from every country of the world and 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 road toward traveling this country organizing community-based screenings of countdown to zero, enlisting more people in the global zero movement and building momentum towards the release over the film on july 9. . .

nuclear weapons is a key part of that gap. these monstrous weapons,

frankenstein of history is something the people are aligned around getting rid of i think what global zaire joe doing is moving this agreement from a place of common agreement to shared. i think people agree across the world that this system is broken. that it's indefensible, unsustainable and unsafe. there's a lot of attention on particular problems like iran, but we're look at dozens more irans in the future if we don't fix this broken system. so avaaz is globalized around this objective. we're going to see i think a surge of mobilization around this particular objective, the nuclear summit. i think we'll see hundreds of thousands of people mobilizing for the summit next week. in the coming months we'll see members driving the agenda

forward, organizing around the film and other onives in the action plan. then i think in the coming years we'll see the growth of an unstoppable movement to realize the dream is zero. thanks. >> richard? >> good morning, everyone. in 1988, i came to washington, d.c., as a newly minted christian clergyman and a conservative. and it was one of my first actions as a young man to propose an idea that had never been considered, at least by my fellow evangelicals. and it went like this. invite the president of the united states to speak to evangelicals on the morality of nuclear weapons and the cold war. mind you, this was early 1983. well, the proposal went to the white house. and surprisingly enough, i got

a phone call back from the speechwriters. they said, come meet with us. i said, i'd be delighted to do so. and we did. and what happened was the following. on march 6, 1983, president ronald reagan delivered a blockbuster speech called "the evil empire" speech. liberals decried it, conservatives applauded. and a great morale issue developed and followed. a great debate. i was a conservative. i didn't notice in those days one line in that famous speech in which then president reagan proclaimed as he later did and is recounted in the movie his intention, his wishes to eliminate entirely from the face of the planet nuclear weapons. i didn't hear it because maybe i didn't want to hear it.

i changed. millions of americans have quhanged their views as well over these years and now view 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've never changed your mind about anything, pinch yourself, you may be dead. i don't think anyone here would accuse lawrence bender of being clergyman o theologian. isn't that right? ok. thank you very much. but i will point this out. whether intentionally or not, lawrence bender and the others associated with this film, an extraordinary film, what they have done is aim at the heart of what theologians describe as the two tendencies, twin tendencies, which must be repudiated. the first tendency is to

trivialize the nuclear horror or to become so accustomed to the possibility of it you see that we lose our sense of outrage, of indignation at the idea of it all. and the second twin tendency is to become so pessimistic about the future, you see, as to acquiesce to it in helplessness. and so both indifference and pessimism are inappropriate. theologians say. i say more than inappropriate. they're wrongheaded. they are the sins of omission if not comission, this indifference and this pessimism, and this extraordinary film "countdown to zero" i think goes right at them. lawrence, did you know that? maybe not. but you have. on behalf of my fem low faith community, i say we are together with you in this, christian, jewish, muslim,

buddhist, others, all affirm what t.s. elliott in 1939 said. "the fact that a problem will require the attention of the greatest minds and challenge a generation to solve it is no excuse for postponing addressing it." i like one point in the movie. it's slightly humorous if you'll pardon me for recounting it. but the founder of ground zero, roger molander, was worried, he was told at a meeting at the pentagon years ago about, quote, getting too excited about nuclear war that would end the world when, in fact, he was told only 500 million would die. only 500 million would be killed. i reached for my hat, he said,

knowing how woody allen felt in "annie hall" when he excused himself from a conversation by saying that he had an appointment back on planet earth. on behalf of all of planet earth and all of mankind, i say we have this vision. it's a vision for a world without nuclear weapons, a vision, i say often, without a strategy is a hallucination. believe me, friends and colleagues, we know we are not hallucinating. this is possible. this strategy is very clear. and we ask you to join us. and we will win this. some would say, well, for the gipper, back to ronald reagan. remember? i would say, we'll win it for all of mankind forever. thank you very much. >> thank you. now to talk specifically and briefly so can you get a chance to ask some questions, i'm

going to turn to jeff who in turn will introduce lawrence bender. jeff? >> thank you very much. good morning, everybody. thank you for coming. on behalf of participate media, i'm delighted to say a few words about our new film "countdown to zero." as a bit of a background, i started participate in 2004 to be a media company focused on social change in the biggest issues in the world. and since that time we have released 23 films that have been nominated for 17 academy awards including such films as "charlie wilson's war," "the kite runner," "syriana," and "good night, good luck" about civil liberties in the press. we've also won oscars twice for the documentary "the cove" and "for an inconvenient truth" several years ago. the film "countdown to zero" started about three years ago when i had returned from a trip to the middle east.

