tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 7, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT
question why the soviet union collapsed. when gorbachev came to the united states in the early 1990s after the soviet collapse he gave it talk at the library of congress. and the librarian of congress and said what was your biggest mistake? and he said, i underestimated the nationalities problem. so i problem. so i do want to come back to what he'll set at the end. the collapse was the inability to work out an agreement between the center and the republics of the soviet union. that was related -- but in the end it brought the soviet union down. and the other brief reminiscence about 1986 to show how gorbachev had been through a major transformation before he left
president reagan was that i arrived in the soviet union in moscow three days before the chernobyl accident. i had a fellowship for one month at the institute for world economy and i had with me a one-year-old 1-year-old son. and that is relevant to what i'm going to say. i had been there two days, i'm listening to the bbc radio and that i realize that some catastrophes happen. in terms of a nuclear accident. in the next week, a few days later i gave a talk at the institute and tried to be forward leaning and talking about the importance of improving u.s. soviet relations. the person who hosted me then started attacking me for the quote unquote lies that the united states was telling about chernobyl. there have been no accident, nobody would had been killed. that was one version. by the way after my talk i have people privately come up to me and say what's really going on. in the three subsequent weeks gorbachev had a complete turnaround after first while denying that something happened he went on television and admitted that something happen. unfortunately by then it was too
late and so some of the children who have been playing soccer were the first with radioactive dust, anyway just before i left the soviet union on my last day, the very, very man who attacked me when i gave my talk came up to me and said take you very much for being here, terrible tragedy has happened and we have to work together and cooperate, the united states and soviet union to make sure this doesn't happen again. so this was a transformative moment. when you hear things emanate today about who's responsible for what and the downing of the malaysian airline and everything else it's a little reminiscent of what it was like in 1986 before gorbachev admitted what happened at chernobyl. so the first thing i like to say
is even though we do not succeed completely it was the beginning of an important process. something like that is hard to imagine to happen today. it was so much based on the personal relationship between these two leaders who, despite their differences got along well. we are at are at a point today where u.s. russia relations are worse than they have been since anytime since before gorbachev came to power. the personal relations between the two presidents are almost poisonous, but very negative relations. we know that yesterday a few to help mention this briefly in her introduction, the kremlin announced that russia was withdrawing from this agreement that they had with the united states on the disposal of weapons with plutonium. the united united states was blamed for that and putin when he
announced the said that the reason rushing was doing it was the emergence of a threat to strategic stability and a result of on friendly actions by the united states of america against the russian federation. he is now tied russia rejoining this to three conditions. one is that nato should withdraw forces which are in russia's neighborhood, what we have been beating up our forces to what's happening in ukraine. secondly we have to end the sanctions that were imposed after they annexed crimea and launched a war and then thirdly, congress has to aggregate the -- and this shows a continuing lack of understanding in the kremlin about the separation of powers in the united states or how our system works.
those are the three conditions. i mean they won't be met obviously so russia will not withdraw from this agreement. so the purpose of the panel today is task wise it being so challenging since the soviet collapse to reach and maintain, and increase arms control agreements between the united states and russia. you would've thought with the collapse of -- the end of the soviet union it would be easier to reach agreements and has been pointed out, and and every presidency since the collapse the president has started out rather hopeful and then in second terms for not talking about george h dubya bush administration but in the second term of clinton and george w. bush and obama, these arms control agreements have really stagnated and been frozen. they haven't been able to proceed.
this is tied to a broader scene which is that in the past 25 years each american president has come in to office or in george w. bush case he was in office seeking to improve relations with russia. there would be sections try to have a better relationship. all all of these have ended in disappointment because we have a different understanding of what our productive relationship with russia would look like. what has worked in the past 25 years has been issues where russia feels we are treating it as an equal and it feels respected and where our interest in those of russia nearly is coincided. one of those has been what happened in the fall of 2001, the cooperation with russia and in the case of the war of afghanistan the initial defeat of the taliban where russians were very helpful and cooperated with u.s. because we had a common goal.
