thought it was ok to comment on my appearance. did you have any comment? i did not hear it, i was speaking with another colleague. i was surprised to hear what and thoughts. not on our appearance. said yous why you encouraged her to write about it. maker readers come again, up their own mind. >> there is a lot to digest. you can listen, read the entire thing on the washington post website. of the editorial page. thank you for being here and talking to our viewers. for today's

washington journal. we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. we will see you then. ♪ >> here is a look at what is ahead today live on c-span. and about an hour from now at 11:00, we bring you a preview of this week's nuclear security summit that is taking place in washington. the wilson center will host the event. the remarks of the chief negotiator of the 1994 north korean nuclear -- nuclear crisis. we'll have a alive for you on c-span starting at 11:00 this morning.

coming up at noon today, i discussion on the syrian civil war five years since it started. the conflict, the refugee crisis, and how the international community -- and what the international community is doing in response. that will be live at noon on c-span. also today, wrote to the white house coverage. donald trump is in janesville, wisconsin this afternoon holding a rally ahead of the state's primary next week. you can see that live at 5:00 p.m. eastern. coming up tonight at 8:00 eastern, two experts on student debt discuss whether there is a crisis in the united states and who is most affected by the problem. the education advisor rohit chopra and new york times columnist susan dynarski is codirector of the education , the geraldative ford school of public policy in the university of michigan. here is a preview.

>> 7 million people, 8 million people and default, what does that actually mean for individual lives? someone in default has an enormous blot on their credit record. what does that mean? many landlords do credit checks before someone can rent. they are shut out of part of the housing market. if they want to buy a car to get to work because they are living in a neighborhood that is not where the jobs are in the two job -- drive to work, they are shut out of getting a reasonably priced alone and they have to get a 25% interest rate loan which further presses on their finances. many employers check credit records. they are going to miss out on job opportunities. add to that the psychological of someone calling your cell phone or home phone, your relative on a daily basis. there is a lot of suffering. that is bad.

that is what the crisis is. we have people who went to school to improve themselves. especially during the recession. we provide a lot of subsidies, told people the right thing to do, job markets week, improve yourself in school. as a result, they are suffering. is a a madden -- it man-made crisis. that is what i think of as the student debt crisis. >> see all of the discussion on student debt starting to 9:00 eastern on c-span. maryland democratic senate candidates took part in a debate last evening covering issues on criminal justice reform, u.s.-cuba relations, and a transpacific partnership agreement. this one-hour debate is courtesy of you jay-z tv in baltimore. >> thinning -- good evening, everyone. this election, voters will make a lot of important decisions.

that is why wj z is broadcasting a series of special forums so that you can hear darkly from the candidates. today, the democrats running for the united states senate discuss the issues. now, we take you to the university of baltimore and wjz anchor who will moderate the forum. >> good evening, everyone, and welcome. tonight's forum is brought to university of baltimore. the league of women voters, the baltimore sun, and all of us here at wjz-tv. we would like to think the candidates for joining us here this evening. all of the candidates who qualify for the ballot and were pulling a 10% or greater were invited to participate this evening. the candidates are donna edwards and chris van hollen. questions will be posed by the panel who are dr. and cotton, director of the center for public policy at the university of ottawa.

edward green, editorial page editor for the baltimore sun, and baltimore sun columnist dan rogers. i am happy to serve this evening as your moderator. the order of opening segments was determined by a coin toss. the moderator can repeat the question for the candidate if needed. candidates may not interrupt each other. time limits for each question is 90 seconds. the timekeepers will one candidates when they have 30 seconds left area one minute will be allowed for rebuttal. the moderator will have the discretion to drop rebuttals for time later in the debate. each candidate will also be given one minute for closing statements. opening statements. ladies and gentlemen, mr. chris van hollen. >> it is great to be here. this is an important election. it is about delivering real resorts -- results to

hard-working maryland families. that is what i have done for my first days when i team depth with moms to be the nra and pass gun safety legislation. we worked to prohibit oil drilling around the chesapeake bay, and with pda, to boost funding for maryland schools. i have taken the same fights to the united states congress. i once again led the fight to protect social security and medicare. i know when to fight and i know when to find common ground. we cannot allow division in washington to stop all progress for working families. i never believed it was enough to be just a vote or only a vote or only a voice. i believe in delivering results for maryland families, and that makes all the difference. vic: thank you very much. now, donna edwards. rep. edwards: maryland is a state with so much going for it. we have great colleges and universities, including historically black colleges and universities.

for too many marylanders, they are falling out of the middle class and struggling to get in. i know something about that struggle. that is why i am running for the united states senate, to give a voice to that worker who wants to take a paid day off because a child gets sick and they don't want to lose their job because of that. for the young woman who makes $.78 on the dollar and knows she should be paid the same as a man doing the same work. for the young woman and man who might have messed up, but they deserve a second chance through education and opportunities to rebuild their lives and take a difference in their communities. and for those seniors and our veterans who paid into social security believing that elected officials in front of the doors and behind the doors should protect their social security and not bargain it away. these are the people i fight for. vic: now to the questioning. the first question will be posed

by dan robertsd. dan: given the recent terrorist attacks, what should the u.s. to combat the threat of terrorism, and we you commit u.s. ground troops to combat isis in iraq and syria? rep. edwards: i think it is important for the united states to play more of an advisory role to our european partners, especially in terms of intelligence sharing and intelligence gathering to be able to root out domestic and homegrown terrorism. with respect to isis, i don't believe it is appropriate for the united states to add ground troops to iraq and syria theater. we are making tremendous progress in iraq and syria on

the ground with iraqi forces, with kurdish forces. that evidenced just today with the killing of a top isis leader. i think it is important for us in the united states to protect our domestic security to make sure we have communications among all communities, so that we are participants in our own security and to make sure our european partners have the ability to have the information which we gather and share that information so they can better protect their interests on the ground. vic: any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: my heart and all our hearts go out to the people of brussels. i have been involved in foreign policy issues since i worked on the senate foreign relations committee. we were involved by focusing on this region of the world. we need to do everything possible to provide allies with the weapon systems and help they need to roll back and stop and ultimately destroy isis. we see what is happening as a

result of isis presence around the world. i do not believe that we should put american combat forces on the ground. i strongly oppose the decision to put american combat forces on the ground in iraq, and we are still seeing to this day the consequences of that bad decision, including the rise of isis. we need to provide the iraqi forces and kurdish forces with the training and weapons they need in order to push back against isis. we will succeed in this battle. we will be firm and stand with our european allies and friends in the middle east. vic: any rebuttal? next question from andy to mr. van hollen. andy: the recent debate of whether apple should be forced to help the fbi a mock a iphone use a killer in san bernardino has reignited the debate between

privacy and security. you think our laws set an appropriate balance? do you think they should be adjusted? rep. van hollen: you are right. we need to strike that balance in that debate, i come down on the side of protecting privacy in the broader debate. in respect to the situation with apple, the question is whether or not we can't find a way to simply go into that particular device without compromising the other apple devices around the world. i am looking for opportunities to, number one, get the information off that phone, if possible, without compromising others, but it is very important that we not have a system that essentially allows other actors around the world to break into all of our devices and all of our phones.

this is important debate. so far, the courts have come down in the right place. rep. edwards: i think this is one of the most difficult balances that we have in a democracy, especially since 9/11. bouncing our first amendment rights and privacy interests versus our interests in making sure we are secure. i tend to fall on the side of apple in terms of protecting privacy. i worry that apple might be able to unlock one device and therefore provide the entry into all of our devices. i believe the resources, and i am confident of the resources of the federal government to be able to find what it needs in that device, even in the most recent days. we have heard we are getting closer to that and i would err on the side of privacy in this debate, but i think it is a very difficult balance to strike and is one we wrestle with all the time.