it seemed that everybody was talking about iran and the nuclear weapons. but the bigger issues of nuclear accidents and nuclear terrorism were largely off the radar so much like we had done with climate change, we wanted to do a film about nuclear weapons to get it back on the public agenda. and as it happened, one of my first calls was to lawrence bender who we had worked together on "an inconvenient truth." and he pointed me to matt brown and bruce of "global zero." and quickly we all agreed to do a film together. for participate, the film is just part of a major pub lake wariness campaign that we are launching in partnership with global zero. the campaign will be a coalition of 50 or so organizations including on-line partners like avaaz, myspace, civil partners like grean -- greenpeace and many others. by the end of the year we expect several million people

will see the film, either in theaters, on d.v.d., or our partner are the history channel. it will be the biggest public awareness campaign about nuclear weapons since the 1980's. as i'm sure you'll agree, the timing could not be better so thank you very much for coming here today. i'll now turn it over to the film's producer who is neither a clergyman nor a theologian, laurence bender to say a few words. >> thank you, jeff. i'll just be brief. the movie is coming out july 9. magnolia is releasing the movie. lucy walker is the director. it has a kind of extraordinary lineup of people in the movie. president carter, president musharraf, president gorbachev, tony blair, the president from south africa, some great people on this planl, valerie plane, ambassador richard burke and others. i'm working with participate media.

and as participate media has done in all of their movies, we're working together to create, just like we did on "an inconvenient truth," a coalition of n.g.o.'s, students, faith-based leaders, thought leaders, political leaders, internet gurus. and just like "an inconvenient truth" there were a million sets of eyeballs on this movie before it came out. that's what we hope to do with this movie to create an awareness to create an awareness to create the motivation for public will and to create change. the movie is terrifying. it's edge of the seat. it's eye-opening. i think at this point we can introduce the teaser as a way to do that, we're going to show you a three-minute piece on the movie's film.

>> we estimate that there are about 25,000 nuclear weapons in the world. the 47 bomber disappeared over the mediterranean. nuclear weapons of war were never located. >> six nuclear warheads hanging from the wing of a b-52 bomber, and the crew didn't know they were there. >> sky hawks carrying nuclear weapon rolled off an aircraft carrier in the sea of japan. the weapon was never recovered. >> these weapons could fall into other people's hands. >> all the black market seizures, that i'm aware of, were caught. >> at a russian naval base in the early 1990's. potatoes were guarded better. >> we do know various groups have been focused on acquiring

we will we will -- weapons of mass destruction, in particular, nuclear weapons. >> the risk that you have today is they are freeped start trading that nuclear weapons technology. >> the objective of al qaeda is to, quote, kill four million americans. you're not going to get to kill four million people by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. >> no chance of defecting in cargo containers. >> size of a group fruit could level a city. >> even a well disciplined, very professional united states military made very serious mistakes with nuclear weapons. >> a training tape was in a computer at norad. >> a single switch preventeded a nuclear explosion. >> killing numbers that the human imagination simply cannot comprehend. >> having enriched uranium is

within the grips of any country. >> it doesn't take a manhattan project to make a bomb. >> all the forces could kill over 100 million russians and americans within 30 minutes. >> i say with conviction, america's commitment to see a world without nuclear weapons. >> would it not be better to do away with them entirely? >> the ultimate number is none. >> none >> none. >> i think we'd be better off without them. >> zero >> no nuclear weapons. >> zero >> zero >> zero nuclear weapons. >> none. none. >> the weapons of war must be abolished before they abolish us. [applause]