the u.s. russian cooperation in disarming syria of its chemical weapons in 2013, the discussion we had with the agreement with iran and the arms control agreement. in arms control in general this is a field where the u.s. and russia deal with each other as equals. we are the two nuclear superpowers and russia usually feels it is being respected as a role player because we come to the table as equals. so more reason to question why it's been so difficult to complete and sustain these arms control agreement. we have two excellent speakers to discuss with us today. i'll i'll be turning first to steve, the principal, former assistant secretary of state dealing with arms control issues in the george w. bush administration. he has worked on capitol hill. and then of course stephen,
former ambassador to ukraine, having dealt with various levels of the state department and national security council with arms control issues. he is a senior fellow at brookings and director of the arms control, non- proliferation initiative and has written widely on these issues. i'm sure he will have a great deal to stay. i'm just going to say a few words about the background to win george w. bush came into the white house about what had happened during the current administration in terms of arms control agreement and then we can move on to see what happened since then. when president bill clinton took office in january 1993 he inherited two nuclear arms control agreement from the george hw bush administration. one, and two, two, we heard
about the background. one reduce each side to know more than 6000 strategic warheads on 1600 strategic delivery vehicles. and start to which had just been completed before the first president bush left office further a reduced each site to more than 3500 strategic warheads and also from the u.s. perspective very importantly it was supposed to ban all heavy icbms with multiple warheads. now start one entry into force was held up by an issue that were reminded of today that was the question of ukraine and its readiness to give up its own nuclear weapon. so when the soviet union collapsed ukraine was was the third largest nuclear country in the world. in the clinton administration and the george wh bush administration worked hard to
make sure russia was the only nuclear state. and that involved ukraine being willing to transfer their nuclear weapons to russia. anyway, i give great kudos to the clinton administration. they managed to do it both ukraine and russia were ambivalent and reluctant for different reasons and they signed the agreement in 1994. of course four. of course i was tied to the infamous budapest memorandum which gave ukraine assurances that if it relinquished its nuclear weapons its territorial integrity could be guarantee and it had security insurances which it course included the russian federation. in 1996 the senate ratified the start to agreement. then there were problems with moscow so this was now in the
1990s of the difficulties of implementing the agreements because of the deteriorating political relationship. particularly in the later part of the 90s the russian military was not happy about giving up on the multiple warhead and having icbms. then you have the beginnings of the disagreements with russia about nato enlargement in the later part of the 19 nineties. then in 1999 with the nato actions against serbia over kosovo with the bombing and so then you have delayed gratification of the agreement. so in 2000 and tied it and this is where we come back to star wars and i know we'll hear more about the missile defense but whether it then tied it to saying that the senate had to ratify the 1997 agreement of the
abm system. start to then which have been ratified and signed into law by president george h to be bush was then pulled back by vladimir putin when the united states announced it was unilaterally withdrawing from the abm treaty at the beginning of 2002. so by then you have these missile-defense issues which are now intruding on the arms control agenda. with that brief background i'm going to turn to you and we will look for to your discussion of arms control in the george w. bush administration and whether you have views about why, discussions on arms control did or didn't impact on the ability of the united states to cooperate with united states and russia. >> well thank you angela and thank you for inviting me.
i'm going to throw an idea on the table before i get into the discussion of the bush administration. in 2009i wrote an op-ed that was published in the wall street journal and give it the title why democrats fail at arms control, that was their title not mine. but the issue that i looked at was paradox. that by reputation republicans are deeply skeptical of arms control and democrats are deeply enthusiastic. yet if you look at the history of bilateral strategic arms control between the united states and soviet union and russia, the scorecard is astonishing. the republican presidents have a lot of accomplishments they can
point to. when i read the article in 2009 who was the case that no democratic president had negotiated or ever negotiated and brought into force the strategic arms control agreement with the soviet union or russia. why is that? how can it be that the guys who are skeptical and more success at this than those who are so. you can offer theory. one would be some of the democrats had bad luck. i think it was jimmy carter, it's not his fault the soviets invaded afghanistan so maybe you can excuse his inability to bring up the ratification of start to. in my article i put forward a different theory which was is kind of common sense among people, among a lot of us that in the negotiation, and we negotiated in our personal lives all the time. excessive enthusiasm usually is not conducive for getting results. you're buying a car, even if you
find a car that you really want, or especially if you find a car you really want i think you all know the last thing you to do is convey to the seller that you've made up your mind is that car no other. because if you convey that they become award aware that your demand for that car has been inelastic in the price goes up. the negotiation becomes prolonged because this seller thinks i'm not going to leave money on the table. i'm going to get as much out of the transaction as i can. and that's common sense. in our personal business transaction. for some reason i think some of our presidents not just democrats, think george hw bush and and the weapons convention was to enthusiastic and ended up getting a bad deal too. for some reason many of our presidents
have failed to translate what is common sense in any business transaction we might negotiated a personal level that the same applies between nations. in negotiating with the russians and conveying excessive enthusiasm can backfire. that that is my thesis in the piece that i wrote. those in 2009. president obama succeeded 2010 in ten in negotiating his arms control treaty with russia. though i would argue that negotiation became prolonged because of excessive enthusiasm on his part with that background i turn to the bush administration which has been accused of many things but never of excessive enthusiasm for arms control. so what was the record of the bush administration? they came to office more or less committed to abolishing the adm treaty and have become an
obstacle and also given the security environment that existed, committed to reductions in nuclear force levels. but not at all committed to the idea that it needed to be negotiated and agreed between the united states and russia. so the first thing the administration did was in december 2001 it aggregated the termination of the entry. now for approximately preceding decade every issue of the magazine arms control today had written in an editorial about how the adm treaty was the cornerstone the strategic ability and without it the entire architecture of arms control would collapse. the inevitable result would be a new arms race between the united states and russia.
