it is not like you are just dealing with one goal ball inside your head, iit can be different shapes. may be surgeon may -- able to remove, say, 90% of the brain tumor, but there are often tiny specks that are still in side. we use why chemotherapy, radiation, and try to get all of it. is very difficult -- inside the brain -- to know whether you have gotten all of it out. that is why we try to

thank you for watching. we will see you back to tomorrow morning 7:00 a.m. eastern time.

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] quick live at brookings for discussion on u.s. nuclear arms control policy with remarks expected from undersecretary of state for arms control and international security rose gottemoeller, also expected to touch on the progress of the arms reduction treaty with russia and should get started here at brookings in just a minute or two. a lot of international foreign policy in news with news that american allen gross has been released from a cuban prison after five years. it also includes the release of .hree cubans jailed in the u.s. senior u.s. officials are say

today the associated press reports officials say gross was on he was government plane bound for the u.s. on wednesday morning, this morning, so we're going to hear from the president today at noon. we will have that live here on c-span as well. >> good morning and welcome to the brookings institution. i am stephen pieper, senior fellow here. it is my pleasure today to introduce undersecretary state rose gottemoeller who is going to talk about american arms control policy. i would like to express the gratitude of brookings and to the carnegie corporation's generous support makes programs like today's possible. when president obama took office in 2009, he said out a very ambitious agenda for arms control, which he laid out in a speech in april 2009 in progress. over the course of that first

year, the administration recorded significant achievements. in april 2010, it's on the new strategic arms reduction treaty and issued a nuclear review which said the objective of reducing the role number of nuclear weapons in american policy and it launched the nuclear security summit process. the president most mediately laid out even more ambitious goals. he talked about a negotiation to further reduce u.s. and russian strategic forces, but also to expand that negotiation to include both tactical nuclear weapons and also reserve strategic weapons in a way to the first time we've had the united states and russia nuclearing on entire arsenals. they also talked about the possibility of ratification of the conference of nuclear test ban treaty and the was a brief time when nato and russia discussed the possibility of cooperation on missile defense. then, have slowed since unfortunately. over the last year, you had the

crisis over ukraine. even before that crisis, it was clear on major questions of arms control the russians had still made process on strategic forces and tactical or -- nuclear. we are delighted to have undersecretary rose gottemoeller here to talk about what to expect in the next two years. she has a long and distinguished career with the u.s. government. we first met in 1990 on the soviet desk at the state department and she went to her first start negotiation. she is served at the national security council, senior positions at the department of energy, and in 2009 karen became the assistant secretary for arms control verification compliance were among other things, she let the negotiation of the new start treaty and a holds the position of under secretary of state for arms control international security. in addition to being the us government's top expert on arms control and security questions, she is also the organizer of --t excellent adventures

most excellent adventures. in 1994, i was working with her on russian-ukraine questions at the state department. she calls and says, steve, strategic command as offered to take you down to visit the missile submarine base and then to go down to port canaveral and spend a day on a triton submarine. would you like to go along? rose, is this a trick question? days sing both how kings they was preparing to conduct the inspections it was going to require or it was required to accommodate for the new treaty and then spent eight hours on the uss maryland at sea were we visited every compartment, drove the submarine, and at one point, got to climb inside a trident missile. for arms control, this was a dream day. rose, we look for to your conversation. after your opening remarks, we will be happy to open questions to the audience and have a discussion. please. what steve did not mention

about that day was that the fondest memory i have is of actually getting a drivers license for driving to maryland. that was totally ridiculous, but nevertheless, it is something that i treasure. i think you got a drivers license, too. this time of year is a really special time. i'm delighted to be here and see ,o many colleagues and friends experts around the audience. thank you, steve, for the invitation. we have been trying to organize this for some time. but this is a very, very good moment to come to you and speak about our plans for the arms control agenda over the coming years. first of all, this holiday time is a very special time for this administration because so much in the disarmament arena was accomplished right at this time. i remember in 2009, right after the copenhagen summit were -- andnt obama was in

president medvedev had a meeting . we came back to washington to wrestle with some very important issues, which resulted in another very important meeting in january when of roma lynwood to moscow with a team from across interagency to press forward the progress in the negotiations. this period was very, very important. and on december 22, 2010, the new start treaty was ratified, the senate gave its advice and consent of the new start treaty. i always feel free special about this time of year for a number of reasons in our arena in addition to the normal good fun that ensues. as all of you might know, i have been traveling quite a bit lately. i just got back from a trip to

the hague to visit the opcw, continue our work on weapons issues. prague, to do a speech on our disarmament agenda going forward , and i will replace some of those points today but also expand on them. the laid the groundwork for following two days at the vienna conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use. all of that will be woven into what i have to say today. the third stop on his most recent trip up mine was in ukraine. i had the opportunity to go to kiev. the anniversary was the anniversary of the budapest memorandum entering into force on december 4, 1994. to speak toortunity her ukrainian audience. as you can imagine, there were sharp questions about the import of the budapest memorandum for ukraine. i will be glad to talk about

that during the question and answers. it is another reason why the season of the year is a very important one. what i would like to say about ukraine in my beginning remarks is, first of all, we see a government that is focused on problem-solving and intent on moving strongly forward with the reform agenda that they have, i think, failed to fill over so many years now. i am very hopeful after this --p to ukraine and hopeful not only hopeful, but convinced of the continuing partnership in the nonproliferation treaty regime with strong commitments voiced to their non-nuclear weapons status under the mpt -- npt. a very good visit many ways. i come back here with many resent an important impressions and look forward to sharing them with you in addition to hearing your thoughts and your questions this morning.

i will say to begin with, what i said in prague, first of all, there should be no doubt the u.s. a commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unavailable. -- we will keep faith with our nonproliferation treaty article six commitments. our responsible approach to disarmament has born fruit in the form of major reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure. these efforts have led us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by approximately 85% from its cold war era highs. in real numbers, that means we have gone from 31,255 nuclear weapons interactive stockpile in in 2013.804 we know however, we still have work to do. 4804 nuclear weapons is still a lot of weapons.

can consider future reductions, our focus must be on verifiable measures that all interested parties can nuclear states and on a clear states alike, can trust. our past experience, successes into supplements, will inform how we proceed each step building upon the last. when we take stock in the last 30 years, it is clear our path has been the right one. we have a contest so much. if we had all been gathered together in this room for nuclear host the event at brookings in 1985, i don't think anyone in the room could have imagined or predicted how much we were able to accomplish. i was right down the road in street at thend m rand corporation and i know i would not have protected how much we have accomplished. by the way, my next-door neighbor at rand corporation was ted warner, a very good expert in our field who has passed on

recently. and i know there are others among this group who miss him as much as i do, but his legacy is truly a great one and i did want to say a word in tribute to ted warner this morning because he was a great colleague and a great friend. within that decade of 1985, washington and moscow would conclude the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, the strategic arms reduction treaty start, the presidential nuclear initiative, and the purchase agreement. these various bilateral and parallel, unilateral initiatives led to an array of impressive and long reaching efforts, banning an entire class of missiles during the other , byons -- nuclear weapons over 11,000 weapons, drastically reducing and eliminating whole categories of tactical nuclear weapons on removing others from routine deployment and converting russian nuclear

material equivalent to an astounding 20,000 nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. these efforts were followed by the strategic offensive reductions treaty, sometimes called the moscow treaty, which further reduced u.s. and russian deployed strategic forces. in 2010, the united states and russia signed the new start treaty. when it is fully implemented, new start will limit the warheads to the lowest levels since the 1950's. new start is enhancing strategic insecurities stabilities -- and security stabilities between the u.s. and russia. both are faithfully implement in the trees inspection regime. even during a severe crisis with the russian federation, the russians are continuing in a businesslike way to implement the new start treaty. current tensions with the russian federation highlights durability of the verification regime and the important confidence that is provided by

data exchanges and notifications come off site inspections under the treaty, as well as security predictability provided by mutual limits off central sources that are verifiable in nature. none of these achievements good of a predicted back in 1985, nor laid out in the long term time bound process. it was therary, faithful implementation of each individual initiative that provided trust and confidence in the strategic opportunity to move ahead to the next phase. ,nderpinning all of our efforts stretching back decades, it is been our clear understanding of recognition of humanitarian consequences of the use of these weapons. that is the message that the united states delivered in vienna last week at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. we appreciated hearing the testimonies and statements of the participants, including many victims of nuclear radiation contamination.

