basic things that young people need are the basic things that all kids need and that is the stability and continuity of families, of being able to have continuity and education. the standards are actually pretty simple. how would you treat your own children and what would you want for them? that is what we need to think about when we think a ag kidsing outof kids aging out of foster care host: there are young girls forced out of their homes and a brute -- and abuse to go into several foster homes, what happens? you have these young boys and girls that come from broken homes, black and white but most report. guest: host: it is a tragic situation when families retail

level when they are so dysfunctional that the person -- a young person cannot live there through neglect or abuse. that is really the primary reason for foster care is for the protection of the child. having taken that step to protect the child, what will we do for this child and what will that child needs? what kind of family members might be out there? what kind of support in connections to and then hold the child is? will it take -- what will it take to raise the odds of that the child can achieve something? his complicated, difficult, -- it is complicated, difficult, charged with emotion. there is no greater power than to take children from their families. i think we need to take great care when we do that and take great care in arranging for their stability, there permanency, and what we can do

to help them going forward. host: teenagers are the ones easily led down the wrong path to their lack of stability. changing that would probably help. we'll go to aid you were in vancouver, washington. thank you for waiting. caller: i was raised in foster home a sanged out of the foster care system. i was in four of them growing up. host: how old are you now to caller:? i am 44 years host: all. did you finish high school and college? caller: i finished high school. i was homeless and i graduated from high school. i have always worked and gone to school. a family to get my bachelor's degree last year. host: congratulations. caller: i have been interested in the foster care system because i went to my first

foster home at two-years old. my mom was a single mom with three kids and she did not have the social services to take care of us kids. my mom was a good mormon who never drank or did drugs or was promiscuous. she wants to put our kids in foster home so she could get an education. there is not all whole lot of social remedies for her. i went back for the foster care system the second time, i was a teenager. it seemed to me, and this is my perspective only, once these kids are in foster homes, they are no longer being raised. they are big warehouses and condition for the penitentiary. guest: that is very often the case. that is too often the case, especially when they're in concord settings that do not look like families. every kid deserves and needs a

family. being in places where shift workers are paid to take care of kids on a rotating basis, there is a high turnover, that underscores the need that some people need the stability and continuity of a family and we just need to figure out better ways to connect kids to those kind of families and to support those families in the really difficult task of km. any of us who has been parents, raising teenagers is challenging. the brain development that is going on, we now know why they are the way they are. the ability to rationalize the not fully develop until older adolescents and early adulthood. there is a box -- biological basis for the challenges we face. we need to take down everything we know about neuroscience and

parenting and about raising children and their needs of what they vi succeed. all of our conversations, these kids have the same aspirations to go to college and to something important and meaningful with their lives when need to connect them to the opportunities to make that happen. host: that is the last call, good morning to you caller:. thank you for having this wonderful subject to explore this morning. i came in late so i am sure that you know that april is child abuse month. we are receiving more calls and

incoming children into the system here. i made volunteer guardians ad lidum, if you know about that. it has been an amazing time for me. i want to thank you again for having this wonderful discussion. please, anyone considering adoption or foster older children, it turns out to be a wonderful surprise for both sides. we have had excellent results in our area. again, north carolina has done. forefronts if you adopt out of forster care, your child will be eligible for reduced tuition in the state as well as if you have someone who needs special development areas. host: we are short on time but thank you for the call. guest: that is a wonderful volunteer program where people are trained to become a

paralegal or legal friend of the child in court proceedings. someone there is advocating for the child's throughout. host: this new study that came out, only half of the youths returned eight teen had a job by their mid-20's. and six in 100 have only achieved a college degree. guest: we can do better and it will take the public demanding we do a better job of getting these jobs families and opportunities. host: but a link to your web site is available to c-span.org. we will go to live event at the wilson center. , s first andtu partspak says he will -- converse bart stupak

says he will retire. he supported the obama legislative initiative on health care. he said the attacks on him did not influence his decision and will announce his decision formally at a speech at northern michigan university. , brismanbart -- , brismanb -- congressman bart stupak says he will retire. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

the same year, it was taken into force on the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism, which was negotiated in new york. then you may also recall that there are security resolutions, i am sure you are well aware of it sprit there are others. i can go into that, but will not. the important thing is that they all contribute to the same objective, namely pointing to various obligations that must be done and looked after at the international level. those are guidance for what the states are doing and for the iaea is doing. they had a program in this

regard. it got new attention in 2002, after the 9/11 events. in 2002, the board of governors approved the first nuclear security plan, which recognize that there has to be a comprehensive look at the measures that could contribute to keeping sensitive, of vulnerable materials out of the hands of any non state after. after 2002, we have had -- we completed the first plan and be completed a second plan and now we are in full swing of implementing the third plan for the years to dozen 10-2013, which was approved last year. -- 2010-2013. what does the plan contained? first of all, it contains an effort to make available to

develop and publish a set of guidance for this important thing. this is necessary. it may sound bureaucratic, but it is necessary to have common starting point for countries when they are addressing these measures. only with a consistent approach from one place to another, is an effective global security system based. ? our immediate vulnerabilities. a common way of approaching these matters are thereby essential. we're there to produce these standards and help in their implementation. this includes a number of services. we can convene international teams under the heading of care reviews that would be assembled.

if a state so wishes to go to a country to take a look at their security systems, identify whether it needs -- meet expectations or whether there are improvements needed. it will be up to the country itself to accept those recommendations. if they do, we are also ready to help in the implementation of the recommendations. we may also state that things are in good order and there are good practices implemented. we believe strongly that subscribing to these kinds of services is helpful as a confidence-building measure. it helps provide a confidence with neighbors that these matters are taken seriously and that there are effective measures in place. we also believe that it helps in communicating to the general

public that the questions related to threats by criminals or threats by terrorists are taken seriously by the national authorities and that measures are in place for it. how else to support this? it is very clear that for something like this to war, it has to be sustainable. people -- for this to work, it must be sustainable. people must have the appropriate skills and knowledge we help out with that by offering training courses for a variety of categories. we divide the world into regions and we make sure that training opportunities are available for countries in all regions. recently, we also started to think about the under pending

developments -- under pending development that comes to education. this would bring a better knowledge of the underlying issues to a broader audience. last week, i brought a copy of a book describes the master's program for the certificate program for any university level in this regard. we also must recognize that this cannot work without technical assistance. at facilities with access control, alarms systems, etc., etc., but also in cases of successful deaths, that there are a second line of defense programs that would catch smugly at borders. that is part of a comprehensive system. we have provided a around 3000

detection interest -- instrument. the probability of catching smuggling of material is then enhanced. likewise, in the assistance program, we have a risk reduction efforts. i can give you a few examples. i said that the most important part is probably the prevention, that wherever there is nuclear material or wherever there is radioactive sources, there has to be security arrangements. recently, we completed a rather large assistance effort to a facility in armenia. we upgraded their security around the nuclear -- it is directly contributing to a better protection against intruders.

against any kind of activity that would result in a malicious acts with radiological consequences. those we have multiplied. we have had a number of those equivalent activities in the program. in the second line of defense area, in addition to the safe houses instruments that i said, the security arrangements at major public events must be looked at. analytic game -- and the olympic game presents opportunities. although security is at high attention at events of that kind, in the past, the nuclear dimension of that security may not have been in focus. nowadays, it is part of an

approach to add also the dimension of detecting if anyone is bringing in radioactivity into the game area. training the people in using adequate instruments for that purpose, but also to know what to do something happens. if there is a seizure, what to do, how to handle the materials, how to look at the health and safety risks in such circumstances. that part started in the olympic games in greece years ago. it continued in china and now we are now working with south africa to add this dimension to the security arrangements for the upcoming world cup this summer. another important risk reduction effort worth mentioning is the return of

fuel. research reactors operated with high levels of uranium. it is recommended that all necessary fuel is brought back to the supplier for a very safe storage. the operation of the reactor itself is moved from an operating mode of using low enriched uranium, which would automatically reduce the risk. finally, i would like to say that -- for all of this, i think

that you get the idea that this is a comprehensive way of approaching the subject, but it is necessary to know what you are speaking about. what is a good information platform to base the activities on? the iaa is essential for having these activities brought to the organization and also convening networks for collecting and disseminating topical information. you may be aware of be the trafficking database program which deals with the movement on authorized -- of unauthorized nuclear material. this is one of the central

pieces of the agency's duty to maintain a very effective information platform that can be used together in a controlled manner. the information that is necessary in order to have a consistent coherent approach to these subjects can be implemented. as an introduction for the subject and for questions, i thought that this would be sufficient. thank you. [applause] any questions? i think that the young lady was first, actually. >> [inaudible]

if you can explain a little bit about what you guys do and how that is different than what's -- and what they do. >> if i address that question to start with, it is exactly correct observation. we're working very closely with them in doing this. it would not be effective to have several different programs for this purpose. the program, in fact, it is a program of reducing the unnecessary storage is of research reactor fuel. in some cases, this is entirely an advantage. in other cases, it is entirely

done -- in some cases, there is a mix. throughout, it is a very thorough cooperation for reaching the overarching goals of this program in a global sense. >> you mentioned the programs. could you tell us more about it at the university levels? are you the source of funding for this? do you expect universities to provide the funding? do you target universities that have certain research programs in place as priority or do you just offer it as a blanket program?

