tv Today in Washington CSPAN November 30, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EST
to complain about the contents? >> the calls have originated -- the calls that our government has made have originated from the state department and the secretary of state. i would refer you more specifically to them. the president has not been on the phone around this. >> will he speak on this at all? willie comment publicly? >> there no plans for >> administration officials have been out there talking about ways for tightening procedures for handling this material. why was that information so vulnerable to being stolen in the first place? >> well, caren, i speak a little bit for previous administrations as well. there is always the balance of need to know and need to share. if you look at one of the main
crick eeks in the pre--9/11 intelligence world, it was a difficulty in information sharing about threats up and down and across different government platforms. that is something that every administration struggles with. understand that we want soldiers on the front lines of battle to have the most up to date intelligence possible about the enemy that they face, the tactics that they use. that's important. it is obvious, though, that serious controls and oversight have to be in place in order to balance, as i said earlier, the need to know and the need to share. specifically, the department of defense has made it much more difficult for somebody to get access to and to copy and move
both this type and this volume of information. disabling the ability to plug in a thumb drive or a c.d., copying vast amounts of information. limiting access to certain documents based on rang -- rank, greater oversight. i don't know if you heard the statement that the secretary of state just made where she announced a similar review at the state department as well as jack's memo to agencies reminding them of how one handles sensitive and classified information and to convene groups to ensure that the best practices are being used, and to evaluate whether those practices are sufficient to ensure that this type of
information isn't released. >> we also wanted to ask you about tomorrow's meeting with republicans. it was a one-hour meeting from what we understand. i'm wondering what you think can be accomplished in that one hour? you've talked about the tax cuts being the top issue. is it possibly to really to make progress on issues in one hour? and also, why was it downgraded from an initial invitation to dinner? >> we obviously had an invitation several weeks ago that didn't work with the schedules of republican leaders in the house and the senate. there are also caucus meetings tomorrow that go on in the early afternoon which limit the amount of time that we have. but caren, that is not to say that this is the first and only meeting. i think this is of the first of many, many meetings over the course of the next several
years. as democrats and republicans, the white house and congress are going to have to work together to solve some very difficult problems. you mentioned, i think, two that will be on the forefront of the president's mind. first and foremost ensuring that taxes for middle-class americans don't go up at the end of the year. our safety and security as it relates to nuclear non-proliferation, and the reduction of deployed nuclear weapons is also something that the president will be focused on in that meeting. but i think this is the beginning of a new relationship with leaders in the house and e senate. i think this is the beginning of a longer term conversation about how we get to compromises
on issues that we know are important for the american people. >> specifically on the tax cuts though, do you expect there to be tangible progress? >> well, i think this is the beginning of a conversation. i don't think this will be the last conversation that this group has on taxes this year. the president is clear, and i think many are clear, that we have to address this problem before the end of the year. we've got the expiring bush tax cuts. you've got a.m.t. tax relief. you've got a host of other things like unemployment insurance that is going to expire later this week, which we have to address, some obviously in the short term and some in the medium term if you assume that means before the end of the year.
