had a clear intent and went after it because it knew it wadz protecting the world in some way from this new creation that only happened a decade before. 1932 was when they figured out this could happen. in 1942, they were building this massive complex. loss alamos occurred. an isolated place, scientists could come in to work. it had the ability to do a lost experien experiences.

box 1663, a famous address. it had many scientists working there. in 1945, it created the first nuclear weapon. >> the nuclear club was started. if you ever looked at the russian device, it looked strangely like our device. united kingdom in 1952, france in 1960 and china in 1964. i talk about this because

somehow tlo there is a sense that nuclear weapons are not tangible, and the affects are not really real. this is no comparison. the oklahoma city bombing was about half a ton of explosions. nuclear weapons, the unit used is thousands of tons. it takes about 25 truck loads, semitrucks. there have been megaton weapons as well. think about something completely different. do not think in terms of just another explosion. the original five nuclear club was formed. it become clear they were the ones that would control the

intent around the world. what if that hadn't happened or suppose we didn't understand all the things we did about notify indication. we maloufed it was possible to make explosions. that took a lost effort to do. what if it had not happened? >> it is a great sport for people not involved in relay history. if discovery hadn't been made, what would the world have been capable of doing without that? my wife hates it because i watch the history channel.

there were eight wars by the time i was in middle school. eight strategic wars and vietnam for us. we new world war i left about 20 million people dead. without nuclear weapons, what is the world tapeable of doing in terms of conventional arment. think about world war ii, this country made 88,000 tanks and guns. the world made 280,000. we made 325,000 aircraft. the world made almost 1 million in that period. 2.5 million trucks. almost 3 million machine guns. 22 aircraft carriers.

52 worldwide. 205 submarines. and because of germany, 1700 submaris were made. you can do a lot of damage and have a lot of warfare. we did it. world war ii was a strag edzy in terms of human lives. 60 to 70,000 people were killed. 5 million dead in prison of war camps. what if they continued the pace. what if we continued to arm ourselves and then had a strategic war? >> that classic line in the movie patten. there is a real sense.

what would have happened it's a question which can not be answered. there's no global competition. or economic equity has been realized.

the war was too dangerous to fight. we do know that the cold war never let it happen. there were a lot of key events. the spy program. so-called super weapons. it wasn't like vision weapons were enough. nato was created. the story i don't recall when russia launched the satellite, it circled the globe. people used to go out and watch it.

you any the story about why it was alleged. they were trying to think about how you do re-entry vehicles. not only do we have nuclear weapons, we can deliver them anywhere with no defense. the world became at the true mercy at the will of people to wage war. after that, it was very clear that nuclear weapons were cheaper way to have the stand off. i started my career in nuclear testing. i remember going to the test

site. i remember two things. the count down, when you get to ten. if you haven't done it right, it's all over and then the ground shakes. most people don't know there was a new cloe artest in mississippi.

recall that back when instien

you can actually hold it in your hands. two pounds. what would you get? her owe shima. that's about the energy yielded. two pounds. since we produced 1.7 million kill owe grams. before the same amount in reactors, you got about 3 million kill owe grams of material it did not sdift until

we made it exist. a lot -- maybe 100 cubic feet of waste. taking defense only waste. a lot happened. the cold war was a lot of stuff. it made a big difference the new start treat y, which you heard.

it's an important action for the senator of the united states to take up. today, we have an opportunity to find a new future. we are fortunate to have the nuclear vision.

we got the change of my view and the world. the way i could summarize it best is what was this cold war all about anyway? it was a changing experience for me.

the weapons not dealt with, you can't tell the difference. a lot of progress has been made 20 years ago. there has been a lot of progress moving in that direction. it is a vision and path which is difficult. i always ask how did you get there. how do you get there?

that's something you think about. have you opened back up this window? you got to pace this out over lifetimes. how do you var fie and maintain

a stable vision enrichment is available. witness what's going on. reactors make plot own yum. they have the means and motive and money. i hope any danger can be reduced. less reliance on the weapons. the dpining of that is somehow the ambulance isn't secure. perhaps this is eroded in the future. as you all know the security today is much more complicated.

we have all kind of threats and energy concerns. we have a financial system i would argue isn't truly understood. it has a certain measure of risk with it as well. all you own today accept for your home and car is some magnetic images on someone's computer. all of which are subject to being taken away. >> let me get back to where i begin. my desire not threatened has based on some unprovable hopes.

the differences do not drive the behavior. the hope can be method rated. the worst instincts would be surpressed. and the best would be am tied. let me close with the essence of security. a six decade experience.

first is that we are nation worth securing we have to stand for something and be a place of individual freedom and opportunity. the second is the biggest concern of mine. you call the story it can lead

to lives with more meaning. in the role that truth could play in society. we went to the czar, ab di indication and civil war. it all happened during her lifetime. it was truly amazing. then a century of unknown. the one thing occurred to me.

as i was working with russian scientists it was my fond hope that truth would prevail and out would come a democratic repped government. let's look at the facts. china has doubled their r and d investment. asia is about to exceed the u.s. in total r&d investment.

foreign born work rers have gon from 6 to 12 of the workers. 12 countries scored higher than the u.s. the u.s. ranked 17th. and u.s. scored 19 out of 24 in mathmatic scoreings. i don't think that could work

went half of the investors. today we have 22%. >> a contrast in point. the u.s. spends $250 billion which is about the amount we spend on r and d. >> some would argue we are on the right track. walking on the wrong foot and falling behind. ignoring the fact of what got us here can't be abandoned without circumstances.

the role of science and engineering should be much more prominent than it is. we need to recognize that innovation will increase our prosperity. anything we can do to get consensus around these points would be good. calling america competes and getting a real investment these priorities haven't been taught.

we need to rekindle our sense of traveling in the service. we can cannot continue in pub hick service. as threats evolve, with no other interest but to serve. i would argue which is the hall mark of today. i was fortunate to lead and live my career at the national laboratory you have one exceptionnal statement. not about prophet and fee.

some essential indpreetents. we experience some fundamental ly earth changing experience. we intend to go on a new path. we must do it carefully and willingly. no matter the detarls and where it leads us step by step, we have to make sure that these two things prevail. our commitment to freedom and science. without freedom, no science. without science, no freedom. thank you.