>> some years ago, it became very clear that the offer of education in this -- was very scarce. at the same time, we had request coming in from individual universities to help them set up programs in countries in which the nuclear program was expanding. the nuclear energy programs were expanding. that started an effort to look at what kind of academic programs could be reasonable in this regard. at that stage, what we did was to take resources available and convene meetings with representatives from academic institutions and put the questions in front of them, what would be reasonable program to

offer at any university? last week, a book came out that contains the curriculum for this purpose. the idea we will support the implementation of by their the whole or parts of this and all the different regions. it has to be a university with -- in some cases, we can help with some key or pointers which would facilitate the implementation. there has to be a technical dimension to this. there has to be a way of exploring what is the background tool using the instruments. what is the physics behind it? what are the weaknesses,

strengths? some type of laboratory functions if needed. things like that we can help with. we can also help bring in students because it may not be reasonable to have in all countries programs like this, but in selected regions, we can help bring in students from neighboring countries to benefit from the training. >> thank you. you mentioned your opening remarks a little bit about the world cup coming up in south africa. the various steps that have been taken since the 1996 olympics. i was wondering if you could expand a little bit on that. what do you see happening with

south africa? >> along the lines of what i said for all the other major public events, to add the nuclear dimension to the security so that it is not possible or at least very difficult to bring in any radioactive substance to the game venues and to have a dispersal there or even worse, with an explosive device. but needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? -- what needs to be done in order to achieve that goal? you need to understand the situation with respect to your own materials, how well are they stored at your own facilities? that is for the government or

the authorities to deal with themselves. having done that and having a strategic approach for how to organize the security in this regard, we will help with the production of detection instruments so that any hand luggage or goods that is brought into the venue is actually stand -- stand -- scanned. the radiation that is cemented keeps -- gives a signal that can be caught by an instrument. that is number one. then we have had a large effort in providing training for the people who are going to operate these devices. any of these occasions, these

are new to these people. it is not part of their normal training. it is necessary for them to understand some basic sense about what is it that the instruments react on and what does it mean? it there is a signal, what do you do? what to do if it is a strong signal or a weak signal, how to identify the isotope? that kind of training we have provided to a large number of people in south africa and are ready to put this on. another part of this is tabletop exercises for response in case something happens so that the people know or have a good idea of what to do.

>> i am from the wilson center. i am just wondering, how much hu is still out there worldwide? what sort of new programs will be coming up at the summit to deal with the problem? >> the if you are asking for is the actual -- get your act -- if you are asking for the actual quantity, i cannot give you the actual quantity. i can say that there is still a lot of hu in various applications, both in and non- nuclear weapon states and also in nuclear weapon states. non-nuclear weapon states are

covered by agreements. the report about the quantities. -- a report about the quantities and these kinds of materials. when it comes to the weapon states, we do not have the same kind of reporting or quantities there. i cannot give you a quantity figure there. i think the important thing here is to focus on the goals. first of all, if any of these vulnerable materials are very well protected wherever they are used or stored. evidence in this a guard is the fact that we have now completed a fifth revision, which is the commonly recognized document for presenting be -- presenting the

goals for how sensitive nuclear material should be protected. that is not only for the non- nuclear weapon states, that is for all countries. that is guidance that can be used for all materials, whatever application. this is an important recognition by all countries, basic virtues in approaching this problem. and then the offer there is to consolidate. the rest of the material, bring them back to the supplier in case they are not needed to trade the replace -- they replace it with less vulnerable material in other situations.

>> i've heard it criticized by various academics that there is not very good international legal framework to undergird efforts to combat nuclear terrorism. president obama is expected to try to get commitments at the summit for countries to more specifically pass laws criminalizing trafficking and the sort. what are your thoughts on what -- do you have thoughts on any particular commitment or measures that you would like to see implemented? he said there needs to be a common starting point. rhee said -- you said there needs to be a common starting point. >> my view is that' the formal legal platform is very good. we have the legal instruments that i mentioned the nuclear

terrorism convention, the 1540 and a number of other legal obligations that contribute. we have made an overview of this, but i think it goes too far into details here. a number of them contribute to the same culprit the problem is interpretation. the problem is the relatively slow weight of the ratification of the strengthened convention. the set up is such that two- thirds of the parties will have to ratify the amendment, which was taken in 2005 for it to become an obligation. we're not even close to that yet. the nuclear terrorism convention has a better situation because it is enforced.

but the number of countries that actually subscribed to it could be much higher. the implementation of these tools, the obligations could be better. by having it's a universal implementation, you would also have to have the corresponding national legislation. any act that involved in the radioactive substance, at any nuclear substance. -- and any nuclear substance. it would oblige the countries to take all efforts to prevent any such act from happening. this means building a sustainable system for nuclear security that would be effective

in the long term perspective. that is the real challenge. to deal with this from a day to day point of view, to push all the things that are -- and that are effective today, but also think for tomorrow and the day after, when there may be more urgent matters. >> i am not an expert on nuclear issues and so i am looking for a little bit of an understanding -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much, but the

iaa is an international organization with all of its member states. we serve all of the member states. we had been invited to the summit' and the director has an invited to come as an observer. we have no views among who amongst the indicted states that are coming or not coming -- invited states that are coming or not coming to the summit. >> let me ask you a more general question pertaining to the expertise that you have. what do you think is the main problem right now with security? what do you think someone can or should do to address that and other problems? >> if i have to make one answer

to that question, i would say that the most challenging issue here is to get a buy-in from all countries. it is very easy to think that we have no record of these kinds of activities in the past. we do not have a nuclear energy program and therefore, this is not so important for us. if there is such an attitude and some countries think they are not in the first line here, but the materials are movable and go from one country to another. therefore, there has to be a general description of the need

to address nuclear security. for existing facilities, for existing materials, but also for transfer items for borders, for events in the country, etc. that is very clear recognition that we need in the future to incorporate nuclear security as a natural on going measure in in the management of activities involving radioactivity. that is the most challenging question here. it is valid for all countries. >> just a follow-up to that question, of the 40 questions

that are slated to attend to, disregarding israel, do feel like we're getting a bite in -- buy-in from the countries of who would be more likely to come in contact with materials? are there nations that you wish would attend, but they're not? >> for the iaa, the way that we're looking at countries is that we are operating with under 50 member states. that is our audience. we want to work with all of them. we have our mechanisms established for the board of governors. we also have them established through an annual general conference when they come to vienna to discuss issues of concern. they have done that. they have come and talk about the nuclear security program and

the new nuclear security plan and the board has approved it. that means that the starting point is general for all of these countries. in the conference, the same thing happened. we have a resolution taken by consensus. that is our mode of operation. in addition to that, we welcome the fact that this is now a summit convened by president obama, giving recognition to the importance of the issue. we appreciate being there as an observer and appreciating the countries that do come. >> one quick question -- you mentioned at the beginning that the security responsibility rests with the states.

would you care to comment, just looking at the records of the last 10 years, or you see the greatest vulnerability is in terms of the kind of risks that we may be facing with the movement in particular. >> it would not be appropriate to go into any assessments of which region is the most vulnerable one and which country is the most vulnerable one. that is inappropriate. the way to look at that question is to welcome all of the individual countries that actually work with the iaa to look at, what are the security arrangements for their facilities? what can be done to make them really effective? what can be done to strengthen the border controls between

countries and within regions? the number of countries that we are working with, it is almost a full membership. more or less, of course, in various regions and countries. but we are working with countries in all regions. that is very good. having said that, it is also -- i want to say that something like this requires and means that you do not get to the goal unless there is an investment. the investment rests with the individual countries. and the case where -- in the case where there is some difficulty, it is very important to other possibilities here. as far as other resources -- as

far as our resources allow us, we do that for it to become effective from a global perspective, there are resources and investments to collect. >> several -- we have had plenty of discussions here about non- proliferation. several of the discussions have mentioned the international edition of the nuclear cycle. -- internationalization of the nuclear cycle. it is a political problem. >> i do not want to go into any details about the internationalization. the important thing is to recognize that everything that

helps a good organization, good access to nuclear energy, and good order, a good accounting, could nuclear safety, it contributes to the same goal. one should look at it that way. ok? >> justice small question, could you tell us -- just a small question, could you tell us the danger of radioactive sources? how widespread is that? how unprotected? >> the radioactive sources present a security problem, of course. it is a different kind of problem compared with the high quality nuclear materials because of the properties of

nuclear materials, uranium and plutonium. the radioactive sources contains radioactive isotopes. if it is not properly contained and protected against, it may have harmful effects on people, properties, and environment. for a long period of time, up to the beginning of 2000, it was perceived that these substances were self protected because nobody would want to come near them because they would be harmful for the individual. but that is no longer a true assumption. instead, it has been recognized that radioactive sources must be surrounded with security to keep them away from those who could possibly wish to put them into a radiological dispersal.

that triggered a range of activities for each individual country. what is the distribution of sources? encouragements for counties to have registries, etc., about the sources. this situation has improved tremendously over the last 10 years. but we are not at the goal yet. we still have many situations in which there are activities sources were both the safety and security could be improved. that has to be worked on with the individual countries quite a lot. it is necessary to recognize that the change management also

involves change management for radioactive sources. that has to be built in. also in circumstances where they are not used to it, like hospitals, oil rigs, etc. >> there is a report to about international framework. he said that the most important thing would be to have a global coordinator position who would oversee and direct all of these efforts to secure the nuclear material. he suggested that role would be the iaea.

what are your thoughts? >> the iaea is an international organization. it has been under 50 members -- 150 member states. with its annual general conference, the resolutions, the consensus, the decision mechanisms and it is pretty obvious that an organization like that should be utilized and could also take on greater responsibility and carry out the work and the work programs in an effective manner. it could be helpful from a global perspective.