while we acknowledge the views of those who call for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons ban treaty, the united states cannot and will not support efforts to pursue such a ban. we believe the practical path that we have so successfully followed in the past remains the only realistic route to our shared goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. again, it should be remembered we share the same goal, we just have different ideas about how to process to that goal. the international community cannot ignore or wish away the obstacles confronting us that slowed the pace of progress on arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we must all acknowledge not every nation is ready or willing to pursue serious arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we are seeing new and enduring pressures on the nonproliferation treaty, pressures that threaten stability. we're seeing nations turn away from cooperation and the common good of nonproliferation

efforts, and clinging more tightly to their nuclear arsenals. we push those nations to accept their global and ethical responsibilities, the united states will maintain the safe, secure, and effective arsenal for the defense of our nation and our allies. this is not a stand we usually exclusive of disarming goals. it simply recognizes the international security environment in which we find ourselves is one which we must take account of an pursue further progress in a very difficult overarching situation. we are contents of our current obligations and responsibilities, and we are meeting them. the united states knows it has a responsibility to lead efforts toward disarmament, and i can affirm to you we will never, never relent in this pursuit. there are people here in washington and people around the world who see the landscape and say that we cannot control the

spread of weapons of mass destruction or further limit new care stockpiles. they are wrong. it was in prague president obama reminded us it is a deadly ever say your proof we believe -- adversary. in some ways, we are admitting to ourselves the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. the united states cannot and will not accept this. when we failed to pursue peace, the president also said wednesday's be on forever jan our grasp. the united states will press ahead even in the face many obstacles. while we have accomplished much over the past five years, we will continue to push forward. we have no intention of diverting from our active efforts to reduce the role in numbers of nuclear weapons, increase confidence and transparency, shrink the nonproliferation, and address complaints challenges.

we will do so pursuing all of the available and practical avenues. the united states earlier this month contributed resources and experts to the successful on-site inspection exercise held by the comprehensive test ban treaty organization in jordan. the so-called ife14 field integrated exercise. such practical efforts help to ensure the international community will have an effective verification regime in place for the day when the ctbt enters into force. the united states has made clear we are prepared to engage with russia on the full range of issues affecting strategic stability and there are real and meaningful steps we should be taking that can contribute to a more predict double, safer, secure environment. u.s. and russia continue to possess over 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, this is an important and worthy goal. in june of 2013 in berlin,

president obama stated he willingness to negotiate a reduction of up to one third of our deployed strategic warheads on the level established in the new start treaty. progress requires a willing partner and conducive strategic environment, but this offer is still on the table. on the broader world stage, progress toward disarmament requires the states take greater responsibility to resolve the conflicts that give rise to proliferation dangers. it requires ending the nuclear buildup in asia that iran, join an agreement for restoring full, it is in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, and that north korea returned to compliance with its international obligations. and requires a make progress elsewhere when we can. this includes in the middle east where we will spare no effort to convene an historic conference on his own-free of weapons of mass destruction and systems of the delivery.

and thomas countryman is fully engaged in this progress -- project. as the u.s. considers arms control and nonproliferation priorities, we will continue to consult closely with our allies and partners every step of the way. our security and defense and there's is simply nonnegotiable. we are in a difficult crisis period with the russian federation. i began with that. matters include that only ukraine, but also russia's violations of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. addressing both situations is an process. with the violation, we will continue engaging the russian government to resolve u.s. concerns. our objective is for russia to return to verifiable compliance with its treaty obligations as the treaty is in our mutual security interest, and that of

all countries around the globe. withd, we need cooperation russia and other nations to address new threats. first and foremost, the threat of terrorists requiring -- acquiring a nuclear weapon or nuclear material. they need his cooperation for their own security as well as for the security of other countries around the globe. -- as i've outlined, there's no way to skip to the end of four go the hard work of solving the truly daunting technical and political nonproliferation and disarmament challenges that lie ahead. it is not enough to have a political will to pursue this agenda, we have to have a practical way to pursue this agenda. we can all acknowledge verification will becoming increasingly complex as lower numbers of nuclear weapons while -- as we lower the numbers of nuclear weapons, while requirements for accurately determining compliance will dramatically increase. everyone who shares the goal of

a world free of nuclear weapons should be devoted a lot of time and energy nowadays to address this challenge. with that idea in mind, i prague a new initiative, the international partnership for new greatest moment verification. the u.s. proposes to work with both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapons states to better understand the technical problems of verifying nuclear matter disarmament and develop solutions. the united kingdom and norway have high near this type of work . this new initiative will build on the spirit of that experiment to create a nontraditional partnership that draws on the expertise of talented individuals around the world, both in government and out of government. and in that regard, and sibley delighted the nuclear threat initiative will be a prime partner inviting intellectual energy and resources to this project. we are excited to be working with them on it, and hope to work with more of you on this initiative as well. i do hope we will have

opportunities to develop an ongoing discourse as we rolled out the agenda for the initiative further and hope to hear good ideas from you, whether it is on the process side, procedural side, or on the technology side as well. we truly do want a wide range of partnership with the nongovernmental community. beyond this effort, we will continue to work with the p5 on transparency and verification. to united kingdom will hold a conference in early february in london. the regular interactions cooperation and trust building the happening now in the p5 form is the future for negotiations. in closing, i would like to make it clear the united states has plans and we intend to see them through. at the core of our efforts is our deep understanding of the human impacts of nuclear weapons . that is why i traveled this year to the marshall islands, to

hiroshima, and two times two utah to talk with those who have suffered at the use of nuclear weapons, radiation contamination, and economic problems as well. that is why the united states sent a delegation last week to the vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use. the united states understands that nuclear weapons are not a theoretical tool, they are real and any use of nuclear weapons would exact a terrible toll. no one in this country, or any country, should ever forget that. thank you very much for your attention. i look forward to our discussion period. thank you. [applause]

>> first of all, thank you for the overview. let me take the moderators approach with a couple of questions and open it to the audience. we have about an hour to grill you. the first question would be general. when you're looking at the overall u.s.-russia relationship, there has been this crisis over ukraine that has been a big shadow. you did mention despite that, the russians have worked in a corporate away in terms of implementation of new start, but you have also had a series of other exchanges. you have been to moscow. yet met with the devotee minister. how has that affected those changes? do you see an impact? >> i think, quite honestly, and there are a lot of speculations

out there that things have gone severely worse since the crisis in ukraine. i would say some of the hesitation we saw from the russian federation about the disarmament agenda had merged well before the crisis over ukraine. about -- andncerns many of you remember there were a series of issues they said were of concern to them before they wanted to engage in further strategic arms reduction negotiations, including missile defenses come in the presence of nuclear weapons in europe, including conventional global strike -- a number of issues were out there. which i saw, essentially, a serving a blocking function to any further discussion of nuclear disarmament measures in the period immediately after new start entered into force. oh, by the way, another key russian talking point throughout that period in the run-up to the

ukraine crisis was that, essentially, neustar have to be fully implement it before they would agree to proceed with any further negotiations. new start will be fully implement it on february 5, 2018. we don't have that far to go. nevertheless, i've been arguing regularly to my russian colleagues that not only is the berlin proposal and their security interest as well as ours and no country enters into an arms control treaty, including our own, unless it is international security interest. furthermore, it is the further proposal that could be implemented -- that we could implement new start and build out from that in implementing the berlin proposal. i just want to make people aware we had, i would say, hesitations and barriers in the way even before the ukraine crisis emerged. since the crane crisis emerged,