>> good afternoon. my question we've heard a lot about budget concerns would you ee lamb rate on how the expenditures and how do we make sure the national security continue? jo thank you. asking what the ambulance of the resources is can we maintain the economy. as the senator said, we are under a lot of stress with the whole pie as you heard we have

to deal with the social programs, all the safety networks my hope is that we can we can create a world we will always have to maintain the investment there. are they enabled by the best technology and leader shship we

have to maintain the level. recall it was the military which gave us micro electronics. every dollar invested is the best way. they do use technology so much

in place. how do policy makers make decisions that impact you at the lab level. first it depends on the will and intense of the country.

when there are national issues where you galvanize those change my former laboratory 100% of the funding was nuclear weapons today that is 40%.

the bottom line is the diversity is more important than focus. we discussed with the senator when he was speaking being at an end. how did the war affect the defense xhounity and the skien tiff yik community behind that?

there's been a lot of direct nafkts and indirect affects the budgeting that took place they were on budget created. that created a lot of activity which was very important. you could have drawn away from things. it did that in part but not a lot. they followed 9/11. it was a serious change in thinking. i remember managing the 12th,

13th, 14th and 15th. we couldn't keep people home. people insisted on coming to work. what weigh saw was a lot more opportunity lots of application

for work that occurred. the general change in the mood of the country. >> i hate to use this term for your remarks but that was dynamite [applause] . that was a marvelous

presentation. if anything ever made the case for science and mathmatics, you did it so well. going forward with what our good friend had to say. i have two or three sound bites for you. how can they guarantee the nuclear stockpile when the largest computers cannot formulate a cubic foot of air. there's a formula i cannot repeat. we need nuclear testing back. your comment.

the stockpile forward has been done in the past. the general sense is the course we are on >> i'll say it in terms of a story a friend of mine said, tom, you know what your problem is. there's never been a tv show called l.a. engineer.

>> this is the last one. could you comment on the fact that even before the bp well was sealed, the lawsuits were already being filed. the clean up. i've been involved in stopping the flow. i want to ask i am proud to have

been your friend and worked with you. i'm even more proud to have spent some of your times the lab will run fine without you being the director. your assessment was followed. that is no worry to you.

i have to sit there. i have to sit there knowing that we can't afford anything anyone is pauking about. we have let the budget put us in a position where debt owed to othe others what we owe to others is so big that we probably are

going to have to go on some kind of 5-10 year diet if we err going to save the country. tom here with his ideas. what are we going to do to solve the budget problem. i can't do that. when we do that, our policy group will release the budget.

>> i want to close with one thought. you spoke of freedom today and achievement i recall when i was a brand new senator, we had a young king come to see us. he came and gave us a speech. for a king that lived in spain for his young adult life said all significant human achievement occurs because a man

and a woman is free. you get truly amazing treatment there. if you have our kind of freedom, you get the best because everybody that might be achievers, you probably find the right ones without innovation,

we have no chance in a world. they can run our countries for x number of years. the laboring people will find out they are getting enough. i want to personally thank you today for coming thank you

senator. >> the leader of the proposed islamic center talked about the proposal earlier. his remarks are next. later, an update on the u.s. russian nuclear arms reduction treaty.

skam inning various aspects. that's live at 11 a.m. eastern. >> the imam leading the effort said he was surprised by the controversy surrounding the plan. the council on foreign relations in new york city. this is an hour. >> good morning and welcome to the council on foreign

relations. as you know, we are hosting the founder and ceo of the american society of muslim advancement. also the imam of the mosque here in new york city, that is only part of who he is. he is the founder and chair of the cordova initiative which is dedicated to building bridges from the muslim and non-muslim world and central to the plans for the building of a new islamic community center to be built adjacent to ground zero. he is the author of several books including "what's right with islam and new foundings for the west.

>> this meeting this morning is on the record. with that, i'll welcome you back to the council on foreign relations. thank you very much [applause] . it is customary for muslims to

dpin by first envoking the name of the creator. the creator of the heavens and the earth and all between them. the god of abraham,ish may el and isaac, the god of jesus and his mother mary and all the prophets and messengers. i am honored to be here today. i thank richard and the council foregiving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. we come together at a time of great crisis an danger. what began as a dispute over a community center in lower manhattan has grown into a

relationship between my be loved religion and my be loved country. the events in the past few weeks have saddened me to the core. i regret that some have misunderstood our intentions. i am disscombresed to know some have exploited this issue for their own a agendas. i am disappointed that so many arguments have been based on misinformation and harmful center yoe types i am grateful

for making the movements. for awful those who have voiced objection to our plans with respect and open minds and hearts, i am grateful. i do recognize among the critics are some who have lost loved ones to 9/11. to all of them, i offer my heart felt sin serity and prayers to mark their souls. with even great resolve to fight

against radical philosophies my goal is two fold. to reach out and explain the love of my religion. second to reach out to my muslim brothers and stirz all over the world to explain and share my love of america. this is my personal mission and is anchored in my personal experience. allow me to begin telling you my story. i came america by boat. i was only 17 years old. we sailed into new york harbor on a sunny and cold winter day i remember seeing the stat u of liberty for the first time. rising in the harbor.