>> i know that there were a few preparatory meetings leading to the summit and discussion about having something later on, and other summit, perhaps something in russia. i was wondering if there was any more information about what was actually happening in the meetings and if there is anything else after the summit. >> we are now two days before the summit and i think it is one of the results of tuesday, which we all wait to hear about what is next and how to deal with the pieces that come out of the senate. i think we will have to wait for tuesday to have a good discussion about that.

>> if i could just follow up on an earlier point -- there'll be some people or some nations represented here that -- in terms of reaching an overall global structure, how important is it to bring more implementation across the board, even among nations that are not necessarily in agreement? >> i am not sure i understand exactly what you are thinking about here. let me try. i think it is very important to recognize that the dimension of the non state actor and the treaties that we have been discussing, they are directly related to that one we have the

number of states -- the fact that all these countries are coming to washington on monday and tuesday to discuss these matters indicates that there is cooperation of the cross border relevance of these items. they are critical for today for dealing with the legacy of the past, but also for being able to deal with the energy challenge of the future. many countries are now preparing themselves to expand their production of energy and to use a bigger share of nuclear power in that energy mix. these questions are critical for that to be successful. we have to recognize the the treaties that are relevant, but

also to recognize that this goes across the border. it is a horizontal issue. thank you very much. [applause]

>> finishing up at the woodrow wilson center right now on c- span2, the financial crisis inquiry commission is hearing testimony from former fannie mae executives. the federal government took over fannie mae and freddie mac back in 2008. the commission is focusing on subprime mortgages and the role of citigroup. you can see that live on c-span2 right now. coming up this afternoon, live coverage continues of the southern republican leadership conference bridge we will hear remarks from a family research,

sarah palin. that begins live at 1:00. will have that life for you on c-span. it will continue tomorrow. -- we will have that live for you on c-span. a couple of news stories, bart cpac of michigan, an anti- abortion democrat, he said he would retire from congress this year. the congressman told the associated press that he could have won re-election an insistent that he was not being chased from the race from the tea party express. he said he was tired after 18 years in office and wanted to spend more time with his family. he will be making an announcement at 12:30 eastern. the plan to have that for you here on c-span. this from the associated press, john paul stevens, the court's oldest member, is retiring. he made that announcement today.

president obama now has his second high court opening to fill. the supreme court justice said he will step down when the court finishes its work for the summer in late june or early july. >> this weekend, on the tv, npr foreign correspondents on what has happened following the fall of saddam hussein. democracy in india and india pakistan relations. new york post columnist anne fox news analyst looks at u.s. foreign-policy in his latest collection of articles. find the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> too big to fail is a harder issue. we're past the days of exclusively small local based

banks and financial institutions looking for --institutions. look at d.c.'s ban video library. over but added 60,000 hours of video. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cables latest step to americans. ♪ >> what in the world is more ridiculous right now the american politics? >> for the first -- for the past year, using clips from various media outlets, the gregory brothers have become hit makers. we will talk to them sunday night. >> the former director of the defense nuclear agency react to president obama's nuclear arms treaty with russia. he is joined by a former

pentagon official. this event was held yesterday. this last about one hour and 40 minutes. >> let me welcome you. we have a reason for getting started even though i may fear we are suffering a little bit from the vicissitudes of a bomb scare that has apparently been called in. i do not think it is in this complex. otherwise, we would not be year. this summer else in town and the fear is interfering with transit. -- it is somewhere else in town and i fear it is interfering with transit. i am the presence of the center for security policy. i am delighted to be hosting this presentation by members of

an informal group called the new deterrent working group. some of the most distinguished and thoughtful practitioners of nuclear deterrence i have ever had the privilege of knowing and working for over the past 30 years. they're men and women who have personal experience with both the policy and the programmatic aspects of the issues of our -- at the top of their agenda today as the president completes the new start treaty with its signing in prague. the nuclear posture review released on tuesday and the

nuclear control summit next week and and the nuclear nonproliferation review conference next month and a comprehensive test ban treaty ratification debate link at some point down the road. these are items that have been on our mind that the new deterrent working group. you have that replaces a document we published seven or eight months ago that is a helpful introduction to many of these issues. i suspect few need an introduction. i hope you find the ideas, the information, the quotations from some of our most distinguished and senior

civilian and military leaders on the nuclear deterrent and what it takes to preserve it will be a further resource to do you begin enriching these issues. i am expecting momentarily congressman mike turner -- as i speak. is that congressman turner? " yes, it is. we may need to get a microphone over to you. i was just about to say that we have sponsorship for this program. we had hoped to have senator jim demint, is office was kind enough to have this wonderful

facility. that was not possible. congressman mike turner from ohio has been kind enough to join us by phone and as if by command, he has done so. we do not have much time with you, but let me just said as the ranking republican on the strategic forces subcommittee of the house armed services committee, congressman turner is, i think, one of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful and indisputably one of the most directly engaged legislators on either side of capitol hill on the issues that we will be talking about today. i know you're taking some time from your family to be with us. i am grateful for what you're doing and for spending some time with us when you have some time off. if you can hear us and if we can

hear you, if you will try to speak up it will help the audience here what you have to say. could we bring this microphone over there? would that be possible? there you go. a portable microphone. what a concept. can you hear us? >> yes, i can. frank, thank you for including me. i am on the campus with my daughter. we're doing campus visits. i do appreciate the invitation. i want to thank all of you for your thoughtful approach. the issue that we have before us and starts bears the scrutiny he will give to it as we look how best to protect this country. i have some concerns about the president's announcement.

is a unilateral action on behalf of the president. it goes to the base. the president has set a world without nuclear weapons wanting to go to zero. and said it being a human value statement, it is a process where she is looking at how he cannot translated into any u.s. policy and then how becomes a to-do list. each step along the way is a signal for what the next step would be. this does have some concern that we should address, but one of which would be of a unilateral nature and we have nothing for this. they are indicating how others will respond to it without any

historical basis for it. the yen states has decreased its arsenal. -- the united states has decreased its arsenal. this is not a historical basis, this type of change that would result in a safer world. the other issue is what does it mean it does not mean he would not defend the united states with every available system we have to the extent it would be necessary. maybe the foreign audience would find this statement received by them is meaningless. we had a key terrance before are not now going to see a change. we're not talking about us threatening other nations. i do have some concerns as to

how this is implemented. i have some belief good to achieve the president has as his goal. >> thank you very much, congressman. the nuclear posture review is of course the focus of yesterday's. did you have any thoughts you would like to share with us on the strategic arms treaty signed today? >> i think the missile defense aspect is something we should be concerned about. the russians believe the language is such that it is -- they are looking to limit the expansion united states in missile defense. the president is saying this is not something that would limit our pursuit of missile defense.

there appears to be a conflict, and one with the russians are signaling the reserve the right to -- is an area we have to be concerned about. we do not know how the agreement will be implemented, what will be the mixture, how it will effect the -- how that will affect the triad. limiting our wall of nuclear weapons and the review at onstar. >> thank you so much for taking some time with us. good luck with the college publication process. >> great. thank you. >> let me introduce who will join us. i will say some words and turned

in over two vice admiral robert monroe, the former director of the defense nuclear agency, and it is it that is no more, 7, a reflection -- sadly, a reflection of the nuclear enterprise that has emerged since he left service. bob is an expert on the underpinnings of the nuclear deterrent, industrial, technological, scientific, and we will hear from him shortly about the sort of context in which ericour conversations are taking place today. we then will hear from our colleague, peter desutter,

better known here as the man that runs a marvelous breakfast for the national defense university foundation that are among the most serious venues in washington for considering it and hearing from those responsible for the strategy, the programs, the policies affect the nuclear deterrence and missile defense and related issues. they are starting next week -- a plug for those breakfasts. we will then hear from paula desutter. she served as the assistant secretary of state for the bureau of verification compliance and verification, a vital role in the past and quite possibly will be an increasingly important one as we hear about

some of the difficulties with verify things like the start treaty and other issues, space arms control. our cleanup batter will be james ace lyons, and he will be talking about the prospective of a man with operational responsibilities in the united states military in insuring it is a credible and the potential implications for it no longer being seen as such. let me say a couple of words by way of introduction to the topic. i had the privilege of serving president reagan in the defense department a long time ago in a position that was known as the

deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear forces and arms control policy. i had some experience prior to that of the senate arms committee and then finished up my time as the assistant secretary of defense with responsibility for the u.s.-so it portfolio. -- u.s. test sovie-soviet portf. it troubles me personally and professionally that what i consider to be the most momentous national security decisions in memory are being taken with so little public awareness, let alone an informed debate. the consequences of taking such momentous steps without a

