group of people. and you were talking about the anger on the far left. i think the far left does things that are extreme as well, but you do not have to characterize them as all flights burners and heaters. -- flag burners and haters. host: next up is jacksonville, fla., howard on the democrats line. we're almost out of time. caller: i will make this quick. i was raised in the cradle of the fellow that wrote the crowd -- the constitution and x.

four under years down the road -- that is why -- 400 years down the road. that is why they made the constitution flexible. and they provided for elections. they knew things were in inconstancy of change. -- in a constant sea of change. i didn't make it to washington and i did see a -- i did make it to washington and i did see a lot of ugly stuff going on up there. i did not see one of left winger -- i did not see one left winger there. and just like that fellow that calls confusing terms calling them communists, fascist, socialists. people don't even know the definition of the words anymore.

host: howard, and roy to jump in because we are running out of time. guest: part of what he talked about is a point of fascination for me because the founding fathers, i think there genius was to create a system that was sufficiently flexible and allowed political debate so that things will shift and change over time. we are a different people with different experiences. it is a different age and economy. we face different challenges. that is key. i think a lot of these people touring around words like fascist and socialist do not know the definition of the terms and they use it to try to caricature their opponents. i do not think that is fair. it undermines the ability to really join the debate, to have spirited, intelligent, discussion as we try to effectively move the country forward. when you lose that debate and the intelligent discourse, you

do damage to the democracy. host: i'm about to show you one of these wonderful c-span moments. my job is to throw to an event next. let's show what it looks like. there's hardly anyone in place. that means we have time for another quick call. . .

guest: it is interesting. he was in that people were pressing for opportunities. the bush administration had what they call the emphasis on the ownership society, trying to encourage people to become home owners in terms of the housing bubble bursting, i would not blame the government for trying to make more loans available for people that were on the financial at pitt -- financial edge. i am frustrated at the rating agencies that allowed these loans to go through.

i'm frustrated at some of the banks that were anxious to get in on the sub prime market. i think we were violating rules of good sense. we were making loans and selling them to wall street. everything came tumbling down on all the warheads. i would be careful not to blame the poor. if you have an opportunity to get a house, and get the american dream, i would understand why you would want to do it. there should be blocks in place and date should be -- and they should be the people that say this is not feasible or this is not make sense. they got greedy. they avoided the red light. there are a lot of people to blame. i would be careful not to blame the court. host:, thank you for coming on the program.

guest: thank you. host: will take to get -- to that event. the speakers are in place. it is at the national press club. it is a group called global 0. they're reacting to the announcement on the new start treaty in prague. there are some new names. right into live coverage. >> this is miss wilson. she worked as a career cia operations officer and plays a very prominent role in the film "countdown to zero." to her left is retired general

jack sheehan. he is a former commander and has provided military expertise to the global zero commission initiative. last, but not least is reverend richard. he is the president of the new evangelicals and a fellow of the open society institute. i will just make one or two brief remarks to open this up and then turn to the other panelists. global xerxzero as an initiativs roughly 18 months old. we got involved prior to the right -- prior to the inauguration of barack obama.

at that time, i think we played an important catalytic role in beginning to think through the problems in a limited in all nuclear weapons. in our large international meeting in paris, over a year ago, we called for a resumption of the u.s.-russia negotiations to reduce their stockpiles of the killer weapons -- of nuclear-weapons representing that -- recognizing that with 90% of nuclear-weapons, it was incumbent on russia and the united states. we also called our action plan for follow on negotiations to reduce russian and american weapons down to when thousand or so new killer warheads. -- nuclear warheads. the next opposed in the process to create a multi-lateral negotiations would bring other prof -- powers into the process.

in outlining this goal, we made the argument -- a very strong public argument that for the united states and other existing nuclear powers, nuclear-weapons were using their political you -- their power and political utility. it was no longer the paradigm of a u.s.-russian nuclear conflict. the danger of nuclear weapons in the 21st century is the spread of nuclear weapons, not too strong states, not too great powers, but to weaker powers, to more fragile states, to rogue states, and most disturbingly, to sub-state actors like terrorist groups. the reason i am outlining these views is that we think we have really served over the last 18 months as a thought leader in this process. as we look at the remarks and

statements that were contained in the president's recent posture review, where they identified it as a key goal of american nuclear strategy looking forward, we are very pleased that we have, in our view, been leaders in leading this country and other countries in reevaluating the role and place of nuclear-weapons. as we look at the new start treaty, which, of course, was signed this morning by president medvedev and president obama in prague, i was a delighted to see that the president not only focused on the important steps that are contained in this treaty, but also focused together with president medvedev on the need for a follow-up investigation that would further reduce those

weapons and continue to endorse the long-term goal of nuclear elimination. i was also delighted to see that he and his advisers have embraced the idea that the role of nuclear weapons is changing. the danger of nuclear weapons today is not of a major nuclear conflict, but the spread of nuclear weapons, the risk of nuclear terrorism and the need to lock down the nuclear materials worldwide, which will be of course, but central theme of the nuclear summit here, in washington next week. i will conclude that we will continue to act as a thought leader. in the policy realm, where going to work in the following year on plans for bringing china, india, pakistan, the european nuclear powers, britain and france, and israel in.

why we focus on thought leadership, we also need to focus on political leadership. that means really working hard to develop political support for the global zero concept. political support in the near term, and for a longer-term process beyond the start treaty of creating a world without nuclear weapons. that focus on political, organization and grass roots organization, i want to turn now to her majesty. >> thank you for a wonderful summary of key points at we are trying to emphasize. i look at the historic steps towards the zero of the last year from several perspectives

in my u.s.-based cold world china bridge cold war child could -- cold war child could and my last 35 years of work and life in the developing world. and, as a muslim and a mother. the progress that we have seen over the past year from president obama and president medvedev in particular, is very encouraging, but we still have so far to go. as a muslim, i share the moral and spiritual concerns of the genocidal role of nuclear weapons, first expressed by the scientists who created them and who witnessed their destructive impact. the car on -- the koran declares killing and in -- killing an innocent person attended to

killing all of mankind. -- tantamount to killing all of mankind. it was what president kennedy called the risk of accidents, miscalculation and madness, and the potential for continuing and expanding irrational arms races in regions like the middle east, especially now when increasingly, poor populations are facing the consequences of global warming. we are at a nuclear tipping point, beyond which there may be in no turning back and we are witnessing the greatest opportunity in decades to mobilize what international polling has shown is majority support in nuclear and non-

nuclear states for zero. if governments do not act now to begin to a limit of nuclear- weapons, we will likely witness in our lifetime the destructive use of nuclear technology by a country or by terrorist groups. for governments to act, global zero needs to become recognized for what it is, and urgent global imperative. it needs to be recognized by the constituencies of all our governments as that -- requiring everyone to get involved. post-cold war generations are largely unaware of the very real danger posed by these weapons. that is why one reason why "countdown to zero," is so important for generations to

have not felt or been subjected to the terrifying implications of what we are talking about here, today. that is why our efforts to mobilize people of all ages and all sectors, especially young people, in this movement, i think, is of great importance. we are not surprised -- comprised of political leaders, we include hundreds of thousands of citizens. we are growing fast. young people are taking a lead with global zero chapters on college campuses, worldwide, with more starting every week. next week, a group of 12, committed young people will launch a road to war organizing

community based screenings, in listing more people in the global zero movement and building momentum toward the theatrical release of the film on july 9. our student release of the film along with partner organizations including the new leveraging the new evangelical partnership -- including the new evangelical partnership are launching a worldwide try to connect -- to collect signatures for the elimination of nuclear-weapons which we will deliver to the leaders of the nuclear summit. there is still time to change direction and the chart our course to 0. president obama said the pursuit of peace among nations is the work of both leaders and people

in the 21st century. i urge everyone to sign our petition and joined the global zero movements. thank you. >> thank you. the valerie. >> good morning. the story of how i became a national figure in the media is widely known, but few people knew what i actually did for the cia. i was a covert operations officer, essentially making sure the bad guys did not get the bomb. my job was to create and run operations that sought to carry into networks. i believe there is no more important work to be done. i resigned from the cia because it was no longer possible to do the covert work for which i was

highly trained and which i love. however, i did not lose my belief that the danger of nuclear terrorism is the most urgent threat that we face, nor my passion for working to address that threat. i am proud to be working on this issue now and to be here today as a part of the international global zero movement. we know that terrorist groups have been trying to buy, build, or steal a bomb. there have been at least 25 instances in the past 25 years of nuclear materials be lost or stolen. there is enough material to build more than 100,000 bombs in the world today. terrorists looking to buy could look to the approximately 40 countries with nuclear weapons material. then, there are the road individuals -- the rogue individuals. a doctor did it for years before my group with the cia brought him down in december, 2003, after catching him, red-handed

selling a full-scale nuclear bomb to libya. if terrorists managed to get their hands on enough, they could smuggle it into a rival, city, -- rival city, build the bomb, and exploded. -- explode it. the only way to a limit the threat of nuclear weapons terrorism is to lock down all nuclear materials and eliminate all nuclear weapons in all countries -- global zero. this is why the nuclear security summit that president obama is convening next week is so important and why all of us at global zero strongly support it. we urge all of the leaders to commit to action to achieve this critical goal. i'm proud to be working with the global zero movement and its

team of world leaders and organizers. i will do everything i can to raise public and political support. that is why i said yes 1 lawrence bender asked me to begin at an extraordinary new film called "countdown to 0" which will hear about in a minute. >> thank you. >> i'm very proud to be here as a part of this tremendous movement and the co-founder and executive department -- and executive director of a new global web movement that has rapidly grown to be the largest moment in history. we are growing by about 50,000 people a week. we are in every country, operating in 14 languages. and the last four years, we have done 10,000 rallies' and flash

mobs of the world. we have mobilized millions of people. part of the reason i mention this is that i think we have a strong commitment that we have seen amongst our members all across the world, from brazil, france, israel, iran, india -- an agreement and an alignment around the goal of global zero. the mission is to close the gap between the world we have and the world we all want. this monstrance weapon, this frankenstein of history, is people are rallied to get rid of. this is moving from the place of common agreement to share the urgency. i'm excited about the film coming out soon i think people agree -- coming out soon. i think people agree that the

system is broken. it is not defensible. it is not sustainable. it is not safe. there is a lot of attention of particular problems like iran, and we are looking at dozens more problems like iran in the future if we did not fix the system. iran has already -- we have already mobilized globally around this subject -- around this objective. we will see hundreds of thousands of people mobilized for monday and tuesday, the summit next week. in the coming months, we will see members of individual countries in each part of the world driving the agenda further, and other objectives. in the coming years, we will see the growth of an unstoppable movement to realize the dream of 0. thank you. >> richard. >> good morning, everyone.