i remember admiring her strength and colors in the morning, crisp sunlight. i had no idea what life would be like in america but i looked forward to it. i was born in kuwait to egyptian parents. my father was a religious scholar. he was sent to this country to head a growing muslim community in new york city. he was active in what used to be called the ekumenical movement. today we call it interfaith die do you go. for me, i found this society remarkably non-religious, even

anti-religious. in the 1960's, religion was found to be passe? a crutch for the sim people minded. this was shocking to me. i thought this place sure is different. i got my bachelors in physics, i married and raised my children here. i had a number of ok u patients, a high school teacher, i am a typical new yorker, i am an american. in 1979, i become a naturized u.s. citizen. i pledged allegiance and till believe the val use of the united states and the constitution. i know these rights were won by

the blood of brave american soldiers. my own niece currently serves in the united states army. i know this country was founded by individuals who left the country of or gain because of an unhappiness with their government. they wanted something better. freedom of speech, separation of church and state, these were morning my earliest lessons in american civic life. in america, we do protect these differences and different expressions of faith. we assemble to pray and chant and recite our sak red skrip turs or to come together in communion and draw strength as a community. but religion in america is not

imposed on us. we can be as devout or agnostic as we like. that choice. to be or not to be religious or anything else for that matter forced me to think about who i was, who i am, what i truly wanted and chose to be. it has given me a profound appreciation for the country that provides these freedoms. you could say i found my fanl in this country. for me, islam and america are oregonicly bound together. this is not my story alone. the american way of life has helped many muslims make a conscious decision to their faith. that choice is precious. that is why america is precious.

i discovered that the country that first seemed so anti-religious in fact has a refoundly spiritual base and purpose. the founding fathers were men of faith. within the governing documents they created, the declaration of independence, and constitution, they affirmed their most sak red spiritual values. these are legal expressions of a religious idea that is rooted in the commandments and sprins pels of the three faiths practiced by the people of the book, jews, christians and muslims. to remind us even in the market, they imprinted, in god we trust. since 1983, i have served as

imam or prayer leader in a mosque in tribecca. it was just blocks from the world trade centers. our people come from all over the world and from every walk of life. congressmen to taxi drivers. on september 11, a number of them tragically lost their lives. together we helped slowly rebuild lower manhattan. i belong to this neighborhood. i'm a doe vout muslim. i pray five times a day, sometimes more if i can. i observe the rituals required by my faith. i am a proud american citizen, no let no one forget that.

i vote in elections, i pay taxes, i pledge allegiance to the flag and i'm a giant's fan. i'm glad they won yesterday. both this country and the teachings of my faith have shaped me. both have shaped up and made up my core identity as a human being. . .

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] an establishment republican who served in the legislature for a number of years. jeff clark has struggled to have his voice heard. he is -- robert burke doesn't want to allow him into the debates, so while they are still working autoof that out, whether or not he will be included in any of the candidate forum it is , it is difficult for him. the only poll that has come out show that he is down by

20-something points and republican robert hurt has a sizable lead. however, that same poll showed him down by 37 points and he came back to win it. so if there is anything we know it is that things can change quickly and it might be more competitive than it appears. >> you're watching public affairs programming on c-span. up next, an update on the u.s.-russia nuclear arms reduction treaty known as start. after that the leader to have proposed islamic cultural center near ground zero. on "wall street journal," u.s. mexico border issues. "wall street journal" each morning at 7:00 eastern. >> every weekend on c-span 3. 48 hours of people and events

telling the american story. hear speeches by national leaders. visit museums. historical sites and college campuses. american history tv. all weekend every weekend on c-span 3. now a look at the nuclear arms treaty signed in april by president obama and russian president medvedev. it must pass the senate by a 2/3 majority in order to be ratified. the state department and georgetown university host this event. >> good afternoon. on behalf of the walsh school, the center for peace and security studies, it is a great

pleasure and tremendous honor to welcome this afternoon assistant secretary of state and david hoffman. he has had a career and he is going to serve as moderator and he is going introduces got moeller. -- gottemoeller who was a student in what used to be the school of language and linguistics where she majored in russian and she taught here at georgetown.

>> thank you everybody for coming. we have a live webcast. i would like to say thank you for co-sponsoring this. i hope we'll have a lively q and answer session today. they are experienced arms control negotiators. my name is david hoffman and i'm a journalist and for many years i was the white house correspondent for the "washington post" and finally moscow bureau chief and foreign editor. for all of these years, i was trying to find out what these two people were doing at the negotiating table facing off in some of the most important negotiations of our lifetimes. these negotiations have now produced again another strategic new mexico arms treaty and this

treaty will be considered in the coming by as by the united states senate. so the things we're going to learn about today are important for decisions that the senate will be making soon. it is a author of a recent book about the cold war arms race i'm a big believer that history offers us many lessons for today and i hope we'll have a chance to ask both of them about what those lessons because both have experience not only on the issues on the table today in the current treaty but in 20 and 30 years worth of experience. when i first came to washington, the ambassador was the correspondent at the "new york times" covering these issues and i with great anticipation picked up the newspaper every morning tods what scoops he had or what things he was going to to richard perle at the state department, defense department and vice versa. both of them richly experienced. i won't take up any more of our

