next rounds of negotiations, that the nuclear posture review be completed, that the president approve it and it be publicly described to the congress and american public. so the people can see that the agreement is consistent. but what we decided on our own, in the interest of the united states and our lives. >> in the back. >> hello, sorry i missed your morton's talk, i assume you did not raise this issue i am going to raise. you wrote a book called

"nuclear fallacy" back in the 80's, and you said there is no nuclear function for tactical nuclear weapons, we don't have to negotiation them and just wave a wand, and after reading your book, george bush seemed to that with the army and navy, and seemed to forget the tactical weapons. in this review of your book, i don't sqmfind an argument for t. i know that we need nuclear weapons and can't abolish them. but we need to raise the question if they do accurately serve a function. what i have heard they are totally insane. they don't make any more sense than tactical nuclear weapons did. >> i think that's a good question.

what are nuclear weapons for? we are in a different century, the united states and russia have a difference relationship than they did during the cold war. the nuclear posture review which was subject to the last question, is important because it provides the president with an opportunity to review this question. the current requirements and mort, you can correct me here, are that nuclear weapons not only serve to deter the use of nuclear weapons by other countries. but they are also there in the event of a conventional attack on the u.s. or allies. they are there to counter the possibility of threats. and to persuade other countries from building up their arsenals. in my view and others, the only defensible position today is to

deter the use of nuclear weapons from other countries. and if the united states and russia, with the world's largest arsenals, reduce their arsenals in a parallel process. we can engage other countries in this process in the next phase. and we can move towards a discussion about much, much lower levels approaching zero nuclear weapons in the years ahead. the essential part of this, the united states and russia and other countries need to adjust their view and vision of what nuclear weapons are for. and your question about tactical nuclear weapons is important, because these weapons were created to fight a land war in europe. for the united states and russia that is not a valid mission. and it's important for the united states to press russia to begin negotiations on first accounting for the warvhheads, and to reduce those warheads.

that's difficult and something for the next round of negotiations. you have to remember that the united states has several hundred battlefield, tactical warheads. but russia is believed to have as many as 8,000, not all available for use, but it's a large number. and they pose a different risk today, it's the low probability but high consequence risk, that they can be lost, stolen or sold to a third party or terrorist organization. we need to get to that point that we reduce those stockpiles. and that begins with a fundamental assessment of why they exist. >> president obama's speech gave important direction and guidance to the nuclear posture review. he said that the purpose was to

reduce the nation's reliance on nuclear weapons. and if that means anything, it's what óxadaryl said to rega the possibility of attacks or to deal with conventional attacks. and to say affirmativelily, and that it will lead the president to say that the united states maintains nuclear weapons to deter their use by others, period, full stop. and that is as i hear is adherrent in the president's statement that he looks forward to a world without nuclear weapons. and believes that the security needs can be dealt in a world without those weapons. if we can contemplate this, it must mean we can deal with all other threats without resorting to nuclear weapons. and that they exist for only that purpose. it's essential that the united

states say that. unfortunately even if we do, it's not clear that the russians will follow suit. the russians are tempted with the same fallacy that i wrote about that the americans were tempted with before. the fallacy that nuclear weapons can make up for conventional inferiority. the russians view them an inferior around their borders. and they flirt with the notion that tactical nuclear arsenal can make up for it. i think it can't be in any war fought, that is settled on will and military power. and the united states has lost wars to states without nuclear weapons. because the nuclear devices are not useable weapons. let me say a word about the

tact-nukes. i think that the problem is harder than is suggested. and r?6÷my own view is that we i should do one more round with the russians before this one before we get to the tactical nuclear weapons and nondeployed weapons. i say that because the are problem with dealing with those weapons is difficult.vk] we do not know how many the russians have and we have no clue of how to limit the agreement of exclude exclude ing those in the arsenal. and we do not have the nondeployed weapons. and to agree to how many each side has. and what is a nondeployed

weapon as one that is earmarked for destruction. both countries have large nuclear weapons that are earmarked for destruction. and this is only a slight exageration, what distinguishes a nondeployed weapon, and we change the label to weapon waiting for destruction. and those weapons could be reconverted into nondeployed weapons into deployed. the commission suggests these are extraordinary difficult problems. and unless you decide it doesn't matter, which i ws[thi we are no where ready to do. it's going to be very difficult to reach agreement on those weapons. and that's why i think it's worth considering one more round with the russians below

the numbers talked about here. which i think we can safely do before we deal with the question of nondeployed weapons and the tactical nuclear weapons. which we will do as we move to the numbers and the elimination of nuclear weapons. >> [inaudible] george mason university. if the purpose of nuclear weapons is to deter other states to get nuclear weapons. then they are relying on a theory with a lot of flaw. i think it was george cannon that said deterrence is a scheme for making nuclear war less likely by making it more likely. if our purpose is a theory

that's flawed, then what about alternative strategies, alternative routes. it was said that if deterrents work when accompanied by drastic deterrent reduction. we may want a policy of mutual survival. any comments? ñl >> well, i think those are thoughts. i think, as i said before, the united states and russia and leaders, military leaders in countries need to reassess the role in light of changed circumstances. and we can argue whether deterrence worked or flawed. i think gxwit was more flawed t worked in the cold war years. looking ahead, nuclear weapons do not have the value they once were thought to have. and we need to recognize that

today nuclear weapons are more of a liability than an asset in most situations around the world. united states and russia need to move past their old dynamics and work together to reduce the 21st century nuclear threats. and we saw hints of that in president obama's remarks about the nuclear security summit that he plans to organize. i believe at the end of this year. and that will be focused ñ8on working with russia and other countries with nuclear material and facilities, that pose a threat, proliferation threat, trying to find a way to consolidate the initiatives that have been launched since cold war to secure those materials. that's an equally important initiative he's launched. and that russia needs to fully

support. and i am looking forward to more details about that. we haven't heard much about it. but that is important. >> yeah, i think we need over the longer term to move to a different basis of dealing with the russians on these issues. it's locked in that we are adversaries that may use the weapons. that's not the framework. we need to try to engage the russians. and i think that the president was doing that and the ballistic missile statement talks about cooperation against potential countries that may threaten to use those weapons. but i think that's a long process. and one that requires both countries to get past old habits and prejudices and old ways of thinking. and we really need to move