in 1980, i came to washington, d.c., as a newly-minted christian clerical, and a conservative. it was one of my first actions as a young man to propose an idea that had never been considered by my fellow evangelicals and it went like this -- and let the president of the united states to speak to the evangelicals on the reality of nuclear-weapons and the cold war. i remind you, this was early 1983. the proposal went to the white house and surprisingly cannot i got a phone call back from the speech writers. they said, meet with us. we did. what happened was the following. on march 6, 1983, perkins ronald reagan delivered a blockbuster speech -- president ronald reagan delivered a blockbuster

speech. liberals a prop -- applauded -- to credit, conservatives applauded. i did not notice one line in that famous speech his intention, his wishes, to eliminate entirely the face from the plant nuclear weapons. i did not hear it because i did not want to hear it. i changed. millions of americans have changed their views over these years and now you this threat, especially nuclear terrorism with a reality and a fear that is rightly placed, and thus, they need to change. i say if you have never changed your mind about anything, pinch

yourself. you may be dead. i do not think anyone would accuse -- accused lawrence bender of being a theologian. isn't that right? [laughter] >> i will point this out, intentionally or not, what those associated with this film have done is aimed at the heart of what theologians described as the two tendencies -- twin tendencies that must be repudiated. the first tendency is to travel lights -- trivialize the nuclear horror of where we become immune to the possibility of it. we lose our sense of outrage. the second twinned tendency is to become so pessimistic about the future as to acquiesce to it

in helplessness. both indifference and pessimism are inappropriate. i would say more than it inappropriate. they are wrong-headed. they are the sons of the mission -- of omission if not commission. this extraordinary film goes right at them. on behalf of my fellow faith community, i say we are together with you in this, christian, jewish, muslim, we all confirm what t.s. eliot said "the fact that the problem will acquire the attention of the greatest minds and challenge a generation to solve it is no excuse for

postponing the dressing it." -- addressing it." one part in the movie is slightly humorous. the founder of global zero was worried he was told at a meeting in the pentagon about people getting too excited about nuclear war that would end the world, when in fact, only 500 million would die. only 500 million would be killed. i reached for my hat, he said, knowing how woody allen felt in "and he called", what he excused himself from a conversation when he said he had an appointment on planet earth. on behalf of all of planet earth, i will say we have this vision for a world without nuclear weapons.

a vision, often without a strategy, is a hallucination. believe me, we know we are not hallucinating. this is possible. the strategy is very clear. we ask you to join us. we will win this. some will say for the deeper -- for a gipper. i will say that we will win it for all of mankind, forever. thank you, very much. >> thank you. not to talk specifically and -- now to talk specifically and briefly. i will turn to jeff who will introduce lawrence bender. >> thank you for coming. on behalf of participant media i am delighted to say a few words on our new film. as a bit of a background, i started participant to be a media company focused on social

change in the biggest issues in the world. since that time, we have released 23 films that have been nominated for 17 academy awards including such films as charlie -- such films as "charlie wilson's war." we have also won oscars twice. the film, "countdown to zero," started a year ago. everyone was talking about terrorism, but nuclear weapons was off the radar. like we had done with climate change, we wanted to do a film about nuclear-weapons to get it back on the public agenda. as it happened, one of my first

calls was to lawrence bender who i had worked with. he pointed me to matt brown and bruce blair. very quickly, we all agreed to do a film together. the film is part of a major public awareness campaign that we are launching in partnership with global zero. it will be a coalition of 50 or so online coalitions. by the end of the year, we expect several million people will see the film either yen -- either in the theaters, or on tv. it will be the biggest public awareness campaign about nuclear-weapons since the 1980's. i am sure you will agree, the timing could not be better. thank you for coming here today. i will now turn it over to the film's producer, lawrence bender

to say a few words. >> thank you. i will be brief. the movie is coming out on july 9. magnolia is releasing the movie. it has an extraordinary lineup in the movie. tony blair, president carter, some people on this panel and others -- i am working with participant media. as they have done with all of their movies, which will work together to create a coalition of students, faith-based leaders, thought leaders, political leaders and internet id groups. there were billions of eyeballs on "and inconvenient truth."

that is what we want to do. create a will for the public to engage and create change. the movie is terrifying. it is the edge-of-the-seat. it is eye-opening. i think that at this point we could introduce the teaser as a way to do that. we'll show you a three-minute piece on the movie itself. >> we estimate that there are about 25,000 at nuclear-weapons in the world. -- 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world.

>> the bomber disappeared over the mediterranean with nuclear weapons that were never located. >> 6 nuclear warheads were hanging from the wink and a crew did not know they were there. >> that rolled off an aircraft carrier in the sea of japan. the weapon was never recovered. >> these weapons could fall into other people's hands. >> at a russian naval base, potatoes were guarded better. >> we know areas that have been focused in acquiring weapons of mass destruction, and in particular, nuclear-weapons. >> the rescue have today with a regime like iran or north korea, they are prepared to start creating that nuclear- weapons technology. the objective is to kill 400 million americans.

you are not going to get to kill 400 million people by hijacking airplanes. >> the size could level paid city. >> even a well-disciplined, very professional in united states military made very serious mistakes. >> a training tape was switched into a system. >> a single switch and a nuclear explosion. >> highly-enriched uranium is now in grasp. >> all the focus could tilt over 100 million russians and americans -- could kill over what had a million americans and russians did >> i say with conviction, we seek a world without nuclear weapons. >> the ultimate goal is none.

>> i think would be better off without them. >> 0. >> none. >> the weapons of war must be abolished before they abolished us. [applause] >> all right. let's open it up to questions, any questions to any members of our panel? >> jill with cnn. >> we have a microphone person here.

>> the question i have is a really simple one. it may be in a sense more technical, but right now we are talking about iran. one of the rationales for people who oppose what you are talking about is that iran, people believe, is try to develop a nuclear weapon. why should the united states get rid of its nuclear weapons if iran is trying to get them? does it make as extremely vulnerable? >> i think the simple answer is that i do not think any responsible person would say that the united states should unilaterally disarm, go to 0, if a country like iran possesses nuclear weapons. that is why a very carefully- documented plan to produce an

action plan for getting to 0, talks about a negotiated reductions. it began with the united states and russia. it can include other nuclear powers. in the process, all existing nuclear states moved down to zero in a politically feasible, cyclically and verifiable manner. if iran decides to acquire and deploy a nuclear weapon, then you are likely to see a cascade effect where other countries will think they might have to exercise a nuclear option, including saudi arabia, egypt, turkey and others in the region. that would be, in my view, and in the view of others, a show- stopper.

but, if we are successful, and when i say week high i'm not just talking about global zero i am not talking about -- i'm talking about global leaders, are successful in revitalizing against the spread of nuclear weapons, you begin to changed the decision matrix of brandy and leadership. right now, any government has to weigh the pros and cons of going to clear. if they recognize that there is an emerging consensus, not only on the part of nuclear powers, but worldwide, and this will be tested next month as the review conference, you begin to raise the nuclear threshold, for any country, including iran, for going to clear. nobody is advocating unilateral

nuclear disarmament. what we are trying to do it is refocus attention to proliferation. one last comment. let me remind you that the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty had embedded in a trade-off, a deal, a bargain. what it said was that existing non-nuclear countries committed themselves to remain in non- nuclear. the existing nuclear powers committed themselves to a serious effort of nuclear disarmament. in past nuclear proliferation review conferences, those non- nuclear countries have justifiably criticized the united states and other powers are not seriously pursuing their commitments under the treaty. but, with the start treaty, and

with a multi-lateral potential forum where every state participates, we strengthen the barriers to further nuclear spread. that is the logic behind the global zero concept and it is also the political logic, i think, behind the obama administration's efforts to link the new start agreement with its goal of non-proliferation. >> i am susan cornwell with reuters. ambassador, your statement says and, i think you said, you are calling for strong commitments to be made by the 47 leaders at his opinion the nuclear security summit next week. i wonder if you could be more specific -- give us some ideas

that would be meaningful and that people could not just say a cult that is just a bunch of talk, nothing is going to happen -- and people could not just say "that is a bunch of talks and nothing is going to happen." i immediately think, would the other countries come? anything you can think about further for getting them all in one room, talking about this. >> i will talk about that, but i want to ask valerie, who is the expert on this issue, to address that. >> i am not the expert on the summit, but i can speak to my experience as a cia covert operations officer. having looked at the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons,

it is absolutely terrifying. i will speak just for myself, personally, as i said in my statement, when i worked for the cia, i thought this was the most important issue, right there. i still believe that, but i chevy volt my position into thinking that the only -- i have evolves my position into thinking that the only way to proceed it is draining. it is a different environment. her majesty spoke about the cold war and the childhood of thinking about nuclear explosion. it is very different today. that was very much a bipolar world and it was much more contained. now, the genie is out of the bottle. when you have the opportunity, which the film speed still, to stealing a bomb, or buying a bomb, that changes the entire calculus of how to pursue this.