i think this is an ongoing conversation, certainly not the last. jay? >> is the president worried because of the weak election disclosure that other countries will no longer be candid with american diplomats? and is the president worried that countries like yemen and the gulf states will be forced into a position where they are publicly not cooperating with american efforts against others? >> well, for obvious reasons i don't want to get into the specifics of these purported cables. you heard the statement released from me yesterday, the statement from the secretary of state and from our ambassador at the united nations. obviously a breach of these type of discussions is
decidedly not good. that does not, however, change the fact of that. we have a series of problems that have to be addressed on the world stage. it is hard to imagine progress on those issues without american leadership moving those forward. you mention iran, and i think it is important to focus on that for a second. iran is not a threat because we have said to other countries it is a threat and you should treat it as such. i think it is obvious that countries throughout the world, countries in north america, countries in europe and the middle east all understand the threat that a nuclear iran
poses. not because we said it was a threat, but because they recognize either for regional stability or overall global stability that dealing with their pursuit of a nuclear weapons program of is -- is of grave concern not just to us, but also to them. i do not believe that the release of these documents impacts our ability to conduct a foreign policy that moves our interests forward and addresses regional and global concerns about the issues that threaten this world. >> is the administration considering taking legal action against wikileaks itself? >> i would say two things. obviously there is an ongoing criminal investigation about the stealing of and the dissemination of sensitive and classified information. secondly, under the administration -- or i should say administration-wide, we are
looking at a whole host of things, and i wouldn't rule anything out. >> can i ask you about a question about the spending freeze? >> the pay freeze. >> pay freeze, i'm sorry. does the president believe that the size of the federal government is too big? >> well, let me say this, that we are in the process of putting together and ultimately releasing early next year a budget for the next fiscal year which lays out several fiscal years beyond that. we have taken steps to, as you heard the president mention today, cut programs that are unnecessary and unwise, and he believes that we have to continue to do that. our government should be lean and efficient, and the actions that the president outlined today and the actions he has outlined in previous and future
budgets will meet that test. >> doesn't the president believe that you can't get hold of the deficit unless you start making cuts in programs that are necessary and wanted? >> i don't think that -- i think there is a whole host of decisions. again, as you heard the president say, they are going to have to be made in the next year, two years or three years to address a problem it took us many years to get into. look, the president did not say today that this action alone will solve our deficit problems. there are a series of actions alone that won't solve our deficit problems, but we have to make a series of collective and very difficult decisions to get our fiscal house in order. obviously the deficit and debt commission will come back later this week, and the president and the team will get a chance to evaluate where they are this that process as we create a budget going forward.
>> the senate foreign relations committee passed a new start treaty earli this year calling for nuclear ms reductions by the u.s. and russia. but the full senate has not taken it up. next, academics from the brookings institutions and others debate the treaty's ratification by the senate. this is 90 minutes. >> i think we will begin. my name is michael, and i am a senior fellow at brookings. we are here to discuss the new start treaty and nuclear safety and arms. i am delighted to see everybody here struggling back after a
thanksgiving weekend. i think we can formally mark today as the end of the washington read skins' season, and that allows us to fully embark on discussions like this as we away the congress and senate for the rest of the lame duck session. i am going to say a couple of words of introduction about our panelist, about the treaty itself, and then we will run down the lane with presentations. we are talking about the new treaty signed this year and awaiting consideration. but we will be talking more generally about nuclear weapons. you are invited to raise whichever parts of the broader subject you like in discussion. sitting to my left is steve five, one of my colleagues at brookings, a former member of
the state department, worked a great deal on the inside process of treaty negotiations during his team in government. he also was u.s. ambassador to the ukraine and has run prolifically on the future of arms control. i will take the liberty of advertising his recent paper, "the next round, the united states and nuclear arms reductions avenue start." but we are not there yet. much of today's discussion will be on new start, and i think steve will make a case largely in support of the treaty. down the line, keith payne is the president, c.e.o. and founder of the national instute for public policy. you will find its publications at nipp.org. he is the author of "the great american gamble." he is a foremost expert on nuclear deterrence, a former pentagon official and a member of the congressional commission of the strategic posture of the united states. again, i was honored to be part
of this working group last year with keith, who is extraordinarily thought-provoking and will raise different points of view on new start and arms control. top donnelly is at the american enterprise institute and also a distinguished author who has written a number of books largely on ground forces and conventional combat. i think it is important to have tom on the panel because he brings a perspective on the interrelationship beten military force pos and capability and the broader role of national curet policy. his new paper is towards a new look, strategy and forces for the new age. his most recent book is a 2010 publication, "lessons for a long war, how americans can win on new battlefields."