parallel on two tracks. one is checking arms control as it is, and moving down as low as we can. and seeking to use that to strengthen the nonproliferation treaty. and at the same time trying to engage the russians and chinese in a fundamentally different discussion of what security is and how we deal with common threats. >> this is the national journal group, as you both noted the announcement includes a range of numbers for the warheads. i wonder if you talk about what you consider the factors going into, the numbers on the higher

range or lower end. >> the question is about how the two sides are going to address the question of settling on a ceiling for the total number of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, that's the jargon used to describe the missiles and bombers that carry the warheads. the clearly starting point is that the united states has a larger number of submarine land-based missiles and heavy bombers to carry the warheads. officially the united states has roughly 1200 strategic delivery systems. in reality hundreds of them w+i

phantom. and russia has about 800, and not all of those in are good working order. the starting point of the negotiations is a difference in the way that nuclear forces are figured. in part because this discussion is taking place in the midst of the nuclear posture review, the u.s. will find it difficult to significantly reduce the number of launchers, the delivery systems in this round of negotiations. russia which as i said before is considered about the theoretical possibility of united states is capable of re deploying a large number of reserve warheads. again wants to chop the missile and bomb force down substantially. and they are facing budgetary and problematic problems. they are racing to replace

their older war systems with newer. and they can't keep pace, and the estimates are that with or without a new arms limitation treaty, russia could probably not field more than 1800 strategic warheads by 2012. the differences are in the positions coming in. i think it would be very smart for the two sides to eventually reduce the total number of strategic delivery systems. i think that's probably going to be something they can do in the next round. i think that one the creative ways they might settle this, the united states might simply agree to field some of its submarines with a smaller number of missiles loaded on them. currently the submarines can carry as many as 18 strategic

missiles. if they were under this treaty only allowed to carry 12. that could be easily verified and could substantially reduce the total number of u.s. deployed warheads as well as the official number of delivery systems. russia would have to agree to that. that's not an irreversible solution to that. that's a way to split the difference. i would be surprised to see in the end they do have a ceiling that's a range. i don't think that's the ideal approach. but they may in the end have a range that the treaty specifies. one country has the upper range, and the other has the lower range. which could work given this is an interim arrangement that sets up more substantial and

comprehensive reduction in the next two to three years. >> i agree with that, you have to understand this number in two contexts. one is the nuclear posture review. the administration doesn't want to agree to a number that it can't say was certified by the nuclear posture review. if you look at the current number, the moscow treaty is 2200, but it's not binding and expires as soon as it goes into effect. we have a real number and the imperative was to get below the 2200 number. but to have a range so the u.s. can say that its number was still justified by the interim

nuclear posture review. my hope is that by the time the treaty is ratified by the senate, the nuclear posture review is completed and we can say that we can go to 1500 ñbw because it's justified by the review. on the delivery systems, it's in part how you define the delivery systems. and my guess is that the administration has sides -- said to the russians, if you want agreement on that lower number, you have to change the counting rules. what counts as a delivery system enables us to get closer to the 500 number. if you don't want to change the accounting rules, you probably have to change a few, then at the higher number. and the negotiation is between the trade-off of two, what the accounting rules, and the numbers. my guess is that the wkñrange,

lower number will be where the russians expect to be. the higher number will be what we can justify based on the interim nuclear posture review. with the notion when we complete the review, we will announce we go to a lower number. >> in the back. >> do you think that russia and the u.s. view the nuclear power of pakistan in a similar way? and does this agreement affect their cooperation in afghanistan and approaches and responses to terrorism? >> well, that's a good question. i think that, you know, pakistan presents a different kind of problem today. pakistan is one of the three countries that has never signed

a nuclear treaty. they have an arsenal of 60 to 80 nuclear bombs, it's estimated. pakistan represents a proliferation threat in two senses. as we know from the aq-con story, pakistan has been a threat to other countries and the nuclear bombs. and with the war going on against the teleban, and there is the possibility that their nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands or their country fall into the wrong hands. yes, both governments recognize the on the ground risks in pakistan. i think they may prioritize them differently. since the united states is committed to pushing back the

insurgency in pakistan. today was announced about u.s. military transit rights to bring in military equipment and supplies into russia territory to supply u.s. forces in afghanistan, is a sign that the obama re-set button approach, emphasizing the positive than the negative in this relationship, is producing some modest results. and i think this is a sign that there is a better feeling between the two. to the extent that russia, for the first time i believe, is allowing u.s. military transit rights into their territory. which would be hard to imagine >> on afghanistan, i thought that the statement of the russia president in the press conference was extraordinary. he said we share a common

interest of the threat in afghanistan, and we are pleased to cooperate with the americans. and in talking with other ways to cooperate in dealing with the terrorist threat. and the russians are concerned with muslim extreme terrorism. on pakistan i think there is a common interest and a need for a common approach. but it's one that needs to include the chinese and the british and french, and it's in the context of the ban on nuclear weapons, of the material. we have a common interest with the russians and chinese and british and french, which i think were not engaged in this summit because not enough time. to first talk about the american ratification of the treaty, which the president said is a priority. but cooperation between the

u.s., russia and china to put pressure on pakistan to adhere to the treaty and commit to a moratorium of the materials. that's to the five weapon states and something i expect them to cooperate on. and we need russian cooperation on the test-ban in the united states, because of the nuclear commission report, that russians have a different definition of what is banned by the nuclear test treaty. i don't believe that, i believe we have a common interest but russian cooperation to make it clear to the senate and american people, will be critical to get the treaty ratified in the senate. and to work together to try to persuade pakistan and india and

other countries necessary to bring that u9$treaty into force. >> another important aspect of today's announcement of the results of this summit. as president obama said on april 5 in prague, u.s. leadership on disarmament is critical for the global proliferation system. and that argument has been misconstrued by some in washington, who say that u.s. behavior doesn't have effect on iran and north korea. that's a misreading of what the president is saying. and the importance of this action by the u.s. and russia on this global proliferation effort. on may in 2010, there will be a convening of conference to evaluate how the treaty of 1968

is fairing, and it's under stress. u.s. and russia need to get the non-nuclear weapon states to work with them to create safeguards and to clamp down on the countries that don't comply. to find ways to work together and limit the spread of wqythe technology that can be used to make bomb material. and the only way they can be able to build that support is %k by fulfilling their disarmament obligations on the nuclear treaty. moving ahead on verifiable deductions on bloated arsenals is the first and best way to do that. and it's another way to say without this agreement, we will have a difficult time to deal with other types of nuclear threats.