time. we'll really is brief remarks by each and then discussion among them for about 25 minutes and then open up for the last half for your questions and answers. first, ambassador burke, a brief introduction. r thank you very much for that introduction, david. i can't claim like rose can, that i'm a graduate of georgetown university. but in a much more minor category, i can claim that my son played lacrosse for georgetown prep. which in some quarters in this region is more important. certainly not on the campus of georgetown. i think in a way, we may have almost done this in reverse order because i'm not going to try steal rose's thunder. she is the negotiator of the new

start treaty and i'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about that treaty because in my view, rose will flush it out. there really shouldn't be much debate about whether this treaty is in the u.s. interests or not. clearly, it is. it doesn't represent a giant step forward towards the goal of global zero, that is the idea of eliminating all nuclear weapons worldwide. but perhaps at a this point, more importantly, it has put the united states and russia back on a road to making progress towards global zero and perhaps creates momentum towards moving beyond simply a russian/american dialogue on strategic arms

reductions towards actually creating a more global or multilateral framework for discussing further arms reductions which could include china, india, pakistan, britain and france and others. because just to emphasize this very strongly, that really should be our goal. we shouldn't look at these arms control agreements, in my view, as just a series of especially sodic negotiations, but -- episodic negotiations. particularly in a moment in international history when the real threat of nuclear weapons certainly do not stem from the likelihood or the possibility of a u.s.-russian nuclear war, i think that is very low and nonexistent at this point.

the threat is a very different threat. it emanates from a growing number of failed states. a growing number of weak states with weak governments and a growing availability of nuclear technology. to give you one little thing to think about. pakistan. there is a country with a government that is weak and increasingly faces a series of demands that it finds it difficult to meet. a country where al qaeda exists stand they could, would probably strike at the united states and other countries again. and a country that has a stockpile of nuclear weapons. that is a kind of -- make us think about the real threat of nuclear weapons going forward, which is the further spread of

nuclear weapons, not the strong, stable states like to united states, but to a growing number of washington, unstable states, where not only could those states themselves use nuclear weapons in a crisis but where those weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists. thinking about global zero, we should see this agreement as a very important step to creating a process of coming to grips with this new age of nuclear danger. now, there is a kind of paradox to me, at any rate, about the debate in this town, in the u.s. senate over this new start treaty. this morning, because i couldn't remember the exact numbers, i -- i went online and reminded myself of what the senate vote

on the treaty that i was involved in helping achieve in 1992, the old start treaty, what was the senate vote? it was 92-5. in other words, there were only five u.s. senators that came out against that treaty. i'm not going ask rose to tell me how many senators she thinks will oppose this treaty and i do think, by the way, that it will be ratified sooner or later and i hope sooner. but it will certainly -- it will certainly generate more than five opposition votes. and i had trouble kind of understanding that because in 1992, of course, we were just ending the cold war. there was still, needless to say, after an experience of 40

years of distrust, of competition and paranoia stween united states and the sove -- between the united states and the soviet yeen, one would have thought that people would be much more skeptical and concerned about supporting a treaty which called for things like on-site inspections and called for the first nuclear reductions on the two sides, but there wasn't. it is paradox cal to me that 20 years after the cold war, that in a year when the russian federation supported the united states on our new sanctions against iran,, in a year when the russians have been much more open and cooperative and n helping us address our engagement and involvement in afghanistan, and in a period

when the person president and the russian president, i think, since the beginning of the obama administration, have meat 18 times and have publicly together called for worldwide -- met 18 times and called together for redugses. does that say there is something wrong with the new treaty? in my judgment, absolutely not but it may say something about our politics. you want me to conclude here? i will. perhaps we need to take a look at our politics. the dysfunctionality, the lack of bipartisan on an issue as central as this, but some other issues that we can maybe discuss in our q's and a's. >> thank you.

rose, please give us your perspective. >> thank you very much. and thank you, everybody who is responsible for organizing this event. it is great to be back here on campus today. one thing that ambassador burt didn't mention. he used to be my bozz. i will return to that in a minute. i did work as a very lowly state department advisor in 1992-1993. i want to circle back to that in just a moment. i wanted to actually start at a place i've before told never to start and that is to never make an apology. but it is an interesting apology because the reason i was a few minutes late, and i'm sorry for that, because i was on capitol hill negotiating as part of the ratification process for the new start treaty and it is a very intense discussion. as i got on to campus, who should i run into? senator lugar.

he must have some events here today. i asked how his morning had been going and he said i talked to this snar senator and that senator and so forth and so on. i said i hope they are in a good mood and he said yes, let's keep them in a good mood. there is a great deal of momentum at the moment toward radification of the new stark treaty, that is the senate giving its advice and consent for the stark treaty. there will be a business meeting to consider the resolution for radification and we are hard at work trying make sure that the senate has all the information that they need in order to give their advice and consent. it has been a very, very serious process, a very hard-working process. i can tell you i worked all through the weekend as did my colleagues on capitol hill. everybody has in mind that ns a molt. a moment of momentum.