in my time in congress, i do generally stood on the side of privacy when it concerns these security interests, recognizing that we have to protect all of our security and we need to give the resources to the federal government to do that. vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: no. again, i think this balance is important, but there are ways that we can protect our security without compromising our privacy and i think that balance has been well struck in many of the laws that have been passed by congress. in this latest incident, we need to continue to find a way to see if we cannot get information off a particular phone without compromising the privacy of all phones. vic: thank you. anne: do you believe that the program with iran was a good deal for the u.s., the west, and israel, or did president obama give too much away?

rep. edwards: i have been very supportive and privileged to be have been participating in discussions with the white house and the president of the united states over the course of the past couple of years leading to this deal. i feel confident now, having read the deal and express to support for it, that it was the right thing for the united states. i believe it was the right thing for our national security interests, for the security interests of israel, the region, and the world. i believe that over the course of this next decade, i think that we have important point of leverage with respect to iran, reducing their nuclear capacity, making sure that they don't have the capacity overnight, almost, and within a couple months of building a nuclear device and causing great having in the world and an escalation of nuclear proliferation in that region, and i think it is important that we have iran, who is a bad actor in so many ways. we have seen that in most recent days.

they are a bad actor with reduce capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. i believe that it's in the national security interests of the united states. i came out in support early of the agreement, and i believe it will ultimately make the world safer. rep. van hollen: yes, i strongly believe that the iran nuclear agreement will prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. the best way to do that is by reducing their enrichment capacity. it is important to remember how we got there, and that was why imposing strong economic sanctions against iran which is what brought them to the table. not all of us supported although

sanctions which succeeded. it is important as we proceed to make sure that we hold iran accountable. they do have a history of cheating on agreements in the past. yesterday, the president announced sanctions against iran for a number of breaches, including their ballistic missile testing program, as well as their cyberattacks on the united states. i stand with the president in taking that action and we need to be vigilant, to make sure we respond to any kind of iranian effort to violate those other agreements for the iran agreement. if they get the sense that we are willing to look the other way on ballistic missile testing or look the other way on cyberattacks or look the other way on their aggression in the middle east, then they will be tempted to cheat as they have in the past. my view on this is don't trust, but verify. it was the right way to go for

the security of the united states, our allies and israel. now we need to make sure we hold them accountable at every opportunity. vic: miss edwards, you have an opportunity for rebuttal. rep. edwards: it is really important to hold iran accountable and i would add to that one of the things we have seen over the last several days with the announcement by the attorney general of taking action in law enforcement with respect to the cyberattacks and moving towards additional sanctions and enforcing those with respect to the ballistic missiles development, that we see that the president meant what he said when he announced the iran nuclear deal. that is that that would not stop the united states from continuing to enforce against

iran in other areas in which there were violations. i believe that will also be true with respect to the iran nuclear deal. vic: thank you. next question comes from dan rodrick's and goes to mr. van hollen. dan: president obama made history by becoming the first president in 60 years to visit cuba. would you support lifting the u.s. economic embargo against cuba and taking other steps to soften cold war policies? rep. van hollen: i would. i think the embargo has been a historic mistake and i salute the president for his opening to cuba. i am pleased to have played a small role in this effort because my constituent, allen gross, had been held prisoner in cuba for over five years and we had to make sure we earned his release so that we could open that new chapter of relations with cuba.

i worked very hard and met with the present multiple times to secure that release and negotiate. i was proud to be asked by the president to accompany allen gross' wife, judy, to havana to bring allen gross home. that was the icebreaker that allowed us to proceed with the change in relations. the embargo has only served to strengthen the hand of the castro brothers. it did not isolate the regime. they are doing fine. it isolated the people of cuba. the castro brothers survived a whole series of american presidents. the far better approach is to engage with the cuban people, engage with the space. hopefully that will open up pluralism and democracy in cuba. it will not happen overnight, with the policies of the past

did not achieve their results. rep. edwards: thank you for the question. prior to coming to the house of representatives, i spent a decade at the arkham foundation, a small family foundation, for about the last 25 years. under my leadership, we slated exchanges with cuba and that pressed united states into ending the embargo and developing a diplomatic relationship with cuba. my involvement in this area it goes back a decade and a half. i believe that the key to opening in cuba and really making a significant change their is the ability for american citizens to travel back and forth, to exchange our cultures and our education, and i'm pleased to have been able to support these efforts coming to congress and certainly now.

i think we are seeing a new day and i think this next generation, both of cubans and cubans americans that are seeing our approach to the island nations in a different way, and i think the president should be applauded for making this very bold step, but clearly there is action that congress has to take affirmatively to list the embargo, to allow us to travel freely to cuba and to allow us to do what we did at the arkham foundation, which is to have a cuban national baseball team come over to play the orioles. [laughter] vic: thank you. any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: i was pleased to see the president's visit continued to open up that space. i had a chance to visit cuba three times over the last five years as part of the effort to get allen gross out of prison, and each time i saw a growing optimism among the cuban people. the change was coming. it was great to see the

excitement in cuba in the president's last visit. i do believe that the president is right, that as part of our efforts around the world, it is important that we not just talk to our friends. it is important that we engage with others who may want to do us harm. after all, ronald reagan called the soviet union the evil empire and sat down with them. i think the president has given us an example in respect to negotiations with iran as well as the opening with cuba. that smart diplomacy and foreign policy can engage using change not just through the use of force. vic: our next question comes from andy greene. andy: do free-trade deals like the transpacific partnership helped or hurt american workers, and what steps should be taken for those it does this place? rep. edwards: i'm concerned.

before i came in to congress, and when you look at the history of trade deals, what you are talking about, nafta, or the most recent agreements with korea and peru were columbia. although steals my opponent voted for. -- all of those deals my opponent voted for. we have seen a hemorrhaging of jobs in this country. we have lost tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. companies like bp solar in maryland that lost jobs to asia. solo cups to general motors that lost jobs overseas because of our engagement in trade deals. my standard for trade is that it has to benefit and support american workers, american manufacturing, and that it must respect the other laws, environmental safety and other laws. i believe that other trade laws we have been involved in do not do that.

the transpacific partnership, which i have been trying to make that are for quite some time, it does not meet the mark. i would urge my opponent, who has supported nine of the last 11 trade deals, to not continue going down the track that trades away american jobs. rep. van hollen: thank you. like with any agreement, you need to look at a particular agreement and ask yourself the question, is this good for the american economy? is this good for american workers? is this good for american wages? the ttp did not meet that standard for a variety of reasons, including allowing other countries to under mine environmental protection laws, and i opposed the fast track and i opposed the previous multilateral trade agreements.

you have to look at each of these on their own merits. i am proud in the selection to have been endorsed by the united auto workers. we are very interested in expanding manufacturing in maryland. we have a manufacturing plant in washington county. we need to bring more manufacturing here. i am pleased to have their support as well as the support of another organization that is on the cutting edge of workers rights, which is sciu, which supported congress member edwards early in the campaign and is now supporting me. i was in annapolis fighting for paid sick leave at the state level. just as i put that forward as part of the democratic budget at the federal level.

i am proud of my history of fighting for workers rights, better pay, and collective bargaining. rep. edwards: let's go back to trade for a minute. it is true that my opponent has supported nine of the last 11 trade deals, including the korea agreement, which in the three years since the agreement was inked and you voted for it, we have hemorrhaged jobs and the trade deficit with korea has actually grown. i don't think that that is the kind of trade deal that the american people were american workers deserve. the tpp would have been nice over this last year and a half while i, and a group of colleagues, have been working to try to improve a transpacific partnership that mr. van hollen was a part of that, but he was absent until this election. you cannot vote for these free-trade deals and all the other hand say you support american workers.