the situation has been complicated by the severity of that terrible crisis. however, i would also say i think there are some interesting continuing signs out there of pragmatism and a businesslike attitude. in addition to the new start treaty, we had tremendous success with implementation of the chemical weapons project, getting 1300 tons of chemical timens out of syria in the between september 2013 at september 2014. at the very height of this ukraine crisis, we continue to work very successfully with moscow as well as with the u.n. task force that was assigned with an cementing this project to get those chemical weapons out of the country. there is still more work to do. we're dealing with our concerns about the capabilities that syrians and not have declared to

the opcw, but nevertheless, that is a good sign. i think of a continuing his dislike attitude in moscow. the third area has been one for my colleague wendy sherman, and +1at is the so-called p5 talks. they continue to help to move that agenda forward. it is an interesting mixed picture, i would say, people of asked me why i continue to be optimistic despite the negative trend lines. part of it is associated with this businesslike attitude that i have seen when the russians have clearly decided it is international security interest to continue to cooperate. >> let me ask a second question. you mentioned the russian violation of the inf treaty. shortly after the formal judgment was announced publicly, the russian said, well, we have three concerns in terms of the

use of drones, targeted missiles . a question about the vertical lunchbox plan for the deployments in romania and poland. how do respond to those charges? >> first and foremost, with a clear statement that the united states remains fully in compliance with the inf treaty and furthermore, i talked about the very careful complaints assessment -- compliance assessment process we carry out, the defense department has the lead for those assessments, but nevertheless, it is with close consultation with other agencies of our government and so we say that we have a process in place and we come to careful determination and we say to the russians, don't you have such a process as well? essentially, that is part of my discourse with them, to talk about the necessity of compliance, being considered as a whole of government type of issue.

i'll put it that way. i will say, also for this group, i know there's been a lot of interest in this and taking from the interest we've heard from the nongovernmental community, we're putting together a fact sheet that will provide you some unclassified information about why we clearly believe these three systems are in compliance with the ein of treaty. i wish i had it to hand out today. it is still being worked. it will be available on our website, so we will make sure that is available for everybody. i am completely confident we are in compliance with our inf treaty obligations based on a very solid interagency process. >> let me open up the floor to the questions from the audience. keep it short and it should be something reselling a question mark at the end.

>> good morning, madam secretary. since you are speaking about the dangers of nuclear weapons, wanted to ask you about the u.s. modernization. specifically, i want you to comment on the news article by professor emmett which is about to be published in the latest issue of "the nation" magazine. so i don't distort his views, i wanted to read a few wreath passages with your permission. close analysis reveals technical sophisticated effort to use nuclear forces for direct confrontation with russia. and point number two, the modernization draft is a disturbing indication the u.s. military believes a nuclear war against russia can be fought and won. profoundly with

both of those points. and 1.i have made repeatedly to my interlocutors in moscow is that we have been down this road /reaction an action cycle. the last thing we need now is to repeat the mistakes of the cold war. of course, if necessary, they would be in our national security interests, but we don't see them as necessary at this time. what is necessary is some judicious modernization of our nuclear forces. it is interesting, i would say the moment, there is it disconnect russia after the period of the 1990's were a lot of the russian strategic nuclear arsenal was essentially going out of its 19 period of service -- care and teed period of service.

they passed out of their service toe so russians had a mass deal with. in this first decade of the century, russia has been focusing on modernization of strategic forces and putting resources into that. the second take it up the 20 century are now underway, the united states is putting some resources into judicious modernization of our strategic forces. there is a bit of a lag time here, but i would say both moscow and washington have in making some decisions about what i consider to be judicious cold wartion following aerosystems going out of their service life. >> thank you. rose, thank you for wide-ranging brief. one of the challenges out there

the growthntioned is of nuclear arsenals in asia. i was wondering if you could expand a little bit on that particular problem, and how your part of the administration is thinking about dealing with that long-term problem. specifically, if you can give a sense of the quality of our discussions with the chinese on these particular issues? not just in the p5 context, but bilaterally on the question of should you took stability. >> i will say word in support of process. i remember the first meeting in london in september 2009, which i considered a proto-meeting. it was one of those meetings if you have been in government, you recognize that people exchange their talking point scripts. it is still -- stilted, to be honest. in the five years hence, there has been a steady increase in

the amount of true direction in these meetings and a maturation a new sophistication, i would say, in the interactions among all of the p5. thelcome -- the u.k. posted first proto-meeting and now returning at the end of the first cycle, to a meeting in london. i know the discussion will be very rich and interactive and actually we are, i think, putting a lot of issues on the table with regard to strategic stability. and having a chance to air them in exchange views on them at p5, which has not happened historically. i very much welcome. in terms of bilateral interaction with the chinese, i want to talk about several levels. first of all, i want to give due credit to the non-governmental community for the track one and try to discussions that have been going on with regard to china and a lot of the organizations around through have been carrying them out in

one way or another. there is a lot of interesting new developments, i would say, no settings with the chinese being willing to talk about the details -- in no settings with the chinese being able to talk about verification regimes in that type of thing where they have not been willing historically to touch on those topics or simply have been in a listening mode and not willing to really come out and discuss her participate in projects. these kinds of second track activities are reflected also on the government side in particular, practical, josé develop men's. a couple of weeks ago, i was there for thethe vip day. one of the most impressive sensors was a noble gas detector that the chinese technical teams had worked on and brought and they had a dare and were showing how it would operate for us the abuse, any of us not knowing

anything technically, but it was good to see entire chinese technical team there and the respect and the regard for the technology that they had brought by the rest of the team. that was good to see on an international basis. it was also good for those of of professor, they're as their vip, and one of the negotiators. to see him there, he was interacting with all of us, of course, but interacting with the technical team that was there and it was very fun and gratifying, actually. i am seeing, with china, a kind of willingness to engage that i did not see before i given to government this time in the last five years, i think, there's been a real intensification in their effort to engage both unofficially and officially with some true practical results. >> good morning.

i was a little curious about the international partnership. is that something that needs funding? would that go in the fy16 budget? i was wondering when we might see results from the partnership and what kind of reception you have heard from our international partners on the partnership? >> are you talking about the global partnership? >> the international partnership for nuclear disarmament. >> verification partnership, i figure pardon. we are starting small with this. we have some particular early projects that we are engaging. we're working very, very closely with the u.k. and norway, who has the early project, as i mentioned, on war had verification. we want to emphasize and focus on warhead verification because it is something we've never tackled as a true international matter.

part of the rationale is to convey to non-nuclear weapons states the complexity of this upcoming stage of the nuclear disarmament agenda. that is, monitoring and verifying reduction and elimination of warheads. and monitoring holding the warheads. is -- has to be handled in a way that doesn't allow sensitive information to get out and continue to any proliferation threat. a first-order business, we will be concentrating on building on the u.k.-norway experience and building out from that. i should give full credit, by the way, to some bilateral work that was done under the 1990's under the so-called warhead safety and security exchange agreement between the u.s. and russia. at that time, there were some really decent work that was done on information barriers and that type of thing. and there are other foundations that we can build on.

but i don't want to limit it to this because it is a set of projects that were successful at the time, but are now over a decade old. i think we want to also look at more recent experience so just the u.k.-norway project. -- such as the u.k.-norway project. >> good morning. i was wondering if there has been a date set for the next discussion with russia about inf and what that engagement would entail on the u.s. side? >> i would never, ever talk about our quite diplomatic scheduling in any detail, but i can assure you the interactions are ongoing. >> i have two questions on korea. see -- the prospect on

the korean nuclear issue for 2015? in the region and globally? do you see the will be in a developing on the progress in that direction next year? in southd question, korea, [indiscernible] how do see the prospect? >> first of all, with regard to north korea, we are very interested, of course, and returning -- in returning to the process of duty organization of .he korean peninsula but that process can only take place if north korea reestablishes before the international community we need

to really see some concrete indicators that they are serious about negotiations, serious about the process of de nuclearization. we will continue to press them on that matter. our ambassador is still the full-time envoy focused on that -- we and serious about are serious about trying to continue to make progress in that area. but pyongyang is going to have to take some steps to convey they are serious about moving forward. the other comment i would like to make about that is that i think that if we have a successful negotiation in the we're allxt, and hopeful that negotiation will produce good results in the next coming months, innocently hope we'll see some good results for the time of the review conference in april and may, that i hope it will have the

effect on the north korea situation and that it will be a kind of signal that it is time to move forward with some problem solving also on the korean peninsula with regard to north korea's nuclear weapons. so we will see how that works, but i hope the will be some momentum that results, perhaps from a number of different directions in the coming months, but that is one i think is worth watching. on your second question, i'm -- yes, the 123 agreement. agreement for nuclear cooperation with the rok. i don't to comment on confidential diplomacy that is going on right now, but i will say we had made excellent progress, in my view, and the negotiations. i don't see any reason why we should not be able to completed in short order. i don't want to talk about any details of meetings and so forth.