corporate deliberation could be nothing short of catastrophic. i use these terms advisedly. we are for the first time in our history led by a commander in chief who not only believes in a rhetorical sense that it would be desirable to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but who believes he can bring it about. he has been taken to clarify that it may not happen right away. that might happen today in his lifetime. he nonetheless is changing american nuclear weapons policy and deterrent strategy and programs in ways explicitly says are designed to advance

that goal. i believe the problem that arises from such a course of action that the president is aggressively disarming the one nation in the world that he can disarm. that happens to be ours. no other states has the slightest evidence that they are going to follow his lead. to the contrary. every nuclear weapons states is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. they have pot production lines to do so, something we do not. -- the have hot production

lines. the have skilled work force to promote that. my colleagues will elaborate on all of these points with for greater expertise than i. the world cannot be a safer place if the united states is perceived as having weekend, let alone mortally damaged its nuclear deterrent posture. for reasons that we will be discussing, i believe that is what is afoot, and welcome the chance to discuss this with you through television and the internet media as well as through the good offices of you here. in form and catalyze the kind of debate that these momentous

decisions demand, especially in this kind of dangerous world. let me welcome fis animal robert monroe -- limit welcome vice admiral robert monroe. >> thank you for coming. i believe this administration's nuclear weapons policy and programs art seriously misguided and dangerously ill advised. those of us who hold these views must speak out so the stakes can be corrected. i will limit my comments here today to four topics. first, a world without nuclear weapons is neither a achievable nor desirable. second, develop doing nuclear

weapons is exactly the wrong way to gut -- devaluing nuclear weapons is the wrong way to go. the number one weapons threat facing the world must be stopped. , but totally misunderstood. -- deterrence is vital but totally miss understood. this has become a national goal, but no one can describe how. no one knows how to remain there when nuclear weapons technology it is widely understood and the material will progressively become more available. no one can imagine how to verify the absence of nuclear weapons in other states and

organizations. it is highly inadvisable to establish a national goal without knowing how to meet it. it is even worse to launch a rapid, far reaching unilateral disarmament actions to stimulate this bowl. many actions -- to stimulate this goal. is contrary to america's real needs. as far as the undesired ability of nuclear disarmament, without strong responsible nuclear weapons states to maintain order, we would exist in a world of frequent nuclear detonations by aggressors, wrote stat rogue fanatics, proxy organizations,

terrorists, criminals, even this affected individuals -- even disaffected individuals. devaluing american weapons. this also is highly counterproductive. nuclear weapons have repeatedly demonstrated their immense value to the world. they brought an end to the most destructive war in history, in the process saving a million lives. for a half century there after, they prevented a much more devastating war. also, nuclear weapons or a huge factor in preventing proliferation. even today, the presence of

nuclear weapons in some hands is acting as a damper in their use by others. also by their very presence, nuclear weapons have banished large-scale conflicts. for generations to come, nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible states are the only hope for the world. nuclear weapons should be awarded the nobel peace prize. on a practical level, nuclear weapons require the very best people america can produce, as laboratory said, scientist, design engineers, military specialists and operators. if nuclear weapons are vilified

, these exceptional people will not choose these careers, and the results will be catastrophic. and what of deterrence? for deterrence to be effective, our adversary must be convinced of both our capability and our will to use military force. it destroys our image of firmness and strength. now let's consider proliferation, the most serious threat facing the world. for 20 years, we have watched iran and north korea develop nuclear weapons production capability, and we have not had the gumption to stop them. if they succeed, their neighbors in the mideast -- in the mideast and asia will go nuclear in

response. this would trigger a global cascade of proliferation. the result will lead to a world of nuclear chaos from which there is no return. future historians will ask about us, how could they let this happen? what were they thinking? the message is clear -- proliferation requires enforcement. there must be a cop on the beat, and this falls to the united states. we must stop iran and north korea. the nonproliferation treaty shows the beltway. the treaty creates two tiers of states.

five nuclear weapons states and 184 states without nuclear weapons. we are now advocating to international pressure for nuclear disarmament when we should instead be emphasizing the implicit responsibility of these, separately if necessary, to police the treat and prevent proliferation. lastly, let's move to deterrence. never have so many national leaders used without understanding it. deterrence is all about fear. that is the root of the word. we create the fear by making a threat. for example, we threaten iran as follows. if you cannot dismantle your

nuclear weapons facilities, -- we will do it with military force. we then convince iranian leaders but a continuing series of major reenforcing actions and said. we explore it weapons procurement. we visibly test weapons, destroying targets. we intensified training, conduct major exercises, raise global alert levels, raises global alert levels, and it would resume underground nuclear testing. to reinforce our threat, we placed the nation on a wartime footing. this is deterrence, and it really works.

the payoff is it alters the adversaries' behavior and complies with our names without violence. deterrence is not something you have, like nuclear weapons in storage sites. it is something you do. hundreds of major actions must be taken to convince the adversary. deterrence must be focused on a single at this area. in summary, it is is for us. our chamberlain -- is 1948 for

us. are chamberlain doesn't remember the seven years of war and 60 million dead. that is wishful thinking from 1938. thank you. >> bob, thank you very much. a sober and timing analysis. peter huessy on the strategic arms reduction treaty and related subjects. >> thank you, frank perdue is an honor to be here. this is peter desutter. medstar with the commonalities in 2001 and the -- >> let me start with the commonalities in 2001. they talked about reducing proliferation. the emphasis became reducing

proliferation to terror masters , iran and north korea. the third commonality is consistent with stability and with deterrent needs. expanding production threat and clean up loose nuclear material in the civilian and in the military sector. preserve a nuclear triad, and we're not going to rule out going first and we're not going to deal out our weapons. the three npr's all have those themes. we had zero deployed nuclear forces. we are now approaching over

1000. president obama added 200 interceptors to that number. he cut back our national missile defense in alaska and california and cancel the polish interceptor side. as others have said, missile defense is now front and center of american security policy. that is a common theme, but it was not a major theme. this administration has said they want to lock down nuclear material. god bless them. i hope they can get there. is an ambitious agenda. we have had amounts requested that were approved by congress. it was increased in 2008 and

again in the last budget. one of the programs was something that my friend called megatons 2 megawatts. it burns so you have taken nuclear-weapons and eliminated it. i would caution people to say that this npr is new and different as a radical change from 1994. there have been changes. the second issue is compliance, which paula will talk about. we will not respond with nuclear weapons. as was written in "the washington times," the

compliance is determined by the board of governors, board made up of 35 states including china and cuba. given the fact compliance is not that hard and fast rule. to be fair, there is a caveat, and someone needs to be filling their responsibility. it is unclear what they are. this is not a criticism of the administration, but to raise the issue to senate will be concerned with and the house of representatives will be concerned with. the second -- the third issue, some people think numbers do not matter. as a jungle road in december or january, -- as a general

approwrote, numbers do matter. "while the arsenals need not be equal, we still believe parity is a proper with respect to deploy it strategy systems to make sure there are not misunderstandings on either side. very important issue. critical. i am glad jim raised that issue. the question in my mind is, does arms control have a strong connection to non- proliferation,, the proliferation, or the absence of proliferation? i just finished a series on iran, parts 8, 9, and 10 have yet to be published. i have eight single-page paper

on the connection between arms control and proliferation. i went to work for the reagan administration in 1981. the record is at best mixed. we signed the eye and a tree, the start treaty, and the start 2 treaty, and we found saddam hussein was a year away from it nuclear weapon. the iranians started a nuclear weapons program and we know north korea started a nuclear weapons program in terms of diverting plutonium. we have agreed framework. there isn't necessarily a strong correlation between arms control, however necessary and good arms control is. and will recall terrorist wrote

statrogue states. the use north korean technology, iranian money, and we have to rely on the israelis to take it out. this was similar to 1981. proliferation is the toughest problem this administration has. i did not envy them their job. it is not a criticism to say it is a tough issue. they have ended the drift with the russians. that is the reset button. the russians are busy making deals with venezuela to arm them. the russians are composite. the russians are not exactly being good neighbors with

respect to our friends in ukraine and georgia and north korea. my view is that it is up to russia and china to step up, up two men uto man up, and they shp assisting iran and north korea building nuclear weapons permit i cannot say it and simpler than that. as someone who was pushed for sanctions -- the sanctions bill in congress, who has testified on the vestment, who has talked about stuart levy, who think should get the congressional medal of freedom because of the work he has done. if we do to the grand central baniran central bank -- that toe

is the test, and not these sanctions we passed and then we dilute. we have that the iran sanctions act. president clinton, president bush and the new president have not enforced sanctions against foreign companies with respect to that bill. the power is there to do it. part of it is there are too many people that have been vested interest in doing business with iran. there was a headline from "the godfather" -- it is not personal, it is business. it preserves a triad. good. it says it will not get rid of no first use.