>> all right. let's open it up. any questions? to any members of our panel. jill? >> jill dougherty, cnn. >> we got a mike person here. he was asleep. >> the question i have is a really, really simple one. it's i guess maybe in a sense a more technical one. but right now we're talking about iran. and one of the rationals that people who oppose what you're talking about is, iran, people believe, trying to develop a nuclear weapon. why should the united states get rid of its nuclear weapons if iran is trying to get them? doesn't it make us extremely vulnerable? >> well, i think the simple answer to thatcy don't think any responsible person, say that the united states should unilaterally disarm, go to zero

if a country like iran possesses nuclear weapons. that's why in a very carefully documented plan that an international commission that global zero convened over a year ago to produce an action plan for getting to zero talks about negotiated reductions. they begin with the united states and russia, include other nuclear powers. and in the process all existing nuclear states move down to zero in a politically feasible, in a technically 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, perhaps, saudi arabia, egypt, turkey and others in the region. that would be, in my view and i think in the view of others that would be a show zs stopper. -- showstopper. but if we are successful in generating -- and when i say we, i'm not talking about just global zero. i'm talking about the united states, other members of the international community, are successful in revitalizing the consensus against the spread of nuclear weapons, you begin to change the decision matrix of the iranian leadership. right now any government in tehran has to weigh the pros andany government in tehran has to weigh the pros and cons of going nuclear. and if they recognize that the political costs, of going

nuclear, that there is an emerging consensus not only on the part of nuclear powers but worldwide -- and this will be tested next month at the review conference. you go in raise the nuclear threshold for any country, including iran, for going nuclear. so nobody is advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament. but what we are trying to do is refocus, refocus attention to proliferation. one last comment here. let me remind you that the 1968 nuclear nonproliferation treaty had embodied in it a tradeoff, a deal, a bargain. what it said was that existing non-nuclear countries signed up, committed themselves to remaining non-nuclear. but the existing nuclear powers committed themselves to a

serious effort of nuclear disarmament. and in past nuclear proliferation review conferences, those non-nuclear countries have justifiably criticized the united states and other nuclear powers for not seriously pursuing their commitments under the treaty. but with the start treaty with the follow-on of negotiation that further reduce u.s. and russian nuclear warheads, and with a multilateral, potential multilateral, armed control forum where every nuclear state participates, we strengthen, i think, the barriers to further nuclear spread. and that's the logic behind the global zero concept. it's also the political logic, i think, behind the obama administration's efforts to link the new start agreement with its goal of nonproliferation.

>> hi. susan with reuters. ambassador burt, your statement says and i think you said that you're calling for strong commitments to be made by the 47 leaders participating in the nuclear security summit next week. i just wondered if you could be a little more specific. give us some ideas of some things that you'd like to see them do next week that would be meaningful and that people couldn't just say, well, that's all just a bunch of talk, nothing's going to happen. i'd also love to hear anything more you want to say about how some kind of multilateral forum could be set up on nukes, countries that you named earlier. you know, i immediately think, well, gee, would they come? anything more that you want to say about, you know, getting china, israel, pakistan all in one room talking about this? that would be interesting. >> i'll come back to that. but i want to ask valerie, who's really the expert on the nuclear security summit and the

loose nukes issue, to address that. that. >> i'm not the expert on the summit. i'll say that. but what i can speak to is my experience as a c.i.o. covert officer. and having looked at the nexus of terrorism and nuclear weapons, it's absolutely terrifying. and i'll just speak for myself personally. as i said in my statement, when i worked for the c.i.a., i thought this was the most this important issue right there. i still believe that but i have evolved in thinking that the only way we can proceed is in fact, draining the swamp. because it is such a different environment. her majesty spoke about the cold war and a childhood of thinking about nuclear explosion. very different today.

that was very much a bipolar world and it was much mover contained. now, truly the genie is out of the bottle. and when you have the possibility that terrorists -- which the film speaks to, you know, stealing a bomb or buying a bomb. that then changes the entire calculus of how to pursue this. for me i'm absolutely delighted ton involved with this project because i truly believe having worked on this in an operational and field sense, understanding that the only way to finally prevenality -- prevent any accidental or terrorists getting a hold of nuclear weapons is by completely going to zero. it's naive to say, as ambassador burt was saying, that everyone just signs on and believes that this is a good idea. no. it's a process. it's a place to start. you have an objective.