>> thank you. thank you." review. thank you for pressing ahead on the tough issues and challenges. a question about the upcoming review conference and the .anager in impacts dialogue we are pleased to see the united states for dissipating in that meeting. as you know, one of the motivations for that meeting and that gathering has been a disappointment about the progress on the disarmament action steps agreed to in 2010. one of the issues that was raised at the meeting was concerned about the incompatibility of potential use of new car weapons with international human a terry in law and the laws of war. are you thinking about or planning on engaging with some of the nonnuclear states through the p5 process to discuss how

the united states and other nuclear armed states have reduced the role of nuclear is the united states willing, thinking about providing its rationale for how the u.s. nuclear war plans are compatible with the laws of war as the 2010 russians say the 2012 nuclear posture review reports suggests? >> first of all, the guiding principle here is a policy that i have often repeated but has often been repeated by our president all the way down to my level and on. and that is that the legacy of the practically over -- nearly 70 year nonuse of nuclear weapons must be extended forever. that we must continue to do everything we can to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again.

and that is at the heart of the u.s. policy in this regard, and certainly, is at the heart of the d emphasis on nuclear weapons in our own national arsenals and her own national doctrine that was put forward in the nuclear posture review and the implementation study that ensued from the nuclear posture review. to bel continue definitely willing to broach the points that were made in the npr and the follow on to it, the implementation study and a talk about it not only in official circles such as the p5, but also talk about it publicly as well. reminderctually a good to continue to remind the international community of the very significant, in my view, policy steps and initiatives that the administration has undertaken since it came and office, to really put in place

-- came into office, to really put in place the doctrine of policy and our overarching military arsenals. good reminder and i think definitely there will be something we're ready to do. >> thank you. specifically on the inf treating . in a hearing with commerce last week, you are pressed to make yes, the united states stands at russia that russia is not compliant in the treaty. --specifically, what exactly what exactly is the reasoning

for its noncompliance? cruise missiles? where exactly, location wise, is a noncompliant? is a crimea? -- is it:nd in grad in grad or some other place? >> i was impressed in the hearing on that matter. we've been very open in public since july when we published our complaints report that russia, in our view, is not an complaints with the inf treaty. and the reason is aground launched cruise missile that has inn tested, and development the russian federation. i should be clear for this audience, if you're not familiar with inf, it is a total ban on intermediate range nuclear missiles and not a good missiles, for that matter. a total ban on missiles between the ranges of 500 and 5500

kilometers. it doesn't matter if they're deployed or not. beinghat there seen tested, if they're in development, then they are not compliant with the inf treaty. is that concern we raised any complaints report in july of 2014 and have been continuing to raise with the russian federation. it is aground launched cruise missile. -- it is a brown launched cruise missile. or thet the ocndor other one. i think it is really, really on atant to focus down good discussion of this matter. that is my basic point. the russians have made certain allegations against the united

states. we have already raised that this morning. we believe we are in complete compliance with the inf treaty and are willing to talk about that with the russian federation, but we need to hear from the russian side as well that is the most important thing from our perspective. this cannot be a one-sided conversation. >> thank you. under-secretary, one point i want to totally emphasize is that we have asked you to send a delegation to the vienna conference. thank you on behalf of our members all over the country, our allied organizations are also asking you to do so, thanks to you and secretary kerry and

president obama for making the decision. i know it wasn't easy. another thing is about the nonproliferation treaty. policy the united states may be out of step with the urgency of the situation, which was expressed at the vienna conference, especially by people , author ofchlosser "command and control," who essentially is telling us we are living on borrowed time, therefore, since it has been 44 years since the u.s. promised to pursue disarmament, there are some inpatients in a sense we're not moving fast enough. werepatients in a sense not moving fast enough. i know you feel we are engaging and judicious modernization, but i think at the npt, you may find other nations and people here in three of $55 since billion in venture over the next 10 years, when chilean dollars over the next 30 years, is not judicious and not indicative of

a nation that is moving to live up to its article six. what is my question? it is a favor. would you ask the president to put the brakes on the modernization program in order to improve the optics as we go into the review? >> them he said a few things. first of all, about our decision to attend the vienna conference. we really thought as -- saw it as an excellent opportunity to make the case i made to you this morning, and have a really good discourse and debate with the entire community, with a broad spectrum of views. i welcome the opportunity to hear other views in this room this morning, but these will be a continuing source of discussion and debate. no question about it. going torationale for be and it was to make sure our story was out there ,too.

i want to make sure from our perspective, 85% reduction in u.s. arsenal of strategic -- of nuclear weapons full stop since 1967 is a significant step on the road to disarmament, and we're continuing further elimination in the settlement efforts every single day. i just don't accept the notion that things have stalled. i want that message to be very clear for this audience. we will continue to press that message forward them and we can debate it. and this matter of whether our modernization is judicious or not, i'm sure will also be shortly debated. i welcome the debate. it are reason for going to the conference was a practical one, and that is, we felt a very important to get our side of the story out there. and i hope we will have an opportunity to continue with open-mindedness among the community to hear what we have to say as well. how i i think that is

will answer your question. so thank you. my name is rebecca gibbons. about theo ask you partnership for verification and if it is been determined what other states are going to be involved in that effort and if it is when to be an interagency effort? >> is surely will be an interagency effort. and it has been a good to this point. we cannot make an announcement of this kind unless we have broached it and discussed it thoroughly, aired it among the and or agencies for those who have served in government, unify delicious that activity is. it is very necessary. it has been an interagency effort to get to this point. i said in my remarks that we wanted to work with non-nuclear weapons states as well as duke their weapons states. and so at this point, we're open-minded about who will be

dissipating. i also want to say, however, we hope to invigorate the work on verification matters among the p5, because we also think it is very important and nuclear weapons states develop some sophisticated understanding of these matters. in the last year, we've had success in establishing a p5 working group that meets in vienna at the same time that working group b meets. that is the verification working group that does with conference of test ban treaty. it looks a technical verification issues in the context. i think is fine for the p5 to begin work on the other verification because that provide a lot of very good technical information that can then -- in the future, the broadened out in other directions as well. the verification initiative is a great new approach, i think, but

i don't want you to say -- or anybody to say -- that we are abandoning our effort to discuss these matters among the p5 as well. it is one of the most important rationales for the p5 process as we see it. >> that's the first time i've ever seen it described as delicious. >> just a hint of irony. >> hi, rose. two questions on strategic. is there anything you can share about efforts in southeast asia to share best practices with countries outside the p5? matter. types do you have any thoughts on prospects for constraining or discouraging land-based on longer-term? >> that is 1.i wanted to make a better own stabilizing activity over the last generation has the icbmmove to demerv