this question of pakistan brings this to my mind. and that's another important reason why this agreement needs to be completed by the end of this year, by both governments. >> last question for rç7steven young. >> steven young, you said that 18 missiles and 20 were tried for warheads, that's part of my question, and when you talked about the start and the range of vehicles, from 500 to 1100, that's a huge range. and you said there is a shadow -- or more than that. there is 236 missiles [inaudible] and 80 to 100 bombers and deployed for the u.s., as far as i know. but yet we say 1100 and the russians have 500.

there is a big question and i don't understand. >> i get a headache every time someone starts to explain it to me. but as i understand it under the current start treaty, we now have about 5,000 -- the start treaty did not limit actually deployed weapons. it limited warheads deployed by counting rules of deployed systems. and under those rules we have 5,000. we are going to lower numbers than those, and we don't get credit for that here, because of the way they structured the description. but i think that the u.s. government is saying that's all it has actually deployed. and under the old start counting rules, lots of other things count. therefore the number is closer to the top limit than it is to

the 500 number. but if we can change the counting rules, so they more accurately reflect what is now actually deployed. then we can go to the lower number. my hope is that that's all that is. they were not able to conclude the discussions on the counting rules. and the u.s. said we know we don't need more than 11 00. and the russians said not below 500. and they will agree on not a number, a smaller range once they agreed on the counting rules. and if the russians are willing to be relaxed about only counting things that are actually deployed, we will be able to get to a significantly lower number. >> steven, thank you for the correction on the missile numbers. as mort said, this is in part

confusing because we are in a are trying to integrate two different approaches w!to strategic arms. and we will have to pay careful attention to the reference points in this discussion. but i would agree with mort, what matters here is the number of operationally deployed warheads. we have to pay close attention to the final counting rule. and we have to pay close attention to a huge number of nondeployed warheads and tactical. beyond the numbers we hear in the press conference and the joint statement in the 1500 range. there are many more nuclear weapons that the united states and russia need to deal with. and that's one reason we need

they shouldn't stop with this follow-on agreement, they need to move to the more comprehensive transparent approach to deductions. >> thank you very much, we are out of time. before we thank you and our speakers. just two notes, one is that the arms control association website has lots more information on this stuff. please check it out. two, we will back here for a press briefing, july 21 at 10 a.m. talking about missile defense, threats for the process, july 21, 10 a.m. with that, thank you for coming, and please join me in thanking our speakers. [applause] w]ñ

>> here's a look at the

president's schedule for tomorrow. >> the president wraps his trip to saturday, when he flies to africa for a visit at the capital, check our website, for the latest on the president's trip and including c-span coverage along the way. >> coming up next to c-span, remarks from senator elect, al franken, followed by henry

waxman, about his book , and president obama and russian president medvedev. .

>> i am very happy to welcome you. he ran a very hard fought -- a few minutes ago i told him about my hectic race that took six weeks before the results were in. it took eight months. >> he is going to work hard and be an outstanding center. do not take my word for it.

i served in the house with former congressman ben webber. he always played things out the way that he saw them. he said this morning that when people find out that he is a smart guy that is serious about issues and is a hard worker, they will be pleasantly surprised, and they will be. much has been made of the expectations of al franken joining the senate. here are my expectations. he is going to work hard for the people of minnesota. they have gone far too long without full representation. i expect him to help deliver on the change that this country is demanding. strengthen our economy, can assure all americans have access to quality health care, and make our country energy independent.

i am confident that center select franken will make a difference. we will need more than just his presence to address the nation'' as many problems. these challenges that we face are not democratic challenges or republican challenges, but non- partisan challenges. they are america's challenges and they are too great to be sold by partisanship. moving america forward will still require the cooperation of by senate colleagues who are republicans. the last eight years have shown us that the american people want us to work together. democrats are not looking to this as an opportunity to ram legislation through this body. republicans must understand that this does not advocate from them to responsibilities to govern. that is why we will continue to

offer senate republicans a seat at any negotiating table. it is up to them to decide whether to continue to sit down and be the party of no or sit down and work for the common good of the people. i hope that the party of no is coming to an end. al. >> thank you. thank you, mr. leader. i want to thank the leader for all of your support during and after the campaign. i look forward to look -- working under your leadership. a lot has been made of this number 60. i see myself as the second senator from the state of minnesota. minnesota an's are very practical people. they want to make sure that the

work we do in the senate makes sense and that the decisions that we make for the future have a strong return on investment. minnesotans once -- wnat a rational health care system that provides health care for all americans and is rational and affordable. minnesota atns -- minnesotans want an economy that does will for families. it means working to protect people's retirement. americans want a new energy policy that creates jobs, that addresses climate change, and is going to wean us from our dependence on foreign oil.

minnesotana want their kids to have an education that prepares them for a 21st century economy. i am going to work day and night to make sure that our kids have a great future and that america 's best days lay ahead. i am ready to get to work. thank you. >> we will have my stake out tomorrow after the luncheons. a lot of questions will be asked and a lot of questions will be answered. >> thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> you can see centre select al franken's ceremony tomorrow -- senator elect al franken's

ceremony tomorrow. also, the house returns from their july 4 recess. on their agenda, in 2010 intelligence authorization bill and agriculture spending. live coverage of the house tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. on c-span. this morning on "washington journal" we were joined by henry waxman. this is about an hour. continues. host: we are joined by congressman henry what -- henry waxman, democrat from california. he came out with a new book entitled "the waxman report -- "the waxman report: how congress really works." how does congress really work? guest: i wanted to point out that government can make decisions that are so beneficial to millions of americans. and there is a lot of cynicism about congress and government, and i think there is a lot of reason for it, but people should realize that what they don't