we can move in a decisive way toward radification of this treaty. there is one message, though, i really wanted to emphasize, it is not only a historical moment in my view, where our two parties, the temperatures and republicans can come -- the democrats and republicans can come together toward moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons but it is also a moment of, i think, an opportunity for profound bipartisan and as he has already said, that is the history of these arms control efforts, they have been bipartisan in their nature. i think that is what we would like to really stress in this period and let's keep working. it is a heavy slog, i have to tell you. there are lots of serious issues and if you don't pay attention to the debates at all, around the many hearings that you have

had, you heard about some of the issues, offense-defense relationship, the potential for global strike, congressional range strategic systems and whether there is any they with the treaty constrains such systems, i will tell you no. we can come ba to that. whether there are any secret deals that the senate needs to know about. again, i say no. it is a historic moment to move forward and bring us to a point where we begin have inspectors on the ground in the russian federation and russian inspectors are coming here. at the moment, we are blind toward what is going on in the russian strategic nuclear forces in terms of an on-ite presence. of course we're not totally blind. we have our national technical means. we have our satellites and we are able to tell a great deal about what's going on inside the russian federation's nuclear forces, buzz the that on-site

inspection capability that was the great innovation of first the nuclear forces treaty and later on the stark treaty and we're moving toward greater perfection and more intensive on-site inspections that so at the moment, we don't have the opportunity, the treaty is not entered into force yet, but we want to get back to point where senator lugar likes to say, we have roots on the ground. we can be there with eyes on their missiles, their submarines, their bombs. everything that we need to understand, to understand what's going on with their nuclear forces and of course it is the same for us. in that way, these treaties are very stabilizing because we view as long as they understand what we're up to and vice versa, there is no opportunity for miscalculation. there is no opportunity for worst case analysis that drives

each side to put more money into nuclear weapons when it is not really needed because we don't really threaten each other that way anymore. but we need to have that mutual confidence and understanding to have that truly stablizing relationship. so i think that we're at a historic moment and i hope we see some real progress this week. i anticipate we'll see some real progress this week. one final word on rick burke as a boss. he was a really good boss. it was a really tough period in those negotiations as i recall. we were driving on some issues that had never been contemplated before such as how do you actually go i side a certain kind of weapons facility and look at the missiles there? how do you do that again, giving that mutual confidence and transparency but not in any way giving up sensitive information. both countries have a concern about that.

we were working very, very hard on those issues at that time. the theme i wanted to pick up on is one that rick has already brought to your attention. that is that these negotiations and the agreements that have been worked have been on a con tin wum. one builds on the other. -- continuum. now we've had 15 years of experience in implementing start and parts of that was a very tough slog, because as you're figuring out how the do things, you got to get your inspectors up to speed and they are working on all of these details on how the make the procedures work. we learned a lot in that process. this fakes advantage of that learning, that learning curve that has been climbed up in the united states and the russian federation and now i think we're moving on to an even better treaty that will benefit the united states and this country in very significant ways.

let's get on the the conversation. >> we're going to try to tim late a little conversation among us before opening to our questions. i guess i have a question for both of you in observation. >> rose, what is so magic about this number of 1,550 that you negotiated and i will ask rick also, you're affiliated with global zero. why not 550. what do we really need for a deterrent, in light of the fact that the president at the prague speech talked about a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. in some language that hasn't

been widely acknowledged or seen and he also indicated that we really have too many nuclear weapons. if we have too many, is this really just a train station stop on the way to global zero or is this a big, important -- in itself. i would like to hear both of you. >> i think it is a significant step, if you know about the treaties that have, you know, kind of piled up over the last 15 years, in addition to the start treaty, which took the number of deployed weapons down from about 12,000 on each side to about 6,000. then the moscow treaty brought those numbers down even lower and it was agreed that we would have operationly deployed strategic nuclear warheads in the range of 1,700 to 2200. this treaty takes reductions a step tailor 1,550. we always knew this treaty was going to be a kind of -- i call it a bridge or transition treaty

to keep ther reductions because we knew the start treaty was going out of force on december 5, last year, 2009, that we needed to have a transition to further reduction negotiations that will be in some ways much more challenging. president obama has already said in prague when he signed the treaty in april, he said next we move on to non-strategic nuclear weapons and we move on to nondeployed nuclear weapons, weaponses that are in storage facilities. those are a lot more difficult varyification problems for one thing. we knew negotiating such treaty would take a lot longer. yes, in some ways, this is a weigh station or bridge. i prefer to think of it as a weigh station on the road to keep ther reductions, but it does and it can put in place as soon as its enters into force, not quite that very day, but within 60 days of the exchange

of instrument s of ratification this treaty can enter into force and in that way, we will again be proceeding to ways to work together with the russians on further reductions. i expect also that we will be proceeding with further negotiations. the president has already spoken of that and we need to get cracking on that. >> well, i agree with a lot of what rose has just said. i guess i will just add a couple of points. when you ask what is the difference between 60,000 nuclear weapons or 20,000 nuclear weapons, in my view, not much. what we're talking about is how many times do you want to balance the -- in terms of -- you run out of targets more quickly than you run out of weapons. so what's critical, it seems to me, is the political question of when di do you get down to a level when the rest of the

world, particularly countries that are thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons say, wow, those guys are serious about this process. they are really discharging their commitments that they made in the 1968 nuclear proliferation treaty. i think that is crucial relationship here. that needs to be focused on in the public debate. and if you don't mind, rose, i would say my only real criticism of what the administration has been saying or more importantly not saying is to not emphasize the relationship between start -- new start and nuclear nonproliferation. because i think what we have to do is demonstrate that the existing nuclear powers, the have countries understand that

they have to reverse their build-up and they have to start reducing in a serious fashion. so what rose said about a next phase, which would not only cover the deployed weapons and also the nondeployed weapons, the weapons of storage, the so-called substrategic weapons and tactical nuclear weapons, when we can get down to a level of 1,000 or so weapons, in my judgment, you have created an environment where you have a chance of a decent shot at bringing in the chinese and the indians and others. and once you have created that kind of forum, that kind of global negotiation over numbers of nuclear weapons, then i think you start to build strong political barriers that further proliferation. you put nuclear weapons in a