good. missile defense is front and center. good with a footnote. medveded said yesterday the united states has pledged not to improve the capability of or the number of our strategic missile defenses. that means defenses against long-range ballistic missiles. missiles that can reach the united states or london. this may be 3,000 kilometers. those are the issues i would say it are front and center with respect to the ratification process of the start treaty in the senate. >> paula desutter, from her days at the state department at your service here on capitol hill with the senate committee on

intelligence, she has a large amount of intelligence and strategy and policy and verification and compliance with treaties that seek to govern. welcome. >> thank you. first, as those of us who are interested in all of these issues in trying to understand the new start treaty, we recognize it would be a busy week. let me just say that among the top benefits i see from all of this is that it has reduced the amount of time the networks have spent on tiger woods. we'll have to find the silver linings. obviously, the nuclear review is just out two days ago.

the start treaty was signed today. i do not have a copy of it. the way i wanted to discuss this was to say there are a number of very serious questions that congress and the american public need to try to find the answers to in the coming months as we address these problems. the first that animal monr admi monroe addressed was why global zero. well will the new start treaty be verified? we can talk about space treaties, cut off treaty, and i will talk about the challenges of their fine zero.

what impact will the new start treaty have on missile defense backs and the ultimate question has to be answered is, will the policies and these new documents strengthen or weaken the u.s. nuclear deterrent and u.s. national security? having worked at the state department, i know one thing to damascdiplomats like is to haver countries like us. does it strengthen or weaken national security? so turning to wipe nucleahy nucr zero. are we the first to pursue it? rationale has been it will have

an impact on our ability to persuade countries like iran and north korea to give up their nuclear weapons programs. it is a valid question that people need to ask. to what degree can that be true? i would answer that there is no chance that that would happen. but the least it has to be discussed and debated. also, the nuclear non- proliferation treaty calls for parties of the treaty related to cessation of nuclear arms race at an early date and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. the context for the nuclear weapons states to disarm is in the context of complete and

general disarmament under effective control. is the obama administration saying by its advocates say in pursuit of global zero that that is something in the offing? i would say probably no. do think the world is about to disarm with every other weapons known to man? effective verification under international control of the global zero would require all nations of the world to give up their national sovereignty. that is the bottom line. in order to have the kind of confidence, you would have to be able to look at every container that could contain a nuclear weapon. some might be 50-gallon drums.

that kind of verification does not happen in sovereign states. i would remind people when president reagan called for the end of nuclear weapons, he called for the end of nuclear weapons in the context of a robust missile defense, and it was the missile defense that was supposed to render nuclear weapons obsolete. and so again, you get back to the missile defense question. i was very concerned about the impact of the new negative assurances. they first came up during the clinton administration, but they indicated that it wasn't just going to be retaliation for nuclear weapons use. it was held as a possible

retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons. so the question about the nuclear review which says the u.s. will not threaten to use nuclear weapons against its better party to the mpt. so the first question is, should they reach title -- re-title that section that people have said this is perhaps the greatest threat facing us. i would only underscore that. i am glad be administration exempted north korea and iran from that because they are not in compliance with the mpt. are the risks of telling countries like syria that we have not yet found to be in noncompliance with mpt that

biological weapons use only will get a conventional response? the problem is that it could very well mean the engagement of u.s. forces on the ground in that country. that is not always the way we want to be able to fly to. -- is not always the way we want to be able to fight. it is difficult to reach compliance with when i started at the state department, i brought on a couple of sharp lawyers -- not the said the rest of the lawyers at the state department are not sure. i did my own to do this work. it is correct that the iaea board of governors can reach

compliance judgments. we are the only country that has done that. we're the only country in the world that has reached independent judgment that iran has violated the mpt. it wasn't until 2003, 2004, 2005 that the united states reached that judgment. as difficult as it is, now the political pressure against reaching a compliance about the mpt is going to be even greater than it was. before, we were referring to the security council. if you reach a judgment, you will be saying it is now permissible for the united states to retaliate against that country for use with a nuclear

weapon. you have escalated the compliance judgment while not reducing the risk that the biological weapons would be used. i also believe that the negative asserting would further incentivize proxy use of nuclear weapons. a country like iran could well lead hezbollah use biological weapons and yet, that would not trigger the response. i also think the justification for this was the these negative security assurances were ok because of the advent of conventional military use and

been seen improvement in u.s. missile defense and capabilities to mitigate the effects of cbw. i think a valid question is, are we really preeminent in terms of conventional capabilities? what are they talking about when they say the united states has these improvements to counter a fact that. i am and intent of observer. what are they? finally. it is hard to say. i do not have the treaty text. there will be annexes where the modern trend will be placed. there is a heavy reliance on national our satellites with

some on-site measures. i am not sure. the problem is the u.s. imagery consolation is in really, really bad shape. is this treaty going to be accompanied with the necessary -- to give us what we need to get that. the administration said last july that the verification measures were going to be adapted from start and made less costly in comparison with the start i treaty. there is verification measures but without saying what they are. we know the intent is to make them less demanding and less costly. at lower levels of weapons,

verification becomes more important, not less. the consequence of cheating can become more significant, not less. missile defense, you can accept more risk. the question goes back to what degree are we going to emphasize and really push forward robust missile defense, and have we given the russians a veto over the deployment of missile defense? it has the appearances of that. all u.s. intercontinental ballistic missiles will be demarked. that will be ok with me. i think it will be more stabilizing. white of the rigid why aren't there russians called upon to do

the same thing? it would help with verification. the verification capabilities will certainly be scrutinized. the last point i would make on this is that the current assistant secretary for verification compliance and implementation was the lead negotiator on the new start treaty. she is the same person who will be required to prepare a report for congress that says whether or not the treaty is effectively verifiable. could there be some conflict of interest in that? now, it is certainly true that if you are the assistant secretary and your administration has gone forward to sign a treaty, it is not your favorite day of work when you have to tell them it cannot be effectively verified.

i had to do that. it is not your best day of work. if that is your sole mission, then you are going to do that. there is some conflict. i will stop there. we can talk later about any of the other treaties that cannot be verified. >> something to look forward to. thank you, paula desutter. of captured the inside baseball quality of challenges and it adds an important dimension to the analysis. last but not least, we have a distinguished naval officer, four-star admiral who commanded in his specific fleet alone a navy larger than the one we are likely to have in the years to

come. he did so with distinction, capping over 30 years, 40 years, something like that. he has seen the threats of nuclear war up close and personal, as they say, as understood as well as senate held important is the deterrent to those threats be kept credible and what it takes for the united states military to ensure it is doing its part of that job. animal pace -- admiral ace lyons. >> thank you. let me touch on a few concerns. my freedom of action was based in part on the confidence i had in the security and reliability of a strategic nuclear underpinnings. our allies counted on it and our

adversaries recognized it. in part, it put balanounds of wt they might do. further, we were able to get greater contributions from our allies because of the secure strategic umbrella guarantees great if our allies think your is a pullback, it is quite clear japan and other allies, south korea may see a need to develop their own capability. in that sense, i fail to see how this treaty will be a deterrent. i have a number of problems with the start treaty. many have been highlighted a ready. there is no in the treaty. the rest of the nuclear powers

are modernizing their spirit pressure has embarked on an aggressive program to field new weapons. its strategy has placed increased reliance on their nuclear forces. these missiles most likely will be -- the treaty confers real advantage to russia, the way i see it. no cuts in mitchellmissiles whee have to destroy something on the order of 700. how all this enhances our security by 2015, russia will of the upgraded 80% of their long- range missiles. there are several thousand tactical nuclear weapons and they are not addressed. i consider this is serious flaw.

there is a lack of consideration in what china is doing. aside from providing assistance to the proliferation of nuclear technology to states like iran and korea, they have gone to develop a rapid modernization of their own nuclear force structure to include the development of nuclear missiles, some of which most likely will be merred. we have to consider the have developed fifth-generation and a strategic bomber. the have built underground pens. they have objected along with russia to air missile defense programs, while the demonstrated their own missile defense

capability along with an anti satellite capability. what the treaty will do in the future to our development of the future anti-ballistic missile capability is not clear at this time. with their double-digit increase for the last several years to their military budget, every weapons system china has developed its target against u.s. forces. their latest ballistic missile is targeted against our carrier forces. it is supposed to be an anti- denial. we admit it -- we have the capability to counter that. it primarily rests in our newly developed destroyer, which has

over $14 billion of research and development invest in it. it is still thealthy, but as the cooling capabilities, all the power necessary to support future weapons systems, lasers, real gunay guns. we're building three. instead, we decided to do, and this is currently important with the new role at the navy has been tasked with with our anti- ballistic missile capability, what we have done, we have invested in a re-start program to build a 30-year-old guided missiles which have no growth

potential and only the basic anti-ballistic missile capability. this is a serious situation. there's no cost oversight burqa billet oversight on this program. everything is a shot hishell ga. it is 14 months behind schedule now. it is being covered under government furnished the equipment. the anti-ballistic missile quebec agency is finding all the software for these upgrades. i'm not sure any of this will raise the level of comfort this is a program certainly from the standpoint of the anti-ballistic missile capability that needs to be changed. let me touch on the hair trigger alert.