force. we see that as one of the core steps in the direction of a more stabilized strategic relationship among countries. so, yes, as a general matter, we constantly focus on the necessity of avoiding multiple warheads on missiles because they create -- speaking of delicious -- they create highly valuable targets. and that is what you want to avoid if you want to have a stable, strategic relationship. that is a constant of our discourse on these matters internationally, and will continue to be so. with regards to south asia, i want to say that i think we have had some really great track 2 and track 1.5. i commend those of you in the room have been involved. they been interesting and sometimes productive, from what i've been able to see and from what people have briefed me

about. i think there have been some really, really solid discussions. bringing up the issues exactly talk about, the kind of classical issues of strategic stability, we do have discussions of these matters on an official level as well. we have a strategic dialogue with india and the so-called snap talks with pakistan. always forget what steps stands for. -- i always forget what snap stands for. we have an opportunity to raise these issues of her show it. one of the gulls in the coming year is to broaden this discussion from any kind of regional ghetto, to be honest. these issues like conventional drill -- global strike affect the whole eurasian community. they affect the whole international community. we need to be talking about them

in a broader community of countries who are either deploying or attempting to deploy these kind of capabilities. it's the same with any of the other systems you might name including something like a merv system. having an opportunity to broaden these discussions and up them particular setting is very important as a direction for policy. i hope we can do compass that. i hope we can accomplish that. >> good morning. i'm formally with the state department. i'm interested in your statement on convening middle east nuclear free zone conference. i would ask you to elaborate a bit on practical goalsetting. engagepared is israel to and be transparent in some measure? how prepared is egypt in terms of the current government

structure to engage? and how much of a hindrance to all of this is the iranian issue. ? >> frankly, i think there has been -- we have had a preparatory process going on in the past six months. i don't want to get into details of diplomatic exchanges but it's been a quite positive preparatory process that i think is that with some of the initial tensions and anxieties over this siddle east weapons of mas destruction free zone. car actorsught the together, the arabs, the israelis, and the iranians have participated. i don't ofp5+1 talks, see that as being a negative influence. they necessitate now is on all states interested in this matter to get together and agree on an agenda. is if the states can

get together and agree on an agenda, there is no reason why we should not be able to convene this conference prior to the review conference in april-may. i have recent to say there is significant progress since 2010 and our view is we are on the cusp of moving to convene this conference. we help the parties can act together in everybody's interest to agree on an agenda. that's where it stands at the moment. >> thanks for your time this morning. the russians have been unwilling to discuss further reductions until new starts are implemented. what are the prospects for the berlin proposal last year?

what about hitting its market between now and 2018? depends, i think a lot in this case, on broader political issues. i took note that president putin, when he made his speech which was very critical of the united states in many ways, but there was one key paragraph where he said it is necessary to continue nuclear arms reduction negotiations. i hope that this is indicative of some russian flexibility in this regard. we have to make the case in our thatolitical environment it is a good thing to do, to continue to pursue strategic arms reductions with the russian federation set a time of profound crisis over ukraine and other significant issues. ,y view of this matter is that

historically, throughout the ups and downs of the u.s./soviet relationship, throughout the cold war, continuing to pursue strategic arms reductions was in of interest and the interest the entire global community in the context of the non-pleura and our responsibility to pursue disarmament under the articles of six commitments. both a solidre is historic rationale for proceeding despite the severe crisis bilaterally and i believe there is a strategic interest requirement as well or a strategic interest rationale, i would say, that these further reductions would not only be in the u.s. interest but in the russian interest as well. >> could you address the

economic and financial impact in russia and the united states? and the nuclear talk on negotiations? yes, i believe that you're talking about the cost of the modernization programs over time? >> [no audio] [indiscernible] >> i understand now. with regard to whether the economic crisis in the russian federation may affect their further modernization efforts. and what the impact might be.

again, this is a little bit out i read withr but interest this morning in "the financial times" some commentary on what is happening with the russian economy now. one of the points that was made is that vladimir putin several finds out the russian federation's national budget for assumption6 with the that oil would be at $96 per barrel. is going we know, oil up and down some but i think the trend is pretty much down, below $60 per barrel. that is notumption going to be viable for supporting the russian economy. again, it is not up to me. i am not in the treasury department but i think there is bound to be some impact on the

goals the russian federation has laid out for strategic force modernization. i just cannot tell you what those impacts will be at historically, it has meant selecting priorities. of talks been a lot about different kinds of weapons systems on the russian side in the press. i cannot comment as to whether any of those are officially endorsed or not. i think it's inevitable there of the some honing program to modernize russia's strategic forces due to the economic difficulties. that is really all i can say on that matter. i'm from the center of republic integrity. the clock is ticking down on the administration. moscow showing very little interest in pursuing further negotiated cuts and arsenals.

-- will beinistered administration reconsider the and of the u.s. stockpile accept the nuclear posture views recommended judgment that the u.s. can get by with a smaller arsenal and still be secure? i believe the question is a question about unilateral reductions. thathave said repeatedly unilateral reductions are not on the table. not on the table is all i can say. >> 92. -- right behind you. i'm from the defense threat

reduction agency. thank you for all your hard work. dtra and a treaty implementer, we work on some things that might affect all the treaties through 2018. as we see the likelihood of new sanctions announced as early as friday, do you believe the administration is willing to sacrifice all the hard work your office has done over the years in arms control to include the treaty and continue with thations or do you think the two topics can remain separate and continue on separate paths so that the treaty as well as your efforts in the future may continue? >> thank you. but me express my appreciation entire team ofhe inspectors who go out and also on our site, the air force and navy people who accept the

inspection teams from the russian federation. 18 times per year, the russians come here to our bomber and naval bases, looking at submarines and our icbm force. it takes a lot of work to prepare for those inspections. that's only air force/maybe side. -- they accompany the russian teams but when we go 18 times per year to russia to look at the strategic rocket races in a nuclear navy and the long-range aviation bases, the dtra inspectors are on the forefront so thank you. my appreciation for your continuing work. -- i will say that the crisis, at the moment, the ukraine crisis was bursting on the scene, some of you may isall, it was march 8 was international women's day which is a big russian holiday. i was astonished when i woke up i saw a reference

in the newspaper that russia was considering pulling the plug on this implementation of the new start treaty. as you can imagine, i got on the phone immediately with my counterparts in moscow. it was that report that was linked to an unnamed source in the ministry of defense. i got on the phone immediately and asked what was going on. we will look into this and get back to you. within five days, i had a call not just to me, but an official announcement of the russian federation that they would be continuing to implement the new start treaty despite the crisis that had been going on in the ukraine. i hope that position will hold. it's consistent with the histories i spoke about moment ago that despite some rough patches during the cold war,

some very serious ups and downs in our relationship, that we nevertheless continue to implement arms control treaties and agreements throughout that period. some of you with long memories will remember that when the soviets marched into afghanistan in 1979, we pulled the plug on the so-called salt ii agreement. we did not move forward to ratify that agreement. nevertheless, the republican administration and the kremlin agreed to proceed with implementing thesal limitations and it wentt ii forward in a parallel agreement informally even during the years when the soviets had invaded afghanistan. that is just an example historically what i'm talking about that despite serious differences and problems bilaterally, we have continued to see implementation of arms control treaties and agreements affecting the nuclear forces in

our mutual interest. i hope that will be the case here as well. >> good morning, madam secretary. lawyer who worked in nuclear export control and nonproliferation issues. you spoke about work being done at the p5 and the partnership with respect to verification. i wonder if that work anticipates a multilateral organization to eventually implement verification as disarmament moves into the multilateral area, not just bilateral, or whether the anticipation is that these efforts will develop techniques iaea in then be used

the course of verification of disarmament? >> that is a very interesting question. say fromall, i will the perspective of u.s. policy, we see this verification monitoring of arms control treaties and agreements as essentially a national function for the foreseeable future. cooperatewe obviously with international organizations. i mentioned being at the ctbt on-site inspection in georgia. we put a lot of resources and a lot of people into the implementation of that on-site so wetion experiment worked very closely with international organizations. ieae works very closely with us as well. for the foreseeable future, i see it as essentially a national responsibility. iwever, here is something

wanted to note -- i think there has been some really interesting work done historically on what will happen when we get close to zero. this is not a matter for national policy makers at the moment but i would welcome what would bek on required institutionally, procedurally, technologically when we get very close to zero. historically, the has been some good studies done in this area academic and-- the scientific community continuing to consider these issues because i think it backs up. our emphasis is on the practicality of getting to zero. how can we practically get to zero? to do that, we're going to have to do some very hard thinking whetherat it will take, it is institutionally, procedurally, technologically and certainly in the realm of regional security as well. that's a whole different topic.