for me, i am absolutely delighted to be involved in this project. i truly believe having worked on this yet operational and a field cents, understanding that the only way to prevent any accidental, or terrorists getting a hold of a new killer weapons is by completely going to 0. it is not need to say that -- it is not need to say that everyone just signs on and believes this is a good idea. it is a process. it is a place to start. you have an objective. there has to be defined steps to get to that. we feel so fortunate, everyone on this panel, this idea first bubbled up 18 months ago, two years ago, and here we are on the eve of some incredible momentum from our leadership that we hope the movie and

global zero will help accelerate. >> let me address the issue of moving to a broader negotiation. nuclear proliferation happened because of perceived security concerns. the united states was the first nuclear power. the cold war was getting under way. the soviet union obviously believed that it needed to acquire that capability. wednesday acquired that capability, china felt exposed -- once they acquired the capability, china felt exposed. that led to the domino effect of pakistan and so on. you have to reverse that. the way to reverse that is for the two leading nuclear powers to demonstrate support to go enough to low enough levels so that other countries are in

ties to the process. ironically, one of the things that will lead, in my judgment, to go to lower levels, is the recognition that if they do go far enough, they have an opportunity to bring, say, china into the process. that is an incentive for russia to go down lower if it knows it has an opportunity to bring china in. china has incentives to come into the process if they think the russians will go low enough. once the chinese are prepared, and i am not predicting this will happen in a couple of weeks or months, the chinese take their time and they are pretty opaque in this process, but we in this international commission that i referred you to earlier, we had chinese participation. they are beginning to think about this issue. once they are prepared, psychologically, then you are

near the end. -- then you have the indians. if you can tell the indians that the chinese are prepared to sink significantly, politically, it becomes easier for the indians. that opens the door to pakistan. that logic, i think, can be reversed justice proliferation lead to more nuclear powers -- reversed. just as proliferation lead to more nuclear-powered, it could lead to creating mutual incentives for existing nuclear countries to lower their weapons in a proportionate way, and in a verifiable way, and in a technically feasible way down to very low numbers. >> to you have any coordination with the white house on this or

the other anti-proliferation group that just at a screening of their fellow at the white house? secondly, what are the factors that have suddenly made this issue rise to the surface, at least in the media's consciousness? >> as a former member of the media, i can say that the media is always kind of lead to the party. i am not surprised about that. -- way to the party. i am not surprised about that. there is a lot of overlap. the narrator of the film that was shown at the white house was a guest at our so-called, global summit in paris, michael douglas. that is more of a celebrity factoid. more importantly, we tell the white house and the obama administration what to do all the time, like everybody else in

this town. seriously, we try to be thought leaders. i think we are ahead of the policy-making curve. we are ahead of the bureaucracy. a lot of the concepts that were outlined, a lot of the goals set for both the start treaty and will be addressed in the fall on treaty, we hope and expect to lobby the administration to adopt. we are participants in the policy process by virtue of being there. that said, we are not cheerleaders just for barack obama. but, we are not prepared to criticize the administration when we think they're taking a wrong turn. but, i have to say, to answer basic questions of why this issue has been moved up to the front burner -- yes, i think it is because of groups like ours and also the so-called gang of

four. by the way, george shultz participated in our meeting in paris. the real reason is barack obama, to be honest about it. here is a guy who talks about this issue when he is running for president. having been collected, he is first meeting with the president of the russian federation, dmitry medvedev and for the first time got a joint russian statement that supported the goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. they agree to get back into a new-line negotiation. then come barack obama -- get back into a new nuclear negotiation. then, barack obama got the endorsement for the global zero concept. he has been collected on the

issue of a lot down at the summit which you have seen which which we of a lot -- of a locked down which you will see next week. it is a little bit like a healthcare debate. there are a lot of obstacles. one of the biggest obstacles that barack obama faces is his own bureaucracy. entrenched military establishment that has grown accustomed to deploying and using nuclear weapons, even when we do not deter with new weapons, we are deterred by nuclear-weapons. as more weak countries get them, our national security will suffer, not theirs. it is difficult to try to turn this super-tanker around.

we believe that in that sense, barack obama needs some allies. on this issue, we are prepared to be an ally. >> thank you i am with ", the huffington post." >> did we speak once on the telephone? >> i am not sure. speaking of obstacles, there are a lot of false-believes and rationales like a mantra of the terence, and i'm actually working with the group and challenging the deterrence theory and the alternative spiral. the better alternative is reciprocated initiative and tension reduction -- attention

reduction. there's a need to deal with the underlying concepts, like example, for iran. second-order change, change in the nature of our relationships so that we do not have the fear and insecurity that drives a desire. there is a lot of mindless acceptance of deterrence as a rationale for maintaining this and as long as nuclear-weapons exist, we need a safe, reliable deterrent. we did not even call them nuclear weapons anymore, we call them declared deterrence. i wonder if you think you are addressing dealing with the online concept. >> -- with the underlying concept. >> you have mentioned several concepts that i have never heard of.

maybe we can talk later and you can explain them to me. i did not think we are taking on the fundamental foundation of deterrence, but i think we are seeing the world has changed. the rev. talk about his change. i am not in that school. i do not think i have changed. the world has changed. i think, in my personal view, there was a role for nuclear weapons in the cold war. we lived in a bi-polar system. you can make the argument, you may not agree with it, you can make the argument that nuclear- weapons were stabilizing during that period and we avoided a conflict. it also make the argument that we came much too close to the conflict like in the cuban missile crisis. that view is gone.

of the threat has changed. even my own an emissary and friend richard perle has said that the likelihood of russia and the united states going to war is nil. i cannot imagine a situation. that threat has faded away. we face a new range of threats where traditional deterrence theory really does not make a lot of sense. it makes more sense for weaker states. in the bipolar, cold war area, it made strong powers, stronger. in my judgment, in the era that we are entering, terrorism, failed states, and proliferation, nuclear-weapons make wheat states stronger and undercut our national security as a result. i think we have to evaluate the concept of deterrence in light of changing international conditions.

>> i would love to get the benefit of that input? >> jack? >> i think the ambassador has it right. in the 1940's and 1950's, there was a significant role for nuclear weapons from a deterrance standpoint. if you remember, the most recent release from an -- from the cuban missile debate, in one sense, it was a negative, and in another sense, it prevented them from making some extremely stupid mistakes. as we evolve through a point of the collapse of the soviet union, the real issue became the control of nuclear material, not only from a standpoint of what happens within the country of the former soviet union, but what happens to the scientists, the material. that is where pandora's box

open. this is why groups like global zero have found traction. people have realized that deterrence as a concept has changed. conventional weapons have raced -- reached a point where they have become deterrance themselves. we reached the point where how do we manage this legacy of material, people and systems? the issue in great britain is what happens to the trident program that great britain has? it is very expensive. taking one trident of vote offline will not significantly change the balance of the equation. if france lost its strategic capability, what would change in europe? i think there are real political

issues. i think there are budgetary issues. i think there is a growing realization that weapons of mass destruction, whether released by a terrorist, whereby a western, civilized state, is both immoral and frankly, it has lost its utility. >> global zero has from the outset actually taken into account exactly what you are referring to before in terms of our recognition and the political component. this has come out in our summit meetings over the last two years. the importance of recognizing and addressing regional or national insecurity is -- in securities -- this film, i think it is important to state, the film will be released

internationally, as well. i hope i am not speaking out of turn. it will be first released internationally at the festival. ideally, it will also be a resource for mobilizing people in countries around the world, especially in nuclear states and the political component of our work is one of which is recognizing the difference states and regions have different sets of historical and current realities that are driving those nuclear weapons programs. there are also a range of opportunities provided by economic and other factors, especially growing awareness, that we hope this film and our unit can play a role in mobilizing that we can use to achieve our objective. absolutely, it is a component part of what we have been talking about from the outset.

>> david? >> so, my question is actually about -- in the last couple of days president obama has escalated the war of words with iran, talk about the european missile shield. it seems like firms like yours could actually play a role in convincing countries like iran to de-escalate. will you try to take the film to iran? . . >> i will address the first part. i was just in india, not

pakistan. we tried to shoot in pakistan and it is difficult -- it is easier to get in as a journalist or a tourist but much harder. we ended up building -- filming president musharraf in in -- and in england. we had a phenomenal group of people in new delhi, part of the global zero people that hosted the screening. we had the chief airforce marshall. and we had some other extraordinary people in charge of the arsenal. in 1998, they thought it was in the national interest to have nuclear weapons and a dozen years later they felt it was in the national interest to get rid of them, not unilaterally, of course. it was a terrific place to become my first time in india.

most people around the world have no idea -- like when we made our film about global warming, this is a serious issue. it becomes very obvious. the same with this movie in india. i have commitments from people there. there are 500 million cell phones and india. there are 19 million cell phones sold less moderate one people involved with technology in cell phone is committed to getting 10 million people to sign the declaration over the next several months to support this whole campaign. as queen noor said, this is an international effort. this is a global effort.