have been very reliable command and control system. the procedures are precise. they have been tested and proven to be reliable. i have toll confidence it will be so in the future. -- i have total confidence. there is no dr. strangeglopve ve in the fleet. >> several have noted this but i think it needs to be sent directly. the russians have put us on notice as recently as this morning's press conference that they will regard any qualitative or quantitative change to america's missile defense capabilities as a basis

for departed from this treaty. i am not sure they qualify it as that. we are in short, under no illusion, that that will, the russians could simply say they are no longer to conform to this treaty. with their missiles, with their hot production lines for both missiles and nuclear weapons, if they have the funding, or the will, they could conceivably build substantially more nuclear weapons than they are permitted to have under this treaty. we might find ourselves in a position where we do not have the missile defense we need for

the deterrent to the bill is that are appropriate. let's open it up. think you for your patience. u.s. had thought all interventions also, if you have somebody you would like to answer your question, directed to them, please. could you identify yourself and toupees you? >> -- and who pays you? >> thank you to everyone in the panel. the kremlin issued a statement right before they signed the treaty. the treaty between the russian federation and the united states on the reduction and limitation of strategic arms can only operate only if the united

states of america refrain from developing its missile defense capability quantitatively or qualitatively. it goes on a little bit more. it is on the kremlin website. will the treaty adequately verify directly the 1550 warhead number? peter, will be necessary to reduce the seidlin numbers. if so, to what degree? there is a number of senators that have written that they

would not like that to happen. in newsweek, be it administration is still a working on nuclear targeted directed spurted do have any inklings on this and what my baby? -- and what might they be? >> the second question is pretty easy. i have no idea how this will influence the nuclear targeting. as to whether or not there will be directed verification of the 1550 warhead number, my understanding is that there will be some mechanism for vehicle on-site inspection as there was under the start treaty. in the start treaty, the russians repeatedly violated

regulations. how effective that is and how -- you're not going to go to every single missile and do -- to count how many warheads are deployed. it is certainly going to be a sampling approach. to what degree will that sampling approach to give you the kind of confident about the numbers deployed on each of the warheads? at this point, i have to mention -- apparently, there is an agreement to count every strategic nuclear bomber as one warhead. i also notes that the npr refers to it to as including nuclear capable strategic bombers. we also note that the prime minister has called for the development of new strategic

bombers for russia. how that will count, i just do not know. >> peter? >> burk question is about the whole question of stability and deterrence. i have been building them since 1981. the treaty requires some caught up 135 missiles and/or bombers. to get from the 830 that we have now down to 700. you could eliminate randomly ballistic missiles that are old , that are giving us the most trouble and reduce your maintenance costs. i would not do that. this is the one part of the start treaty that i have a real

problem with. the russians are going to go down to 500 anyway. we have 840 and we're going down to 700. that gets dicey because the submarine's you could count -- you could not count two of the submarines in overhaul. that is 48 missiles. you have to take a certain number of b-52's out of the nuclear mission and that could get you down to within 50 of for you have to be. my question is, none of this is necessary. if warheads are the things that go boom and deployed warheads are the things that provide stability, the war had levels are the key. i could keep all for under 50 minutemen. -- all 4050 minutemen. there is no big breakout capability here. it is the one part of the treaty

that i have real problems with, that 700 number. the war had never, i did not have a problem with. that 700 number, the saving grace may be that we do not have to implement this until the end of the treaty. by that time, we will have a plan hopefully to replace minuteman. this one only goes to 2020-2030. without that, no president of the united states has to make a quick decision in the crisis. that is why they are so valuable. in the cold war, we thought they were terrible. we worried about rushing -- russia using 100 missiles would 1000 warheads and taking everything. we have the greatest ability in the world. the russians have highly plan based missiles which are on

alert to about 97%. there is an imbalance in that course structure. i know peter has to go. if anybody has a quick question for him, i would invite you to ask. if not, we will take whatever questions weekend. do you have a question for peter? >> several of you mentioned that the russians were going down to whatever level that they negotiated in the treaty any way for economic or technical reasons. in essence, they wanted to bring our level down to their level. several of you also mentioned that there is a tremendous imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons. we have a few hundred, they have several thousand. did anybody have a clue as to why this administration took the

one piece of leverage that we had off the table in favor of a treaty that did not benefit us? >> let me go back to the bush administration. i remember when we raise this issue, i remember people would say to me, forget it. the russians will not budge. you can drop an anvil on them and they will not budge. i know the point is that maybe we had more leverage here, but no american president has been able to limit them afterwards, we determined that gorbachev did not follow through. who knows the extent to which they decreased at the end of the cold war? that was the one piece of leverage that we had big time. we did not use it. i think they wanted an agreement to get the ball rolling on this.

>> can i just add? it is clearly the case, in my view, that anyone who tells you that they are going to get the stuff that they could not get in this treaty or maybe they did not try to get industry, the stuff that the russians have consistently refused to negotiate away. some of which, by the way, is sitting up the coast of the united states right now pointing at this city, among others, warheads of the size of the hiroshima warhead. that are not counted. anybody who tells you they will get them in the next treaty has a. they would like to sell you -- has a bridge they would like

to sell you. >> good to have you with us. the question was from this young lady. >> i have to put the microphone on. while there may be one sitting off our coast, we also happen to have one of our own cited on them. >> i would like to ask if you could comment on the notion of strategic stability in china. the chinese have never officially had policy of mutual balance.

does it have some further implications? thank you very much. >> repeat that for me. >> the question was, what do you think is the sense of the strategic concept of the chinese in the nuclear posture review? what is it that we are imputing to them as far as theories of deterrence and the like? >> i think that it had to be recognized and expanding possibilities and the modernization of their forces. while the numbers are not great now, i do not see any restraint being imposed on where they are going with their various programs. as frank mentioned, when i had

the pacific fleet, i had to under 55 ships -- i had 255 ships. when you look at that today, where they maybe have in the entire navy 213 somewhere downstream, what china is doing cannot be ignored. it skews the whole equation. it is the same way in the development of their conventional capabilities. there anti-ship ballistic missiles, which can be easily converted. the fact that it is designed all of these programs that they have, they're designed to go against u.s. forces. what is their objective? they want total control and

dominance out to the first island chain and then to the second island chain. we're now seeing a much more renewed interest in the middle east. more importantly, they have a very aggressive foreign military program. they provided iran with a number of capabilities, not the least of which is a supersonic cruise missile which they acquired from russia. it is specifically targeted to go against -- >> it seems to me that the chinese view of the world is not uppermost in the minds of the head, -- minds of the obama administration. it is one of the whole ironies of this whole exercise. you keep hearing the president reviling the old cold war

mindset of those bush administration people. they're getting beyond that great at the very moment, the administration is right back into the old cold war mindset. this treaty is a throwback to the bipolar world and the constructs of canonical arms control. at the time, it seemed to at least the way to modulate russian behavior. china is an inconvenient fact. the idea that china is engaged in the kind of military programs directly aimed at us and that it is taking an unbelievably holistic approach to warfare. i would commend to you a book

entitled "unrestricted warfare" published in 1999 that describes in greatly numerous ways -- in great length numerous ways to destroy the united states, from financial attacks on our economy to terrorism to biological warfare to nuclear. we should not forget, but we are, that the chinese have actually threatened nuclear attacks against this country. specifically and attack on los angeles if we behave in a way they did not like. when we think about the president's fixation -- and i do not think that is overstating it -- the fixation of the pursuit

of a nuclear weapons free or the prism of reducing u.s. and soviet arms, it leaves essentially out of the equation the chinese nuclear program. he is inviting the chinese to build up to whatever levels we can persuade the russians to go down to. that, i believe, is not going to make for a more secure world. >> does to build a little bit on what frank said, -- just to build a little bit on what frank said, we do not need to have exact parity with russia. i think that is right. on the other hand, parity is a cold war concept and it was developed and discussed primarily in an era when the only significant nuclear

stockpiles or russian or soviet and american. we're now in a situation that is very, very different. the question that the npr addresses is do we need exact parity with russia is the wrong question. the right question -- does the united states need superiority to all of the other countries who compose a nuclear threat to the safety of the united states and our allies? that is the question. that means that you cannot just look at russia and china. you have to look at iran and syria and north korea. you have to be ready for all of those and you have to address it would offensive capabilities and defensive as well. the stability question is -- maybe it is too soon to say that we have been made more in danger

to. it is not too soon to say that they are asking the wrong questions and therefore, one has to wonder if they're going to get the right answers. >> and i asked to pose a question myself to admiral monroe? -- can i ask to pose a question myself to admiral monroe? one of the things that is absolutely explicit in the npr is that we cannot live for the foreseeable future, at least as long as this president is going to be alive, with the nuclear weapons be have? they have laid out some sort of exotic explanations of the ways in which they're going to try to maintain that, replacement, refurbishment, reuse.