nevertheless, talking about the nuts and bolts of an arms control regime, i think there could be some good work done on that topic again. >> good morning. i'm from the natural resources defense council and thank you for doing this event today. yesterday, the moscow times reported that russia is considering deploying rail mo bile nuclear weapon systems and i wondered if you had any comment on that reporting. future about back to the -- that's where we were in the 1980's and we have been urging again, consider what's going to be stabilizing and what's not. going forward. i did mention that i see their modernization has been judicious. for example, their new start

numbers for delivery vehicles are below, well below the 700 central limit. the central limit when it is fully implemented in 2018 will be 700 operationally deployed delivery vehicles and the russians are well below those levels now. we don't see them surging up. i'm delighted we have that kind of central limit to provide a ceiling for how far they can modernize. system the rail mobile is a good example of one where there is some questions about the economic feasibility as well as the strategic stability rationale. we will see. it's not up to me to make those decisions but we would certainly , i think, urge consideration of those strategic stability impacts of such a system especially if it is delivering merv missile. was a question during

the new start ratification weather rail mobile would be covered. would they be covered? if it's an intercontinental strategic system, it would have to be brought under the treaty essentially. morning, i am an inspection team chief at the defense reduction agency. i have a couple of questions based on the discussions we have heard. you mentioned 90% of the world's nuclear armaments are in the hands of the united states and and unilateral disarmament is not on the table from the united states perspective. a recent statement from vladimir putin is that he values future armament but there has been statements from russian officials that they are not

interested in any further bilateral disarmament steps with united states beyond the new start treaty and any future treaties need to be multilateral. >> thank you for raising that. that is a condition they laid out in the earlier phase. >> given that 90% are in u.s./russian hands, i guess you confirmed one question that the multilateral prerequisite does exist based on your discussions with your interlocutory is in moscow. have you had any discussions with other nuclear states that indicate what their threshold is below which the united states and russia needs to attain for their participation in any multilateral efforts? historically, there have not been official positions but expertss been a lot of the u.s. andthat

russia gets around 1000 applied warheads and it gets more interesting but i'm not saying these are official positions by any means. i would just note that that number of 1000 and u.s. and russian arsenals has been out there is something that ngories have in their communities and of commented on. one thing about this multilateral point - i have always stressed that i don't see how you would structure such a negotiation. there is such a just balance that the united states and russia have over 90% still of the nuclear weapons in the world. how do you structure a negotiation between two parties with very high numbers and three parties with rather load numbers? it does not make practical sense to me. i have yet to hear from the russians have they would structure such a negotiation.

i don't know what they mean when they say they want to move to multilateral negotiations now. that would be an interesting topic for discussion. thanks. >> thank you, i'm with the school for conflict analysis at george mason. i regularly go to the npt meetings. in response to your comment of one of thezero, things that we need to do more of his go to underlying conflict and the causes and the fear and their desire for nuclear weapons that perceive irrational beliefs and what nuclear weapons provide. i've been going -- i went to the u.n. conference on climate -- withith media raters mediators and we have been getting language into the treaty about dealing with the

conflict mechanisms for dealing with the complex first. what are your thoughts about -- we have many ways of dealing with conflict and we usually deal with the symptom of getting rid of the weapons rather than the need or conflicts that lead people to feel like they need these. would you comment? >> thank you and i know a lot about your work. we have had a chance to talk about it before in this setting and others. one thing i will say is that we recognize in the sensitivity of working on regional security matters as intensively as possible, secretary kerry has and out on the road nonstop very much focused in recent weeks on middle east and the hopes for rejuvenating the middle east peace process. we have the regional security piece of it very much in mind.

metalstantly work it is a -- as a matter of national policy. my comment is we need to do both. and it wouldrgue play into the hands of those who say you are not doing enough on disarmament if we somehow act off or sat in our hands and did not try to continue to make practical progress every way we can, whether it is generating the conditions for a more sophisticated and difficult verification regime in the future like monitoring warheads -- that is the meaning of our debt verification initiative and also, getting nonnuclear weapon states involved so they recognize what some of the difficulties are in that regard. you have to do both at once, i think. i will take the last question. you talked about the russians being serious in terms of implementation.

they calculate that is in their interest. you also mentioned that the russians have not been prepared to go beyond that. you call this blocking functions for further reductions. is there a sense with the u.s. government why the russians are not prepared to go further? the russians are up comparably with us with weapons. is there a sense of why the russians are reluctant to engage in discussion ongoing lower? >> prior to the ukraine crisis, i think it was a complex mix of interagency factors on their side. i'm speculating here but perhaps there was some sense that they had not quite decided where they wanted to go with their own modernization program so not wishing to engage in a nuclear reduction negotiation in that context. since the ukraine crisis

emerged, i think there is an additional political layer of complexity. i think there is a different attitude, slightly different in moscow in the area for the madetions to the point i that despite the ups and downs in the relationship, we believe we should continue in the most possible way to reduce further arms reduction was with russia. we think it's the best way to deal with the threat of terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons. that's what president obama said in his prague speech. he said the only way to do iteris dealing with nuclear weapons is get rid of them. we have not talked about the nuclear security summit at all this morning but i am proud of the fact that we've gotten rid of the equivalent of three materialns of fissal from around the world over the last five years since the nuclear security summit started.

the russians have been great partners in that effort. that's another area where we have had a great partnership with the russians despite the ups and downs of the relationship. it's a very mixed picture. i think it is a bit more with their now political stance in the context of the bilateral crisis which is not exactly the same as ours despite his bad patch, this very serious crisis we should have never let continue pressing forward. the hesitation was there before hand and i would say hesitation before hand was more answer to should all and enter driven on their side. since the crisis emerged, it has taken on a political aspect as well. >> you covered a lot of ground aware grateful for you to take time out of your schedule and join me in thanking her. [applause] [captions copyright national

cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> you can watch this arms can stroll discussion later on her website, www.c-span.org. there is major foreign policy news today -- cuba has freed t as part oflendusr a deal that included the release of three cubans gelled in the u.s.. the headline is from "the washington post." they say this could open the way between political relations between cuba and u.s. president obama is expected to make the statement on cube at noon. same time, cuban president rau will castro is scheduled to address his nation on relations with united states print that is according to cuban state television. even though congress is out, lots of congressional reaction to the apparent deal -- gerry connolly of virginia tweets --

you will find more at twitter.com/c-span. lots of coverage coming up for you. the president will make a statement at noon eastern today and we will have that live for you as well. we will also hear from senator marco rubio, republican of florida and his comments expected at 12:30 p.m. eastern on planned or into a submitted coverage which will include commas from allen gross who is returning to andrews air force base midday today so we expect in his conference this afternoon and from patrick leahy, chris van hollen and other members of congress who will be welcoming mr. gross back to the united

states print we will look for comments from the white house briefing and josh earnest has that this afternoon. marco rubio says cuba talks are absurd and senator rubio says the obama administration move toward normalizing relations with cuba is absurd offering some of the sharpest initial republican criticism of the news. there is a briefing at 12:30 p.m.. on the democratic side, robert menendez says trading mr. gross for three convicted criminals sets an extremely dangerous precedent. that invites dictatorial and rogue regimes to use americans serving overseas as bargaining chips. we will hear from the president in about half an hour. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend on the c-span networks. saturday night at 9:30 p.m. on c-span, actor seth rogen discusses politics and humor.