i am pleased to have the support of the hotel workers and the teamsters and a laundry list in the organization. free-trade has to be fair trade. vic: our next question is directed to mr. van hollen. anne: the national debt has bloomed under the bush and obama administration and the national deficit is almost $500 billion. what would you do to address the budget deficit and reforms to entitlement programs? rep. van hollen: it is important when we deal with any agreements that we read those before we come out against him. like the tpp. i think it is important we see the product and our constituents expect that. i chair, i am the senior democrat on the budget

community. -- budget committee. i have been leading the battle in congress to put forth a plan that will grow our economy, invest in places like the national institutes of health, but also reduce long-term debt. the way we can do that is not by touching social security and medicare. way we can do that is by getting rid by a lot of the special interest tax breaks in the tax code that favor hedge fund managers over hard-working people, school teachers, bus drivers, and i put forward proposals to do exactly that. if you look at the special interest tax breaks that have accumulated in the tax code, they are trillions of dollars. 17% of the benefits of all those special interest tax breaks go to the top 1% income earners and only add to economic inequality. i have been very focused on

reducing the long-term deficit in a way that protects social security and medicare. when it comes to medicare, we can save money by requiring we negotiate for drug prices. that is a way we can save money. vic: we go to ms. edwards. rep. edwards: veterans and seniors pay into social security. it is an earned benefit. i think that they are entitled to have a benefit that is paid out to them and not have that traded away by politicians who in front of the camera say one thing and behind them do another. unfortunately, mr. van hollen wasn't exactly that position in his leadership position. when he was on the simpson bowles commission, he supported that as a general framework for reducing the deficit. the problem is that it was a framework that was cut social security benefits and also raise the retirement age.

i think that is not an acceptable position for us to be in. social security is an earned benefit and i stand by seniors, especially women who are left at the end of their lives by themselves and only have social security. they don't have a 401(k) plan. they don't have a pension. they only have social security. and you wanted to traded away in an effort to cut a deal. i think there is no deal to be cut on the backs of our senior citizens. vic: thank you very much. rep. van hollen: maryland voters deserve the truth, and congresswoman edwards is not telling the truth. i have been leading the fight on behalf of the democrats to protect social security and medicare as recently as two weeks ago. my colleagues unanimously voted

for me to carry their standard and make sure that we upheld those values in the budget committee, including congresswoman edwards supporting that effort until we got on the campaign trail and now she is misleading voters. this is exactly the kind of thing that voters hate about politics. i am 100% rated from the alliance of retired americans. the one difference between us on this is i have been in the trenches leading the fight to detect social security and medicare. congresswoman edwards has not been part of this battle. she has not been part of it until this campaign where she decided to play politics. i think voter should be very disturbed. vic: our next question comes from dan roderick's. dan: college graduates in 2015 left campus with an average of $35,000 in debt.

it increased to more than $10,000 in five years. what role can the federal government play in improving college affordability? rep. edwards: i know something about that. i finished college and law school with almost $100,000 in student debt and i know it really constrains what young people can do with their lives, whether they can move out of their parents homes, whether they can start a business, whether they can start families. i think we have to start doing something about this. we have $1.4 trillion of college debt hanging out there. that is why that a strong component of that free college, ideas for having community college, two years be paid for so students only have to pay for the other two years to fill out their college careers. i think there are a number of ways we can do this. we have to look at the way

private institutions are encouraged to spend their endowment so students do not leave with a lot of debt. as soon as i finish paying for my student loans, i started paying for my son's college and that is a circumstance that many middle-class families duvets. i believe it is important -- families do face. i believe it is important because it should not be more than what the prevailing interest rate is for other kinds of loans. we should look at ways that we can reinforce students being able to go into jobs that are coming out at the economy, so that they are being trained for jobs they will actually get when they get out of school. thank you. rep. van hollen: i have a record on this issue. years ago, the big banks, wall street interests, or making huge profits off the student loan

program. eyelid the fight to stop that. we still have a long way to go. for students who out -- who are out there who have big debts from college, i support efforts to pass a bill that elizabeth warren had pushed which would allow people to renegotiate at lower interest rates. as a leader on the budget committee, i put forward the proposal that the president has, free committee college, seeing that hbcus are affordable and don't get hurt in that process. with respect to kids going to college now, we need to use federal leverage to incentivize colleges to reduce their tuition and we need to push forward even more on in home-based repayment. right now we have moved in the direction of saying the amount

you have to repay for your loan will be based on how much you earn and pay. nobody will be too stretched. we need to build on that because we know this is not just hurting students. it is hurting communities because students start behind from the beginning. they can't rent an apartment or buy a home. i have a record of fighting on this issue and not just someone who talks about this issue. rep. edwards: mr. van hollen says someone who talks about it all the time. college students who are like me coming out of college need someone who talks about the debt they are facing and puts ideas forward how we reduce that debt. i strongly supported the budgets that have been offered, but we have not done anything about it. i think today's college students, especially the first-generation students -- i have had an opportunity to have a college fair for

8001st-generation students and to help them understand what it means when they are going to college about the debt they are going to incur and ways they can reduce that. we have an obligation to that and i think mr. van hollen has ideas about that and so do i and i am looking forward to being in the senate. vic: our next question comes from andy greene. andy: what is your view of the criminal justice reform movement? do you believe our sentencing practices need to be amended? rep. van hollen: i do believe we need dramatic criminal justice reform. we have a scandal in this country of mass incarceration. we need to be spending more on schools and less on prison. i am part of an effort, the main legislative efforts in college, to actually do something about

this, the justice act, which would get away from treating nonviolent substance abuse as a criminal matter, and address those issues as a health care and addiction matter. we have seen the consequences of this failed policy because we have so many nonviolent abuse offenders in jail, not just under federal law, but state law. it is important that we also address these issues at the state level. along with important questions of police accountability and transparency and ultimately getting at the really deep issues of chronic poverty and inequality in our economy. these are all things that have to be doubt with together and i have put forward proposals together with colleagues on criminal justice reform, as well as wellness plans, to address the huge income inequality in our country.

these are part in parcel of a larger issue and we need to do with them on a systemic basis, because we have seen systemic racism, we see other systemwide consequences that we are seeing in these policies. rep. edwards: before i came into congress, i supported efforts around the country, looking at the deep systemic problem of incarceration and imposing capital sentences, particularly on young black men and brown men in this country. i have a long history that goes back years on criminal justice issues. supporting efforts to make sure that those who are indigent have the ability to get counseled. in the congress, i have led on

these issues. i have convened in my congressional office groups working on reentry from all across our congressional district, montgomery and prince george's county as well. we look at how it is we can get people into productive work so they don't go back into prison. it is the reason i introduced the real act. this would restore pell grant eligibility to those who are incarcerated. i met alfonso at prison. when he first started getting an education, he thought about his life differently. that is why i have been a leader to give people an opportunity to rebuild their lives and that we do things unlike what mr. van hollen did, which is to support imposition of mandatory sentences. that is what he did in congress in 2005, escalating sentences to 30 years in cases at a time when we knew that these mandatory penalties contributed to behind carson ration rate and i think that is a crime. rep. van hollen: thank you. congresswoman edwards brought

this up about my state legislative record. she distorted that. yesterday, state senator john carter conway and state senator dolores kelly wrote to congresswoman edwards and said, cut it out. quit distorting van hollen's record, which he did. when it comes to congress, we were dealing with violent crime from ms13, who were committing brutal murders. we were putting a package the other that included enforcement, but also my focus has been on prevention and intervention. when it comes to mass incarceration, it did not even pass. this is another example of a gross distortion. trying to accuse me, who has been a leader on major pieces of criminal justice reform is just upside down. again, a bill that did not even pass.

let's get the truth. vic: i apologize. time has run out. anne: last year's unrest in baltimore following the death of freddie gray highlighted problems that there are 2 -- in federal cities. rep. edwards: thank you. i have had the privilege of being able to meet with so many families across the city in vulnerable communities and i think we have to take a multi-pronged and simultaneous approach. i think about harold, who i met in a male mentoring program in the hood. harold said, i like math and i like school. i am afraid in school. we have to make sure that we have law enforcement that is transparent and accountable, that works with communities, in partnership with community, because that is the best way to fight crime.