it has to be very defined steps to get to that. but we feel so fortunate, everyone here on this panel, this idea first bubbled up, you said, about 18 months ago, two years. 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 just address the issue of moving to a broader negotiation. nuclear proliferation happened because of countries' perceived security concerns. the united states obviously was the first nuclear power. the cold war was getting underway. the soviet union off yutionly believed that it -- obviously believed that it needed the capability. then china felt exposed and it needed to go nuclear. china, in my judgment, was probably the major trig tore a

serious indian nuclear program. and that obviously led to the domino effect of pakistan and so on. you've got to reverse that. the way you reverse that is, first of all, for the two leading nuclear powers to demonstrate their support and to be credible to demonstrate their support and to be credible to go down low enough levels so that other countries are enticed into the process. ironically, one of the things that will lead, in my judgment, the united states and russias to go to lower levels is the recognition that if they do go far enough in a follow-on negotiation, say down to 1,000 nuclear warheads or so, they have an opportunity to bring, say, china into the process. that's an incentive for russia to go down lower if it knows that it has an opportunity to bring china in. china has incentives to come into the process if it thinks that the russians will go low enough. and once the chinese are prepared -- and i'm not predicting this is going to happen in a couple of weeks or

months. the chinese take their time in evaluating their options. and they're pretty opaque in this process. but we in this international commission i referred you to earlier, that worked on this, we had chinese participation. so the chinese are beginning to think about this issue. but once the chinese are prepared psychologically to come to the negotiating table, then i think you have the indians. if you can tell the indians who are knewer nuclear power and are worried about the chinese, that the chinese are prepared to think seriously about reductions, then i think politically it becomes easier for the indians to come in. and needless to say that then opens the door to pakistan. so that logic, i think, can be reversed just as proliferation led to more nuclear powers, i think the process of going down to nuclear zero cannot only create that barrier that i was talking about before to creating new nuclear powers, but you create mutual

incentives for existing nuclear countries to lower their weapons in a proportionate way in a verifiable way, and in a technically feasible way down to very low numbers. >> eleanor. >> hi, eleanor. >> do you have any coordination with the white house on this or the other anti-proliferation group which just had a screening of their film at the white house? and secondly, what are the factors that suddenly have made this issue rise to the surface? at least in the media's consciousness. >> well, as you know, as a former member of the media, i can say the media is always kind of late to the party. i'm not surprised about that. but, yeah. there is obviously a lot of overlap here. in a trivial way, the narrator of the film that was shown in the white house was a guest at

our so-called global zero summit earlier this year in paris, michael douglas. but that, as i say, is just more of a celebrity factoid. more importantly -- i mean, we tell the white house and the obama administration what to do all the time, like everybody else in this town. but seriously, we try to be thought leaders. i think we are ahead of the policy-making curve. we're ahead of the bureaucracy. a lot of the concepts that were outlined in the nuclear posture review, the goal sets for the new start treaty and we think the process will be set for the follow-on agreement. we hope and expect and kind of lobby the administration to adopt so we're kind of participants in the policy process by virtue of being there. that said, we're not cheerleaders just for barack obama.

and we're not freeped criticize the administration. when we think they are take ache wrong turn. but i have to say to answer your basic question of why is this issue kind of moved up to the front burner, yes, i think it's because of groups like ours and also the so-called gang of four, henry kissinger, george schultz -- by the way, george schultz and my old boss participated in our meeting in paris. the real reason is barack obama , to be honest about it. here's a guy who talked about this issue when he's running for president. having been elected, his first meeting with the president of the russian federation, dmitri medvedev, got the russian statement that supported the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons. they agreed to get back into a new negotiation.