hear about are the things that going on behind the scenes often on a bipartisan basis to work out legislation that will make a real difference. we hear about the scandals, about the ineptitude, and in fact, we have been fed a whole long line about how government can't do anything right but i have worked on bills that have made a huge difference, like nutrition labeling, which gives people the ability to know what nutrients they are getting when they buy different food products and enables and empowers them to follow a diet of their own choosing for their own health. that was a huge fight, and now we take for granted that we have that information. or smoking warnings or no smoking on the airplanes. when that was passed, it passed in the house by nearly one or two votes, i think 45 on the record because once it passed some decided to switch the four or five on the recon. we were told smokers would go

crazy. no smoking flights for two hours or less and we did it for two years with the expectation it may not work and there would be chaos. and there have been other bills like the clean air act, very controversial, but now taken for granted. the most successful environmental laws we have never passed. the bills can be what we intended and sometimes better than we intended and they can in effect -- millions of people. host: if you want to call in -- how did you pick -- you wrote about eight separate pieces of legislation. you just mentioned a couple. why specifically these bills? guest: these were bills that i offered and sold through into

law. and they were bills that have done a tremendous amount of good. for example, we adopted the ryan white law dealing with hiv aids. i was chairman of the subcommittee on health and the environment, and in the early 1980's we first heard about some disease. we did not have the name of aids. it was affecting gay men in new york, los angeles, and no one knew what was going on but the centers for disease control told us it was multiplying geometrically. so, we had a pretty good idea from the beginning that an epidemic was going to hit us. a lot of people said, well, it's a man, and maybe they deserve it. there was very low interest and the disease until -- i tell the story in the book, until rock hudson turned out to have aids. i remember getting invited to a sunday news show and they said

we want you on unless rock hudson doesn't have aids, then we did not want to be bothered. it took a lot of time in a hysterical moment. a very difficult ranking republican named -- he was very homophobic and tried to make the dealing with this disease a social issue, beating back against homosexuality rather than recognizing it was a public health issue and we need to deal with the problem from that perspective. it took a while before we finally passed the ryan white act, but it is the main legislation to deal with the he did -- with the epidemic. it provides drugs for people, strategies for stopping the spread of aids, and it is an important piece of legislation. host: what are some of your lessons of how good laws are made? guest: good laws are made,

offered by people you don't expect. i had a call from a constituent, a young man who said to my staff person, i have to read syndromes. it is a rare disease, i use a drug that helps me, but it is not available in the united states. i went overseas and brought it and they are seizing it from me at the border. do something about it. that led us to a whole inquiry about people with rare diseases who could not give drugs meant for them even if they were available, let alone research on more drugs, because the drug companies looked at it as very level -- very little profit potential. they did not have a big group of people. after a series of hearings and trying to figure out what to do, he said let's give encouragement to orphan drugs for orphan diseases. it has been a tremendously successful law. it has meant the difference between life and death for a lot

of people who suffer from diseases and the drug companies realized that it is profitable, or at least profitable enough for them to focus attention, research, and the development of these products. host: apply what you say to major pieces of legislation that you have a major role in -- health-care and energy reform. guest: i think we have to recognize when we hear some of these exaggerated claims of what the consequences of bills will do, we have to put it in perspective. the energy bill, we hear a lot of people saying how expensive it would be, but we were told the same thing we were trying to deal with sulfur emissions from the midwest, poisoning the forest and the strains, and industry said if you put limits on sulfur emissions, it will cost so many billions of dollars we would have to go out of business. what we did is put in a cap and

trade system, we said figure out the most cost-effective way of making the reduction but making them nevertheless, and the reality was it was the 10th of the cost that we were being told during those hearings. and i heard that over and over with the clean air act, although industry said it would cost exorbitant amounts of money to produce cars that polluted less and it turned out they were able to do it in advance of the schedule and at a fraction of the cost. so when we work on issues like the energy bill now, you have to keep in perspective that some of the cries of the special interests are exaggerated. i think 10 years and that if we pass the energy bill which has the goal of trying to make us more independent as a nation from foreign oil, certainly affects our national security, produces more jobs because of the technology that is the way to be developed, and it reduces the carbon emissions that can

cause global warming and serious consequences that scientists ellis may have been because of that, i think 10 years from now people will say, what was the fight all about, what was the big deal. same thing about health care. we haven't unsustainable surge which it did we pay more for health care in this country -- we have and unsustainable situation in health care. people are insured and still cannot afford health care. and the system is increasing the cost so rapidly that it is bankrupting the federal budget because we pay for the medicare and medicaid programs. so, president obama stated we need to reform this system. hold down the cost and make affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage available to all americans. and we will do that and some day in the not too distant future people will say, what is that fight all about. in many other countries where they have health insurance coverage for all of their

people, they take it for granted and they couldn't imagine being without it. host: let us hear from our callers. the first call is from david from the democratic line from va. caller: hello. what a pleasure. i'm one of your biggest fans. i listened to your hearings, particularly when you were grilling that lady from gsa. let me say on that only you are a great american cannot many men in congress like you and john conyers who can really speak to issues in a clear voice. my question, congressman, is that i think the democratic platform for the new century is obviously health care. we have to reduce the cost of energy -- grain jobs and education. i'm wondering if you can clearly for all of the republican listeners, you are one of the very few men who can do this very well, please explain how health care,

energy, and education is the right formula to bring this economy around and position economy around and position america guest: a lot of people say, why are we doing these big things when are -- we are faced with the historical recession and may be depression in the economy? should we not wait? president obama has said that this is the time we need legislation in these areas. people are losing their jobs and record numbers. as they lose their jobs, they lose their health care coverage. we have 46 million uninsured, we are probably closer to 50 million. it is a real problem where we have health care tied to employment and a lot of people work hard and do not have health care available to them because their employers cannot afford it. if they lose their jobs, they would lose their insurance as well.

it is time to say that we cannot afford the system. it is hard to hold down the cost of health care if people show up at an emergency room without insurance coverage and you have to take care of them. those costs for the hospital to stay in business to those that do have insurance, whether public or private. it just means they are paying more. if we had everybody covered, it would hold down costs because we would not go through all of the contortions. if we had a system where people can choose between competing plans, either a private insurance plan or a public insurance plan, a choice, choice and competition is good. it read boys' -- reduces more defense -- inefficiencies. then we need to reform the way health care is practiced. it is not effected to pay for every test that every doctor wants to impose, because a lot of that is unnecessary and wasteful spending.