we also have to make certain that we invest in education and opportunity. it should not matter what zip code you live in that you should go to a good school. we have to make economic development targeted to neighborhoods that are most vulnerable. i supported those ideas in the united states house of representatives. we have to make sure that we invest in research and development so that we restore domestic manufacturing so people can grow into the middle class. rep. van hollen: i love baltimore. this is a great american city. my dad's family is from baltimore. the other reason i wasn't one of baltimore is my dad went into the navy. i worked for governor schaeffer. he was focused like a laser beam on baltimore, and i worked at the federal level to get more

funds to invest in baltimore, whether was transportation, the port, other major engines of opportunity. we know today that baltimore is a tale of two cities. you have the glitzy inner harbor. blocks back, you have a very different set of neighborhoods. we need to address this in an urgent manner. i believe that we need to dramatically increase the incentives, tax incentives and other incentives, for businesses to move to other neighborhoods. the state senate took important steps yesterday. we need to build better pipelines between city colleges and institutions of learning and employers. we used to have big institutions to do more to purchase and hire locally. we need to build better transportation ask between where people are neighborhoods without jobs and the jobs and the surrounding areas, so it does not take four hours of commuting.

these are all important things and need to be tackled on an urgent basis. rep. edwards: baltimore is our largest city and in maryland, it baltimore is not doing well, it means our state is not doing well. all of us have a vested interest in making sure that baltimore succeeds. also, making certain in the congress led by the senate that we get those federal resources down to the community level where they are most needed. we have a lot of big federal dollars that come into the city, but they are not targeted to vulnerable neighborhoods. i would like to see a portion of that be supported in the congressional black caucus budget, supporting a portion of every federal dollar targeted going into communities. this is a way i think we help rebuild the city and rebuild

confidence in the city we all love. dan: clear from a number of reports that government at the state, local, and federal levels failed to protect the people of flint, michigan, from contaminated water. it has been nine years since the baltimore school system switch to bottled water out of concern of lead contamination. should the epa have more, or even full authority over the nation's unesco water supplies? rep. van hollen: yes, i do. as part of the democratic budget proposal on congress right now, we are addressing these issues and trying to find the resources not to just the people of flint, but to people around the country. it should never be the case in america that where you live or what your income is or what your braces determines whether you have clean air and clean water -- what your race is determines whether you have clean air and

clean water. this is part of a larger issue of environmental justice. this campaign has been endorsed by the sierra club, which makes environmental justice one of its key platforms. i have been fighting on these issues for a very long time. yes, we need to a this on an urgent basis. right now i am working with congressman elijah cummings, who does a great job representing baltimore city, to make sure that victims of lead paint are not harmed twice when they get a settlement for being harmed the first time and someone goes out to try to get them to sell that in a way that hurts them. this is an issue that we need to address on an urgent basis.

i put forward to specific proposals to deal with it. environmental justice is part of the fight for equal justice and equal rights. rep. edwards: just a few weeks ago i had the privilege of cochairing a policy hearing with our leader nancy pelosi on the flint crisis. looking at what happened at every single level. particularly concerned not just with the fact there was a disinvestment in the water structure itself and diverting poisoned water into homes, but what would happen in terms of because it if, long-term cognitive success of those children, some 9000 children. that is the same circumstance we face in baltimore. when a child is poisoned with lead under the age of six, it impacts their cognitive ability over the course of their lifetime. i think that in addition to the heart infrastructure, make those improvements, we make sure we have resources available for

education over the course of a lifetime. we are starting to see relationships between the incarcerated population and lead paint poisoning. when those links are made, it is important for us to make adjustments early on so we can have some mitigation as to what might happen with young people down the line, so that physical resources, but also the other sorts of education and other services that are needed to have people get as whole as they can be. vic: any rebuttal? rep. van hollen: no, only to emphasize that this has been an issue where being left to the states in many instances, we see what happens when you have governor like the governor of michigan who has neglected his

responsibility to all the people of michigan. that is why i do believe it is important for the federal government to take more responsibility in this area and certainly to step up our efforts to modernize our water infrastructure and make sure those are going to where they need it. when i put together the budget, i worked closely with the congressional black caucus, and adopted their proposal as part of the budget to make sure we do a better job of targeting resources to areas that need them the most. that is an important function of the federal government and we need to pursue it in this area. vic: next question comes from andy greene and miss edwards will be the first recipient. andy: in recent years, and number of corporations have moved headquarters overseas in

order to avoid u.s. corporate income taxes, which are higher than in most other industrialized nations. corporation stashed billions of dollars overseas to avoid taxes. should be lower the tax rate? rep. edwards: what we should do, and i am joined with our democratic colleagues in the congress in saying that what we need to do is to enforce our laws, but also save corporations, you are going to be taxed on your assets here. if your company is located here, you will be taxed in the united states. mr. van hollen has worked very dutifully on these inversion issues. i fully support that work, as do most of our democrats in the house of representatives. i think we also have to incentivize corporate companies to bring their business back to the united states. i have created a tax credit tied to domestic manufacturing so we begin to bring those corporate headquarters and the businesses that have located internationally back to the united states of they can be

fully covered under our tax code. rep. van hollen: i have been leading the fight on this issue. it is called inversions. these are company that are based in the united states but just change the mailing address and get a bunch of lawyers to end up escaping their responsibility to american taxpayers. when they pay less, it means all the rest of us pay more. we need to pass the legislation i have introduced. i had in working with the president. the president has been taking what steps he can through executive order, but we need to finish the job. this is just one example of the broken tax code i was talking about earlier. we have a tax code that encourages american corporations

to move their jobs overseas. not enough to enforce the law. these companies are using loopholes in the law which is why we have to change it and we have to make sure that we take away that incentive. i put forward a proposal on that front too. take the money's are being parked overseas to state taxes this year and invest them in places like baltimore maryland, to create incentive for manufacturers to move back here. i have also implemented a ceo employee paycheck fairness act. it is outrageous that businesses can take tax deductions for ceo bonuses when they are cutting employee pay. the ceos are getting bonuses, your employees need to beginning arrays as well. rep. edwards: i applaud the congressman for his efforts on

behalf of all of us as democrats on these issues. he has been leading that fight. we have all joined him. one day, we hope we will have a president that can find that into law. we want to go back to where maryland's future is. we have great assets here in our state. i think it is time for us to talk aspirational he and do the hard work of bringing advanced manufacturing job back to the united states by incentivizing that research and developing and tying it to manufacturing, the way it was for the better part of the 20th century until we got away from that. when we do that we will create jobs throughout baltimore, throughout maryland, and all across our country. vic: this will be our last question. it will come from dan

roderick's. dan: after listening to your answers in this another candidate for an ash can do forms, some voters may wonder what distinguishes between the two of you. between your views on government, how are you different from your opponent in the coming primary? rep. van hollen: as you say, there are not huge differences in the voting records, but there are big differences. when i talked to my constituents and hear the issues they bring to me, i take action. a woman by the name of carol price lost her son, john, in an accidental gun shooting. i teamed up with her to make maryland the first state in the country to prohibit, to require built in trigger locks. that saves lives. we had a family with children with down syndrome. they want to make sure that when they are gone they have economic security for their kids.

i worked on a bipartisan basis to pass legislation to provide more security. congresswoman edwards has been in congress for eight years. she has not been there for her constituents. you don't have to take my word for it. the washington post has reported about the notorious lack of constituent services in her office. most recently, the baltimore sun reported on employees who came to her because they believed they had been discriminated against and had lower pay. they did not believe that they got a fair hearing. on all of these issues, when you hear of a problem what kind of action do you take? she says she likes to walk in other people's shoes. she hasn't in their. that's been widely reported. rep. edwards: thank you for the question.

when i first came to congress, the first thing i did because i had been visiting schools across my district for kids were receiving free lunch, i had the asker school program. tens of thousands of students here in baltimore and across our state receive activist, lunch, and dinner at school. i know this contributes to high achievement rates and a contributes to low dropout rates. i know it's not a headline. i am not interested in making headlines. i am interested in making a difference in the lives of the people that i represent. i am interested in making sure as i have led in making certain that we have investments in water, resources, development, transportation, and infrastructure. let me say this about constituent services.