but you are in the business of insuring that nuclear weapons work. i would ask from a professional expert point of view to assess the probability of success of being able to have the security of the american people, which the president himself now says it will require us to maintain a credible safe reliable nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future without any modernization and without any testing. what are the chances? >> 0. seriously, our nuclear weapons stockpile today is safe, secure, reliable, but not at all effective. it is meaningless in terms of

today's threats. these are high-yield weapons. it were designed to either destroy cities. as the cold war advanced, we changed it to a counterforce. they destroyed magazines, missile areas, air bases, that kind of thing, submarines. today, the threat is not -- the dominant threat is not the launch of thousands of missiles and warheads at the u.s. new . it is that rogue states will develop a nuclear weapons

production capability and they will get the weapon as asian rights and eventually they will have some sort of effective weapon -- what position -- weaponization. they will work and they will kill millions and they will go into production with these. in the case of north korea, if they have a regime anything like they do at the present, they will sell them to anyone wishing to buy them. i do not mean any state wishing to buy them, i mean any individual meeting to buy them. if it is iran, they would most probably be willing to give them to have the law or hamas or al qaeda for use. i talked about deterrence in my

talk -- people seem to think that our having paia 400 killern warheads, that this will somehow deter the iranians from doing -- from continuing their program. what can we threaten them with that will launch pad and detonate the that, killing millions of people in to -- mostly women and children. if we had highly accurate low yields reduced residual radiation, earth penetrating weapons when they have a nuclear facility underground in a mountain or something like that and we threatenno carrierringco

was conventional and did not totally destroyed and they say, you missed. we would certainly that we do not miss next time and that highly accurate earth penetrating reduced residual radiation weapon would be a real threat. we would never have to use it appeared they would comply with our wishes. what this treaty -- one place, it says -- we will not develop

new weapons. we reject that. >> the npr. >> is in the npr, sorry. so many documents. the word effective is such a key word. we could keep refurbishing if we use all three options of this strategic posture commission. they recommended reuse, using systems -- using systems that have already been produced. refurbishment, which means modifying things slightly or replacement, which means replacing them completely. if we used all three strategies, we could probably

keep our current nuclear arsenal, are stockpile all live for five years, maybe 10. for the long-term future, there is no hope. >> let me see if we can take a question. the thing that i really wanted to get at is, can you do all of that without nuclear testing? to ensure that what you have got really works, even if the weapon is properly designed? >> if we go into the rear used, refurbished, replacement -- the ncr says replacement aside. you practically have to get an act of god to use replacement. for a few years, imagine in your

community a fire engine that you're going to depend on to save your home or save your neighbor's home that was never started. the admission that he was never turned. -- the ignition key was never returned. you have never run the generator. you have never fired of the engine, never did anything. it sat there for five, 10, 15, 20 years. those weapons have been sitting there now for more than 20 years, which was they're designed lifetime. in some cases, 30 and 40. they are not in art. think of them as a physics experiments, cooking away. changing the nature of the components in ways that nobody has any idea. the only way that these can be

considered reliable is with underground nuclear testing. the computer simulations are not going to tell you a thing because we did not know about that condition, the change in thickness of a membrane, we did not know about those conditions we were in the testing world. where did not have a chance to test them. with all these new weapons, the ones that would give us modern- day deterrence, it would deter the real threats today, those have to be tested. we did not build weapons for those purposes. we have never done this. there is not a battery of test data sitting out there in the nevada test site. >> we've got trouble at the very

least. the point i really wanted to emphasize is that we are being told -- >> we will go live to michigan to hear from michigan democrat bart still pack. he is announcing his retirement from the house today. this is live coverage on c-span. >> thank you for coming. i am the district director for congressman. the congressman and i go way back probably over 30 years we both became involved with the democratic party politics, fighting for the upper peninsula of northern michigan and the people of michigan. the two of us both had darker hair. i had a white streak in the back. he had a very, very distinguished white streak in the front. both of us have worked very hard to have it and did not. it takes work at that. it takes time. i really appreciate -- i really grew to appreciate this man's

determination and skill in navigating the legislative process. when i saw him fight for the protection of the greatest a body of fresh water, the world's great lakes. during the debate over nafta, he was the one who raised the issue of the great lakes water becoming a commodity or a product. the possible negative consequences for the water to be sold outside of the basin. when the province of ontario granted a permit to the company to take water out of lake superior and cit -- and ship it to asia, i was the chair of the international joint commission, the first and immediate call came from the congressman asking in a rather forceful manner, what was i going to do to prevent that? he took on the responsibility of leading the effort to prevent the sale of the diversion of water to the great lakes. he authored legislation and achieved a ban on oil drilling

in and under the great lakes. he successfully forced the epa to change their proposed rules, to permit to partially treated human waste to be discharged in the lakes rivers and streams many call him the guardian of the great lakes. i know that he is continually asked for his views on the protection of the lakes and dino he is very, very proud of his work in this area. other accomplishments, i would like to call the sheriff. >> thank you, tom. good afternoon. i am market county sheriff michael. i am here today representing my sheriff's office and other thankful and grateful law enforcement agencies, not only from the state of michigan, but

from across the entire country. my purpose here today is to thank you, congressman, for your undying defense and staunch support of law enforcement. ever since bart put on his uniform, his michigan state uniform in 1973, he has always had in mind the interest of serving the citizens. he kept that in the back of his mind and in his hard. he has always been a protector of the people. by going to washington d.c. as a congressman, he continued to protect and defend the citizens of this country by enacting and passing legislation that strengthen law enforcement agencies, thus allowing us to do our jobs in a more professional, effective, and efficient manner.

the congressman is a leader for law enforcement in the u.s. congress. he founded the law enforcement caucus and invited -- and he and joe biden were instrumental in creating pops. we were able to put more officers on the streets, making our communities more safe. he allows our sheriff's office to purchase laptop computers and to put it hundred mhz radios in their cars and on our officers. this allows us to communicate safely and securely and interact with all law enforcement agencies. those of you who remember the days of back in the 1970's, that

epidemic, we can think the congressman for getting legislation passed that placed controls on the ingredients, the active ingredients ephedrine. it made the committee safer. he was also instrumental in making possession and distribution of various types of drugs federal offenses. the congressman and never forgot the men and women who served in law enforcement with him. he passed legislation ensuring that the federal government did not tax the death benefits received by surviving spouses and children. he also made sure that spouses and children of officers killed in a line of duty or permanently disabled would be entitled to a college education. the congressmen -- congressman, on behalf of myself and grateful

law-enforcement agencies across the country, we thank you for your service. best wishes. thank you. >> thank you, sheriff. for an additional perspective on a congressman, i would like to call to the podium the president of northern michigan university. >> thank you, tom. it really is an honor to be asked to say a few words about a congressman. when i was selected to become president of northern michigan university six years ago, the congressman was one of the first people to call me and to offer his support. it was clear to me from that first phone call, that the congressman valued the university as an important institution in his district. it was obvious then, as it is today, that he cares about the health and vitality of our university, students and

employees. i think that is what defines bart. he cares about the people and organizations in his district. few people take more pride in being from the upper peninsula of michigan than bart. the upper peninsula and the northern lower peninsula have never been and will never be just tiny dots on the map. we are, in his eyes, at a hidden jewel with unlimited potential. one example of this is the assistance and guidance the congressman provided to public radio and television. he secured rural funding for the recent analog to digital conversion. that enabled us to do two things. we're able to create a more

comprehensive emergency alert system capabilities. it laid the groundwork for the university to develop its network, one of the largest wireless networks and the united states today. his vision and leadership may different. today, we stand in front of a display of the olympic athletes who train here at the united states olympic education center, one of only four u.s. olympic training centers in the nation. he has been a passionate supporter of the u.s. olympic movement and this allowed the training center in particular. the scholarship fund, the program that allows athletes to both traine and while working on an education was named in honor

of the congressmeman's late son. if you are familiar with the upper peninsula, you know that residents are known for their exceptional work ethic. he is truly representative of the. spirit. i think parties on both sides of the aisle with knowledge that. i could speak a lot longer about the work he has done for northern michigan university and the other educational institutions of the region, but i know that you are here to hear what he has to say. let me close by simply saying, thank you, bard't. no one should ever doubt your passion and commitment to the people of your congressional district. >> thank you. i would like to call an elective

-- an elected legislature. >> thank you. it is an honor to be here today. he has been in politics a long time before i got involved in politics and i always respected him. i always voted for him. when i got to know him, as we were on the campaign trail together, it was great to see his tremendous work ethic. he was all was -- he was always the best prepared of anybody in the form. he worked hard for his district and he was always prepared. back in the late 1990's, i had a son-in-law who worked as a legal intern in his washington d.c. office. i asked him, what does everybody think of him? he said he was one of the most respected lawmakers in washington because he works hard and works both sides of the aisle so he can get things done for his district. that was good. we all know that aids easily

tell the truth. they know who is affected and who is not. he has voted against unfair trade practices. he has voted against the wall street big bank bail out. recent events have increased my admiration for him. he had the courage to make a strong -- a tough decision for something he strongly believes in. this is something our country expects. i am sorry that he is not running again. i believe he would be elected if he did. but this is a decision for bart and laurie. we're looking forward to that. our country and state and district are losing an effective fighter for the people. he will be missed, no doubt. i wish him and his family well in the future and i thank him for his many years of service on behalf of my colleagues.

thank you. >> thank you, rep. i am going to call upon the best political adviser and consultant that i have encountered in the many, many years that i've been involved in politics. the person who shared in the heavy demands of this elected office and received those calls at all hours, experience the highs and lows of public office, the excitement and the disappointment that comes with elected office. the first lady of the first district. >> thank you, tom. we met on a blind date approximately 37 years ago. i had just graduated from high school and he was a young police officer. we were married one year later.