host: on independent line, atlanta. caller: good morning. i have axillar something i would like to say and then i have a question. -- actually, something like this appeared first i would like to say that a lot of people listen to "washington journal" by radio, they may not notice or realize, and also people that call, watching the show from the beginning, they may not know that the hostess on today, turning is susan davis and jack to worse for "the wall street journal." -- and she actually works for "the wall street journal." my question for senator waxman -- i am the biggest fan, not the other guy. guest: i like this competition. caller: i wanted to ask you about the country of origin labeling for the food. i wanted to know where it

stands, and is it in effect an can we expect to go in and find out where the food is coming from? i would take my answer offline. thank you. guest: i think consumers want to have information and they ought to know the ingredients and nutrition information about the foods and also need to know where that product is coming from. it may or may not be relevant, but if people want to know, they are entitled to it. we are working on a bill right now on food safety, and the champion is congressman john dingell, and he has been pushing for legislation to give the food and drug administration -- which has a lot of the area of food safety -- not the meat side, but everything else. the fda has been hampered by a lack of resources. they don't have full authority to do the things we expect them to do. and they haven't had the leadership they needed.

so, the new leadership at fda, this food safety bill will give a lot more money to fda to do the job of inspecting and making sure that the food is safe and making sure that they can involve the food producers to check and make sure there is no salmonella or harmful substances in the food. i think it is going to be a plus, and labeling is worthwhile because i think clinton -- consumers are entitled to know. i believe in the concepts of right to know. consumers are to get information. host: new york, chris on the republican line. are you there? caller: can you hear me? i had two issues with your energy and commerce. first, have you checked out -- the general motors family company where their cars, all of them get between 50 up to 60

miles a gallon? what is the bill going to get us off of oil? guest: of the legislation is trying to get us off of oil in a number of areas. the largest uses of oil is for motor vehics. we have strong incentives to produce cars that will use less, if not, no will. we're trying to produce electric cars, hybrid cars and all the of innovation that will come out if that is clear that is the direction we will take. the president, with the auto industry, agreed to tighter emissions standards. they are based on fuel efficiency of the automobiles, and the whole country is now covered by what california had, which is always ahead of the rest of the country. it is good. i believe we need to go further than that. we are going to be giving strong incentives and loan guarantees

-- to produce the next generations of motor vehicles. the second area where oil becomes a factor is some of the utilities are oil burning. oil and coal, when they are used as fuel, produce a lot of carbon veered in the area of coal, we recognize that it is here in the united states, we don't import it, and we wanted able to use it. it is a cheap source of electricity. but we've got to develop a way to use coal so the carbon is taken out and it becomes the ninth for the environment. we are investing billions of dollars to come as that goal. what we did in the bill with the utilities is that we will give them the allocations, the permits to permit that they will need, so they will hold -- harmless from increases.

but they still have to achieve the reductions. they can look for all set. a lot of farm industries produce offsets. they produce the carbon, and that is what we need to do, but they can continue to use coal for quite a while as long as we are reducing carbon emissions over all. we are accomplishing the environmental goals. and in the meantime we are trying to make coal viable as a source of energy. it is better to use coal than to have to bring in oil. it is better to burn less oil in our vehicles as well as electricity. it would even be better to produce more wheat in the united states, but that is still -- produce more oil in the united states because -- but that will still be not enough. we are clearly on a pattern of being -- having to import that oil from a lot of countries that -- to say it they don't

have our interest in mind is an understatement. a lot are hostile to the united states. host: on the democratic line, dennis from bethpage. caller: good morning, mr. waxman. i have watched c-span for 30 years now and this medium gives me a chance to actually speak to you, whereas if i called your office i would actually just have to leave a message. i waited 30 days, so i hope i want it cut off after just a minute. first, i want to talk to you about health care. i have a petition where, if people go to google and type in change.org, prescription drug benefit, you will see a petition there for people to sign, that they demand a revamping of medicare part -- well, a new

prescription program that we demand. we want a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% of all medications. and i want you to pass this on to nancy pelosi and the progressive caucus. we want a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% under part b and let the premium and the deductibles under part b cover this benefit. why do our the way and disabled people have to pay two sets of premiums and deductibles just for a lousy medicare part d benefit when it should have gone into part b in the first place? and without any coverage gap, without any means test, and remove the means test from medicare part b that the republicans put in and the late

sign of penalty -- i call them the gopranos, it is a crime family as far as i'm concerned. they should have not put this late sign up penalty into force seniors and disabled people to have to sign up for that. they should remove that -- i never signed up for medicare part d and i am disgusted with the gopranos who blocked for the last 30 years. one more thing, if people go to google and type in change.org, single payer, that will give the insurance companies a chance to sell life insurance and auto insurance and put them out of the business of selling health insurance. they should be put out of business. we should nationalize the

insurance companies and not the doctors. caller: i agree wholeheartedly with your statement about pharmaceuticals. i have been trying to get pharmaceutical coverage under medicare for the long this time. in fact, one of the reasons for my book is called "the waxman report" is we read -- produced a lot of reports when the republicans were in power and a lot of the reports were about the high cost of prescription drugs. this buildup from the bottom. people were angry having to pay so much for the drugs. we did reports and members of congress found the exact same thing. seniors were paying the highest price for their pharmaceuticals. if you compare those prices to what people paid in other countries, we were paying twice as much for our drugs. this eagerness to do something about the problem gave the republicans a political idea.