my most recent book is called "a skeptic's case for nuclear disarmament." it is a vision like president obama and ronald reagan have articulated, of a world some day free of nuclear weapons. it would not affect tactical nuclear weapons, meaning short-range weapons, surplus nuclear weapons, weapons that are in a stockpile but not
directly associated with a war plan or delivery vehicle, or missile defense. there has been, as you know, a great deal of controversy about the mention in the treaty's preamble to the possibly association in russian eyes between missile defenses and offensive arms. that has become a subject of controversy, but there are no binding restrictions whatsoever on missile defense in the treaty. there is no difference or distinguishing between a nuclear armed long range icbm or s.l.b. or a conventionly armed once. for those interested in the question of putting conventional warheads on existing systems, there is no allowance to do that. these are a few of the points that will come up in discussion. but again, to emphasize the big picture, we are looking a lot 10% to 30% reductions in deployed strategic forces and a
redummings of the measures that are now lapsing from previous arms control accords. that is the immediate issue, but we will be talking about everything under the sun nuclear. with that, i turn it over to steve piper. >> i am happy to talk about the new start treaty but what comes after it. let me begin by reminding you what the limits in the treaty are. the united states and russia would be limited to no more than 1,550 warheads. each heavy bomber would count as one. there is a second limit, which each side can deploy no more than 700 intercontinental ballistic missiles and sub-launched missiles. and then a third limit of icbm and non-deployed launchers. that would be like a submarine
tube with no missile in it. typically, two of our submarines are in long-term overhaul. they would count as non-deployed launchers. let me talk for a moment as to why i think the new treaty is in the u.s. interests. first of all, it will reduce and cap the level of russian strategic nuclear forces. i don't lie away worrying about a russian attack. but i thin americans are saver and more secure if the russian force is reduced and limited. second, the new start treaty contains a wide range of verification measures. detailed data exchange, notifications, on-site inspections, that are going to give the u.s. military a lot more information about russian strategic forces than the u.s. military would otherwise have. it would be in a position where it can avoid worst-case
assumptions. third, although the treaty will require some reductions on the u.s. side. the department has defense has looked carefully of how it could make use of the full numbers allowed to it, and the result will be a u.s. deterrent that is agile and robust, capable of deterring attacks against the united states and american alleys. fourth, bringing the new start treaty into force will keep from raising the bar. it will contribute to a stronger u.s.-russia relationship. we have seen over the last 15 months as the treaty has been developed, you have seen a better relationship with moscow that has yielded some specific benefits in terms of russia helping to provide more access and providing supplies to american forces in nato and afghanistan. over the last year and a half,
you have seen russia take a much tougher attitude toward iran. that reset has been driven to a fair degree by the new start treaty. i do believe it is going to be ratified in the end. i think the arguments are compelling. at the end of the day, it is difficult for me to see how serious republican senators in the end can justify opposing a treaty that has been supported unanimously by the joint chiefs of staff, by the manager of the strategic command who operates all strategic nuclear centers, and other republican statesmen. a former national security advisor has endorsed it. so i am optimistic on ratification. i hope it happens sooner than 2011 because i think that
gaining access to the verification measures will begin to give us information about russian strategic forces that we have not been receiving now for the last year since start one lapsed in december of 2009. but i think whether the treaty comes -- or when it comes into force, there is the question of what comes next? president obama has already said that he envisions a step by step process of reducing nuclear forces. i'm not sure the russians are all that enthusiastic about further cuts, but they have committed in joint statements to such a process. when you get into that, you have to look at number of questions that may arise. some are precinctable. number one, what would be the level of deployed warheads under a new treaty? second, if you are going to reduce strategic warheads, would you also want to reduce strategic delivery vehicles and strategic launchers below the 700 and 800 limits in new
start? going beyond that, i think they are going to get interest some new territory. president obama, when he signed the new start treaty in april of this year, said that the next round should address non-strategic and non-deployed strategic weapons. that is going to get the sides into some new territory. negotiating limits on non-strategic or taktal nuclear weapons is not going to be easy. first of all, the russians have a large numerical advantage. it is always difficult to negotiate an equal outcome. the russians, because they perceive their conventional forces have disadvantaging advice vee nato, they have adopted the nato strategy in the 1960's and 1970's, now see tactical nuclear weapons as an advantage. that is going to complicate negotiations.
you have verification challenges. when you look at the start treaty, you are looking at warheads associated with icbm's. when you begin to talk about tact cal -- contact cal weapons, you are talking about weapons sitting somewhere in bunkers. that is going to pose challenges that neither the united states nor russia have had to gripple with before. >> talking about that, you are going to be talking about warheads separated from vehicles. there may be an interesting dynamic on the non-strategic side. that is likely an area of u.s. numerical advantage. the united states plans to achieve most of its limits under the new start by downloading missiles. that is keeping the missiles, but taking the warheads off. the minute man-3 icbm which can be deployed with three
warheads, will be redeployed with one warhead. they will be scored. that would give the united states a potential, should the russians violate the treaty, to put the warheads back on or upload warheads. the russians appear to be eliminating their forces by eliminating missiles. so they are not going to have that sort of capability. that u.s. advantage in terms of non-deployed strategic warheads may offer a bargaining advantage. the russians, i suspect will raise missile defense again in the next round of negotiations. i think there is potentially a dilemma for the administration because the russians will seek some kind of constraints on missile defense. i don't detect any interest on the part of the administration in negotiating those levels.