i think i serve my constituents well. all the things you come to a congressional office with, i take these allegations seriously. it means something to me. in these cases around discrimination are some of the hardest that any congressional office faces. we have an working on those issues for more than a year in our office to resolve them. ask the 3000 constituents who got services from my office. vic: thank you. there will be a rebuttal in the interest of time. we will move to closing statements. there was a coin toss. the last closing statement will

be done by mr. van hollen. rep. edwards: 30 years ago when barbara mikulski ran for the senate, people told her she could not win on her own without inheriting the seat from her husband. 30 years ago, they told her she did not look the part. today the part looks like her. on april 26, we can make history again. we can add it a perspective in the senate. that really reflects the vision of who we are. i will fight for that young man or woman who just wants to rebuild their lives and deserves a second chance. the senior citizens, i have done that. i will continue to fight on behalf of all of maryland citizens.

let me just say this in closing. it is a tremendous point of pride represent the people of the great state of maryland. thank you very much. rep. van hollen: thank you. when i think of senator mikulski, i think of someone focused on delivering real results to all marylanders. and we cannot rest until every child from west baltimore to western maryland and from east baltimore to the eastern sure gets the very best start in life and the very best education. we cannot rest until we have an economy that works for everybody , not just the 1%. the scandal of mass and incarceration in the scourge of gun violence and we address climate change. it's not enough to identify these as big challenges and issues. you've got to put forward

solutions if you want to move the country forward. i'm the only candidate who has put forward solutions on all of these big issues. it's not enough to talk the talk. we've got to walk the walk. one of my favorite sayings is that the world needs dreamers and the world needs doers but most of all, the world's needs dreamers who do. let's be dreamers and doers together and i for your support in this election. >> thank you very much, candidates, we appreciate your time today. and you're airing of the questions and issues that are important to the voters here in the state of maryland. we want to thank the sponsors for today's event, the baltimore sun, the league of women voters, the university of baltimore, and all of our staff at wjztv. thanks to our panelists at tonight. i am your moderator and we want to thank each and everyone of you for watching and joining us here this evening and remember

to vote on april 26. good night and again, thank you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] campaign 2016 is a special presentation of w jay-z, maryland's news station. >> where live this morning at the wilton center in washington for a preview of this week's nuclear security summit that will take lace in washington. the event is expected to focus on nuclear arms control and security. we will also hear from the chief negotiator of 1994 north korean nuclear crisis. live coverage we expect to stat shortly.

>> good morning, i am jane harman, president and ceo of the wilson center and delighted to introduce a very important national conversation on the nuclear summit and beyond. progress or regress. i would like to welcome some of

the smartest people in washington to this audience but also welcome many who are means,g this by other are against the back of the room. seven years ago, president obama delivered a major speech in progress promising to fight for a world without nuclear weapons. to get the work done, he brought leaders from around the world to washington, hosting the first nuclear security summit here in 2010. batonkorea then took the in 2012 and the netherlands in 2014. the summit is back in washington, d.c. and it's time for a status report. theanage the nuclear file, united states needs to walk and chew gum to recall a comment about former president gerald ford. the threats are not

one-size-fits-all. we have to keep our eyes on great powers like russia. we need to watch regional pariahs like iran and north korea. and we need to ensure that terror groups never get their hands on nuclear material as isl hopes to do -- hoped to do in belgium last week. the conventional wisdom today looks a lot more like it did in 2009 when president obama launched this conversation. many believe the risk of a planet destroying exchange has gone down while the threat of a single attack by kim jong un, al qaeda or others has gone up. i don't think we can rule out a major conflict. what keeps me up at night is the risk of miscalculation, the accidental clash between the u.s. and russia perhaps over syria or pakistan and india that

escalates and that leads to places neither party intended. are ready to blow. the use of a radiological weapon of any kind in syria could become an international crisis overnight. nations, responsible the grown-ups in the situation room cannot manage these risks, than that the ballgame. as usual, the wilson center is ahead of this problem. nonproliferation is one of her so-called lanes of excellence in today's conversation is led by our top expert on the issue, ack, our vice president for scholars and handled this file on the hill clinton national security council and is the author of " iran's nuclear chess." he moderates a conversation today with brilliant thinkers and very good friends. i want to thank a special

friend, ambassador bob gallucci, the honorable frank miller with whom i serve on the defense ,olicy toward, and then assistant secretary of state, frank rose, thank you for joining us. he was ahe old days, member of the step of the house intelligence committee where i served for eight years. he was a member, a card carrying member of team harman and we say you can join team harman anytime you want but you can never leave. he may think he works for john kerry but actually, not so much. in addition to that, he used to work for frank miller so go figure. gallucci and both franks, we are delighted you are here. you know more about this subject than most people. i have to say the guy who knows the most is the moderator, please welcome rob litvak. [applause] >> thank you.

good morning to everyone here. and to those viewing on c-span and other networks. the format will be that i will ask our distinguished panelists a set of questions covering major topics for half an hour or so. then we will open up to the audience for your questions. let's begin with an overview. it has now been almost seven years since president obama's landmark prague speech where he laid out an ambitious nonproliferation agenda. today's world looks very different than that in which the speech was delivered. hindsight view the objectives of the speech in its legacy? let's start with frank rose. >> thank you so much for having me here. to be onal pleasure stage with frank miller and bob gallucci and yourself and thank you congresswoman harman for having me here again today. it's like the hotel california.

you can check in but you can never leave. overall, over the last seven years, if you look at the alance sheet, we have done lot to improve nuclear security for both the united states and their allies. signedmple, in 2010, we the new strategic arms reduction treaty with russia and i'm happy to say that despite all the challenges we have with russia today, implementation of the new well withty goes on-site inspections in the u.s. and russia continue. we continue to exchange notifications of the movement of our strategic forces. the bilateral consultation committee, the body created by the treaty to work through difficult implementation issues continues to work through difficult implementation issues. through the recent joint

comprehensive land of action with iran, we have cut off their path to a nuclear weapon in a verifiable manner. through the nuclear security summit process, we have locked up significant amounts of nuclear material. i saw one estimate through the efforts of the nuclear security summit, we have locked up were secured enough nuclear material to create 150 bombs. on the positive side of the ledger, i think we have made good progress. however, we do have some real challenges. as congresswoman harman noted, the relationship with russia is fundamentally different. in 2009, when the president took office, we had hopes of developing a strategic hardship with russia. i think those hopes are no longer there. additionally, russia has been using increasingly harsh

rhetoric with regards to nuclear policy. that is very, very concerning. third and this is where i have been spending a lot of my time, russia has violated the inter-mediate nuclear forces treaty which was ratified by the , and thete and russia soviet union, excuse me, in 1988. it limits the production and testing of intermediate nuclear weapons, missiles. what we determined two years ago is that russia over the past several years has conducted several tests of a ground launch cruise missile that are prohibited by the treaty. we have been spending a lot of time over the past several years to try to bring russia back into compliance with the inf treaty through diplomacy but to date,

our efforts have not been successful. however, we continue these efforts. we have made it clear to the russians and to others that we will not allow russia to gain advantage from its violation of the treaty. overall, i think we have made good progress but i think we have significant challenges especially with regards to russia in compliance with the treaty. >> how do you view this balance sheet seven years after the prague speech? >> i would agree, i think the signing of the new start treaty was important not because of the numbers. numbers in at the the obama counting rule, the new start treaty allows more weapons than the bush administration's treaty of moscow. it reestablished the basis for verification. when you do verification, you increase transparency and that increases stability.