they've decided to do a prescription drug benefit but to reward the drug companies and to reward the insurance companies by making people have to buy an insurance policy. we never had insurance policies for drugs before. they said you can buy an insurance policy. most of the time when you have medicare, you don't buy a special policy for your doctor or another policy for your hospital care. you have it as a benefit under medicare. you may buy a supplemental policy for your medicare coverage to help pay for the out of pocket costs. but there was no separate insurance policy you had to buy. they created one for the pharmaceutical area. it cleared away for a lot of the insurance company to make money and the drug companies had windfall profits. let me give you an example. under medicaid, the health care program for the poor, some of those people are also on medicare -- seniors who are

poor. if they were on medicaid, that program insisted the drug companies get a discount to reflect the low price they are giving others. you give the best price to others come and get back for the government payment under medicare -- medicaid. we got a discount for that population. what did that republican bill do? they took the population that was medicaid and medicare and switched them to medicare, it increased the amount of money to pay for the same drugs for the same people. it amounted i think to at least a couple of billion dollars windfall for the drug companies. no explanation for it. just a windfall. these insurance companies get rebates from different drug producers -- they don't pass the rebates on for the customers. then when you pay a certain amount for your pharmaceutical coverage, if you have a high

amount of drug cost you are in with the doughnut hole -- you have to pay all of the cost of the drugs until you get to a certain level and then you get the federal government to help. that is all in the course of the year. a very inefficient way to cover pharmaceutical coverage. it should have been and medicare benefits and people should have had it covered under the medicare program itself and it would have been reflected in your copiague -- copays and premium and we could negotiate the price. millions of people covered by medicare and you are buying drugs for the population -- you would think there would be a buyers' discount as opposed to you or i by a drug. if millions of people were buying the drugs the government could negotiate a lower price. instead, that republican bill prohibited the government from negotiating prices. that meant the only ones negotiating prices would mean insurance companies which did

not have a strong enough incentive to hold down the cost and the drug companies, the made a bundle -- the idea of@@@@@@@@ host: on the independent line we have somebody from texas. caller: i have three questions. you can answer at your leisure. how come we are not going to drill? we have oil everywhere. how many people covered under this health care plan, the 46 million people that are -- that you claim, how many are here illegally? how many people cannot want insurance because they did not think they need it? who was the idiot that hired steve? drilling, there is no prohibition against drilling.

we have a prohibition against drilling offshore the united states, and that provision expired and present bush refused to continue it. so, the oil companies want to block the coast, they are free to do so. i think there is a problem doing that, because they are beautiful resources and they should not have oil tanks and oil rigs spoiling the natural resource of the ocean. but put it into perspective. we as a country used 25% of the world's whale. we now produce eight%. -- we now produce eight%. if we drill more, maybe we can get to 10%. it seems to me the sensible thing is to use less oil, and we have to figure out ways to do that. we need more domestic production, but more

importantly, we need vehicles that would use less oil in the future, and that we will become less dependent on those countries from which we have to bring in the wheel. the second question about the millions of people who are uninsured. most of those uninsured people are working people. if you are under poverty and not working, you are more likely than not in medicaid, which is the health care program for the very poor. but if you are working and your employer doesn't offer coverage because the employer can't afford it, then you have to go out and buy a policy on your own. if you have a pre-existing condition, forget it. if you are elderly among the private insurance companies will charge exorbitant amount. so the people for the most part who are not insured are working people. now, a lot of those people are no longer working and those people had insurance and then

along working. they lost their insurance. you talk about 46 million or 50 million. a lot of people have insurance that does not cover their needs when they get sick. so we have a problem for the uninsured, and we have a bigger problem with health care costs continuing to go up and up, which means when we are paying for medicare and medicaid under government expenditures, we are going into deep deficits to do it. so, we've got to bring the system together and hold down those costs. you asked about a speed reader -- there is a procedure -- there are a lot of procedures in the house, things that are relatively unknown. but one procedural way for an opponent of legislation to stall it would be to insist that the bill be read. i think it dates back to a time when this country, when some of the congressman did not know how to read so each member has an absolute right to have a bill read to him or her.

and because of that absolute right, any member can insist the bill be read by a clerk. well, we had a bill in the energy area -- we had a bill last year to try to provide child health insurance to the states, and it had such strong bipartisan support and was finally passed this year and signed by president obama. last year when president bush was in charge, he said he would veto the bill. why would he be to the bill? two reasons -- one, why should we provide health care coverage for kids, they could also go to an emergency room in the hospital. that doesn't make sense, because that is the most of the other argument he made was to me so astounding, he said why should taxpayers have to subsidize children was parents can afford to buy them a private health insurance policy. think about that for a minute. what if somebody made an

argument, why should taxpayers have to subsidize the public education of a child whose parents can afford to send them to a private school. it is really quite amazing. as if we as a society don't have an interest in children getting an education or we as a society don't have an interest in children getting health care when they need it. well, we got that child health bill passed, but when we tried to get it passed in committee of the republican leader of that committee insisted the bill be read, and it took so long to read the bill that we finally said, we can't complete the work in the committee and so we went right to the house floor without the committee acted. we feared that will happen on the average bill because of any member can insist on their reading. and we knew it would take a long time to read this bill. so we hired a speed reader. the speed reader said he could do 100 pages in an hour, and to read and 900 page bill would

take nine hours. i did not think that is a very good use of congressional time. i told the republican leader, let's not go through that and offer amendments and debate the amendments and to get into the policy and not just try to delay. he agreed. he did not have to read the bill but we hired a speed reader just in case. we were both furious, joe barton and i incurious, joe barton and i, how he would do. we asked him to read part of an amendment, because not only can you require a bill to be read but every amendments. some of the amendments can be 900 pages, 1000 pages. so we said, we will not make a revolt amendment but let us start off to see how well does. this guy was terrific. he read faster and clearer than anybody i had ever seen before. that is a skill that i wish i had.

i wish i could throw my voice so people did not know it was i who was talking but, we did try him out for a while and we were pleased with the job. i was even more pleased that we did not have to require him to read the bill. thank you for your question and i hope i responded. host: we have a health care from the twitter page -- why don't you pass a bill for less expensive prescriptions? guest: i think we should require that the government negotiate better prices with the pharmaceutical companies. and then, as a result, both the government and the consumer will pay less for those drugs. and i think we ought to have less prices charged by the drug companies to the consumers who often individuals or businesses, and the best way to get lower drug prices is to have generic drugs competing. that is the result of a bill

that orrin hatch and i offered in the 1980's. to provide for generic drugs. generic drugs are the same drug as of the brand-name drug except when the patent is over they can compete. and when you have competition, it lowers the price. now trying to get an approval process for these biotech drugs. we did not even know about the biotech drugs and the 1980's. but some of these are so expensive -- they can be $100,000, to enter thousand dollars, $500,000 a year. remember -- could you imagine if you do not have insurance coverage. it could mean the difference between life and death. if we get competition -- it would not be the exact same as the biotech but the fda can assure us it is just as safe and effective as the original drug. and i think it would help bring down prices. that is the best way to hold down prices. negotiate good prices for a large group of population and