in december 2001 this was put to test. five months later bush signed in arms control treaty with moscow providing reductions i think the first nuclear force level under the existing start treating was 6000 warheads and it was reduced to no more than 2200 under the moscow treaty are sometimes called the surf treaty. so this theory that without the adm treaty you could have arms control was disproven within five months because actually arms control had its version first successful strategic between russia and more than ten years that took place in the wake -- but i think the background to the masco treaty is interesting. it is not your traditional obstacle.
the bush administration did an internal review and determined they knew that a nuclear force level they thought was appropriate and announced unilaterally that the united states was going to reduce the nuclear force to this new level. the russians at that point basically came knocking at the door and said were very happy you're reducing your nuclear forces but we really need a treaty. because it's important psychologically to lock them in a make them neutral. true to its complete lack of enthusiasm the bush administration was no, we don't need a treaty. it was not important to us. the russians said it's really important to us we want this treaty. so basically the bush administration said it was that important i guess we can sign a treaty. but here's what it's going to
have to say. were not interested in years of negotiation, take it or leave it. we will sign this. the arms-control industry marks the treaty. i think somebody printed it on the front .. of an index card to show what it was because it was a short treaty. it did require reduction by both sides to and no than 2200 operational deployed strategic nuclear work weapons. it was interesting that confronted with the administration that was in different to whether we got in arms control agreement are not suddenly the russians were not the obstacle, there are insisting on the agreement. the the u.s. was in the position of
saying okay it's on these terms in the russian said yes to those terms. it was actually first arms-control in more than ten years maybe we can talk about why the clinton administration it was prepared to do reductions to but it had some problems getting agreement with russia of what it wanted to do. basically it got wrapped around trying to preserve the adm treaty in the russians took advantage of the and effort to negotiate arms control agreements with the clinton administration. only by terminating the adm treaty that the ground was cleared for bilateral on's control agreement was possible. that that is how we start with the bush administration. things as you suggested went
down hill toward second term. think there are a bunch of issues at work paul wrote an interesting paper and where did things go wrong. i was actually astonished he knew the top of the list of russian was a kozak memorandum. how how many people know what that was? as an effort to resolve the disagreement about russian forces and the russians were deeply -- by the way it was handled. i note the traditional answers are, enlargement, the enlargement, the decision to deploy missile defenses in poland, supporting the georgian government, these are the traditional answers but is more complex than that i think it
became difficult to maintain and it had a lot to do with putin and his effort to return russia to something like the role it had played in the past. maybe i will stop their. >> okay. >> thank you. steve do you want to pick up the story. >> sure will save that for the q&a. >> i think if you look at her arms control played in the obama administration and its relationship with us over the last eight years i was a there are three phases. the first phase was the reset from 2009 to may 2011. it was clear that when barack obama became president he wanted to do something big under nuclear weapons and we saw that
in the speech in prague in aprie goal and he also said that this may not happen in my lifetime, as long as there is nuclear weapons we need to be safe and reliable. but going back to the first panel obama and reagan were the ones who had a passionate belief about doing something significant about getting nuclear weapons. you had in those first months those who helped negotiate early progress so that when the president went to moscow in july of 2009 and then president already had the guidelines of what a new treaty would look like. that reflected a return to more traditional approach that the russians were comfortable with. the complaint i heard about the bush administration was that we understand the americans limit warheads only, but you limit deployed warheads, you don't
limit reserve warheads and you don't limit missiles and bombers and how does that not create a huge breakout potential so i think the russians were more comfortable when the obama administration wanted to go back to the more traditional approach in the early months start had a boost but it also gave a boost. it was good for the u.s. relationships. i made this comment i'm in a group that reset was a success, but i think it was a success in terms of what i understand the regional purpose was which was not to get the u.s. relationship -- but to give out of a hole that weary and in 2000 and get the russians to be doing things that the obama administration early on defined. it was more russian help on ending the iranian nuclear
program. it was russian help in afghanistan in terms of getting supplies and forces easier to afghanistan. in the the first couple of years the obama administration achieved important things. by 2011 the resort rennet restart ran its course. looking at the new start treaty it was impressive because it he wanted to go beyond new start and not only negotiate further cuts in strategic weapons but also bring a nonstrategic weapons. for the first time the idea that you may have a u.s. russian negotiation of the drive use try to figure out why it's an interesting question. we can speculate that it was clear that russians were content with new start and were not prepared to go beyond it.