i knew from the start that he was special. he was tall, dark, handsome, confident, kind, trustworthy, and brutally honest. i am glad to say that 37 years later, he is still the same guy i married. except maybe a little more gray. the latter life together, he has always been a loving and devoted husband and father and a dedicated public servant. his word is his bond. he loves his job in congress. he loves the people he represents. he often tells his colleagues and friends in washington d.c. that he represents the most beautiful congressional district in the united states. i agree. it is also one of the largest, most diverse districts in the nation, covering 31 counties, bordering three of the five

great lakes, boarding a foreign country -- bordering a foreign country and encompassing two time zones. he loves the issues, carefully studies legislation and he was helping, advocating, and fighting for his constituents. he is not afraid to cast the tough vote. he stands up for what he believes in. he stays true to his convictions. he is a man of outstanding integrity and he never backs away from a fight. he loves serving as chairman of the oversight and investigations subcommittee. his background in law enforcement, investigative skills, and determination making perfect for the job and the american people are better off because of him. as a right to live democrat, is somewhat rare breed in washington, but not as a rare here in northern michigan, he

sometimes in counters pushed backs from members of its own party. but he has always held firm with his belief in the sanctity of life, from conception to natural death. during the recent health care debate, our offices and homes were deluged with calls. many in favor and many against health care reform. unfortunately, some of those calls were vulgar, cruel, profane, and threatening. we were saddened and disappointed by the cruelty and hypocrisy of some of the callers. over 95% of those calls came from outside michigan, from people who did not know or had never met him. he has always been pro-life, pro-gun, and pro health care. the people of northern michigan know that and they know him. he has never saw the limelight

or national fame. he just as the best job that he possibly can do for his constituents, the people of our great nation, and the people of northern michigan. public service has always been a family commitment. i served on the city council for four years and by last eight years as mayor. our sons were involved in state leadership and other student -- other organizations. we travelled this district as a family. we shared each other sorrows and choice. -- joys. we have met so many people along the way and we thank them for their frigid and support. we're truly honored to have been given the opportunity to serve. let me introduce my husband and my congressman, your congressman of whom i am very proud. [applause]

>> i told him not to let laurie go last. she does a great job and it is hard to follow her. thank you to my friends and supporters throughout the years to are with us today, especially my good friend tom and my wife. the people of northern michigan have provided me with the honor of representing them in congress for the past 18 years. i am truly grateful for their support. i have the distinct honor of serving as your congressman longer than any other member in modern times. longer than bob davis or john bennett. when i first ran for congress in 1992, i campaigned on a pledge to make affordable

quality health care right and not a privilege for all americans. i promised the people of the first congressional district that i would not accept the insurance that member -- that members of congress received for federal employees until all americans could have access to the same quality of care. the last 18 years, i have kept that promise. since the day i took office, i have fought to improve the quality and accessibility of health care for people throughout northern michigan and our great nation. despite many setbacks, due to partisanship and washington gridlock, i never gave up hope and i never gave in. as a result, we have made significant progress. here in northern michigan, we have 11 community-based outpatient clinics to provide veterans with the care they need and deserve. broadband access for northern

michigan hospitals serves as a model for the country of how to improve quality and efficiency in health care while lowering the cost in rural areas. we have improved emergency rooms here in the district and provided updated diagnostic technology, leading to improved medical treatment. last month, we finally accomplished what i set out to do 18 years ago. we passed comprehensive national health care reform. the about the past year, i have worked alongside my colleagues to achieve health care reform and i am proud to have helped bring it across the finish line. as a result of that work, and today we are on the path to providing health insurance for 32 million americans, including 38,000 people living here in northern michigan. because of these reforms, all american families, including --

they will see their costs lower end received important consumer protections so they no longer have to live in fear of being one illness or injury away from bankruptcy. today, children can no longer be denied care because of a pre- existing condition. note insurance company can drop you for your work -- or your family from care or cap your insurance coverage. today, because of reform, seniors will be able to afford their prescription drugs and americans will receive preventive care that they need. today, small businesses can receive tax credits to make employee insurance coverage more affordable. after 18 years, together, we have accomplished what you sent me to washington to do. health care for all americans.

my friends and family know that during the last several election cycles, when it seemed that health care reform was impossible in washington, i considered retiring from congress. i wished to spend more time with my family and begin a new chapter in my career. in each of the past several election cycles, i chose to continue to serve the people of the first district because i felt we still have work to do. in 2004, after i voted against the war in iraq, i worked to elect john kerry so that we could bring the illegal, immoral war to end. in 2006, when it seemed possible for democrats to regain the majority and put this country back on the right track, i worked hard to make that happen. we did it. i became chairman of the oversight and investigations committee, the most fascinating subcommittee in all of congress. of the past four years, we

launched investigations into high-profile issues, such as border security, a nursing home safety, security breaches at our nuclear weapons lab, food and drug inspections. two years ago, i saw an opportunity to finally enact health care with the election of a new president. i think president obama and nancy pelosi for their leadership. while legislative accomplishments have been a significant part of my career, perhaps the thing i am most proud of is helping you, my friends, neighbors, and my constituents. my staff and i have helped tens of thousands of constituents resolve problems and cut through red tape. problems such as helping secure

benefits through the veterans or social security administration, or helping with a tax problem at the irs, or securing the medals of a service member who badly served our country. we have helped people obtain passports, secure local mail delivery service, and obtain funding to weatherize our homes to save money. these may seem like little things, but to me and my staff, and there's some of the most important things we do. i want to thank the members of my staff, past and present. but here in northern michigan and in washington d.c. especially those individuals who have been with me from the beginning of my career. i chief of staff, district director, said mccarthy -- sue mccarthy. i thank them for their dedication and loyalty and hard work. i have spent more than 30 years

in public service, as a police officer, a trooper, state representative, and now a u.s. congressman. my service to the people of michigan has been one of the greatest honors of my life. it is time to begin a new and exciting chapter. last night, and early this morning, i informed democratic leaders and key supporters that i would not seek reelection to congress. i will always serve the people of the first district, but i have chosen not to continue to serve as their congressman. i am committed to helping the democrats retained this seat as i believe we must continue to fight for our working families and small businesses, for economic and national security, for great lakes, and our quality of life. by announcing my intention to today, potential candidates will have ample opportunity to organize campaign and collect the necessary signatures before

the may 11 filing deadline. i want to thank the people of northern michigan for putting their faith in me. for 18 years, i have travelled this district. i have heard your concerns and to share your joys and disappointment. i have enjoyed almost every minute. i have fought for you and your families, each and every day. but now it is time to spend a little more time with my wife. we have been married for 36 years. with their son and his family and my extended family and friends. thank you, thank you for being here today. thank you very much. [applause]

>> what was the final moment that he said -- in the -- >> that really came in the last 36 hours. i always thought there was one more job to be done. health care was always a major issue. some of my friends will remember this. health care reform right now -- i believe every american has a right to health care. we did it. it took us 18 years. i felt that main mission. i have been doing this for 37 years in public service. i am young enough, i am at the crossroads of my life for i can do other things. i look forward to those other challenges. it was not one thing. it was a number of things. you have been in the district little bit. 20% of my district understands. you can imagine that when i come home, my biggest regret -- a

different hotel room every night. a different airport. it just came to the point where i said, i have accomplished what i want to do. either i run again and i will be there forever or time to make the break. it is time for me to make the break and move on. >> [inaudible] was their conversation that you had between wednesday and now? we did was there a conversation that you had between wednesday and now? >> we spent this last weekend at the n.c.a.a. final four. we are big michigan state fans. we're great friends would be coach. we were down there.

my son flew in. the three of us sat down and there was a lot of windshield time. we had a lot of time to talk. we do it every year. we compare notes. what do you think? should we go again? is it time to step aside? my son said, dad, it is time. you have put in your time. it was something else. he encourage this. after the disappointment in indianapolis, i made a final decision. really wednesday night, we said, this is it. let's go. i talked to party leadership. we have been struggling this for about six years. yes? >> [inaudible]

>> i have taken tough votes before. my extraordinary time, i have seen everything. in 1993 when we did president clinton's deficit reduction package, al gore broke the tie in the senate. that was a lot of pressure. we had the impeachment vote. i have taken on the national rifle association, which is very popular in my district. i was not very popular with that. i am not afraid to do the tough votes. with it, you get a lot of outside noise. those threats, those 3:00 in the morning phone calls threatening us, things like that, that is people outside the district.

that is not in my district. if you look at my elections, i went by huge margins. i know these folks. they would not do that. you sort of just ignore it and move on. it did not play a really big part. this is a decision that my family made for what is best for us. i am at the crossroads. i want to do new things, new challenges, new opportunities. i look forward to it. >> [inaudible] >> everyone is going to take credit. i wish they would take some credit when i do not do things exactly right. everyone is going to take credit for doing this, do not. if you know me, if i get a challenge, i am going to be there. i do not run away from battles. i did not run away from the fight. for me, getting back and

traveling this district, as much as i love the people, it has become a chore. when i get home from washington on thursday night -- i had eight hours commute back and forth. i get home at 1:00 in the morning. i get up at 6:00 in the morning and you hit the road again. i finally said, is the benefit there? the traveling has really drugged me down. >> do you want to take this opportunity to tell them they're wrong? >> no. i am not going to do that. i am comfortable. i am at peace with the decision i have made. it is the right decision for us. they know they're wrong. i do not have to tell them that. >> [inaudible]