sunday evening at 8:00 on c-span's q and a, author and town hall.com editor on what she perceives as the hypocrisy of liberals on their war on women rhetoric. on c-span two saturday night at 10:00 on book tvs afterwards, william dershowitz argues that the top universities are missing the mark in education in students should learn lessons on how to think critically and be creative and have a goal in life the on the material. sunday morning, before 11:00, book tv visits west lafayette, to interview city authors and tourist literary sites. on american history tv on c-span3, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war, and a talks about the light of irish american soldier patrick clayburgh and his role in the confederate army during the battle of franklin, tennessee. sunday afternoon at 4:00 on real

america, a 1974 investigative ontve by san francisco's kr on police brutality in oakland. find their schedule at www.c-span.org and let us know you think by calling us or e-mail us or send us a tweet. the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter, coming up in about half an hour or so at noon eastern, expect major comments on cuba from president obama. lots more coverage of other reactions following that right here on c-span. while we waited if the president come here's a portion of this morning's "washington journal." >host: we want to welcome back the president of the american federation, randi weingarten. begin with some last minute business from the senate

and, that is approving, of a new surgeon general. he will be the youngest, 37-years-old and, his nomination being held up for a year. what did this delay mean for the fight against ebola? we are 1.6 member union, and second largest nurse's union and, we've been very involved, with our nurses, in terms of being frontline in america, in the fight against ebola and also, spending a lot of time, with people, in africa, in terms of that fight, so, when you don't have a surgeon general, and you don't have the top policy maker, in terms of public health. and when that -- in the absence of that, you don't have the preparation that the united states needed had to have, when we started seeing that the -- ebola so, once -- it is

remarkable how you see some hospitals throughout the country, working with their nurses and doing the kind of preparation and, in this spending bill, the president's piece about ebola preparation, got in there. because it is huge. the amount of money that's need said huge, if you're going to this right. and the trairning that's need said huge. you have to do screen, throughout the united states, in hospitals, and have real centers, and so, surgeon general is important on that, and what was said, this surgeon general, has taken positions about common sense gun safety. and the fact that he has taken those positions should not have disqualified him, and i'm glad that we overcame that. he's going to be a great addition. on that money for ebola, will this continue to be a priority? will the nurses get the training, that they were calling for? the nurses, we were calling

for a 3 step plan. one was you need to have u-- real trairning for were, and real equipment for everyone, and you also need to have separate places, where there's willing people, who are stepping up, to equally do the kind of care that needs to happen and, what we have seen, in places where hospitals worked with our nurses, that was happening. and in places where people pretended that, they were all -- they were ready when they weren't, it created too much of a scare. it reminds me of the aids crisis. public health, needs to be taken seriously, and it takes an investment and, when you pull it out, you're not ready. so, places with people are working together, nurses and hospitals, which is part of what unions helhealth do, which is w.

do you think, that money stay's that path and, doesn't get diverted. one hopes so, and that's why some people think we are annoying, and that's our job, to call it out, if it doesn't. that's what we do, in hospitals, and like in schools. we need the investment. higher education, a quarter of the money that states used to spend are gone because of this last you a stir aty, and it's part of the issue about fees and student loan debt is so much worse today than it was five years ago. so that's part of what our job is, to call that out and get that investment. we're talking about randy. lines are open.

also, educators, we want to hear from you. another issue, that this congress dealt with, before they left town, and closed the books, was this 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill and, in it, included pension cuts, your union not impacted and, what did it do? number one, this was about trying to fix as opposed to what is happening, throughout the country, which is just closing private sector pensions, and so, frank licks the building trades were very, very much pushing this bill, because what they wanted, they wanted a ability, some tools, to be able to collect toughly bargain work together, to fix some of the private sector pension plans, that had been cut because a lot of two things, investment

issues, and with the recession, and, it's so ironic, that the spending bill also, allowed, change, in tod frank which was needed to actually stop another recession caused by wall street crash. so, the building trades

of somebodies lifetime, not when they are 60, 70 years old say oops, what are we going to do now? host: what are the prospects now when the republicans are coming back in control? guest: the reason they were affected so much as number one, a lot of governors, republican governors in particular took pension holidays instead of actually doing their contributions to pension funds, when the employees had to, they actually said no, we will just take a holiday, and then it was that plus the cut in wall street, but what you are seeing is a lot of them are more and more healthy, and if you look at this, the rate of return of investment is much better when you do a pension fund.

host: are they healthy because more came back? guest: part of it is they are healthy because wall street came back and part of it as they are healthier because people are doing the contributions they need to do over the course of time. employees have put in their contributions in terms of the pensions come it was the government is that said no, we are not going to put ours in. host: you are not a fan of wall street, but if wall street is better, employees do better. guest: my opinion is you cannot have winners and losers in an economy. you cannot have an economy that has the greatest west -- wealth gap. everybody should be doing well, not just the 1%. we cannot have wage stagnation for everybody else and the 1% booming, what we know pensions form huge investments for wall street, which is why it is so ironic that wall street, some aspects of wall street actually fight against the very same thing that is feeding it. host: let's talk politics a

little bit because the former florida governor jeb bush took one step for closer to running in 2016, deciding to start a funding committee in january. he has been very opal on common core. what do you make of a potential bid by him? guest: jeb bush is a very smart guy, and if he becomes the republican candidate, it will go be a very, very tough, contested election, but the bottom-line is look in terms of education. it is not what you say, it is what you do. you have to recant -- you have to reclaim the promise of public education and if you look at what jeb bush did in florida, he is a fantastic salesman, but the focus was on testing, testing, and grading, grading, and he created a system which virtually all of the scriptures are saying stop. we actually need to teach kids,

we have to engage kids in terms of art am a music, physical education, critical thinking, not just measure, measure, measure, measure. if you want to do that, we have to invest, even in terms of the common core, it is about critical thinking. i actually agree with the promise of a common core because you have to help kids get to that critical thinking stage, but a lot of the common core adherence by jeb bush and others, they are more focused on the testing in the grading and the sorting went public education is about helping all kids. so you have to look at what he actually did about education, not what he says he did about education. host: in terms of education, who is formidable on the democratic side against him? guest: it is still really early, and there is no secret that my union and i, you know, we have always been very, very big hillary clinton fans.

we have worked very hard for her . in 2008. she was my senator in new york state. you have to wait and see how -- who is ultimate going to run. let me say this -- public education is a public the good. it should not be a province of democrats and not a province of republicans. all throughout the country -- i was just a new town a couple of weeks ago. the board in newtown is five republicans, two or three democrats. they understand that it is something you have to help, that all hits have to be helped -- all caps have to be helped. -- all kids have to be helped, but it requires an investment, not thinking that a market theology is going to work. in fact, one of the big charter experts just admitted this week that market theology does not work in the education industry. host: you put out a statement

very critical of this 1.1 trillion dollars spending bill that was passed by congress, and critical of it because they provision that would ease up on the dodd frank regulation over wall street. you wrote host: working people know that we can count on house minority leader nancy pelosi and senator elizabeth warren and others, all of those who stood up and said we will not vote for this legislation. is hillary clinton too close to wall street? guest: no. hillary clinton knows how to get things done. i watched that when she was secretary of state, i watched that when she was a senator from new york state, and i watch that when she was the first lady, so ultimately, you know, she has not announced yet, so it is premature to talk about all of this, and let me also say my union -- it does not matter what

my personal edition is, my union has a whole endorsement process. when you look at the senate spending bill, the spending bill that was passed, there are two provisions in there. how do you derail dodd frank when i was the checks and balances? that is what nancy pelosi and elizabeth warren were saying, and they were right. how do you insert into that bill more of the opening to overspend in elections? there are good things in that bill. it is good that the ebola spending is there. it is good that there are all sorts of new tools to turn around low performing schools, but how do you do that when you have wage stagnation, when the middle class needs to reclaim the promise of the american dream, and what happens is wall street is preferred as opposed to everyone else? host: let's get to calls. we have a democratic caller,