>> our founding leaders come from india and pakistan, china, from most nuclear states and, god willing, in the future all will be represented on global zero and they are hopeful. we have had long and lengthy discussions about all aspects of the challenges we face. these are the former architect, in many cases, of the nuclear programs in asia and europe and elsewhere who believe that their countries can be brought around. it will require a verifiable phase with important mechanisms but they do believe it is possible. [unintelligible] >> i am willing to go with you.

>> the beauty of the film is that it goes all over the world. a little story a couple of years ago -- a couple of years ago i was in remote parts of the himalayan foothills of india, staying in a place where the roads ran out and we were carrying packs and we ended up at a little hostile with no electricity. one of the kids had seen the movie and shawmut to all his friends. -- and shown it to all his friends. we hoped to get this done in two places that need to see this like iran and syria. >> the start treaty will lead to a political fight in the senate and arms control advocates are worried that senators will be

obstructionist. they seem to be positioning themselves to make the ratification process hard if not impossible. what is your message to those republicans as this whole move from one in washington begins? >> as a former political appointee of two republican administrations, i think it will be very difficult for anybody to come up with a very strong set of coherent arguments against this treaty. the treaty itself, as you know very well, does not take sweeping steps to reduce either the russian or the u.s. deployed

arsenal. if you view it as a snapshot, it is a very small step towards further reductions. the importance of the treaty is broader in terms of putting the u.s.-russian arms treaty on track and has been off track for nearly a decade. it is important to cut -- because it could lead to a much more profound set up agreements following the street. the treaty itself, i think, will be ratified because i think the administration and the russian side have not fundamentally changed the structure of the arms control process and the treaty that i helped negotiate

in the 1990's. yes, there will be some outlyers who will vote against it but i am confident that someone with the integrity and credibility of eight richard lugar, the minority leader of the senate foreign relations committee, will bring enough republicans on board to get it ratified. people will have some special projects and a double what, for instance, the nuclear labs and other kind of special kind of interests taken care of in the context of this treaty and that is not new to arms control. i think people are to present themselves to engage in that kind of wheeling and dealing. anybody who would vote against this treaty needs to think about the consequences of what would be the signal we would send to the rest of the world if the

united states could not ratify this treaty. what would be the impact on proliferation? what would be the impact on the problem of the spread of nuclear materials worldwide? what would it do to the u.s. leadership position? of around the world, not just on a nuclear arms control, but a whole range of international order issues? in my judgment, it is very clear what the consequences would be and for that reason, given the kind of dysfunctional political situation that exists in the u.s. senate, i am still optimistic that will be ratified. >> thank you. >> with that, we will close the

session. we will close this session of the conference. we will open up for those who wanted to stand up interviews. i would like to people to come and identified themselves. [unintelligible] there will be an interview right ovary here near this wall. -- over here near this wall. there will be others giving interviews right here.

we will get started in a few minutes. first up, will be valerie play and wilson. ratedplame -- valerie plame wil. we have a certain order right now. blair will be roaming around so we can do this as quickly as possible. we will get started in about two minutes. thank you so much. [no audio]

[general chatter] [general chatter] >> right now on c-span 2, the financial crisis in court commission looks at said the group's role in risky mortgage debt. they are hearing from former executives and the current and former comptroller of the treasury at the all-day event. you can see it live on c-span 2. this afternoon, just as ruth bader ginsburg talks about women and the supreme court. she is joined by other female attorneys and law professors at the georgetown university law

center. that is live at 3:30 p.m. here on the cspan. later, the southern republican leadership conference. that begins at 7:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span and continues tomorrow and saturday. this weekend on c-span 2's book- tv, npr foreign correspondent deborah amos on what happened to the sunnis after the fall of saddam -- saddam hussein. new yorkfinds the entire weekend schedule at book-tv.org and follow was on twitter. now to the czech republic of prague were earlier today,

president obama and russian president dmitry medvedev signed a new treaty that would limit long-term blueprint -- a clear weapons. u.s. and soviet union signed the original treaty in 1991. following the signing, the two leaders took questions from reporters. this is one hour. . >> ladies and gentlemen, president of the united states, barack obama. and the president of the russian federation president medvedev, the treaty on measures for the production and limitation of

strategic offensive arms. >> [speaking in russian and then translated] the president of the united states of america barack obama. and the president of the russian federation, dmitri medvedev, are signing the treaty between the united states of america and the russian federation on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms and the protocol to it.

[no audio] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [applause] [applause] [applause]

>> good afternoon, everyone. i am honored to be back in the czech republic with president medvedev and r chour czech host for this treaty. happy to be back in the beautiful city of prague. the czech republic is a close friend and ally of the united states. i have great admiration and affection for the czech people. their bond with the american people are deep and enduring. they have made great contributions to the united states over many decades, including in my hometown in chicago. i want to thank the president and all those involved in helping to host this extraordinary event. i want to thank my friend and partner dmitri medvedev.

without his personal efforts and strong leadership, we would not be here today. we have met and spoken by phone many times throughout the negotiations of this treaty and we have developed a very effective work relationship built on calendar, collaboration, and mutual respect. one year ago this week, i came here to prague and gave a speech outlining america's comprehensive commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and seeking the ultimate goal of a world without them. i said then and i will repeat now, that this is a long-term goal, one that may not even be achieved in my lifetime. but i believed then and as i do now, that the pursuit of that goal will move us further beyond the cold war, strengthen the global nonproliferation regime, and make the united states and

the world safer and more secure. one of the steps that i called for last year was the realization of this treaty. so it is very gratifying to be back in prague today. i also came committed to reset relations between the united states and russia. i know that president medvedev shared that commitment. as he said in our first meeting in london, our relationship that started to drift, making it difficult to cooperate on issues of common interest. when the u.s. and russia are not able to work together if on big issues, it is not good for either of our nations, nor is it good for growth. together we have stopped that drift and? and the benefits of cooperation. today is an important milestone for nuclear security and nonproliferation and for u.s.- russia relations. if it fulfills our common objective to negotiate a new

strategic arms reduction treaty. it includes a significant reduction in nuclear weapons that we will deploy. it cuts our delivery vehicle by roughly half. it includes a comprehensive verification regime which allows us to further build trust. it enables both sides of the flexibility to protect our security as well as america's unwavering commitment to the security of our european allies. i look forward to working with the united states senate to achieve ratification for this important treaty later this year. finally, this day demonstrates the determination of the united states and russia and, the two nations holding over 90% of the world's nuclear weapons, to pursue responsible global leadership. together we are keeping our commitments under the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which must be the foundation for global nonproliferation. the new start treaty is an important first step forward, it is just one step on a longer

journey. as i said last year, this treaty will set the stage for further cuts. going forward, we hope to pursue discussions with russia on reducing our strategic and tactical weapons, including non- deployed weapons. if president medvedev and i have agreed to expand discussions on missile defense. this will include regular exchanges of information about our threat assessments as well as the completion of a joint assessment of emerging ballistic missiles. if these assessments are completed -- at their completed, i laforce to launch an a dialogue about missile defense cooperation. but nuclear weapons are not simply an issue for the u.s. and russia. they threaten the common security of all nations. a nuclear weapon in the hands of a terrorist is a danger to people everywhere. from moscow to n.y., from the cities of europe to south asia. so next week 47 nations will come together in washington to

discuss concrete steps that can be taken to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials on the world in four years. and the spread of nuclear weapons to more states is also unacceptable to global security, raising the specter of arms races from the middle east to east asia. earlier this week the united states formally changed our policy to make it clear that those nuclear weapons states that are in compliance with the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and their nonproliferation obligations will not be threatened by america's nuclear arsenal. this demonstrates again america's commitment to the npt as a cornerstone of our security strategy. those nations that follow rules will find greater security and opportunity. those nations that refused to meet their obligations will be isolated and denied the opportunity that comes with international recognition.

that includes accountability for those that break the rules. otherwise, the npt is just words on page. that is why the united states and russia are part of a coalition of nations insisting that the islamic republic of iran says consequences because they have continued -- continually failed to meet their obligations. we are working together, the united nations security council, to pass strong sections -- sanctions on iran. we will not tolerate actions that followed the npt and threaten the international community and our collective and stability. while these issues are a top priority, they are only one part of the u.s.-russia relationship. today i express again my deepest condolences for the terrible loss of russian lives in the recent terrorist attacks. we will remain steadfast partners in combating violent

extremism. we also discussed the potential to expand our cooperation on behalf of economic growth, trade, and investment, as well as technological innovation. if i look for to discussing these issues further when president medvedev visits the united states later this year. because there's much we can do on behalf of our security and prosperity if we continue to work together. when you survey the many challenges we face around ", it is easy to grow complacent or to abandon the notion that progress can be shared -- many challenges we face around the world. when nations allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. when we fail to pepursue peace, its days beyond our grasp. prague is a monument to human progress.

old adversaries can forge new partnerships. i cannot be help but be struck the other day by the person who helped build the soviet union's first atom bomb at the age of 92. having lived to see the world war and the cold war. he said "we hope humanity will reach the moment when there is no need for nuclear weapons, when there is peace and calm in the world." it is easy to dismiss those voices. doing so risks repeating the horrors of the past and ignoring the history of human progress. the pursuit of peace and calm and cooperation among nations is the work of both leaders and peoples in the 21st century. we must be as persistent and passionate in our pursuit of progress as any who would stand in our way. once again, president medvedev,

thank you for your extraordinary leadership. >> your welco are welcome. [applause] ">> dear colleagues, dear members of the media, i fully agree with the assessment that has just been made by my colleague, president obama, concerning the fact that here in this room a truly historic event has taken place and the treaty has been signed for a further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms. this treaty has a 10-year duration. it will supersede the start treaty which has expired as well as another existing crushes-u.s.