part of the reason was that russians look at new nuclear weapons as political tools and it gets into moscow's self perception of russia as a superpower. the the only way they can compete in the world inc. claim superpower status is lots of nuclear weapons. the other part is, in 2010 in 2010 the russians still saw themselves with significant caps vis-à-vis nato and other conventional military forces and they saw nuclear weapons as part of the answer. and that was nato's policy during the cold war. but part part of it was missile defense. the conversation that came up in the first panel about how much the russians feared sdi. i was in the embassy and when i got there i would talk to soviets about sdi. there was a fear that in ten years the americans are going to put us out of ballistic missile business. it's interesting how much faith
the soviets have an american technology. in 87 people was head of the space program said look, this is really rocket science. it is hard to do. as the leadership of moscow understood that made possible for those to go into the inf treaty in the start one treaty. i think that shaped american technology and missile defense still applies today. i go back to, made by a russian deputy prime minister when he was talking about the europeans -- he said phase 1, two, and three but we know there is going to to be a phase for - 7. so i think there is a fear that americans are going to be clever enough to come up was something on the missile-defense side that will change the equation. but i
missile-defense it started out as a positive issue between russia and moscow. in september 2000 and the obama administration announced reconfiguration of missile-defense plans for europe and replace the bush plan. originally that seem to be approval. it seemed that it had been diffused as a u.s. russia issue. . . >> >> what is the threat to
europe and had to redo with that? but also with the russians who talk about a guarantee from the american defenses would not only against russian strategic forces. and to have that objective criteria we want limits on numbers or locations it really was the resurrection of the abm treaty. they did not even recognize that there was that chance. so where the arms control is to the russian position on missile defense begin to hard in. but there has to be a solution on missile defense or strike weapons, with all
of those linkages that make it very hard. then you have to things happen. pour arms control goes on hold during that period. for and the results of that and the chemistry was there but not good chemistry. on the part of the obama administration they put forward a new idea but really got no attraction from the russians. because most of the context had changed. and then september 2000 that
it was a really a formality but then to talk with russian nationalism reasserting its place on the world stage. and a significant bit of anti-americanism in that is in terms of the regime legitimacy. one now domestic politics are driving toward the west and arms control does not fit well with that. then it comes after 2014 and for the armed separatism been ended that point you have relations nine be administration moved with the european union and
generally would ratchet down the car about pirelli there was no movement on that. with december 2014 when the u.s. government concluded that they looked at the ground missile range and they responded with charges so here arms control the ec more and more complaints of missile defense so it was a positive to their relationship and it seems that both the clinton and bush did ministrations even though that you say arms control was not on the list
they took their head on that and let them know that decision and then should they deploy those missiles be. we anti-bien respect that decision. of a we should make it easier for the russians with those i enough range missiles as long as the rest of the world is free in probably is a realistic. for that i never treaty. >> i do not someone understand that russian position fettered developing intermediate range missiles but having said that bob
when you look at the panoply is a like they need that enemy. but if they decide they have of problem. that is to exercise the provision built into the treaty. eighty-one to have the responsibility to kill inf. and as long as they have not deployed and how you deploy the missiles that will change the game. but on the american side there isn't a point in time.
in response to the russian violation and haven't had to attract decision dishonestly plaid others to get her that was a pretty painful process but we ended up doing it that was one of the reasons that we got the inf treaty. [laughter] so then where do we put it? so options are limited in terms of response. >> before we go to questions i will call on you professor.
i think a lot of this is a red herring but was this a major issue? with the russian for policy threats. >> maybe there is a quiz. >> the argument in the book is the russians what they took as disrespect to embarrass their president. >> could you would explain what. >> we had a memorandum negotiated through pretends
deputy chief of staff at the time of these negotiations that was heading. i was talking to him but could not get him to join the efforts but they told us they wanted to do it separately. but the key was the desire as a meaningless troop presence as a political look and then to be southwest the few great. but they rushed through the memorandum and then with that agreed memorandum of the two sides and the '01
that they showed to get approval did not have those three key articles. and talk about the troop presence in the country. and the time zone that the u.s. ambassador but he could call himself real-time if you could kiss european aggression or the future good buy if you sign this. but the night before putin was to come and sign the memorandum. putin was preparing to fly down. and don live tv.