and then barack obama in a historic first, chaired a u.n. security council meeting at the united nations last fall and gotten dorsment for the global zaire -- -- got endorsement for the global zero concept. he has been proactive in the lockdown in the summit that you'll see next week. so this is an example where one man with a vision can make a difference. but if i can make an analogy here, it's a bit like, i think, the health care debate in the sense that there are a lot of obstacles here. and one of the biggest obstacles that barack obama faces is his own bureaucracy. you know, an entrenched military establishment that has grown accustomed to deploying and using nuclear weapons, even

when increasingly we don't deter with nuclear weapons. we are detered by nuclear weapons. as more and more weak, small countries, get them, our national security will suffer. not theirs. but it's difficult to kind of turn this super tanker around. and i think we believe that in that sense barack obama needs some allies. and on this issue i think we are prepared to be an ally. >> thank you so much. diane perlman, with "huffington post" and also working with presentations for the m.p.t. >> [inaudible] >> speaking of obstacles to getting to zero, there are a lot of false beliefs and rationals, like the mantra of

deterrence. and i'm actually working with a group of n.g.o.'s on challenging deterrence theory. there's also the spiral theory of escalation. and the better alternative is reciprocated initiative retention reduction. we need drastic retention reduction. so there's the underlying conflict like, for example, iran, coercive, punitive techniques are likely to provoke defiance where as something like a grand bargain. you know, second order change, changing the nature of our relationships so that we don't feel -- you know, have the fear and insecurity that drives a desire, a belief in that. so there's a lot of sort of mindless acceptance of deterrence as a rational for maintaining this. and as long as nuclear weapons exist, we need a safe, reliable

deterrent. we don't call them nuclear weapons anymore. we call them nuclear deterrent so i'm wondering what people think or if you're addressing the underlying -- dealing with the underlying conflict. >> you mentioned several concepts that i have never heard of. but maybe we can talk later and you can explain them to me. i don't think we're taking on the sort of fundamental foundation of deterrence. but i think what we're saying is the world has changed. the reverend here talked about his change. i'm not in that school. i don't think i have changed. the world has changed. i think there was -- and this is just my own personal view. there was a role for nuclear weapons during the cold war. we lived in a bipolar system. we were adversaries. and you can make the argument -- you may not agree with it, but you can make the argument

that nuclear weapons were stabilizing during that period and we avoided a conflict. you can also make the point that we came, at some points like in the human missile crisis, much too close to a conflict. but my view and i think the view that we endorse in global zero is that world is gone. that threat has changed. even my old bureaucratic adversary and friend, richard pearl, has said, on the record, that the likelihood of the united states and russia going to war is nil. i can't imagine a situation where we're going to go to full-scale war with russia or china that threat has faded away. we face a new range of threats where traditional deterrence theory really doesn't make a lot of sense. and my answer to eleanor it makes more sense for weaker states. in the bipolar cold war era nuclear weapons made strong powers stronger. in my judgment, in the era

we're entering, terrorism, failed states, and proliferation, nuclear weapons make weak states stronger and they junt cut our national security -- undercut our national security as a result so we have to evaluate con settlements -- concepts of deterrence in light of international conditions. >> i'd like to get the benefit of the general's input. >> jack? >> i think ambassador burt has it right that in the 1940's and 1950's, there was a significant role for nuclear deterrents. if you remember the most recent release of the cuban missile crisis debate, the one thing that was sort of hanging over president kennedy was the use of weapons. so in one sense there was a negative. and in another sense it prevented them from make something extremely stupid mistakes.

as we evolve through to the point of the collapse of the soviet union, the real issue became control of nuclear torle -- matriel. what happens to the scientists, what happens to the torle -- material i think that's where pandora's box opened. this is why organizations like global zero have found traction. because people begin to realize that deterrence as a concept has changed. could conventional weapons reach the point of sophistication? they unto themselves have a deterrent capability. the issue, i think that we're all going to face over the next 20 years is, how do we manage this legacy of material people and systems. the issue, for example in great

britain today is, what happens to the trident program that britain has? very, very expensive. they have a huge budget deficit. taking one trident offline will not significantly change the balance of the equation. if france lost its strategic capability what would change in europe? so i think there are real political issues. i think there are budgetary issues. and i think there's a growing realization that weapons of mass destruction, whether released by a terrorist or released by a western civilized state, both immoral and, frankly, has lost its uetiment. -- utility. >> global zero has from the outset actually taken into account exactly what you were referring to before. in terms of our recognition -- in terms of the political component of our work -- and