get competitive drug so that you can say, i will go to your competitor and pay a lower price and that will guarantee both will lower the price in order to keep the business. host: into california democrat henry waxman. i next call from judy on the republican line from columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. a pleasure to talk to you. i am really pretty nervous. i don't get a chance to talk to anyone as powerful as you are. i have a question about this monstrous captain trade bill. -- capt. trade bill. i hope you will tell me this is not in the bill -- if i want to sell my home or anybody in my country wants to sell their home, they will have to have it inspected and brought to a certain energy code before it can be put on the market, and even if i start that process and they decide that they want to

change the code, that i will not able to sell it until i pass that code. i want to know if these are facts or not. guest: these are not facts. and i would agree that they would be very burdensome and intrusive. what we have done is give tax credits for people who want to make their homes more energy efficient. if you want to, we help you do it. we also have a rating for new homes that are built so that there is a rating of how efficient is -- it is. we don't require it, but if you want to buy a new house that is more energy efficient, it would have a rating to that effect. just like some of your appliances have some kind of goldstar of some sort that tells you how deficient that product is. people are interested to know when they buy something new, it is more efficient.

but we don't require people to buy more efficient washers or driers, but we do require new or appliances to meet a tighter standard so that if you go out and buy that you would reduce the amount of energy that goes into it. but no one is going to tell you you can't sell your home, that you have to do something to make it more energy efficient. that is just not part of the legislation we adopted. host: the next call is from miami, alex on the democratic line. caller: thank you for having me. congressman waxman. i just wanted to comment on the health care option. i know a lot of republicans complain, you know, they are afraid that there is going to be no choice and that people will not have the option and they will be forced into this government-sponsored plan, which

i don't think is really the case. there is going to be competition in the market, which is natural in economics. i personally see nothing wrong with it and i commend you and the democratic party for actually doing something about health care. it has been an long time coming. i have a question -- you mentioned generics earlier. how long does it take for these medicines to actually be able to come on the market? and that is about it. thank you. guest: out for a traditional medication -- for a traditional medication, they have a patent for 20 years. they get additional time for the period. to get approved, because they can't market the drug until the approved so they get some of the time restored. if it is a new breakthrough drug they can get as much as five years -- the exclusivity, and not until all the time is over and the generic drug go to the

fda for approval. and abbreviate process -- just have to show there is same as another drug -- they can't go to the market. we save billions and billions of dollars with generic drugs. people would rather get generic drugs because it would save the money. benefit managers are encouraging people and pharmacists and coverage people to use generic drugs. it is a good deal for the consumers. and the brand name companies have their marketplace because they have been out there with a monopoly for quite some time. that is traditional medication. but these biotech drugs have no competition. they have a monopoly now. if they don't face generic competition at all. that is what the legislative fight is all about in that area. we suggested that they have five years as well of exclusivity

after the patent is up and the time is restored for the fda approval process. at first they said, you can't make a generic, it is impossible. then it finally came around and said, yes, you can make a generic but we should get 14 years after all the time -- an additional 14 years of exclusivity, which means a monopoly. and we've got a monopoly -- you can charge the highest price, whenever the market will bear. if that is the only drug that can keep you alive, you have to figure out a way to pay that monopoly rights, if you can. we want generic competition for biotech drugs. it is not going to be the same because they have to get through a process to determine that the generic version of the biotech drug was just as good. it is not just going to be the same drug but it will be just as good because oftentimes these biotech drugs were dealing with

the process itself and the process has to be duplicated but then you have to establish with the fda scientific established approval that it is just as safe and effective. but it may not be substitut able -- like traditional, small- molecule you -- molecule drugs. it is a big fight going on now and billions of dollars are at stake. you talk about people being frightened about change. i have found that people are often frightened about changes, especially when interest groups come in and tell them to be frightened. they hear the cry is of groups that like the status quo and they get are worried about what change will bring. in this book that i hope many of the viewers of this program will want to buy and read, "the

waxman report: how congress really works, " we talked about some of the fights we had. they are not much different than the fights we are having now, where there was a lot of controversy and a lot of people objected to the changes. but once the changes were adopted and we looked back at it, it is as if, what was that i know about? why should we not even take for granted that we can get different labeling information on the products we buy? people cannot understand, why was it ever a controversy about stopping smoking on airlines. as a mentioned earlier, it was a big struggle to adopt a bill by literally two or three votes on the house floor to experiment with no smoking on airline flights of two hours or less. we tried it for two years to see if it would work. but a lot of people said, it won't work. that change is too big, too radical. smokers will go crazy. we heard all of these things.

and the clean air act, we wanted to stop acid -- acid rain from power plants and we were told it would bankrupt the industry and hurt the economy and instead it was accomplished at a 10th of the prices we were told would be the cost of achieving those results. keep in mind, when you hear about health care or energy legislation, i believe when we pass these bills people will say, what took us so long to make sure that every american had access to reasonably priced, high quality, insurance coverage. just as they do in other countries. they will say, what is the big deal. why is it the united states spends more money on health care and has a system where the costs to going up and up and people -- people going without needed medical care. people don't understand it in other countries and some day we will look back and say, isn't

that a peculiar time in history and i am glad we are not there anymore. host: lewis on independent line from raleigh. caller: how is it going? i just wanted to start out by saying it is all polished -- politicians do is try to please people to get reelected without doing the right thing. my question is, how can a congressman from a state who is in a fiscal crisis advocate increasing federal spending and our federal debt? guest: first of all, i would disagree with your premise that all politicians are refusing to the right thing because they are facing reelection. in our case, and how come every two years. there are some who are afraid of their -- in our case, in the house, every two years. there are some who are afraid of the shadow. but at the most members of congress wants to do the right thing. they want to pass laws that will help their constituents. they may disagree on how to do it, but i think most people want to do the same thing. republicans want everybody to be