treaty on reduction of strategic defense capabilities. first of all, i'd like to thank my colleague, president of united states of america, for successful cooperation in this very complex matter and for the reasonable compromises that have been achieved thanks to the work of our two teams. the aborted a bank to them, but let me do it once again in the presence of the media and the public. we thank them for their excellent work. i would also like to thank the leadership of the czech republic, mr. president, you, for this beautiful city and this beautiful springtime, thereby creating a good atmosphere for the future. and i believe that the this signature will open new cooperation among our countries and will create safer conditions

for life here and throughout the world. the negotiating process has not been --, but we have been working in a constructive way that has been a lot of work and very often are teams worked 24 hours a day. that enabled us to do something that just a couple of months ago looked like a mission impossible. within a short amount of time and be prepared a full-fledged treaty and signed it. as a result we have a document that maintains the balance of interest of russia and the united states of america. what matters most is that this is a win-win situation. no one stands to lose from this agreement. i believe that this is typical of our cooperation. both parties have taken into

account this victory of ours, the entire world community has one. this treaty has strategic ability and at the same time enables us to rise to a higher level of cooperation between russia and the united states. also, the contents of the treaty@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1550 developed wobbleweapons. this represents more than a two- fold reduction below the current levels. this includes deployed and non- deployed large as for misslaunc.

at the same time, it party can use its own discretion for the makeup of strategic defense. the treaty includes provisions concerning change. we are quite experienced in these matters. . experts on these matters, they have the greatest experts in the world. the treaty also includes provisions concerning conversion and elimination, inspection provisions, as well as confidence-building measures. the verification mechanism has been significant and simplify compared with the original start treaty. it insures proper verification, irreversibility, and

transparency to reduce strategic offensive arms. we believe and our american partners are aware of it, this is our open position, we believe that the treaty can be viable and can operate only provided there is no qualitative orix quantitative increase in -- or quantitative increase in capabilities. this is the gist of the statement made by the russian confederation in the signature. in the post-senator period, we will achieve the ratification of the treaty, as mentioned by my colleague, mr. president of the united states. if it is also important to synchronize the ratification process. in terms of proceeding quickly to present this document to the

senate for ratification. we will also work with our federal assembly to maintain the necessary dynamics of the ratification process. by and large, we are satisfied with the work done. the result we have obtained is good. but today of course we have discussed not only the fact of signing the treaty. we have also discussed a whole range of important key issues of concern to all the countries. of course we cannot omit the iranian nuclear program. regrettably, iran is not responding to many constructive proposals that have been made. we cannot turn a blind eye to this. therefore, i do not rule out the possibility that the security council of united nations will have to review this issue again. our position is well-known. let me briefly outline it now. of course sanctions by

themselves seldom obtained specific results. although it is difficult to do without them in certain situations. those sanctions should be smart and name not only at nonproliferation but also to resolve other issues. rather [unintelligible] [president speaking in russian]

this should not only be between the presidency, but presidents do not cover all the issues that have to be tackled by executive structures. on the working level, contact should be maintained on all levels.

[president speaking in russian] [speaking in russian]

[speaking in russian] [applause] [applause] >> the chicago tribune, christie

parsons. [no audio] >> thank you very much. thank you for taking my question, mr. president. how will the two sides get around differences on missile defense to work out a fall on a treaty, since that seems to be the biggest problem, for their arsenal reductions? can you work out a cooperative agreement on missile defense? >> one of the things that we discussed when we first met in moscow was the relationship between offensive and defensive

capabilities. and what i made clear was that our missile defense systems were not directed at changing the strategic balance between the united states and russia, but instead were directed at protecting the american people from potentially new attacks from missiles launched from third countries. we recognize, however, that russia is a significant interest in this issue. and what we have committed to doing is engaging in a significant discussion, not only bilaterally, but also having discussions with our european allies and others about a framework in which we can potentially cooperate on issues of missile defense. in a way that protects u.s.

national security interests, preserves russian national security interests, and allows us to guard against a rogue missile from any source. i am actually optimistic, that having completed this treaty, which signals are strong commitment to a reduction in overall nuclear weapons and that i believe is going to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation treaty regime, that sends a signal around road that the united states and russia are prepared to once again take leadership in moving in the direction of reducing reliance on nuclear weapons and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons as well as nuclear materials, that we will have build the kind of trust not only between president but also

between governments and between peoples, that allows us to move forward in a constructive way. . ,, >> this should not change the balance between the united states and russia. as we move forward, it will be part of a broader set of discussions about how we can take tactical nuclear weapons out of theater, the possibilities of us make a more significant cuts, not only in deployed but non-deployed missiles. there are a whole range of issues that i think we can make

significant progress on. i am confident that this is an important for step in that direction. >> i would like to say a few words on the issue. doubtless in relation between missile defense and start was one of the most difficult -- difficult topics to discuss. the language that has been in the treaty that was signed satisfies both parties and proceed from the fact that on that basis, we will enable this newly signed a treaty. -- newly signed a treaty -- newly signed a trea = = = treat.

the preamble has a language that replicates a principale ofa basis for the treaty. a flexible process, and we are interested in cooperation with our american partners. in terms of decisions in the area of missile defense -- this does lead to progress. does not mean there are no digressions in understanding what we should address these issues.

to help establish a global missile defense system. given the ball more ability of our world, the terror challenges -- vulnerability of our world, the terror challenges, and nuclear arms by terrorists in this world, and i'm an optimist as well as my american colleagues and i believe we will be put to reach compromise on this issue. >> [interpreter] i have two questions. president obama, the first time to agree on reduction of the offensive arms. but as you mentioned, russia and the united states are not the only countries who have nuclear weapons. how specifically can it be achieved similar to today's

documentation on limitation of nuclear arms. how soon will we see others sign the document and will you move with the russian federation? president of the russian federation, a dimension -- you mentioned not able to agree on anything else except reduction of mutual arms. will we see any counter -- anything that counter such a statement and what will be agreements be? >> first of all, as i mentioned in my opening remarks, the united states and russia account for 90% of the world's nuclear weapons. and given this legacy of the

cold war, it is critical for us to show significant leadership. that, i think, is what we have begun to do with this follow on start treaty. other countries will have to make a series of decisions about how they approach the issue of their nuclear weapons stockpiles. as i repeatedly said -- and i am sure dmitri feels the same way with respect to his country -- we are going to preserve our nuclear deterrent so long other countries have nuclear weapons. and we will make sure of the stockpile is safe and secure and defective. i do believe that as we look out into the 21st century, that more and more countries will come to recognize that the most important factors in providing security in and peace to their

citizens will depend on their economic growth, will depend on the capacity of the international community to resolve conflicts. it will depend on having a strong conventional military that will protect our nation's borders and that nuclear weapons increasingly in an interdependent world will make less and less cents a as the cornerstone of security policy. but that would take some time. i think each country will have to make its own determination. the key is for the united states and russia to show leadership on this friends because we are so far ahead of every nation with respect to possession of nuclear weapons. the primary concerns we identified in a recent nuclear posture review essentially a declaratory statement of u.s. policy with respect to nuclear

weapons. our biggest concerns right now are actually the issue of nuclear terrorism and proliferation. more countries obtaining nuclear weapons. those weapons being less controllable, less secure nuclear materials floating around the globe. and that is going to be a major topic of the discussion we have in washington on monday. the united states and russia have a history already come a decade-long history, of locking down loose nuclear materials. i believe that our ability to move forward already on sanctions with respect to north korea, intense discussions we are having with respect to iran, will increasingly send a signal to countries not abiding by their nuclear nonproliferation treaty obligations that they

will be isolated. all those things will go toward sending a general message that we need to move in a new direction. i think leadership on that front is important. the last point i would make is, i would anticipate or approach the question about other areas of cooperation. our respective foreign ministers -- secretary of state hillary clinton and foreign minister lavrov have been heading a bilateral commission that has been working intensively on a whole range of issues. president medvedev and myself identified a series of key areas on the economic front, a trade relations, essentials for joint cooperation on various industries, how we can work on innovation and sparking economic growth. we already worked it gathered -- together closely on the g-20. i think we can build on that

bilaterally. there are issues of counterterrorism that are absolutely critical to both of us and i just want to repeat how horrified all america was at the recent attacks in moscow. we recognize that that is a problem that can happen anywhere at any time and it is important for russia and the united states to work closely on those issues. and there is the people to people context, figuring out how we can make sure there is more interaction and exchange between our two countries on a whole range of issues within civil society. so i am optimistic we can come to new to make progress -- but we need to -- it speaks to not only security of the nation but security of the world. >> [speaking in russian of] >> [interpreter] yes, we have 9%

of the stockpiles which is from the cold war legacy. we will do what we can to be taken in mind the special issue of the united states and russia on the issue. we do care about what is going on with nuclear arms and other countries of the world and we can't imagine a situation between the russian federation and the united states, taking efforts to disarm and the world will move toward a different -- printable different direction. we are in charge of our peoples and the -- so all the issues related to the implementation of the treaty and nonproliferation

and the threat of nuclear terrorism stood be in a complex and integrated way. i would like the signing not to be regarded by other countries as stepping aside from the issue. on the contrary, they should be involved to the fall and take an active participation in it. they should be aware of what is going on. so, we would welcome the initiative that has been proposed by the president of the united states to convene a relevant conference in washington and i will take part, which should be a good platform to discuss nonproliferation issues. as far as the linkages in nuclear arms that are concerned. in this world we have a lot that brings us together. and today we have had a very