the nuclear security summit some the focus on loose nuclear material is terribly important work. jcpoa, if a continue successfully into the future, has been a to mend us gain to start to diffuse a very dangerous situation. where it would fall the administration is that it was , with theto recognize exception of the united kingdom, the other nuclear weapons states did not buy into it and it took several years for the administration to get its thinking around that. there are parts of the administration the stolen understand it. with then conjunction first point i made, to push back against vladimir putin and the nuclear treaty and third, despite the valiant efforts to push back against the imf violation, he has been undercut by some of the seniors who while

he is pushing to get the russians back into compliance with the treaty are saying we are ready to talk about a new strategic arms treaty thereby signaling it may not be that important. finally, the administration shares blame with the congress and the budget control act for failing to do anything seriously about modernizing our strategic forces for the bulk of the administration. you can look at the fact that the strategic program has been delayed fairly significantly while the russians and chinese building systems creates a series of problems. it's a mixed record, i think. >> we will return to the modernization issue. jane and thank you, rob. it's a pleasure to be here with my colleagues. you think about the topic generally, we think and three boxes. calledst box sometimes

vertical pullover operation -- plover reparation. -- proliferation. the second box has been horizontal proliferation and that is essentially the proliferation of nuclear weapons in countries, think korea and iran. the third boxes terrorism which usually is not much to do with nations. in the first box, if you accept my three box there he, i defer but i look ates this and see we have made significant progress with the last arms-control agreement. it was a good deal for us and the russians and the planet. i see the politics is overwhelming for the progress in that area. the politics is shorthand for putin. i don't know what one does now with respect to that. i don't think we will make much

as long as the political relationship with the russians is as it is. that's not bad, maybe an a-. the pleura for -- the proliferation box, there are many things with the iran deal. but there are many more things right with it. it's way better than not having ideal. legitimized enrichment in a country that should not he enriching uranium and we really don't have the kind of transparency we would like to have. that is true and those are nontrivial. compared to where we would be without that deal which is looking at iran with nuclear weapons or a conflict in the middle east, this is a lot that are and the president and secretary of state deserve great credit for that. pretty high grade on that.

the second half of the second box is north korea. not so good. the north korean case, as we say, it is not like fine wine. it does not get better with the passing of time. it has gotten worse. the north korean case does not look like pakistan and the sense that north korea has 100 weapons. have 8-12 nuclear weapons but that's a significant number compared to none. it is accumulating fissile material and they will eventually make them with delivery systems with intercontinental range. this is not good. are they not deterred why american nuclear weapons? yes, they should be. the problem is, we don't know what this young man who runs north korea thinks or if he

deterrencet nuclear and whether we should have any confidence that he understands the limits. i worry about the north korean case. north korean policy has failed beginning and the clinton administration and i had something to do with that and it failed the bush administration and it failed in the obama administration in the sense we have a nuclear armed north korea accumulating weapons and ballistic missiles and unapologetically. the third box, the one i spend more of my time on, is the nuclear terrorism box. on that, i'm something of a critic. generally speaking, there are two kinds of materials one uses to make a nuclear weapon. is uranium and the other is plutonium. the administration has focused on highly enriched uranium and is not focused on plutonium.

plutonium is accumulating and what's worse, may accumulate with the introduction of reprocessing plants in northeast asia. if that happens, it will be a game changer in terms of the long pole in the tent for terrorism, the ability to material so ie worry most about the third box. issues lays down the very useful. linkage that the complex and subtle linkages between these levels i think is underscored by this conventional wisdom that jane mentioned, namely that after the cold war, the conventional wisdom is that the risk of great nuclear weapons power exchanges had decreased substantially but the risk that a so-called rogue state or terrorist group might obtain and use a few weapons has increased.

let's discuss both sides of that equation. does that conventional wisdom still hold? frank miller? johnsonoint about kym un is valid, we don't know. we hope and assume he understands nuclear deterrence. that is a huge question. very rosyely, the predictions from the global zero group in 2012 and the notion of a u.s.-russia war was unthinkable. it has not come to pass and it is gone badly the other way. therise of putinism, khrushchev like statements and the dangers military activities using strategic bombers to fly into other countries'airspace, the exercises which simulate openly using nuclear weapons against his neighbors and the massive modernization program that the russians are involved

in along with this highly touted and questionable escalate-de- escalate strategy suggests that the russians view nuclear weapons different than we do. you recall the nuclear torpedoes that was leaked a few months ago as a terror weapon. if not the way we think about deterrence. one has to worry about how the russians think about nuclear weapons and one has to worry propensity to use nuclear forces at short notice. actions in the crimea and eastern ukraine and the use of military force in syria show that he reaches for those. those are questions we have to deal with again. >> let me turn to frank rose, holding up what frank miller said. to look at the strategic nuclear part which is the centerpiece of

your portfolio. a year after the treaty was concluded, cut -- cutting the nuclear warheads in russia and the u.s. and reducing launchers. since then, it has been a downturn in relations with russia and china. both of these strategic competitors are engaged in vigorous modernization programs. do these developments signal the end of great power arms-control as we thought about it? >> let me start by saying this -- russia did not find the new start -- signed the new start treaty because they believe in a world free of nuclear weapons. the russians signed the treaty for two primary reasons. first and foremost, they needed to maintain strategic parity with united states. given their economic situation

around 2009, they could not inord to maintain the levels the 2002 moscow treaty. -- this is ae us point that frank mentioned -- they value the verification and predictability. i think it's really important to note that they never bought into that vision for further reductions. furthermore, i would also argue, if you look throughout the last 25 years at democrat and republican administrations, we have had an overarching objective of reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our defense strategy. the exact opposite has been the case for russia. emphasists a lot more in that emphasis has grown, on nuclear capabilities. i was asked why is that.

i tell people that sometimes you need to take a step back and look at russia's overarching strategic situation. quite frankly, it is not a great place to be at. they have few if any allies. the united states has friends and allies all over the world. second, their conventional capabilities have gotten better as we have seen demonstrated in syria but their capabilities are not on par with united states or our allies. have theey know longer strategic weight of numbers. it we look throughout history, we talked about the russian numbers, steamrolling through europe. they are losing several hundred thousand people per year in population. one of our colleagues has written a lot about this demographic challenge with russia. deal,, and this is a big

i would say they don't have a modern, 21st century economy. when you think about russia, think about what they export besides oil and gas. not much. on top of that, they have a very robust china on their southeastern flank. given that strategic situation, what do they have to maintain their security? i would argue nuclear weapons. situation, strategic they are of the view, i believe and i think the record is clear, that nuclear weapons play a key strategyheir deterrent , a much larger role than us. are they prepared to move forward with additional reductions? i think the jury is out. one of the challenges that we will have when we talk to the

russians in the future -- i really do believe that despite all the challenges in our relationship, at some point, we will come back to the table and talk about strategic stability with russia. that does not necessarily mean we will move forward with another bilateral arms control treaty like the new start treaty but it's in our interest. for me, the reason why i support the new start treaty is not as much about the actual reduction. it's the transparency, verification, and predictability. back.k we will come it may not be in the rest of this administration but we will. one of the challenges out there is this whole issue of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. if you look at the resolution of ratification to the new start treaty, for those of you who don't know what this is, this is the legislation that the senate uses to give its advise and

consent to a treaty that says very clearly that next time the executive ranch comes to the senate asking our advice and consent on a nuclear arms reduction treaty with russia, it needs to take into account nonstrategic nuclear weapons. to date, the, russians have expressed very little if any interest in the issue of nonstrategic nuclear weapons. or nonstrategic nuclear arms control. berlin in june, 2013, president obama proposed that we seek an up to 1/3 reduction in u.s. and russian procedure garson a buddy also put a proposal on the table for bold reductions in nonstrategic nuclear weapons. at the time, the russian

response was less than enthusiastic. we will have to see. i think at some point, we will come back to the table with russia on strategic stability issues. it's not likely to happen in the near future. >> if i can just jump in -- the politics are driving this. the russian stand in violation of not only the inf treaty but cfe, the presidential nuclear initiatives, the chemical weapons convention, the helsinki final and the istanbul agreement. there is a wide range of treaties the russians have decided not to participate in or observe. there has to be some sort of political change in moscow that says we're going to lower the tensions with united states and thewest and re-enter into agreements we signed up to previously. it's part of frank's larger innt that that may happen

the future. i don't think will happen in the near future. i think the fundamental challenge we see now isi think l challenge we see right now is this. at the level of strategic nuclear arms control, russian believes that is in its interest. because of that it continues to implement the new start treaty. made withthat frank regards to the euro atlantic security architecture. my personal view is that russia no longer sees value in that architecture put in place at the end of the cold war. when we look back starting in 2007 with their unilateral "suspension" of the cfe treaty, what we have seen is a broader texture. they are slowly but surely taking out the key building

blocks of the euro atlantic architecture put in place in the late 1980's and 1990's. if you watch the russian media it's very clear that there is a narrative. the narrative is this. 19 80's and early 1990's, the united states took advantage of the soviet union in russia. therefore we sign these treaties and agreements when we were week. -- weak. therefore there is no need to continue to maintain them. you have a dichotomy. strategic nuclear arms control, they are generally in a good place. the security architecture is a big challenge. sheet onng a balance this conventional wisdom at the end of the cold war, one sees an increasingly assertive russia and increased reliance on nuclear weapons in a time of economic stress.