and with those outside of presidential building. but the russians ticket very seriously but the point is that they taken more seriously than we do think missiles in cuba if you remember the cuban brigade anyway the fallout it was about that time whether georgia or moldova it was a clear turning point in my perception of the of russia that we could cooperate at some point on some things
and it was more suspicious and less willing to let those westerners of those sorts in. so the attitude of this is accurate turnoff but one week later to scream at us from across the table to state when you intervene in the balkans we didn't like it we didn't stop it for agreement of the settlement and you wreck that. and it went downhill from that time that as you pointed out they go down and up but then remembered far more than we do because in their backyard the position at the time was equivalent to steve had felice you can imagine what would have happened had there been an appropriate me your image. in any case part of an area
that remains sensitive as others have noted that sometimes we don't appreciate the importance they attach to these countries and resaw that ukraine 2013 and 2014. >> i was deputy secretary to the ambassador in moldova. the way that president said we had that memorandum of like an american endorsement . we'd take a look at the memorandum because basically eight games away of piece of moldova to veto for policy to save you want to draw closer to the european union
so we wetback to say is not our place to tell you you can sign this bill we will not endorse this. and to go to his population the americans and europeans make me do this. >> the first version is someone that you looked at that to say we could not support that but we had not yet seen the of portion of the articles of the true presence he definitely wanted approval to do that and told the russians this and allegedly told me later that what he had approved
which was not the case but in stories the beach participants into claims one way or another that at the end of the day with putin standing in moxa -- moscow and wondering what he had done for something that headband that close to settling to fail spectacular >> here we add that dooley narrative -- julie narrative but we do have time for questions. on russian relations. we will start with you. >> i and a master's student
at american university. with that last panel to discuss reykjavik summit in detail and that was wondering about the alexy of gorbachev and his relations with the impact that it has on putin and any future russian leader because there were so widely despised for any other leader would fear to look weak on the subject of arms control as it backs future negotiations. >> >> but it is a great nation. and conventional wisdom
countries that feel we can in an unconventional terms and that is what we did. and that we felt we were inferior. but today clearly the role is reversed. and they feel we. that we will abolish nuclear weapons but you will find zero support to move in that direction. the that is the objective to negotiate the abolition of nuclear weapons at reykjavik
i don't think we will find takers and russia. ha in where their national interests are bible go for further that that is the problem to negotiate with russia and it is his objective but obama success is measured with reference to how much success he achieves to make progress he's design agreements with russia. but if obama was something if you are not that enthusiastic is a footnote so then we had to impose our terms and then had a
political need. and basically satisfied with that arms control regime and to deal with that later with a nuclear arms race. but to make obama happy to be prepared to agree for a price. and that is the frustration and he may have had more success. >> but the reykjavik rescue was more short-term debt the summit had failed so that is
a significant achievement. to say yes it did make going to zero prospectively. it makes sense as the u.s. policy goal with that nuclear deterrence that it came very close to breaking down. seventy-one to live with that risk? for the united states and geography with american and conventional power i think
he looked at his situation that i am leader i have one-and-a-half billion chinese in this is very different than the baby with the gatt it. >> i am a master's student at george allen university. i got the impression from your comments of the inf treaty and the possibility that russia may one way or another find itself outside that treaty because of those
political consequences. betsy institute me that it does have an interest or an update of the treaty with the presence of the actors with this particular issue of them may have more interest in the area is intended that comes about. >> >> w. appear instead of get rid of them by dome we globalize? with those group of subjects
that are subject to restrictions. this sounds like a great idea. and then to be interested in doing that. to have that opponents of that idea to argue those proposals to collides -- belies will translate then it will fail the bill will have a good excuse and expressed no interest in the treaty than why should we? with the effort to globalize the collapse. but i am not sure how.
and then to have those i nf range missiles and i'm sure and when it was discussed at the time that was negotiated. if it is in one theater they can use them in another. still mckenna's second to bush term there is government support. but there were no takers. >> with the non-proliferation programs programs, i am curious with elections coming up what
non-proliferation arms control kohl would you recommend to the next to ministrations? >> good question. >> stock about the iran nuclear agreement. [laughter] and with russia i am not optimistic. and i think it looks ridiculous in places like ukraine. if they don't get what is going on. but the big problems are on the horizon with north korea.
that somehow there is a uh change of the national context in moscow. and to move forward. looking at these two episodes together that moment is a reflection more strength to afford that unilateralism. and if it is justified. >> boca putin in the united states. it goes back 2008. and this is what regime ltd.
-- legitimacy is about. and with nationalism and that is a big part of it. but another part goes back to the bush said ministrations that putin has a huge chip on his shoulder. that they mistreated russia. and it was organized by putin and germany that was russia's borders. and to respond to the appeals of the other countries to one peaceful members. with the arms revolution the ukraine. with his art manifestation
to save the election was stolen. or the way putin describes it. and then to promote regime change. and actually do think he believes that. but from his perspective he has the sense is encroaching on the west. with less interested in an arms control. that i personally think is wrong and it can be a reality. >> so talked-about unilateralism. but it was not ever that
do it if it makes you feel better with those other issues so we don't want to talk about in geneva. he has this agenda to abolish the nuclear weapons so that invites the russians to pay a price and that is what they need to do. >> and do think there is value to reduce the number of weapons and the united states but that doesn't make
sense to produce some transparency what better support of notifications that you know, lot more using your own unilateral means. the bush met administration said yes to go down at 2200 and thence we will stay at 6,000 there is a continued place for arms control. with a competition but the risk is a smaller break down. and i do agree with the obama and frustration.
to extent of the role of nuclear weapons. wit and with those advantages. >> and undergraduate student at georgetown. so of great difficulty of future are control agreements that russia perceived it is not a reality the u.s. had. if you want to avoid making concessions how would one approach into the idea of these numbers is important. >> as i said earlier it is a great power.