good talk that has started not with a discussion of the documents -- they were coordinated -- and not without discussing iran, north korea, middle east, and not other press shrink -- pressing issues of foreign affairs but we started with economic issues. i said there is a gap in our economic cooperation. looking at the figures of you would've investment of the united states in russia. -- cumulative investment of the united states and russia. it is small and the figures have decreased a bit in terms of russian investment into the u.s. the line it is nearly the same. with all countries would not have such a volume of investment. but if we can compare the figures with figures of foreign

investor presence in the american comment -- economy, other countries, including states that can be compared with russia. it is a difference of 20 or 30 times. so we have a field to work upon. to say nothing about the projects we talked about, high- tech economy establishment and russian federation. we are open to cooperation and we would love to use american experience -- issues of energy, cooperation in transport, and i suggest that some time ago returning to issue of creating a big cargo plane as such a unique experience. only two -- u.s. and russia. issues of nuclear cooperation are important. there can be a lot of economic

projects. it is not the business of presidents to deal with each of them but some key issues are to become told -- controlled by us. relations between business, between those depend on business ties. people to people context are important. it is significant that we do our best so our citizens respect each other, understand each other better, so they are guided by best practices of american- russian culture and not perceived each other through the lens of information that sometimes is provided by mass media. so we should more attentively, more forcefully in -- have more

-- and i count on this. >> thank you, president medvedev and president obama. for president obama first. could you an elaborate on how the year-long negotiations over the new start treaty had advanced u.s. cooperation with russia on iran and give us a sense of when you will pursue or move forward in the united nations or next week with sanctions discussions and what those sanctions might look like? for president medvedev, could you address whether russia could accept sanctions against iran, specifically dealing with its energy industry and energy sector? thank you. >> discussions about sanctions on iran have been moving forward

over the last several weeks. in fact, they have been moving forward over the last several months. we are going to start seeing some ramp up negotiations taking place in new york in the coming weeks. and my expectation is that we are going to be able to secure strong, tough stank -- sanctions on iran this spring. now, i think there are two ways in which the start negotiations have advanced or at least influenced russia-u.s. discussions around iran. the first is obviously president medvedev and i have an able to build up a level of trust and our teams have been able to work together in such a way that we can be frank, we can be clear,

and that helped to facilitate than our ability, for example, to work together jointly to present to iran reasonable options that would allow it to to clearly distanced itself from nuclear-weapons and the pursue a path of peaceful nuclear energy. that wasn't just an approach that was taken by the united states and russia, but an approach taken by the p5 plus 1 and the international atomic energy agency. iata. -- iaea. what we have seen from the start is a host of country is -- countries, led by united states and russia, have centered

around, we are willing to work through diplomatic channels to resolve this issue. unfortunately iran consistently rebuffed our approach. i think russia has been a very strong partner in saying that it has no interest bringing down iranian society or the iranian government but it does have an interest, as we all do, making sure each country is following its international obligations. the second way in which i think the start treaty has and will start discussions around iran is it sent a strong signal that the united states and iran -- the united states and russia are following our obligations and the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. and our interest in iran or

north korea or any other country following the mptnpt, is not signalling out one country but sends a strong signal that all of us have an obligation -- each country has an obligation to follow the rules of the road internationally to ensure a more s%má# @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @r >> we are willing as the two nuclear powers to continue work on reducing our own arsenals i think should indicate the fact that we are willing to be bound by our obligations and we're not asking any other countries to do anything differently but simply to follow the rules of the road that had been set forth and helped to main tent -- to

maintain at least a lack of the use of nuclear weapons over the last several decades despite the cold war. the concern that i have in particular . security threat to the united states, is that with the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, with the state's obtaining nuclear weapons and potentially using them to blackmail other countries or potentially not securing them effectively or passing them onto terrorist organizations, that we could find ourselves in a world in which not only state actors in which not only state actors also potentially non-state actors are in possession of nuclear weapons. and even if they don't use them,

would then be in a position to terrorize of the world community. that is why this issue is so important and that is why we will be pushing very hard to make sure that both smart and strong sanctions end up being in place soon to send a signal to iran and other countries that this is an issue that the international community takes seriously. >> [speaking in russian] >> [interpreter] let us ask ourselves the question. what do we need sanctions for? do we need them to enjoy the act of imposing reprisals or is the object of another one? i'm confident all those present here will say we need sanctions and ordered to prompt one or another individual or state to behave properly, behaved within

the framework of international law while complying with the obligations. therefore when we are speaking about sanctions, i cannot disagree with what has just been said. and this has been the position of the russian federation from the very outset. although they are not always successful, those sanctions should be smart sanctions capable of producing proper behavior on the part of the relevant sides. what sort of sanctions? today we had a very open-minded, frank, and straightforward manner discussing what can be done and what cannot be done. let me put it straight forward. i have outlined our limits for such sanctions, our

understanding of these sanctions, and i said in making decisions like that, i, as president of the russian federation, will proceed from two premises. first, we need to behave properly. secondly, but not least, is to maintain the national interest of our countries. so, smart sanctions should be able to motivate certain parties to behave properly. and i'm confident that our teams that will be engaged in consultations will continue discussing this issue. >> [interpreter] vladimir -- now everyone is concerned whether it will be ratified by the parliament. you mentioned everyone will be working to achieve such

ratification. what difficulty do you see and how dss chances for success? the question is addressed to both presidents. >> [interpreter] well, and all appearances, -- believes we might have more problems with the ratification. perhaps it is true. let me say what i think about this question. of course, such agreements of major importance, international under our constitution and our legislation are subject to ratification by our parliament. and of course for our part we intend to proceed promptly and to do all the necessary procedures to ensure that our parliament, our state duma starts discussing this treaty. i will proceed from the following -- i believe that we

have to ensure the synchronization of the ratification process so that neither party feels in one way or another compromise. -earlier one state would ratify but another party would say sorry, the situation is changed. this is something we have to avoid. that is why i say we have to proceed simultaneously in the conditions of an open-minded and faithful discussion with subsequent ratification by our parliaments. that is what we need. and we will not be found amiss in that regard. >> the united states senate has the obligation of reviewing any treaty and ultimately ratifying it. fortunately there is a strong history of bipartisanship when

it comes to the evaluation of international treaties, particularly arms control treaties. and so i have already engaged in consultations with the chairman of the relevant committees in the united states senate. we are going to broaden that consultation now that this treaty has been signed. my understanding that both in russia and the united states, it will be posted on the internet, appropriate to a 21st century treaty. so people not only within government but also the general public will be able to rebuild it and open and transparent fashion what it is we agreed to -- review in an open and transparent fashion. they will discover this is a well crafted treaty that meet the interest of both countries. that meets the interests of the world. and the united states and russia, reducing its nuclear

arsenals and setting the stage for potentially further reductions in the future. so i'm actually quite confident that democrats and republicans in the united states senate, having reviewed this, will see that the united states has preserved its core national security interests, that it is maintaining a safe and secure and effect of nuclear deterrence, but that we are beginning to once again move forward, leaving the cold war behind, to address the new challenges in new ways. and i think the start treaty represents an important for step in that direction. and i feel confident that we are going to be able to get it ratified. all right, thank you very much, everybody. >> [interpreter] thank you, see you next time. [applause]

,, >> and a second day of coverage with the financial crisis inquiry commission, looking at the role of citigroup. they are in a break and should resume at about 12:30 p.m., and will hear from the former and current comptroller of the agency. tomorrow, executives of fannie and freddie. the commission will focus on subprime mortgages and the role of citigroup. they have to publish a report on the crisis by mid-december. tomorrows live coverage begins on2 on at 9:00 a.m. eastern. later today, here on c-span,

justice ruth better ginsburg will talk about women and the supreme court. that is justice ruth bader ginsberg, live at 3:30 p.m. eastern. >> all this month, see the winners of the video documentary competition. the middle and high school students from 45 states submitted videos on one of the country's credit strengths, or challenges that the country is facing. watch every morning just before "washington journal." and get a 30 a.m., made decisions to make them. for preview visit the web site -- meet the students and made them at 8:30 a.m. >> panelists talked about the format of hearings. from washington's college of

law, at american university, this is about one hour, 20 minutes. >> welcome, everybody. my name is steven i teach constitutional law, and and part of the program on law and government, director of the our topic today is the supreme court confirmation process, play ball. i want to make a few opening remarks, then introduce panelists and get right to their thoughts. we're here to explore what i think is one of the most important, a contentious responsibilities in our democratic process. the nomination and confirmation

of individuals to serve on the supreme court. the process which seems these days to produce little of the way of useful information about the nominee's, and which seems to satisfy almost no one, has become captive to a battle of metaphors. our reference to play ball refers to 2005, the hearings for roberts that famously declared the supreme court justices are like baseball umpires. he said "umpires did not make the rules, they apply them." he likened the role to a limited one. how at the description may or may not be, and what that says about what is at stake in the supreme court nomination and confirmation process is something we will hear more about today.

let me make clear that we are not principally to guess when the next vacancy on the court will occur. there is enough speculation already about justice john paul stevens, nor are we here to guess about who the nominee may be. if candidates want to speak to that, they may. we will consider what if anything can be done about the nomination and confirmation process, in particular the process in the senate. that has been described by senator joe biden, now vice- president, as being like a kabookie dance. senator arlen specter referred to it as a minuet.