it is cutting into the ability to fund initiatives that had it under the cooperative threat reduction program that had in a major leg of the bilateral agreement. theuld like to pavement to other side of the conventional wisdom at the end of the cold war about rogue states and nonstate actors, terrorist groups. this week in washington is the nuclear summit. in the prague speech president obama said that nuclear terrorism was the most urgent threat. clearly the three preceding summit meetings and this one are addressing it. there seems to be a disjunction between threat and response. i think you telegraph this in your opening comments and i would like you to develop that point a bit further. >> i would love to. boxme say something about one. which i am seating to my colleagues.

concept that we have a look at nonstrategic nuclear weapons which are different than practical nuclear weapons and we want to look at those and the russians don't. areidea that the russians in the conventional areas so they need to put more of their talks down on the nuclear side. elsehere is something going on and it has to do with strategic non-nuclear weapons. globalto do with prompt strike. it has to do with the incredible unique american capability to project force anywhere on the planet. prompt global strike. we prompt part is the part are working on now. the global part has been there for a while. that is the ability to put lethality anyplace on the globe

within 24 hours. that is pretty impressive. it's very impressive to the russians and the chinese. i'm not saying we should not be doing that. brief forrry any beijing or moscow here. if you're going to talk about why things look the way they look right now, you should look at what we are doing to deemphasize nuclear weapons. we are not bringing more doves. we are deemphasizing nuclear weapons and getting new missions for conventional weapons. we have to be aware of the implications for that if they can't match it. same with b&b. if they believe they need to , you have to understand their psychology about this. that's all i will say. >> the only thing you should say as well -- is that the chinese and the russians are actually

doing advanced testing on prompt global strike systems and we are still producing powerpoint. pivot now.g to there are two issues now. they are related. the north korea case. because may worry about of what jane said in her opening remarks. well, yes. you should really worry about miscalculation when you think about the leadership in north korea not understanding that because they have a few nuclear weapons it does not mean that provocationsge in whether it is at sea or wherever without a response from the

republic of korea or the united states because they can deter this response. that's a huge misreading of wood nuclear weapons are good for from our perspective. i don't know whether it's a misreading from their perspective. we should worry about that. there's another problem with north korea of course. that is that they will not understand that it is threatening to the united states uniquely for them to transfer nuclear technology equipment or materials, particularly nuclear weapons. so when they engage in an 2007 andas they did in build a plutonium production reactor in syria. you remember syria. it used to be a country. we have the situation in which the north koreans have not learned that this is not a good thing to do. building a plutonium production in the in a country

middle east that sponsors terrorism is uniquely dangerous to the u.s. i don't have any reason to think that the north koreans understand that is not an act to be repeated. that facility does not exist thanks to the israeli concept of nonproliferation. but in the future we need to worry about the transfer of material, weapons of technology. couldd to because that lead to the thing i care about most and worry about most. that is the nuclear terrorism issue. when we think about nuclear terrorism, it is the thing that every president and candidate will say they worry about most in answer to the question they get with, what do you think, mr. president, is the greatest threat facing the united states? they will say nuclear terrorism and they should. at the same time, they will not take obvious stress -- steps as

president to do something about the key factor. it is not a trick any longer. a challenge any longer to design a nuclear weapons. not a simple one anyway. that's not a problem. to get the explosives to trigger it, not a problem. the big problem with nuclear weapons is getting the material. this administration and the ones before it have made great strides in locking up highly enriched uranium. and blending it down. the measure is not how much we have done that. how many times we have locked up or blended. but how much is left. there is still a lot left. i would say we are in the hunt on the highly enriched uranium. on plutonium we are not. and the reason we are not simply put is because it's politically difficult.

in two plutonium comes kinds of places. areas ofin the weapons states and nuclear weapons countries and other countries that have acquired nuclear weapons have plutonium. but it also is used in the nuclear fuel cycle of some countries, the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. think large-scale. think tons of plutonium. the amount of material it would take to utterly destroy the city would fit in this class. -- glass. i'm talking about tons of this material. in circulation in countries that have plutonium fuel as part of their fuel cycle. fortunately, not too many countries do. france does. russia does to some degree.

other countries have stopped. what is starting is the possibility that japan may start itrocessing plant next year, would have an 800 ton plant producing thousands of kilograms of plutonium. and that would be cycling all around japan fueling reactors all over the country. what could go wrong? and when we think about china buying an 800 ton plant from the french, we can see that happening all around china. huge quantities of plutonium. we are not addressing this problem. we are not addressing it because it's politically difficult. it's politically difficult to tell the french, you shouldn't sell this. tell the chinese, you shouldn't buy this. tell the japanese, you shouldn't start this. it's hard. but it should be done.

and to say you are serious about nuclear terrorism, when there is a game changer like plutonium in a nuclear fuel cycle that we are not addressing, is to me very misleading. >> the president talked about a terrorist group stealing, buying or building a nuclear weapon. tor last comment bob pointed with the increased amount of material -- that opens the door for nonstate actor potentially, although there is a divide on what the capabilities of nonstate actors to actually build a weapon are. just looking at the other two buy, whichal or points to leakage or transfer. with all the bandwidth we have had on this country on iran, when one thinks about leakage

and transfer, iran is not the first country that comes to mind. what comes to my non-transfer is north korea. and leakage we think russia and pakistan. my -- negotiations with korea in the 90'and their plutonium program. a critique of the obama administration is that it has not brought the creativity and focus that it brought to the iran case to the north korea case, which seems caught in this tension -- policy tension between north korea saying, we will only come back to the table if you accept us as a nuclear weapons state and the u.s. saying, we will never accept you as a nuclear weapons state, and not getting past that impasse. and pakistan, which many identify as the nexus of proliferation, a destabilizing area of tactical nuclear weapons.

theuld like to get off on korea.on the iran-north you mentioned deterrence. is there any possibility for an arms control component to at -- h freeze their program eu program? >> you asked a lot of questions. i don't know if you notice that. rate now, i probably would the pakistan situation as the most dangerous for us. pakistan is right now the country that is building the most nuclear weapons the fastest and delivery systems actually quite diverse to go with those. it has both uranium enrichment and uranium separation for weapons.

and pakistan is pakistan. by that i simply mean that it is a complex country. it has the most radical interpretations of islam running loose in it. there have been attacks on military facilities. this.uld worry about and the pakistan a, which is to worry more about us, and osama bin laden raid on their facilities, than to worry about the terrorist's internal threat. that has consequences. the pakistan case is a uniquely difficult painful one for the u.s. because we have a lot of history with pakistan. the iran case i think, i would say for a while provided we watch very carefully, maybe in cryogenic arrest. the nuclear part i mean. we should be monitoring that deal. we should watch it very closely. one of the problems with the north korea deal implementation

was afterwards, watch very closely. pay attention. we cannot make that mistake in the iran case. isr point about north korea well taken. the administration has been very concerned that the north koreans are not serious about any negotiation that would involve giving up their nuclear weapons. i would not be prepared to say that. i think under some circumstances if we can meet north syrian -- korean security needs, it might be possible. it's all worthwhile trying. >> let me just go back quickly to a point that bob made about chinese and russian concerns about american strategic capabilities. i would agree with bob. about strategic

stability in the future, we need to factor in these new strategic capabilities. cyber, space, missile defense, conventional strike. i don't think any of those capabilities fundamentally alter the nuclear equation, i think they impact it. the united states has been very transparent about its missile defense, space, conventional capabilities. russia and china have been less so. we have made it very clear that we are prepared to have a discussion with both russia and china on the full set of strategic capabilities. one of the issues with regards to russia that i have been involved in for three administrations now is missile defense cooperation and there have been numerous proposals for cooperation and transparency that we have put on the table and the russians have rejected all of those proposals.