so there is this potential box here. the one way out may have been articulate about eight days ago in lisbon, when they talked about cooperation on missile defense. if you can have genuine cooperation between the united states, nato and russia to provide missile defense for europe and european russia, that might change things. one issue could be the question of third country nuclear forces, particularly those of britain, france and china. the lower that you push u.s. and russian numbers, the greater the pressure will be to bring other countries in. my sense is that u.s. administration folks would like to have one more negotiations that would focus on u.s. and russian forces before you bring
in the complex of making them unilateral. a paper talks about what might be a u.s. position for the next round. whatted i would suggest is looking for a limit of 2,500 total nuclear weapons, counting everything except those weapons that are in the cue for dis mantlement. it would include strategic, deployed and non-deployed. in that limit, there would be a sub-limit of 1,000 deployed warheads that would correspond to the 1,550 limit in the nigh start treaty. that would allow a trade-off where the u.s. might have an
advantage. in that kind of a limitation regime, you would likely to have a two-tiered verification regime. you would have much less confidence in your ability to monitor limits on tactical warheads. although that is an imperfect verification scheme, it may be worth taking because it gives you some limits and reductions on russian weapons, and some monitoring, whereas under the current system there are no restraints and no monitoring. hopefully has you go through the verification scheme, you gain expertise for a smarter system later on. this kind of agreement would require further reductions on the russian side but would allow the united states to keep
a robust deterrent. when you are talking about 1,000 warheads, you become under a bit of stress and decisions that become painful. all of this is the next step. the first step is going forward in the immediate future to ratification of the new start treaty. >> thank you. steve, to you. >> it is a pleasure to be here to you. i would like to thank you for the invitation to speak. as a good academic, i usually look out, 10, to 15 to 50 years in my discussions and writings. but today because new start is an immediate concern and a subject of immediate attention, i would like to comment on the process that has gone along with new start in washington because i think in this case the process has been important to the substance of the debate. the obama administration efforts to garner center
support for ratification of this new start treaty have met greater than expected resistance. this resistance follows primarily about concerns of the various loopholes on the limits on forces, its narrow but explicit limits on non-nuclear missiles, and past verification provisions. but it may well b that the opposition to new start and this resistance that we see has as much to do with the administration's mode of promoting the treaty as it does with the substance. senior members of the administration have contributed to skepticism of new start but engaging in misdirection about the treaty, while
simultaneously being dismissive of reasonable concerns identified. even before president as obama and medvedev signed the treaty. some commentators expressed concern that the administration would agree in new start to limits on missile defense. russian commentators fanned this flame by frequently claiming that the treaty would indeed limit u.s. defenses. in response, the administration assured all that there would be no such limits whatsoever. new start was to be a treaty on strategic offensive forces, not on defensive forces. during an april 9 press conference to explain new start, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security stated, and i quote, "the treaty does not constrain missile defense, it is about offensive weapons. there is no limit or constraint
on what the united states can do with its missile defense system. further, there are no constraints to missile defense." yet the actual text of the treaty shows skeptics to be correct. paragraph three limits some u.s. missile defense options, and the treaty establishes a bilateral commission where in missile defense can be the subject of further discussions and possible limitation. the administration has repeated the false claim of no limits on missile defense so often and so definitively that the claim continues to be erroneously presenteded as fact by journalists and commentators who like new start. they say it would allow russian to again advantages.