class of some sort of chemical and biological weapons. they have become too controversial for states to cross the nuclear threshold. that's where -- that's what i think we want to achieve and i think with this new start agreement i think we have a chance to take a big step towards that goal. >> both of you have brouppingt the question of politics today -- brought up the question of politics today. i would like to put the question to you this way. it seems like the doubts and undeclared senators are all republican. we're all watching the republicans to see if they will join the democrats to give us a big enough majority to approve the treaty. well, reagan, you served reagan. i wonder if he were here today, would he listen to these complaints from the republicans

about funding of the nuclear weapons establishment or verification issues? what would reagan advise his party to do? >> i have no doubt that ronald reagan and my other presidential borks george h.w. bush. emphasis on h, would have both strongly supported this agreement but ronald reagan in particular. ronald reagan was probably the first president, not barack obama, but ronald reagan was the first president that talked about eliminating all nuclear weapons. he was -- he was extremely uncomfortable with having the authority to -- to press a button that could lead to the death of millions of people.

and he was -- he became as president, very concerned about the u.s.-russian, the nuclear relationship, and as soon as he found a partner in mikhail gorbachev, that he felt he could work with, as you found out, he negotiated in 1987, the treaty covering immediate range nuclear forces, they were ended. he was the first president that didn't just negotiate strategic arms limit akseation, but they was first president that created the start process, strategic arms reductions. that is another irony or paradox, where in the -- we live with today, because so many of these republicans in the u.s. senate who have questioned the treaty and could possibly vote

against it are people, if you ask them, gee, are you a raining anite, do you storr pizz -- a reaganite, they would enthusiastically say yes. one of the interesting situations that we're in today, is i don't think there is a single nuclear arms treaty that has ever been ratified, arms reduction treaty or limitation treaty that that has ever been ratified under a democratic presidency. the first a.b.m. treaty and the first agreement putting limits on offensive nuclear forces was rat find during the knickson administration. -- ratified during the knickson administration. i was -- nixon administration.

it was ratified turned reagan administration and the start treaty was ratified turned bush administration. i think one of the problems is good old-fashioned red meat politics. the republicans just can't resist this opportunity to say well, the democrats are weak on national security. that is one of the real barriers that the obama administration faces here. i have no doubt whatsoever that if we had a republican administration this treaty would be already ratified. >> that's what's so ironic about one of the main -- one of the main debates that's been going on is about the modernizeation budget for the nuclear weapons stockpile for the infrastructure and over the last -- over the last eight years, there was a great deal of difficulty getting

budget sufficient for the national stockpile and its infrastructure and that was a great concern arriving in the year 2009 and it was something i began to hear about from republican colleagues while i was still in geneva, that we need more funding for the stockpile. it has been made a kind of issue now in the radification debate in this treaty and i will say that president obama has been extraordinaryly serious about ensuring that we have a good budget for our national nuclear weapons infrastructure and working very hard on that so much so that our friend and colleague said when he was administrator of the security administration a couple of years ago, he would have killed to have this kirnede budget so i just want to make the point, i think in some ways, we have some of the right themes here but i want to make the point that the

obama administration has been hitting hard on some of these national security arguments. one thing i want to mention about democrats and ratifying treaties. we did some extraordinaryly heavy lifting during the clinton administration to get conventional forces in europe treaty ratified. that was 100-0. we haven't done so badly. >> good, i think it is now time for us to take some questions from the audience and i would like you to identify yourself, if you can when you stand up and ask the question and i think the first question -- please. >> first of all, thank you to

both of you for putting on this great event. for a really great discussion. we always appreciate you engaging the young erden ration in dialogue and discourse. my question is on behalf of global zero, which is, as ambassador burt mentioned achieving a world without nuclear weapons. if that is the goal to, eliminate the risk of nuclear catastrophe, then what is the next steps? what are the next 20 years going to look like? what do we have to do now in order to achieve a world where we don't have those risks or at least the risks are nullified and what international challenges do we face? thank you. >> i will say that the very

first set of steps is outlined, probably none of you have taken time read the new start treaty, but the very next steps are outlined in the treaty where we talk about moving on rapidly to new negotiations and including expanding to a multilateral approach to bring other countries in as well. so we're already thinking ahead about what the next negotiation also look like. as i already mentioned, president obama's call for nonstrategic weapons and storage facilities to be on the agenda and i think that we will work hard to figure out how to move to that negotiating table and move out all of those next negotiations. in addition to that, i thought it was very good the way you brought up the nonproliferation regime. how are we going to strengthen that, our negotiations are the russians and the other nuclear weapons states, they are only one aspect of strength tng nonproliferation regime.

i actually agree with rick that it is very, very important that we show that we are ready really to move out on these reduction agendas and that we are really serious about it, but in addition to that, the other countries who are parties to the nonproliferation treaty, and that is just about every country today, and by the way, it is our policy, as it has long been for the nonproliferation treaty to be a universal treaty. all countries should belong, but the countries who are not nuclear weapons states also have to step forward and fulfill their obligations to be responsible with regard to the nuclear fuel cycle that is used for peaceful purposes and that's why we're so concerned about what iran is up to. they say they have a peaceful nuclear energy program going on but then why are they not more cooperative in terms of ensuring that it is properly safeguarded

and that we in the whole country understand what is going on there. everybody has responsibility to that regime, and it is not only the nuclear weapons states, it is everybody has to gather together and work hard to strengthen it. >> i just -- let me make one simple brief point. because i agree with everything that rose said. you know, we live in -- and i say we, i'm talking just about the united states, but in a good part of the international system, we live in democratses. -- temperature sis. democracies.