thank you for waiting, virgil, go ahead. caller: listen, guys. backup up to the part about education, to me, it is like obamacare. i think education should be free because other countries do it, and all countries should do it because that is one of the things we need is education. i just wonder what her issue is on the maybe being for this, they say there will be a shortage of doctors and nurses here pretty soon, and i think the scholarships are to be free, if anybody wants to get in that field. host: ok, all right, randi weingarten. guest: look, sir, you are totally right. one of the things that made america different than almost any other country was that we had -- sorry, i am an old social

studies teacher, so i used to teach my high school students in 11th grade and 12 great about the lacking social compact, which meant that in exchange for giving up some freedoms, we had taxation, we had safety, community policing, and we had public education. and that we had that as part of our democracy. so public education is a public good. it is supposed to be paid for throughout the country by the taxpayers of the nation, but we have to use that money wisely, and we have to give it, as you just said, to the kids that are most in need. if someone wants to go to college, they should be able to go to college without having staggering debt because what is going to happen is that they will then be taken care of us when we are all in wheelchairs. but you are totally right, and we need to do more of that in terms of helping all teams succeed and get to their god-given potential. host: on our line for a look

and, like in layton, utah. go ahead, mike. caller: i listen to this present only time, and he talks about politics instead of education. she covers everything that is possibly under the sun. everything is about money and taxing, nsa need more money, and a code word it investment, and it is goes on and on and on. how much is too much? i had a great public education, but when i was a kid going up, homeschoolers were thought of as strange people. now i see homeschooling is wonderful. if i had to raise my three sons again, i would be so happy to do it home and teach them the wonderful things about life and our country, and i am just so sick of this. always more money. always. guest: well, sir, look, i have a cut to propose, which is why don't we stop testing so much, and why don't we use some of that money into some of the

other things that we need to spend it on? but i think two things -- number one, you are totally right about how there has to be a parent-school partnership. we cannot substitute for the home, and i'm sure you do a terrific job with your family, and that is fantastic. but what we do need to do is if you think about it, early childhood education, if we spent money on that right now, the rate of return on investment is for every dollar we spend right now, we will spend eight dollars less later on because of the kind of investment that it is. those are the investments i am talking about. career tech ed, if we are going to actually teach kids how to do welding, we need that equipment right now, and that equipment is different then the equipment 20 years or 30 years ago, and that costs money. the stuff i was talking about in

terms of higher education, states ought to pay 25% more in terms of the investment in state colleges, and last, over 30 states spend less on public education right now than they did before the recession, so you are right -- we have got to use the money wisely, but we do need more of an investment. host: speaking of money, president obama has announced early education initiatives. it is called invest in u.s. partnership in a first five years finds a nonprofit advocacy organization. $750 million in new federal grants to states to expand pre-k programs for over 35's and -- over 35,000 infants and toddlers. an expanse high-quality preschool programs and excited to enroll in additional 33,000 in this. $333 million in private dollars. this is less than what he proposed in 2013. guest: it is good that one is trying to piece together a

program on early childhood education when we know early childhood education is so important, but what happens is that if we don't actually make sure that three-year-olds and four-year-olds get full-day pre-k and that we are helping parents with the kind of skills that they need to help their kids, then we are not helping everyone, and that if the problem in terms of early childhood education. it is really important, but the quality is really important. think about it this way -- low income kids know about -- let me say it this way -- kids get about 13 million, 14 million, or 15 million words said or spoken to them when they are one year old, -- with their one years

old, three years old, if parents are not reading to you, if you are not listening to that, then you are at a disadvantage, and that is what early childhood education does. it kind of levels kids up so that they are not at that disadvantage when i go to convert an and first grade. host: walter, south carolina, democratic caller. caller: good morning. all i wanted to say is if you want to look at the republican plan for education, all you have to do is look at chris christie, who cut a billion dollars out of education. i listened to elizabeth warren say that when she was coming up, she could pay $50 a semester to go to a community college. we have got to invest in our gor education. if we do not invest in our education -- look at where we are now. everything we buy now if you look at it says it is coming

from china or japan. we are so far behind we need help. guest: kids want to succeed. i was just in ferguson yesterday, and we spent time with kids in st. louis and kids in ferguson, missouri. kids want to succeed. part of what both public universities ought to do and public case 12 does is that it creates a ladder of opportunity -- and public k-12 does is that it creates a letter of opportunity, and if we do not give in that latter when they are young, then we are not doing our job. part of it as it costs something to do. you're totally right, sir. host: mel, independent caller. caller: hello. i disagree with the premise that public education is for the public good. government-run education institutes a kind of secularist ic, humanistic worldview,

which undermines and undercuts what the foundation of this country was established upon. i really feel like the money should follow the parents and the students, not the school district and the unions. and this monopolistic practice that currently runs american education needs to be replaced by a more free opportunity or parents to educate their children the way they want rather than the government telling them how it is to be telling them how it is to be done. guest: sir, let me just very respectfully disagree with you. i am a pretty observant jew who goes to shul pretty much every friday night. our country has a separation of church and state, and that is secular in the way this country has been founded. parents have that right, but our

responsibility is to make sure that kids have great neighborhood public schools, and they do have to be secular. they do also have to be broad so that there is not one single point of view. frankly in math there is not a single point of view, and science come i cannot think there is a single point of view, and in social studies, i was a social studies teacher, we need to make sure that kids can make their own decisions. does it substitute for what parents do? absolutely not. we need to have parents engaged, but we need to make sure that kids have that right, and in the countries that have done what you suggested, like sweden, the school systems are actually in much worse shape, and the achievement levels are in worst shape. host: we are talking with randi weingarten, president of the american federation of teachers, and we have a line set aside for educators this morning, (202)

748-8003. we want to hear from you as well and the lines are up there. let me go to molly next in california, a republican. go ahead. caller: thank you. just a quick word here about indoctrination of our small children in government schools, and now they want to get their hands on the ones even before kindergarten because it is much easier to and doctrine it children into a social -- to indoctrinate children into a socialist point of view. as far as common core goes, that is another were for teachers not to teach. america, remember, when carter formed the teachers union, we were number two in the world. we are 34 now. try to talk to a high school who just graduated from high school -- he can not talk. he does not know geography if he attended a public school that is. let me tell you, common core is just another way for you teachers not to teach and spend more time indoctrinating our

smart children into a godless, hopeless society where there will never be anything, any good to themselves or anyone else. host: ok, randi weingarten? guest: ok, ma'am, let me just say i hear your anger, but our job is to help kids be able to make their own decisions, and the reason that we talk about having early childhood is that nobody wants to adopt or any child to do anything. we want them to dream their dreams and achieve their dreams, but at the end of the day -- my parents and my parents' friends -- my parents were able to -- they had the money to put me into an early childhood education program, and frankly, kids -- we were read to and we had play and things like that, and that should be an option for all kids. and the research shows that that

really helps in terms of what happens with the brain. what we need to do is we need to also make sure that people believe again in public education because that is something that the country gives to all of our kids. the last thing i will say is on common core, and there are a lot of teachers that actually agree with you that common core should be much more flexible. you would see a lot of support from a lot of teachers. but what common core is supposed to be about is critical thinking, and what has not happened is that teachers have had the time to actually do it the right way. instead, they have been told to test, test, test. host: educational standards k-12 in english language arts, an and math. guest: some of the teachers and

social studies have said why are there not these kinds of standards and social studies? if you actually have them, you with the a lot less consternation about -- what are we teaching kids? host: host: hi, surely. caller: thank you for c-span. i would like to engage if i in the fact that we do any historical dislikes -- rather, disconnect, it seems. had the law from utah and california. so clearly, we had a disconnection as it relates to public education. if we do not have an educated workforce, we were not have a civil society. civil society. when i think about