senior military commanders for years have pressed for non-nuclear strategic forces for prompt global strike, and the senate warned against any such limits in new start. the undersecretary said there is no effect for prompt global strike in the treaty. much like missile defense, it doesn't have any con traints to it. the white house fact sheet assured us that the treaty does not contain any constraints on testing, development or deployment of current or planned united states long range convention a strike capabilities. this statement is precisely correct but wholely misleading. it would have been impossible to constrain us current or planned capability for prompt global strike because no current or planned program for deployment existed. in fact, the treaty explicitly
constrains select options for these respective weapons by counting them as if they were strategic warheads and launchers. the pattern of mischaracterization and misdirection is not related to the two issues of missile defense and non-nuclear strategic forces. soon after the treaty text became available, several commentators observed the rail mobile icbm's, an old russian favorite, were not specifically gind in the treaty for limitation as they had in the previous start agreement. this raise the concern that rail mobile icbm's had been carefully excluded from the limits. administration officials and treaty supporters in general dismissed this concern as absurd. yet when the senate demanded that the u.s. specifically
state that the treaty does indeed limit rail mobile icbm's, constantine, the chairman of the russian committee responsible for treaties stated in response that such a claim compelled them to stop action on the treaty. he noted the americans are trying to apply the new start treaty to rail mobile icbm's in case they are built. apparently this problem identified early on by some commentators is not so outlandish. the pattern of mischaracterization and misdirection also extends to the repeated administration claims that new start will reduce the number of deployed strategic warheads by the usual quote, and the usual number is about 30%, below the 2,00 maximum in the 2002 moscow treaty. however, the specific terms of the treaty actually permit the number of nuclear weapons to
move higher than the 2,5 -- 2,200 maximum under the moscow treaty. despite the administration's claims of 30% reductions, new start would permit an increase in strategic weapons because under new start, all the weapons on one bombers would count at one warhead. long range nuclear armed cruise missiles possible on submarines and ships wouldn't be captured at all. a russian strategic expert described this sleight of hand regarding new start's reductions as, and i quote, nothing short of fraudulent and clearly designed to mislead the public. nevertheless, the near universal talking about about new start is the claim that it will reduce the number of nuclear warheads. usually the claim is by 30%. similarly, the obama
administration has made much of the fact that nigh start requires reductions not only in nuclear warheads, but in the number of strategic launchers, icbm's, bombers and submarine tubes carrying the warheads. a fact that the administration typically has left unsaid in this regard, however, is that according to russia's own count of its strategic launchers as presented in the open russian press, russia already is well below new start launcher limits, and is headed lower with or without the treaty. in short, new start's strategic launcher limits impose reductions only on the united states. a senator made this point in a speech on november 18th. the state department immediately responded with a continuation of mischaracterization and miss direction. i quote the response. the treaty does not force the united states to reduce
unilaterally. rather, the treaty imposes equal limits on both parties. here the administration rightly claims that new start mandates common limits on launchers but erroneously denies the fact that the u.s. alone must reduce its number of launchers to meet those limits. russia would have to build up its forces to do so. finally, the administration now claims that the lame duck senate must rat if i new start immediately -- ratify new start meetly. yet secretary of defense gates has stated repeatedly that russia poses no immediate threat to us or our alleys. so why the urgency? this bit of i will logic remains unexplained, and even the "washington post" labels such a stration claims of urgency as, and i quote,
overstatement and hyperably. perhaps the mischaracterization and misdirection would be less knocks yuss, if it was not -- noxious if it was no so freak dismissive of commentators. >> an assistant secretary of state reportedly objectsed that no one with any pedigree has raised new concerns about new start. this dismissive characterization mansion to be simultaneously insulting, arrogant and nonsense cal when notables such as james bullsy, the director of intelligence under president, and two former secretaries of defense, who have all raised serious concerns about the treaty. the secretary refers to
concerns about the treaty as red herrings. in testimony before the senate on june 17, secretary of state hillary clinton suggested that those expressing concerns, and i quote just don't believe in arms control treaties at all and from my perspective are very unfortunately slanting a lot of what they say. so dismissing skeptics' concerns has been the administration's consistent mode of operation with regard to new start. ironic given its own pattern of mischaracterization and misdirection in its calls for bipartisanship. politics is a game of hard ball, and as president hairy truman famously observed, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. treaty skeptics do not need nor expect cheers from the
administration. but the administration may fair -- fashe better with new start if it shifted its mode of operation and engaged concerns about the treaty seriously and thoughtfully. thank you. >> thank you, keith. tom, over to you. >> thanks, mike. keith very kindly set aside the art of the long-term in his presentation, so i'm going to take that as my theme. but before i do that, i have about two wards to say on start. in addition, as mike said in his introduction, to being more a student of conventional military power and thus a student of warfare as opposed to all things nuclear, a former congressional staffer and thus a political hack who can count