this has come out in our meetings as well, the two different summits we've had over the last two years. the importance of recognizing and addressing national or regional insecurities -- this is an international movement. that's one thing. think it's important to state. because the film is going to be released internationally, as well. i hope i'm not speaking out of turn here. it will be first released internationally, at the festival. i guess. but ideally it is also going to be a resource for mobilizing people in countries around the world, especially in nuclear states. and the political component of our work is one which is recognizing that different states and regions have different sets of historical and current realities that are driving, in many cases, those nuclear weapons programs. but they also -- we have a range of opportunities that are provided by economic and other

factors, especially grow ago ware ns that we hope this film and our movement can play a role in mobilizing that we can use, perhaps, to achieve our objective. but absolutely what you mentioned earlier is a component part of what we've been talking about from the outset. >> so my question actually -- in the last couple of days president obama has etionca lated the world war -- escalated the wars with iran it seems like films like yours could play a role in convincing countries such as iran to deescalate. know that lawrence went to india and pakistan, more success in pakistan and not as much in india. are you going to try to take the film to iran? presumably there's connections

in syria. will you take it to the middle east and around there to convince people instead of being part of this escalation of war of words between the u.s. government and the media, is to be part of joining hands on global zero campaign? >> i'll address the film part. someone else can address the escalation of words. i was just in india. i wasn't in pakistan, actually. we tried to shoot in pakistan. it was very difficult -- it's easy to get in as a journalist or as a tourist but much harder -- we ended up filming president musharraf in london. but i actually was in india, screened the movie in mumbai in dehli. we had a phenomenal group of people there. part of the global zero people that hosted the screening in dehli was general -- an air force marshall. he used to oversee the entire air force of india, primarily overseas, the nuclear arsenal.

and some other pretty extraordinary people that were in charge of the arsenal. in 1998, they thought it was in the national interest to have nuclear weapons. and a dozen years laterer -- later they felt it's now in their interest to get rid of them. not unilaterally, of course. it was a terrific place to be, my first time in india. but i had -- most people around the world have no -- just like when we made the movie about global warming. most people didn't understand that the climate crisis was a serious issue. when people saw al gore's presentation it becomes very obvious. and it was the same with this movie in india. and i have commitments from people there. there's 500 million cell phones in india, 19 million cell phones sold last month. and one of the people that's involved with the technology on cell phones committed to getting 10 million zero heroes,

10 people -- 10 million foam sign the declaration -- people to sign the declaration in support of this movie, in support of this campaign. so the answer, as queen noor said, it's an international campaign. we want all the countries to see it. the middle east, everywhere. it's important for nuclear states and nonnuclear states, obviously, because this is a global effort. >> we have members of global zero, our founding leaders, come from pakistan, from india, from china, from most nuclear states. and god willing the future all will be represented on global zero. and they are hopeful. we've had long, lengthy -- you could describe people better detail than i, perhaps. but long, loning think discussions about all aspects of the challenges we face. these are the former architects in many cases, of the nuclear programs who do believe in zero or they wouldn't be with us but

also believe that their countries can be brought around. but it's going to require a phased, verifiable, and a processen with forcement mechanisms as well. but they do believe it's possible. >> quaid quad -- [question inaudible] >> i'm willing to go with you. >> the beauty of film is it goes all over the world. a still story. a couple of years ago i was in india in a very remote part of the himalayan foothills, staying in a place where the roads ran out. we were carrying packs. we were in a little hostile with no electricity. one of the kids who was there said, oh, "an inconvenient truth." he had seen the movie. he had shown it to all of his friends. we hope to get this film to as

many places as we possibly can, especially place that need to see it like iran, syria, and so on. >> ambassador burt, david of "mother jones" magazine and politicsdaily.com. the treaty will lead to somewhat of a political fight in the senate and arms control advocates are already worried that senator jon kyl and some other republicans will be obstructionists and seem to be positioning themselves at least to make the rad fiction process hard if not impossible. and so what's your message to those republicans as this whole new front line in washington begins? >> well, you know, i can say as a former political appointee of two republican administrations that i think it's going to be very difficult for anybody to

come up with a very strong set of coherent arguments against this freety -- treaty. the treaty itself, as you know very well, does not take sweeping stopeds reduce -- steps to reduce either the russian or the u.s. deployed arsenal. if you view it in a kind of -- just as a snapshot, it's a very small step towards further reductions. i think the importance of the treat ji broader in terms of putting the process on track again. it's been off track for nearly a decade. it's important because it could lead then to a much more profound set of agreements. following treaty.