i think we will not do as much dancing here, and maybe more substantial consideration about the problems in the process, how to make it a meaningful process, what reforms there are, if any they can help us find what we ought to know about the supreme court nominees before they take the bench. how do we make it a meaningful and effective process? to provide us with that information we have a wonderful panel today. in order in which the will speak, to my far right is bill, teaching with us here at the washington college of law this year. he spent 26 years in the justice

department handling civil rights cases. he served as deputy assistant and attorney-general for civil rights. he has also been the legal director for the alliance for justice program director for the american, constitution american and was chief counsel to the late senator edward kennedy on the senate judiciary committee. speaking second is rachel, a lawyer, and most recently was assistant attorney general and head of the office of legal policy at the justice department under president bush. she served also as associate white house counsel. she is an extraordinary expert in a number of fields. pertinent to today's discussion,

she worked extensively on the nominations of the chief justice roberts and alito and help to prepare them for their hearings. next to a man speaking last -- next to meet and speak unless, ann, founder of the alliance for justice, a public-interest organization founded 31 years ago. -- this is nan. she founded a program in 1995 that has monitored judicial selection activities. the organization is committed to public-interest advocacy in a variety of fields. we are delighted to have all

three here. we will begin with bill. our format is to let each of the three panelists make some opening remarks, then let them have it for a few minutes, then leave time to open it to you for questions and answers. >> thank you very much, steve. when most people think about the confirmation process, they jump immediately to the hearings. this theater which is grand theater, a kabookie theatre, a minuet -- it is sold a large caucus room. inevitably, there are previews in the press about all the

contentious have the means that are about to come about. the hearing is portrayed as a type of make or break drama that will determine whether the nominee goes on to the supreme court. then the hearing begins. the chairman gives an opening speech, the ranking member, the senior democrat, the next republican -- and the speeches go on and on. the tension begins to drain from the room. it becomes clear what is happening then. the president's party is not there to inquire, primarily there to buttress.

to make the nominee look good. the opposition party is there to try to ask probing questions within some very strict limits. the effort is to get the nominee to say something new, preferably something of the dodge a variety -- the gotcha friday, something that could change the course of events. the role of the nominee is to avoid revealing anything new, to appear knowledgeable, particulate, and likable. almost inevitably, the nominee wins. one reason is that it is something of a mismatch between the nominee who lose inevitably someone who has an outstanding career in law, knows the subject

matter extremely well. they are facing senators as joe biden once remarked that to a nominee, this is your day job. we do this part time. that does summit up. the senators tried to get ready, and their staffs worked very hard, but it is difficult, if not impossible to get on a level playing field with an accomplished jurist. they are limited by the requirement that they engage in the 30-round of questions. it shuts off in-depth dialogue. recently, the dialogue has been a cramped description of what supreme court justices do.

things have been boiled down to formulate questions and answers. it is a shame. it is a lost opportunity, first because this is the last time that the nominee, assuming he/she goes on to the court, will face one of our democratic institutions of government. after that, they go behind the curtain. whether appropriate or not, the supreme court is the least transparent institution. the communications among justices remain confidential. so, this is the last required time they will face political institutions. it is also a lost opportunity

because the hearing is generally the only time that is when a significant amount of the american population tune into issues regarding the constitution and legal policy. that has led people to think there must be a better way. eventually i want to get to some proposed ideas, but i want to talk about the other process involved. it is the nomination process. it is the one we might be entering soon if we have a vacancy. the process of the president selecting a nominee. that can be the more important process, since eventually most do end up on the court.

looking at history, presidents pick nominees for a variety of reasons. eisenhower supported -- was purported to have promised a seat in return for political support. plainly, ronald reagan selected sandra day o'connor because she was a woman. it is fair to say that a large part of the reason president obama selected sonia sotomayor was that she was a latina. presidents have also chosen nominees because of their views, and what they think they will do once on the court. is one of the times of conservatives isover the last several years that they have

managed to communicate effectively about legal policy, construct a series of principles that are accessible. the republican party has made those principles an important part of its political agenda, and in turn has made the selection and confirmation of conservative judges a very high political priority. democrats have not performed comparable. it is safe to say the liberals have not been nearly as successful in the packaging the message. certainly not as successful at making it an important part of a political agenda. republican presidents have been willing to spend considerable capital to get their nominees confirmed. democrats have been much more bashful.

until recently it is a descent of the obama administration was headed in the same direction. it did not appear to be making judicial selection a high priority. you have probably all read the stories about how the pace of the judicial selection has been very slow, in fact, at a record slow pace. as of today the administration has sent up something like 56 nominees for over 100 vacancies. that is about half of those from president george bush having said that during a comparable time period. the selection process was interrupted by the selection of the supreme court nominee last summer which seems to have put most things on hold, including senate consideration. only 18 obama judges have been confirmed. that is partly a reflection of

the slow pace, but also partly a reflection of determined republican opposition, and obstruction to confirmations. what is important to recognize is that of the obama nominees, while they are all fine and well qualified people, very few if any can be portrayed true progressives are liberals. for the most part, they have been very moderate selections. the sonia sotomayor selection was very much in that vein, as a moderate court of appeals judge. her record give the opposition very little to go on. republicans were forced to look closely at her outside

statements, of course activities for information to use against her. the sonia sotomayor hearings were disappointing in that they did present an opportunity to challenge some of the conservative dogma that has dominated much of our discourse about courts in recent years. they were not used that way. justice sonia sotomayor backed off of her more controversial statements. she backed away from the president's statement that empathy was an important quality in a judge. as a result, we lost the opportunity to have the grown-up conversation about what court really do.

this time around is a little different. just speculating a moment, i will go where steve said we would not. he cannot stop me from the other end of the table. [laughter] assuming that the next justice to go is justice john paul stevens, the challenge will be a little different for president obama. that is because of justice john paul stevens' role of the court. he has emerged as the liberal wing. a modern replacement will move the court to the right. the question is, whether the president will play it safe, or whether he will go for it in selecting the progress of nominee. interestingly over the weekend, senator kyl give the first

warning when he said republicans would likely vote against democratic nominee, but would filibuster one who was overly and theological. it is interesting that he is already going on record saying that. to say that a republican will likely oppose a nominee. interesting that he assumes republicans would vote against someone not overly physiological -- which raises the question about what the standard is for opposing a supreme court nominee. there is a legitimate concern that a divisive supreme court fight could cause problems. there are threats to the remainder of the presidential agenda, things like financial

regulatory reform, immigration -- if we go there. it seems clear that getting embroiled in a supreme court fight will not encourage republican cooperation on those items. on the other hand, as we have heard, it is unlikely that there will be republican cooperation in any event. the question is whether this is a fight that obama wants now, whether he truly wants to name of progress of nominee. here are some reasons why he might. obviously, the consensus seems to be that democrats will lose seats in the november election, so the democratic majority is probably at its peak at this time. republicans seem as if they will oppose whoever he nominates anyway, so why not shoot for the moon? there is an election coming up. it cuts both ways.

the president should be interested in energizing his base. he must also be concerned about energizing the republican base. it will take seriously a fight against a liberal nominee. health care will help energize the base, but a fight over well- qualified progressive supreme court nominee would provide much more energy. let me mention as an aside that working in the background is the notion that this could be an occasion to look at the filibuster rules. there has been considerable talk lately. a number of democratic senators have said they support reforming the filibuster rules. if there is concerted opposition to an obama nominee, that could

be the occasion, the straw that breaks the camel's back. you will recall that when republicans were faced with democratic opposition, threatened to pull up the constitutional option, but pulled back when a compromise was worked out. that is the dilemma of the president. he can nominate a moderate and likely get confirmation, or go for someone more progressive. it is not clear now where the president's head is. whether he is truly committed to trying to put more progressives, justices on the bench, or whether he is more interested in

going moderate route. and will not go into possible names now, but am open to discussing them later. i will wrap up quickly. returning to the process, i will say there are any number of ideas after about how to change in ranging from abolishing the hearing altogether and going on a nominee's record to having counsel come in to do some questioning at the hearings. to having nominees submit to the positions in advance, or answer written questions in advance to focus the debates. if we're going to go into the confirmation process, this is obviously not the time that anyone will take seriously radical reform in the process, but those are things to take a po-- things to think about in te

meantime. >> before the panel we were e- mail then posed questions. what is wrong with the confirmation process? is there any way to fix it? i jotted down some thoughts. i will base it on my experience at the white house and justice department, helping the president choose judges, and having them to get confirmed. there are many other interesting topics, including filibuster rules. with respect to what is supposedly run with a confirmation process, everyone seems to know what is very political. everyone seems to agree that is a bad thing. what is so political about the process? although i am a historian, i know that confirmations have

been political since the beginning of the republic. george washington bill to get john urtledge nominated. it had something to do with a treaty, nothing with the views about the commerce clause. grover cleveland failed to get two nominees in a row confirmed. that was because [unintelligible] he had a rival who was in new york senator -- political, regional. it is not as though the politicization of the process emerged in the last decade. one of the reasons it is so political now is the press cycle. the nomination i worked on at

doj with a first in the era of pervasive 24-hour news cycle. the first since the predominance of the blogosphere. you have a lot of air time to fill, many reporters looking for a new angle on the story. many competing to come up with the most interesting or scandalous take on things. part of the result is that the press coverage does not focus much on the jurisprudential or legal issues, but more on the background, faly, religion. of the background such as opinions they have written, it tends to focus on the underlying facts of the case, the interesting, salacious aspects. a good example from the roberts confirmation was an opinion he

wrote when he was on the d.c. circuit. the underlying facts with at the d.c. metro police have arrested a 9-year-old girl for eating a french fry on the metro and detained her for three hours. everyone agreed it was idiotic behavior on the part of the police, but the legal issue was whether the girl's fourth and fifth amendment rights had been violated. the headlines said "roberts has no heart." never mind the fact that if you read his opinion, he is very witty and he belittled the behavior of the metro police. but whether they did something stupid is different from whether they did something unconstitutional. there are simpl-- similar examps

from the more recent nominations. most people understood that the sonia sotomayor nomination involved white firefighters. those aspects were focused on, not the legal issues in question. i don't mean to be little press. they're giving people what they want. the other obvious reason the press is so political -- the process is a political, is the stakes are so high. the supreme court dictates everything from the contours of your family relationships to the outcome of presidential elections. no wonder there will be a knockdown, drag out fight over every vacancy.