nothing makes them angrier than what is in their interest. they really get mad. and then to have of better deal and how to deal with the reagan, -- i ran we have to be careful that progress will be possible on arms control when it is then rushes interest -- russia interest. but right now talk about transparency or verification finally it is more important to russia because we have much better satellite
surveillance capabilities and an idea of what is going on than they do so the transparency under arms control is why it is astonishing. because that was a way to stick it to the obama administration. and it is a tribute and obama needed that deal more than they did politically. but it is in their interest then to approach those
negotiations and then to get a better result. under the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty and then to play strategic nuclear warheads and in summer retreat for 2,005,000. that never allows them to feel comfortable of pakistan or saudi arabia they don't need to have the involvement by these other countries. but it is very, very difficult to come up with a negotiation that where they
come down like tied them with unequal limitations. and with another agreement to make a unilateral commitment but you cannot get much n terms with united states and russia and nobody else above 300. pdf. >> a fellow with the woodrow wilson center. i have the question not necessarily arms control but on the modernization.
but to reduce the numbers and looking at their proposed $1 trillion i believe? and to modernizing the weapons potential for nuclear arms troops. could you bring us to the russian perspective with some modernization of their own? but if that $1 trillion plan will they match this? >> an ounce at $700 billion plan and what they talked about on the strategic side is with a 10 year . to build 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles. ill looks like it was to have those elements of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty that
what we're doing is getting new missiles with the inventory now that would have been replaced 10 years ago. it is not the level of the new start agreement. modernization is always hard to talk about so they are building new submarines new intercontinental ballistic missiles all lots of that is necessary i question certain aspects of that but when you have the pentagon to say here is our plan or how we
can build this is a time bomb many years down the road or with any long-term stance of the of modernization program. that is just some of the numbers. with a long range cruise missile that has advanced capabilities. but we have to come to grips and deal with those questions otherwise to be in a position of uh continental ballistic missiles and i don't think the pentagon has come to grips with that. >> you are with president obama you are on the cusp if
you are during his lifetime. then these investments make no sense. why spend all this money? but if you don't think that goal is to be realized than course you have to spend the money you'll be with this sale longtime to come the 52 will not last forever. i do look at the $1 trillion figure i know that 30-year cost estimate with the obama care because it would have been such an enormous number >> you are quoting those
30-year numbers to look at the annual cost. to pave the lifetime of the mortgage? so what is the annual cost? how does that compare to the nuclear enterprise? in somehow we managed to fund the national defence so the numbers and not quite as daunting spec we have been agreeing to much so i will push back. [laughter] >> i do disagree i do think obama talks about the notion but it hasn't then offer rationalized the modernization program to
talk about those submarines and the nuclear cruise missiles editing the pentagon would have wanted. i don't think and i agree with the addition but they do think he did put down qualifiers in to have a reliable deterrence. but of the cost question that this difficult public at the current budget environment and the projections were for social security, medicare interest rates. is that wise for the pentagon to make an assumption that 10 years from now it will make them
to better protect victims. this event is recorded if you want to participate on the line on twitter. we have a fantastic panel today but before we get to that the reason we're having this discussion today in a general and literal sense is we have the privilege to hear from our representative . she represents california 14 congressional district serves on the house armed services committee and ranking member of the oversight investigations but is a tireless advocate for women's rights and a champion for safety and health of ordinary americans.
one way she has demonstrated her fearlessness is the writing and introduction of the first bill in a congress that takes on the issue of revenge porn. not only does it outlined a responsible path for for lawmakers but it has brought the discussion to the forefront to create an opportunity about this type of accommodation. we are very delighted you are here to talk with us today on the current status today please join me to welcome representative spier [applause] >> good morning. thanks to daniel to all of you to be here also to information technology
foundation to put together a pretty impressive set of experts i applied the panelist of who i admire i hope this does not come as a surprise but the internet is not the same place for everyone. for the fortunate that is for a thoughtful debate and witty banter and cute cat pictures. for some of women and ethnic minorities it could be a place of unrelenting sexism and racism verbal abuse or even death threats. as a public person i expect some of at and i get plenty. but for the average person person, this is not what they expect. take the recent experience
of one for doing nothing more than starring in a remake of a movie about ghost she was subjected to a never ending stream of racial epitaphs and sexualized threats precocial left twitter but the abuse did not stop there. culminated on her personal web page to be hacked and intimate photos to be posted publicly. her case regrettably is typical of the experience of many women especially non-white women have on the internet. it has become a new age sewage pipeline of the worst material imaginable of the equality. as social media proliferates is to destroy people's lives. i started to see stories of young people committing
suicide because their image was used without their consent. audrey, a high-school sophomore in san jose committed suicide after photos of her sexual assault for pastors snap chat and face book. 117 year-old killed herself of her gang rape or posted online. i director college freshman killed himself after his roommate used to but kamm streaming tim having a sexual encounter with another man. one committed suicide after her ex-boyfriend posted intimate photos with her name and personal information to more than 35 different borne websites per earlier this year speaking
at a press conference that i held the issue described how she deactivated casebook, a change for phone-number, dropped dead of school, moved out of state after her ex-boyfriend posted private images that ended up on more than 3,000 websites. and by strangers? one-man who pushed his way into her family's home and almost made it to her bedroom because her ex-boyfriend included a diagram of the house with address along with false claims that she had rape fantasies. it should come as no surprise that more than half of non consentual victims are having suicidal thoughts . this kind of abuse is widespread, and the economist have estimated as
many as 3,000 websites with millions of images and videos that featured on consentual pornography. we have represented hundreds of victims and victims' rights groups like the civil-rights initiative has been at the forefront and has been contacted by thousands of victims seeking help. but these numbers although appalling are the tip of the iceberg. because not consentual pornography can stem from revenge images or videos of sexual assault from entertainment. or they are disgusting were trusted caregivers have shared images that they have come across in their duties.