insured, as the democrats. we have a different approach as to how to accomplish that goal. i hope that the end of the day we will be together. we may not be. but oftentimes what you don't see when you hear about the scandals of politicians is that oftentimes these politicians are talking to each other and trying to work things out and often to work things out, but it is not a news story. when a bill is worked out any compromise is reached, unless it is a big fight, democrats versus republicans, it usually does not get attention, especially when you have some bodies low-fare to cover. -- somebody's love affair to cover. asking how i could be for an increase in taxes. i think and california what we need more than anywhere else and just as anyone else is jobs. we will not get jobs by staying still feared we are going to get jobs by trying to go into the future and deal with the concerns that we have for our

children in directing a planet that will not be polluted by carbon and offers a tremendous opportunity to produce millions of new jobs, billions of new investments in energy efficient technologies. it is the kind of thing that you have to recognize, you just can't stay where you are, you've got to move forward. and we want to accomplish three things. tell me what it is worth doing -- being less dependent on oil from saudi arabia and venezuela and producing it market that makes iran rich enough to produce nuclear weapons. we want to reduce more jobs by transforming the economy and giving incentives to the new technologies and jobs. and ideas that not even new -- that would not have been done unless you provide economic incentives. thirdly, reduce the carbon emissions that are doing harm to

our planet. our scientists are telling us, there is an overwhelming consensus about global warming, it has causes, because of man- made pollution and it has consequences that are dire in some ways and very serious if you just want to minimize it, but very, very some -- serious. those are the goals we are trying to achieve and i am proud to be working in those areas as a californian and an american. host: another question from the twitter page -- ask mr. waxman if he doubts electric rates will double. guest: electric rates will not double. we worked very carefully to make sure that in the electricity sector, we will provide the allocations to the utilities so that they don't have to pay for them and therefore they will not be able to pass on those costs to the consumer. and they will have to produce the reductions in carbon, but a lot of those reductions can be done fairly cheaply by buying

offsets. a lot of the offsets in the agricultural industry -- the agricultural industry is looking forward to because a lot of these offsets are in the farms and how they produce more efficient ways that will reduce carbon that can become a market for those who have to make sure that they are achieving the carbon reductions. host: our next call from the republican line, somerset, pa.. caller: good morning, mr. waxman and c-span. i first want to congratulate c- span on this fantastic program. probably the best program on tv, " washington journal." i listen to it every morning. despite what your earlier callers said and criticized, i think they should be very thankful they live in a country where we can discuss these issues objectively and have on a minute guests like mr. waxman. guest: i agree.

caller: -- host: i think we may have lost him. gillian from maryland. caller: i hope i can get my comments and my question. it appears to me, even with the fights between the drug companies, they had that fight over -- let me go over to the next thing. no, the vitamins. the people who used vitamins, they wanted to outlaw that and said that they were not good for people. the fda had not checked the beard that is not be here nor there. what really bothers me is how doctors were of the pharmaceuticals are advertising their drugs, whether they are good or not, via the television.

what did you need the drugs or not, many people are gullible and will go and get those drugs. i know of a personal friend who tried the drug out on the side effects were worse than the medication. i'm wondering, is not going to continue where they are going to able to advertise -- is that going to continue, where they are able to advertise over the airways and make money that route and stop other people from doing different things like going overseas or to canada? guest: if it were up to me, i would not allow those advertisements. after all, a drug can only be purchased when it is prescribed by the doctors. let them and form the doctors of the virtues, which they spend even more money trying to do -- let them in form the doctors. but if you see the public seeing all of these happy people using the pharmaceutical products, it is increasing their market because the lot of doctors don't want to say no when the patients

ask for the drugs. but sometimes people use drugs they should use -- should got -- should news, and they suffer from the consequences. there was a situation where the drugs were heavily advertised as soon as they were approved, and sometimes draws as soon as they are approved, we don't know the full consequences of large numbers of people using the drug. so, i suggested, if the fda has suspicion that a drug, if widely used, may cause problems, and they are going to be monitoring that post-approval period, they ought to be the to restrict the advertisements. -- be able to restrict the advertisements. i guess the reality is the prevailing view is that the first amendment allows drug advertising to consumers. i don't believe that. i believe commercial speech is different than political speech. i have a different point of view. but i'm in the minority. but i thought certainly when a new drug is being approved, for

three months or six months, there can be a restriction on the amount of advertising. there was a drug that was promoted so heavily and turned out to be so harmful and people were using a in massive numbers before we realize the harm it did. well, when i proposed that, i had the drug companies against me, i had the newspapers and magazines, because they want the advertisers, the broadcasters, nobody wanted to entertain the idea of any limitation on spending money to get consumers to buy drugs, even if there is a possibility it could harm the consumers. we will continue to push that at some future time. right now it doesn't look like the best time. but if it were up to me, i would not have all of these ads to make it look you are really happy to be using a drug. in fact, last week i had a medical problem. i still don't know what it was.

i was hospitalized. when i came into the hospital, i was barely awake. somebody said, why is your knee jerking? i was making a joke and i said i have restless leg syndrome. i'm not sure if there is such a thing called restless leg syndrome -- i will hear from people. i thought restless leg syndrome with a disease created by a drug company to sell a drug for a disease they created, and i was making a joke. when i got out of the hospital and they looked at my record they said, he claims to have restless leg syndrome. i did not know if there is such a thing or not. i don't have it. but a lot of people start thinking they are having medical problems because they are seeing too many of these commercials. i don't think that is doing the public a lot of good. certainly making the drug company's richer. host: stop on the independent line from va.

caller: representative waxman, good morning. as someone who does have restless leg syndrome -- [laughter] it does exist, absolutely. it is a terrible thing. i achieve that through a back injury. guest: iic. caller: anyhow, you were talking about medicare and medicaid and a prescription drug plan and wanting to push heavily the generics. well, on the medications i take, there are two that are brand names that are very expensive and i appreciate taxpayers taking care of me. but i have already had to switch insurance companies a couple of times because they stopped covering them because they are so expensive. aikens -- anyhow, it is very, very

important that you understand that there are differences between brand-name and generic with certain circumstances. you missed answering a question as to come roaring people in this country with insurance. with illegal immigrants. now, i understand, you know, that is a tough issue and everything. but it is important to a lot of people to understand what is going to happen in that circumstance. you know, part of the immigration bill is for them to immigration bill is for them to be able to bring family guest: i am sorry i did not answer that question. i would like to talk about what our thinking is on that subject. some of what we want to do is to subsidize lower income people said that they could buy insurance. otherwise, it