it probably affects my life more than whether or not we have universal health care, or so, why should it not be more political or highly contested and those things are that'sso, the process is political. the next question is -- is it a problem, is it bad? i can tell you one detrimental affect. it is from personal experience in the administration. the pain of going through the confirmation process deters some good candidates from being considered. there were people during the bush administration who declined because they did not want to go through the process.

that is not good. the president should be able to choose from the whole scope of qualified candidates from the court for the court. at some level process must and should be political. the process necessarily depends on the president and senate. any process that inherently involves the two branches of the government will be political. the subject matter is very imported. the way to ensure that is taken seriously is that they have political accountability for the way they handle it. it could be less ad hominus. there are aspects we could do away with, such as during the roberts and alito hearings of

veiled references to racism or social prejudices. how to fix the process? you raised two things i wanted to mention. a couple of proposals frequently bandied are to first do away with the confirmation hearings altogether. then-senator joe biden remarked that we should do away with the hearings altogether after the one confirmation. they say it is good theater, nominations do not answer questions anyway. i disagree. the hearings to serve a useful purpose. it is useful because we do live in a 24-hour news cycle.

from the moment of confirmation or announcement of one, or identification of the nominee, everyone is spending that. so is the administration, positively. and so on. it is not until the confirmation hearing for the nominee appears before the american public life. there is a benefit to allow the public to see who the nominee as without it going through the filter of someone else's news. there are very good reasons why it every supreme court justice has taken the same basic approach, to not answer all questions asked.

the other suggestion is that perhaps congressional staff should ask questions. i disagree because i think the democratic week elected -- the democratically-elected should be the ones on the hook. it may be true that staff would have more time to get in death, mayor may not be true that there would be less politically motivated to grandstand, but even if those things are true it is still important to have some political accountability there. i do think republicans made a bit of a step in the right direction for the sonia sotomayor hearing. i did not hear the kind of ad hominem accusations i did during

the riots and alito hearings. but i think we are stuck in the process for the foreseeable future and i have no suggestions as to how to fix it. >> thank you for having me here, and having this panel. we have done this a couple of years in a row. speaking of the press, i knew steve when he was a reporter for "the wall street journal." i just remember your stories about the d.c. circuit. this guy knew the judges in made -- and made a real effort trying to bring to life that circuit switches, sounds very parochial, but the d.c. circuit took many of us -- look what

they did yesterday in the case. i really credit steve for setting the standard for reporters. much of what i think i had to say has been covered by both bill and rachel. in the run-up to a supreme court nomination and is always a very exciting time to me. i do not know what justice stevens will decide. within a week or two we may have an idea whether he will announce his retirement this year or next. but for us, it is always, and i know this sounds of cliches, but a teachable moment. -- i know that it sounds so cliched. for most of us in america, not those of you in moscow, but most people have no idea what judges

do. most americans feel as if they cannot have an opinion about the judge. to americans, judges are up there, and most of us are a little intimidated by them and the idea of justice. every year we do focus groups in philadelphia. we're holding one tomorrow. it is just to gauge what people think about the courts. it is amazing to me that almost no one in groups of 35, 40 people we bring together every year has any idea how many justices there are on the courts. no one generally can name a supreme court justice. if you are my age which is a little above, 55 -- you might

know clarence thomas because we lived through a very acrimonious hearing before the senate judiciary committee around his nomination. generally speaking, a supreme court nomination is an opportunity just for the american people to learn a little bit more about judges and what they do. i'm curious with a show of hands, did any of you have an opportunity to see the hearings of sonia sotomayor, or roberts, or alito? so, you have a little bit of a sense as to the protocol. and of course, presidents, most -- well, most republican presidents look forward with tremendous energy and enthusiasm around the

appointment process. it reminds me of the story when richard nixon was president. one day someone comes into his office and says, mr. president, i think that thurgood marshall is really sick. richard nixon was getting his hopes of the little bit that maybe he would have an opportunity to name his successor. so we send some high-level official from the justice department over to thurgood marshall's hospital room, and a lawyer now some adore -- no answer. the lawyer slowly pushes the door in and walks up to his bed. the room was very dark.

he was lying on the bed with his eyes closed. the lawyer goes right up to his bedside, and as he approaches, thurgood marshall lift up one in says, not yet. -- and says, not yet. you could just feel how eager richard nixon was to make a change on the supreme court. as bill pointed out, if justice stevens steps down, this is not just any regular justice, but he has really been the leader on the court. if you look at the dissent most recently in the citizens united case, but also in the seattle school district case and others, this justice is articulating the anger in a very

emotional way to the current rightward tilt of the supreme court. he has been critically important leader, and is also known as a master technician -- tactician and strategist. when in the majority he has been able to fashion majority decisions and a sign the riding -- and a sign the writing to a moderate, centrist justice like sandra day o'connor as a means to bring her over to his camp. if he decides to step down, this will be a very important moment for the country. as has been said, democrats and republicans viewed judges and justices very differently.

at the end of the clinton administration, republicans prevented 60 judicial nominees from being confirmed. 60. in contrast -- and you might read the column today where the reporter gratuitously and reporterthanks democrats for confirming almost all of george bush's judicial nominees during the bush administration. so, the approaches are different. not only have republicans blocked the confirmations of many really good judicial nominees -- and interestingly, these are not liberal nominees. these are very centrist nominees put forth by president obama.

it is assumed, as by arlen specter of the weekend, that there will be a filibuster of over anyone and the president obama since to the senate. over the recent time there have only been four attempted filibusters -- one to sam alito which withered on the vine. there were two attempted filibusters' against justice rehnquist, both in 1971 when he was up for associate justice, then again in 1986 when he was being elevated to chief justice. the only successful filibuster recently was one nominated by president johnson. it was a very close friend of

president johnson's. there were only a few days of debate over his nomination. his nomination kind of language. then he withdrew. filibusters are very rare things over supreme court nominations, but frankly i would not put it past republicans to try. partly, republicans over time going back to 1954, right after the landmark case of brown vs. board of education, there were bumper stickers appearing on cars, primarily in the south, saying impeach earl warren. that decision kind of set out a firestorm among people, primarily republicans around

judges. the old truck conservative base of the republican party cares passionately about who becomes a judge. republicans love to take the issues and talk about courts as a way to galvanize the altar conservative base of their party. -- the altar-conservative base of their party. i was struck several times during the bush administration where right before an election george bush would all the seven began to talk about judgeship. was it because he personally care? no, i don't think so, rachel. you probably disagree. it was more because he knew that

by uttering the word "judge" it would galvanize the base of his party. it is what bill said, the democratic base does not yet care as much as the right wing base does. as long as that is the case, it will continue to be an uphill battle for democratic presidents to push on this front. one final thing, then to questions. in terms of reforming the process, i think it is very difficult to think about reforms, except for one thing. i do remember speaking to a democrat. this was during the bush years. one of the nominees, perhaps jay bybee who now sits on the ninth

circuit of appeals and who is the author of some of the torture memos, he refused to give it any of his memos that he approved of when he ran the office of legal counsel, to the senate went up for confirmation. i remember saying to a democratic senator, just do not show up at the hearing. do not go. if they do not provide you the documents, then how can you have a hearing? the senator told me, but, nan, the cameras will be there. i cannot waste the opportunity. we're kind of stuck with the process as it exists. i would make one suggestion. of love to see the republican senators and the democratic senators each appoint a lawyer to ask questions -- i would love to see it -- after they go through their questioning of the

nominee. that would be to tie up loose things, press harder on some points. it would make for much more substantive discussion. it would perhaps be more instructive not only for the senate in committee, but for americans. other than that, we are stuck with what we have and must make the most of it. so, i look forward to your questions and comments. >> before that let's take a couple of minutes to see if anyone on the panel would like to respond to anyone else on the panel. rachel? >> i made a fatal mistake of not bringing a pen with me. umm --obviously, i take issue. i hate discussing the numbers.

which party obstructed more of the other parties' nominees. you can use numbers to prove anything. for example, and i don't remember the numbers. one that i do remember, during the last two years of the clinton administration, 18 judges were confirmed. during the last years of the bush administration it was three. it was much lower. you can use numbers any way that you want. but parties worked strenuously to block the confirmation of nominees from the other party. the vast majority sail through with barely any attention paid to them. it is very rare that a district court nomination becomes controversial.

-- nominee becomes controversial. if they do, there is something extraordinary in the background. off on the circuit level, even there over the last 20 years, most have gone through without much controversy. there are always some statements about why the person should not be confirmed. at the end of the day, they don't make a concerted effort to block. both parties pick their battles. >> i want to agree with rachel on a couple of things. obviously, hearings are here to stay. giving staff larger role will be difficult because centers will not want to give up the limelight. on the other