we have been trying to engage china in a dialogue on strategic capabilities. the very concerns that bob mentioned. but there has been a clear reluctance on the chinese behalf to talk. bottom line, i agree with you. we need to factor these issues into our strategic discussions. however, our russian and chinese colleagues have been less than enthusiastic about engaging in those types of discussions. >> i will make three points. i worry very much about the pakistani case. the fact that it, there are elements in the pakistani government which believe that their nuclear deterrent allows them to carry out acts of terrorism on a large scale and be protected from that. that is a very dangerous assumption. second, i think with the young

leaders father who was probably a better chance to come up with some sort of a deal. i think with the young leader, i'm just not so sure. the third point is not that important. [laughter] >> let's open it up to the floor for comments and questions. let's go to jane harman. we have a microphone coming to jane. if speakers could please identify themselves and their affiliation. >> i'm jane harman. [laughter] bob was giving grades to various things. i would like to grade this panel an a+. i think everyone learned a lot and enjoyed this. so finally the question about pakistan at the end. -- to to extend that is india. one of the miscalculations could be the endless feud between pakistan and india. and the fact that both of them have nukes and at least pakistan

now may have small nukes. which are just as dangerous or could be. thecertainly could create chance of miscalculation. what about p+i? >> that worries me because the indian response to another major terrorist attack will be some sort of conventional action, which the pakistani army says it would meet with nuclear weapons. neither side may actually believe that that would happen, but once the events get into the play, it could be the august 14. that one truly worries me and is outside our control. pakistanis are emphasizing nuclear weapons to make up for conventional asymmetry in south asia. dean at thermer school of foreign affairs at georgetown. in the classes they distinguish

between deterrence by punishment and by denial. we talk about deterrence by denial. don't think about doing that. it requires a modicum of cooperation. the question in dealing with hard cases like pakistan is, how do you modulate policy where you have a deterrent threat to focus their attention like, don't even think about doing it, but you don't overshoot on the punishment side to the extent that they will not cooperate with you to do some prudent things to secure their weapons? >> there was this great professor of international affairs, can waltz -- ken waltz. he didn't like this deterrence. there's only one kind deterrence, it's punishment. if you are going to deny access, that's defense. it may work psychologically, but that's not deterrence. this is a matter of definition. it helps answer your question. >> he was also a structural

realist who viewed the world a certain way. >> you know too much. [laughter] [applause] the issue is that -- the question is redline. useful if theye are drawn correctly and they are credible. what the pakistanis have tried to make clear is that a compromise of their sovereignty, indian armor for example, would be crossing a redline. they believe that using nuclear should nottheir soil bring retaliation from the indians. this is the scenario we all worry about. the indians don't believe that simply crossing into pakistani with conventional forces should trigger a nuclear response. it's in that kind of thinking back-and-forth that we all worry

about the miscalculation going on. i don't know how one unscrews that problem except by improving relations tween these countries, which have a lot to do with ining the civilian narrative pakistan prevail over a military narrative that the only threat the pakistanis face comes from india when in fact, probably the only opportunity that pakistan had come from the indian economy. it is very hard to fix this problem. >> other comments, questions? gentleman in the middle? please identify yourself. >> my name is jeremy pearson, former congressional fellow. question for everyone.

there are many pathways to getting -- to making a nuclear bomb. another threat that has not received much attention is a dirty bomb. toquestion is with regard your comments with recycling and reprocessing. i understand, when you take high burnouts you, the isotopic ratios may not be as amenable to making an effective bomb. is that something we really should be concerned about? maybe thoughts on where we should be putting our attention? >> thank you for the question. it's almost conventional wisdom that -- it goes like this. there are two types of design for a simple weapon. the weapon that was used on sharokina, and an implosion that

was used on nagasaki. -- hiroshima, and an implosion that was used on nagasaki. the first type is much easier to devise than the second type, the implosion type. the first proposition that comes from this conventional wisdom is that terrorists can only do the first type. so that means terrorists can only make a true yield weapon, not a dirty bomb, with uranium. second, with plutonium, if they do not have plutonium of a certain high percentage of -- plutonium 239 and instead must suffer through the handicap of designing a weapon with even 242, they willd get enormous spontaneous neutrons emitted and they will get pre-ignition and it will be terrible. , since highe

burnouts you'll has more of the even isotopes in it, the kind of fuel that would be reprocessed in japan or russia, that is the only kind of stuff available. so at the end of the day the conventional wisdom says, both the weapons design and high burnouts you'll, the plutonium thing is self-limiting. it cannot reuse. it doesn't fit in the first design and it won't even work in the second design. the problem here is that is technical nonsense. [laughter] apart from that it's fine. would you like me to explain why it's technical nonsense? i can't. [laughter] question. the second andss third. >> could you identify yourself? >> my name is dave freeman. i'm former chairman of the

tennessee valley authority. my real claim to fame is i'm a friend of jane. third, yound and mentioned the political difficulties. isn't it time to use plain english and face up to the fact that there is no such thing as a and that the, nexus of our problem is that we promised people all over the world nuclear power plants, and we continue to advocate nuclear power in this country. when are we going to include in the discussion of this subject the fact that we are hoisted by her own petard when we continue to advocate the pathway to the bottom with just an atomic power plant. there's this dilemma that a source of scalable low carbon -- it's going to come from the nuclear, will be a piece of it. >> why can't we be offering

people all over the world cooperation in solar, wind, and storage instead of nuclear power? >> that's one way to go. access to the full fuel cycle and reprocessing that could make it safer. >> look. right now nuclear energy provides maybe 19% or so of our electrical generating capacity in the united states. and it's going to provide something like that for a while. my own personal view is that if we didn't have to have nuclear energy, that would be great. it is carbon free. track been on a different than the one you suggest of giving up on nuclear energy and saying, i want to give up on that which is clearly an -- plutonium recycle,

thermal recycle, current generation reactors, that closing the back end of the fuel cycle is crazy in economic terms. there is no such thing as a peaceful atom. i mean, you get energy. it depends how you organize that energy from fission. so i'm with you on that. -- the argument i've made here is a difficult argument to make. i said it was politically difficult. it has become much more difficult if i come out against nuclear energy too. i'm willing to say that you don't have certain problems if you can have energy from renewable sources. i get that and that's fine with me. i will go as green as we can support. in the meantime, if we have nuclear energy make up almost a quarter of our energy production , and in france in something

like 80%, you are not going to throw that out tomorrow morning. let'sthe meantime, "enjoy" nuclear energy in a way that's as safe as possible and not economically crazy. that's all. i don't have any problem with you making the argument. it's not going to be mind though. >> there's one issue i wanted to get to. the question of nuclear force modernization. under the stockpile stewardship program the united states is refurbishing its nuclear arsenal. critics claim that this program will make nuclear weapons more usable by decreasing their yields and increasing their precisions. resists thisation characterization, claiming it is maintaining existing capabilities and not developing new ones. i want to start with frank rose. clarify this issue of modernization versus

refurbishing. i know frank miller has a view on this as well. 2009 witho back to the presidents product speech -- prague speech. one of the lines that people forget about is that president obama made it very clear. he said, as long as nuclear weapons exist, the united states will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent. this is important for a couple of reasons. one, to reassure our allies around the world who don't have nuclear weapons that they don't need nuclear weapons. and secondly to maintain strategic stability with countries like russia and china. following on the president's speech, in 2010 the administration published the nuclear posture review.