what study found 35 incidents have occurred involving new nursing-home staff posting graphic images of residents with dementia and other ailments that makes you wonder. as that continues to spread the survivors are left to with absolutely no where to turn. celebrities have hired the law firm's to demand website remove the material in did you have those financial means to hire the lawyer to put up civil fines but even in these cases with the resources the images can be found on the internet. you can make a full-time job at of searching the internet of 3,000 websites to see if
there are none consentual poems being posted. a few revenge porn sites have faced criminal punishment but only after they committed additional wrongful acts of extortion and blackmail and hacking. not for the images. across the country 34 states have adopted their own bands on non consentual pornography. many lack important elements such as the first amendment protection others only punish not consentual if they are motivated as a desire to harass the victim that means they're only interested in greed to commit the crime and abuse this patchwork of regulatory
schemes creates greater uncertainty for the victims all but dumbs deserve recourse not just those in some states and all companies should sell policies to applied nationwide. only federal legislation can address these policy concerns it is clear to me there was need for federal law to address the behavior of a new it would not be easy. summoned you may know that ippa has taken over two years. to get something done i need to address the bill that has teeth with the advocacy community. and i knew that we would need substantial bipartisan support.
most of this would not have happened without our talented chief of staff to help draft the legislation so josh who is on this panel without him this would not be a bill that we are addressing today. after many revisions come of restarted to vet the legislation with constitutional scholars and legal organizations after a lot of work we lined up strong support such as the national association of u.s. attorneys and the national district attorneys association. in 12 leading constitutional law scholars including uc irvine school of law. the dean has literally written the book on constitutional law and argued five cases before the
supreme court. his take some set the constitutional question well. '' there is no first amendment problem. it does not protect the right to invade a person's privacy by publicizing without consent nude photographs or video of sexual activity'' and never get tired of reading that laugh laugh also a broad coalition of supporters including online businesses like this book, they are here today and twitter and those like the civil rights initiative and the national organization of women. and to punish the individuals and the websites to post private intimate
ensure we will see this move so we have a tremendous amount of expertise in the room. so we do have some seats in the back. so let me briefly introduce our panelist we have the president of the national organization of women called now also assistant director of privacy at the ftc and also face but has been very active with a number of organizations improving, and safety and also worked for the state's attorney general's.
and finally the founder of a n.y.-based law firm with the consent issues and because you have been working closely with the victims' to address can you tell from what you're seeing in your practice and the challenges that we have. i am the lawyer that i needed when i was under attack. because i could not find a lawyer.