they need to feel pressure from below. that's why there is -- i think a real need for kinds of people that are here today, the kind of organizations like global zero that is represented here. but other groups to -- to promote these issues, to promote this agenda. so that governments feel some heat to do something about it. i mean, the fact of the matter, and we're enormously lucky, i mean, in my view, to be here today, to talk about this new treaty, but the fact of the matter is i don't think we would be here today. we wouldn't be talking with a large group of people in a room about global zero. we wouldn't be talking about this agenda of nonproliferation if it wasn't for one man, barack obama. he happens to believe it. now i think there are some other people in his administration who do do too. i also know there are some who

don't but the fact is he has pushed this. he made this a priority to reengage and reset a relationship with the russian federation. he brought it up with medvedev in their first meeting in london at the gmp-20 summit. he went to the u.n. security council and i think i'm correct in saying he is the first president to ever chair a u.n. security council meeting and he got an agreement on the general goal of global zero and he convened this nuclear security summit last spring. it is remarkable how far one well-placed politician can go but even barack obama can't sustain this agenda without some real political support both here and at home and abroad.

>> do you expect -- to be subject of the -- >> it is my understanding that secretary gates will be meeting here in town to pursue issues that are part of the overall agenda for the u.s.-russian presidential commission and it may very well prove to be a topic of discussion, but it is i would say, not the prime purpose of the visit they are getting underway, a long-standing mutual commitment to begin a kind of joint subcommittee under this presidential commission.

>> my name is carmela jones. i'm an active job seerk. i would like to thank you for holding this discussion today. my question is for all three of you. mentioning the comments about getting other countries to follow and -- with the new treaty, are you expectingtorian listen or eventually get countries, india, china, to come in to a -- more allies into reducing nuclear arms? thank you. >> yes, i think one of the

interesting effects that we have already seen, and to tell you the truth, you know, i wanted to just note what rick had to say is really true the period when nuclear weapons were a big deal. some of you in the room will remember the freeze movement in from the 1980's and how there was a great deal of public attention to this. in recent years, since the end of the cold war, i think people thought oh, we're done with nuclear weapons and stick the issue on the back burner and not pay all that much attention to it. i wasn't really sure when we negotiated this treaty how much buzz it would generate. how much it would get people interested. and i have been very, very happy to see that in the international community on the world stage, it has got an great deal of interest. we had a very good outcome at the review conference in may right after the treaty was signed in april because there was this kind of positive buzz,

oh, you know, the united states and russia, they are back at the table again. they are move out trying to get something done in this regard. we saw a coming out of this review conference in may. it is a big deal because the last review conference in 2005 wasn't able to reach consensus and ended in disarray. there was a feeling i think that yes, we have the opportunity to move out on some of these nonproliferation issues so i hope that the effect will continue to work its magic on the international scene. i'm not so navy to think it is going to -- so naive to think it is going to solve every problem that we have. that's why i think it is so important that the public and the general overall community continue to push on these issues and i very much welcome this opportunity today to bring together a couple of different groups here at georgetown.

i think this is exactly the kind of venue that we need to have and we need to repeat and develop to make sure there is as much attention as possible to these issues among the public. >> i'm not exactly one of the young people here at georgetown but i remember a discussion a long time ago, we -- we all knew and admired anymore many ways and he talked about this issue of zero nukes and he said the trouble with zureo nukes, when you have a certain amount and no matter, you have avoided the problem of the maverick state. the mavericks who can create a weapon somewhere in the middle of nowhere and all of a sudden they are a great power and so he said essentially, the best can

be the enemy of the good. and i wonder how you can deal with that issue so that you can say ok. let's ratify this but it is not necessarily the way to zero. it is just part of our current strategy. >> well, that's a great question, dick, and i'm not surprised that robert straws would have raised that. i think he was of a generation of strategic thinkers who raised compelling questions like that but i do think there is some answers to this. and that is we're not talking about a technology or a weapons system that can only be possessed by a magic circle of very industrialized, modern, large economies. it has been -- over 60 years

since nuclear weapons have existed. and the availability of that know-how, that technology, even the materials, has spread substantially. that's why increasingly weaker states can acquire these through all kind s of hidden means. at least acquire the components for that. i don't believe that when north carolina was capable of developing a handful of weapons, which it currently has, it suddenly became a major power or a great tower. -- north korea. even in a zero nuclear weapons regime, if a country were able to somehow covertly develop a small number of weapons, i don't think they can overnight announce that they were now

world's preeminent power. for one reason, we have conventional capabilities that could take out that capability very quickly. we don't -- increasingly with long range precision strike weapons, you can carry out strategic missions without, in the process having to threaten millions of peoples' lives. so i don't sort of buy that scenario but there are lots of questions of getting to what i call the end game. that is only one. there are other kind of difficult problems you have to address. and we have to begin working on them. but that is not a reason now for not advocating the goal and making progress towards it. you can really, in my judgment, still have a situation of being able to threaten unacceptable damage to an adversary with less

than 500 or so nuclear weapons. so we still have vastly too large nuclear arsenals. we have to think through these problems and some are very challenging. i haven't been able to dedetect or see any real show stoppers that should lead us to conclude it is not a worthy goal. >> more questions, please. >> hello, estimate starks from "congressional quarterly." you mentioned, he has a resolution he has been working on. i wanted to see if you could talk to me about any reservations the administration might have about that, if any and you said you think this will come out of committee. do jue have a stronger soverpbes what will happen snsm do you have the numbers for majorities