but the treaty itself, in my judgment, will be ratified because i think the administration and the russian side have not kind of fundamentally changed the structure of the arms control process and the treaty that i helped negotiate in the 1990's. so, yeah, there will be some outliars who will vote against it. but i am confident that someone with the integrity and credibility of richard luger, 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 they'll want, for instance, the nuclear labs and other special interests taken

care of in the context of this treaty. and that's not new to arms control. so i think people are positioning themselves to engage in that kind of wheeling and dealing. but i think anybody who would vote against this treaty needs to think about the consequences of what would be the signal we would end so 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 materiels worldwide? what would it do to the u.s. leadership position around the world on not just nuclear arms control but a whole range of international order issues? in my judgment it's very clear what the consequences would be. and for that reason i'm even

given the kind of dysfunctional political situation that exists now in the u.s. senate, i am still optimistic that it will be ratified. >> our live coverage of the event continues today with appearances by louisiana governor bobby gindle, rick perry, and former presidential candidate sarah palin. you can watch it here on c-span beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satelite corp. 2010] >> what in the world is more ridiculous right now than american politics? >> for the past year using clips from various media

outlets, including c-span, the gregory brothers have become viral hit makers with auto-tune the news. we'll talk to them sunday night on c-span's "q&a." >> c-span, our public affairs con stent available on television, radio, and online. and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. sign up for our alert e-mails on c-span.org. >> this year's c-span student competition asked students to create a five to eight-minute video dealing with one of our country's greatest strengths or challenges the kptry is facing. here's one of the third-place winners. ♪

>> i'm a 13-year-old living in a city known as bend, located in oregon's high desert. i live in a neighborhood that most would consider to be an average american neighborhood. three years ago when a house in my neighborhood was for sale there would be so many buyers that the house would sell for well over the asking price. people would literally fight to buy the house in my neighborhood. today the same houses sit empty. foreclosure notices, rental signs, and for sale signs have replaced yard decorations. when i moved here seven years ago, my neighborhood was the best place in town for holidays. at christmas almost every house

was lit up, making it a magical place. now you're lucky to see one house per street with christmas lights or even a christmas tree in the window. it was also the best place to be for halloween. the people all over bend would bring their kids here by the truckload. my mom would easily go through five industrial he will-sized bags of candy and still have kids knocking. this year we barely got through one regular-sized bag. my neighborhood used to be full of kids and adults walking their dogs and playing. now there are only a few of us left. many have left in search of work or to live with relatives. or because they have lost their jobs and homes. both those left have made cutbacks, many hanging on by a thread, looking for jobs and/or work and are behind on their house payments.

>> it won't peak until about 2011 or 2012. we have a long ways to go. what we're seeing right now is just the tip of the iceberg. >> one thing people forget to think about is how the challenging economy affects more than just adults. the homeless rate of kids in the school district is on the rise. according to ktvz news, the number of oregon homeless students grew by more than 2,000 last school year alone. the majority of these homeless students were enrolled in the elementary school level. in just a five-year span between 2003 and 2008, the number of homeless students had already increased by 10,000 students.

the federal government defined homeless students as those students who lack fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence. the federal program director says that this includes family that are doubled up, students living in shelters, hotels, motels, and cars or other outdoor areas or with friends for one day or more during the school year. according to the school's website, 37% of students enrolled in the school district receive free or reduced lunches in 2008. that number will most likely increase as more families struggle to make ends meet and more families rely on schools to help feed their hungry children.

having proper clothing for students such as warm coats, hats, and gloves is also a big issue living here in bend where temperatures have already dropped into the negative teens this winter. people are finding it more and more difficult in the current economy to get their kids and their own basic needs met. these basic needs include shelter, food and clothing. i am just one boy in one town. but this is america everywhere.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satelite corp. 2010] >> to see all of the entries in the student competition, visit studentcam.org. >> on c-span today, "washington journal" is next, live with your phone calls. then the international atomic energy agency's nuclear security director previews next week's nuclear weapons summit. and in today's session of the southern republican leadership conference we'll hear from jar palin and governors rick perry and bobby gindle. .