and asking for order protection so when i am seeing is a neighbor all over the internet and targeted by somebody known to them and my clients are 136590 percent women but most of them are on the younger side of the scale they are terrified they cannot get control of the reputation. so they cannot even get a
date without being bugled if those first five pages are images the few fully exposed the you never wanted anybody to see. my clients are afraid of their future. >> and those that are disproportionately affected senate by the way thank you so this is another tool of domestic violence in users to stop women from leaving. that there is an intimate
one photograph she doesn't think it will be shared with anyone because she trusted man she is in love with him but then he holds this out and says if you leave me i will expose this to the world as a tool. >> it is also a tool of intimidation in the workplace so think of modeling agencies there are girls is shown as 14 years old that come to work for modeling agencies and you can imagine it is entirely possible for the photographs to be taken and then that materially is utilized to control them. this is a common tactic with sex trafficking and other
forms of exploitation of women so i am very excited it is a federal crime, it can result in serious penalty and the women know that the country is behind them in and we will use all the power of the government to stop these behaviors. >> so looking at that broad sphere of safety in to see the number of challenges, howard d. you look at this issue? as we talk more now? and has existed for a while. we don't allow people to bully or harass but a couple of years ago we saw the increase of this type of
activity we made a much more explicit you cannot do this type of harassment. >> so how would you quantify the issue? that has always been the biggest challenge you are just one lawyer. so there are examples there but so if people don't hire a lawyer they don't get to that. >> i would say sometimes not how do you quantify because one single person having this devastating effect is enough to make it worth solving. >> derek is obviously the question of when should government get involved rather federal government? was the thought process you had to say this is the point
two-step bid to talk federal or state law quick speed dash question. congress is not always the best with forward thinking technology policy. no secret. we were very careful and deliver live after we heard story after story of how destructive this is with no legal remedy in place. obviously technology on the internet we also looked at some good and some bad so it seemed appropriate. in the way that took into account with the of volume of and formation to put in place that had teeth to serve as a deterrence and
from website and in terms of responding for victims have do differ in she between the states in their response. >> 35 states have criminalize. in there is so much variation between allies and those that are complete the holding out and it is perfectly legal and to post online. the need for federal law to protect everybody is necessary but where there was no lawmaker protecting
them of the value of sexual privacy. >> just in terms of online privacy talk about federal law, the work from the past the children's privacy that you might be of model. >> is interesting we have supported the legislation at the state level. but we also sought of need to support federal legislation as we have done here. if you look at children's online privacy with these types of issues as well as those setter under the age of 13 in particular but it is additional piece of arsenal for these crimes
especially in those places that don't have protection. >> the ftc has been involved as well can you share quite. >> i speak for myself today not for the commission. i am probably most relevant was the case in great britain that was running back revenge for website. we are civil enforcement agency section five of act gives authority over deceptive practices. under that authority, we brought an action against great britain in the settlement because this man was allegedly soliciting photos from people through
means as he would pretend to be a woman seeking a woman on craig's list and then solicit those from women with the promise he would send his own in return post those with their personal information on the website. so when you have that personal information to make that searchable to come up to be associated with you, we challenged his conduct as deceptive and unfair under the ftc act and in part pretending to be the unrelated third party and then charging a significant
amount of money for removal. this affected more than 1,000 people. we have also been involved in related areas bringing a case called remote spy that advertises something that could be used that you could track 72 download surreptitiously to be on their device then capture information from them about location or passwords or things of that nature. so that is some of what we have been doing. there's a lot of other types of cases as well. i would say that a lot of the debate is colored by the
fact there is the assumption they were originally taken in a consensual the in the first place although in limited scope so the individual has the a.d. i share it with you but i will not publish to the world per car want to make the point that allotted the cases involve situations where there has not been any consent of that nature so we brought it case against trinidad which was internet based ip camera you could look up and do to pour data security even though the feed it could be set to private, hackers couldn't get around that and made feeds over a hundred cameras available on line. and another case is where
those for getting rental of computers freeloading wis software that allowed the red two o franchise to determine their location but also use the camera of the computer to take pictures without their knowledge or consent. >> so we're dec the ftc hands are tied? obviously it is only one agency. were you not able to act? >> we are a commercial agency. any thing has to be in
commerce if it is challenge base. in the great britain case this individual is making money allegedly through the scheme and running the website to directly solicit the photos himself. if you had an example of someone in a vengeful ex-boyfriend posted to a website without a commercial motive we could not respond to that. >> one of the things that could be a defining characteristic is there is so many different motivations of how this happens so there is the pure entertainment value so the responses and the problem is
it is the heavy cost on the victim to figure out how do i deal with this? is it copyright? commercial? talk about that type of problem that we see this and other areas? >> absolutely it comes down to make consent issue. if they can use these images. if you think of the two analogies of the of medical records clearly people consent to the sharing of medical records. you will share them with another doctor research in the not on the internet becomes as it could be shaming or the information be used to interfere with
your career or to do your job. that may be something that is so private that it is crippling in the sense that people cannot continue to function if they think it is out there and people say this about me there is a real analogy of not consentual publication that is intimate pictures in non consentual publication of medical and information. i bring up that analogy because i am sympathetic to the first amendment problems ''" end quote. with criminalizing them on consentual publication of intimate pictures. and i think that when we think of the first amendment we need to think why is it okay to prohibit publication of private medical records but not private intimate
images and videos? the another analogy is sexual-harassment in the workplace. in the 1990's the first amendment was used of title seven anti-discrimination to stop sexual harassment in the workplace the argument was there just guys being guys just because they put pornographic photographs on the locker of the woman canadian to rick's press themselves they have a right to say i don't want women in the workplace and i can harass them with these images of a sexual nature. ultimately win any downhill all testified to by her experience with the constant barrage of sexualized harassing behavior by her boss, that is when people began to understand that the
first amendment does not give carte blanche to people in the workplace to stop an individual from performing her regular job duties. and as ewpewsentative speier said there is no such thing as on-line offline life in his life we are on line no lot of the time. so that argument is quite frankly one that comes from privilege or those who have not experienced that are much more likely a to be worried about first amendment problems but those who have experience of the total shutdown of much more willing to say we don't have a first amendment right. >> i will open to the whole panel of where you draw the line with the first amendment thatms