ratification in the senate? >> as i said before, we have, you know, a process going on, as i mentioned it is very intense. very, very active. the senate's, you know, the staff up there working very, very hard. senators working very, very hard to get all the information they need and we have been, you know, really getting to them all the information that they have been asking for to try to make sure they do have all the information they need for their advice and consent. the reason i'm feeling, you know, optimistic is that we have a clear signal from senator kerry, when he put the notification out that he wants to bring this up at the business meeting this week on thursday, that, you know, people are wrestling very actively with this issue and you all probably heard the same errors i heard this morning coming into work or when you woke up that this is a new congressional season,

starting, everybody is back from their summer break but there is actually very, very little time before they break to go out for the elections. and so the fact that everybody is working very hard. they are intent on, you know, moving out on the treaty, really trying get some progress to get it out of committee this week and i hope, actually get a vote on the floor in the next couple of weeks. you know, these are all signs to me of momentum and a positive momentum. as to the results, i think well, it is still up in the air. not going talk about that. >> peace and security studies.

mentioned modernizeation. that might be one issue you have to -- in order to get a majority in the senate. modernizeation is complicated. it makes things more difficult. in order to get closer to what the -- and that is zero nuclear weapons, the next critical step will be short-term -- short-range nuclear weapons. and we know that nuclear weapons have -- and the question i would like to ask you is technical nuclear weapons will be much more difficult to negotiate than strategic weapons, correct? the numbers are difficult, to sit down and try find a solution, do you think that in

that category, could be to to achieve what ambassador burt has in mind and with it your possible strategy, not to modernize if that category. >> rick will probably want to comment on this as well. look, i wanted to say that increasingly, the lines between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic nuclear weapons are -- as a matter of fact, whether a warhead is considered a tactical weapon or a strategic weapon depends on what its delivery vehicle is. whether it is a shorter range missile for a tactical range or whether it is an intercontinental range missile or bomber that can deliver weapons. but those differences becoming

blurred as the numbers go lower and lower and lower and i frankly think we're entering the stage as we contemplate this next negotiation where actually we'll have a single basket where nonstrategic and strategic weapons can reside together for purposes over the negotiation. we're definitely as numbers get lower coming to that stage. i'm not quite sure that you're proposal in that works, if we are looking across the spectrum and thinking about reductions and all that kind of conceptual basis but it is an interesting idea and i think one area where it will be important to work sooner rather than later, not only with the russians but also with our nato allies because some of these systems are deployed in nato european countries, will be on uping the level of mutual confidence, confidence on transparency-building measures i

think could be a positive early-staged pursuit as we look at where we're going to go next in the negotiations process. >> on this technical question, you know, the answer -- if this were a question posed to the united states, i think you would get a rousing yes, because i think there is really a very small constituency in the united states and especially in the u.s. military circles for substrategic weapons. you know, the u.s. surface fleet has been denuclearized and it is well known that the united states and its allies employee just a few hundred gravity-delivered weapons in europe and there is no great enthusiasm for these systems because military plan verse trouble figuring out ow -- planners have trouble figuring

out how they would use them. the problem is russia. russia is not transparent about them. we don't really know or understand how many of these republics they have. we know -- weapons they have. we though they have a lot of them. at least 2,000. maybe double that and the problem is on the russian side, i think that as expressed to me by russian military, senior military officers, is that they are not so concerned about deploying these weapons. vis-a-vis is west. they are concerned about china. that's why again, some multilateral framework at some stage is going to be important here because the russians base their planning to some-degree on obviously what they see as a growing threat from china. but to solve the problem in the next stagor negotiations, if we try work on substrategic category, the asimple treasuries

such we're not going to get anywhere. asimple -- they are associating with strategic-delivery vehicles. this is an area where most people think the united states has the advantage. there is a trade-off. maybe you could have one ceiling of 1,000 or so systems where the united states would have a small number of tactical weapons and the weapons could have a larger number under their freedom to mix approach and thus a smaller number of intercontinental systems. >> thank you both very much. i think you can all see why we have such great negotiators. you just saw some examples of their skill and wisdom and knowledge. our time is up but i would like to thank everybody for coming. there will be big news in the coming days, weeks, months and years on these topics.

[applause] thank you very much. >> yesterday, the imam who has been working on the proposed islamic cultural center near ground zero spoke in new york. his remarks are next on c-span. on "wall street journal," in about an hour, topics include small business legislation and u.s./mexico border issues and later this morning, a day long conference on civil rights in the 21st century. that is live at 11 eastern. this morning, it is day two to have senate impeachment trial for new orleans judge thomas porteous. our live coverage continues at 8:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3.

>> with the house and senate back in session, follow congress using the c-span video library's chronicle. just click on congress. you can access speakers, their remarks. it is a great resource for anyone who follows congress and it is all free, any time. watch what you want, when you want. >> the imam leading the effort to build an islamic center near ground zero said he was surprised by the controversy surrounding the plan. this is an hour. >> good morning. if people can please take their

seats? good morning, everyone. welcome to the council on foreign relations. my name is richard haas and i'm the president of this organization. today as you well know, we are hosting feisal abdul rauf, who is the founder and c.e.o. of the american society for muslim advance yment and he is also the i -- advancement and he is also the imam for the mosque here in new york city. that is however only part of who he is. feisal abdul rauf is the founder and of the cordova initiative, dedicated to building brings between the muslim and non-muslim world. he is central for plans for the newest islamic center to be built adjacent to ground zero. he is also the author of several books including "what's wright are