votes and has read the constitution recently, employed in the houpts. i am also pain ply aware of the rules of the senate. i want to talk about the start deal as a way of suggesting why there is unlikely to be a vote during a lame duck session and to look ahead a bit. i think the administration could have had and as steve suggested, ultimately will get, senate ratification of the treaty. but they have not seriously engaged in making any concessions or any deal-making, particularly with senator john kyle, who is a man of pedigree when it comes to nuclear issues and the leading figure in opposition to the treaty as it currently stands. he signaled the issues very clearly that he wants to be satisfied about, and i think certainly the senator himself and also his representatives
have suggested what his price is. in particular on upgrading missile defense investments and making a serious investment in the modernization of the nuclear infrastructure. not just for the purposes of enabling a test ban -- for the test ban treaty, but actually modernizing the infrastructure in the event that the united states sees fit to produce nuclear warheads in the future. that is a reasonable price. it is certainly senator kyle's price. but the obama administration, everything -- having governed, keeping 60 senate votes has reached a juncture where it needs 67 votes and can't get them. senator kyle is likely to have more influence and to be able to get more of what he wants in the coming session of congress. so i would say there is very little incentive for senator
kyle to reach an agreement at this juncture unless the obama administration is willing to move the needle pretty substantially and make more commitments than it has been willing to make thus far, and the president himself is going to engage in these negotiations or deal with it at a much higher level than the administration has done hereto fore. the president's priorities have been elsewhere. this is sort of like an expanded version of the korea free trade deal in the sense that you can't get there from here in the time remaining. that would be i think the one note that i could contribute about the current start debate. but to lift our eyes up a little bit and look a little bit more to the larger picture and the longer term, the connection between nuclear issues and the larger questions of international politics and
military correlations of forces as the soviets used to say are becoming more interrelated than they have been certainly during the latter years of the cold war when it was the presumption that nuclear weapons were qual tatively different, particularly the arsenals they enjoyed in the salad years, including tens of thousands of warheads. those days are gone. but it is also the case that the sort of bye polar -- bipolar reflection of the balance is also a thing of the past. the soviet union is entirely unlike the united states except in the number of nuclear
weapons it has. the soviet union is an ex-superpower, a demographically collapsing state, a politically imploded impire. domestically, its politics are highly unrepresentative, and its economy is a resource extraction economy, but not call tatively different than other second or third rate countries on the planet. by contrast, the world that we see coming in the 21st kent tri, features most prominently the rise of the people's republic of china. it is being propelled by the
proliferation of nuclear weapons. the administration, quite rightly, spent a lot of time talking about proliferation, nuclear anti-proliferation efforts as a way to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists and other non-state actors again to use the term of social science euphemism. that is a seriously terrifying prospect. so that is quite reasonable, and no sensible american would stand against that. of course this treaty has almost nothing to do with that. the second feature of our nuclear future that we can clearly see is the rise of otherwise weak, second-rate powers with iran and north korea being the leading edge examples, of aspiring, and small nuclear states who are constantly building larger arsenals. the efforts to contain north
korea's program as we heard again in recent weeks has not been successful. likewise, it is highly unlikely that any effort to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and then of obtaining a militarily significant arsenal, again, not measured in the thousands or tens of thousands of warheads, but certainly measured in the dozens if not low hundreds over the course of time seems highly unlikely. and those data points, those facts, are creating uncertainty and instability and new questions about the need for nuclear weapons among not only other opponents, enemies and adversaries of the united states such as venezuela and
chavez easy regime, but among our friends. the conversations we have heard and as the wikileaks stories other the weekend suggest, the prospect of an iranian bomb is deeply terrifying to the arab regimes of the gulf region and other possibly partners of the united states. secretary clinton quite rightly, but without much discussion extend an offer to the gulf states about 15 months ago, and that pressure is likely to expand. the demand for american security guarantees in the face of nuclear proliferation is already increasing, and is likely to increase ever more as time goes forward. and finally, as i suggested,
the larger great power competition will inevitably lead to modernization and expansion of now small arsenals as we see in china, in india, in pakistan, although where and in what category if not all three categories that i have laid out one should put pakistan, would be a subject for yet another panel. but at any trait, this isn't by any measure and by many measures an entirely different future than our cold war past. all the things that we told ourselves were stable and predictable and negotiable about the cold war past do not obtain in the future. i noted in steve's presentation one of the great debates in the negotiating community is when do you expand the realm of negotiations to include third
parties? an interesting question, but as steve suggested, a much more nettle some and complex set of negotiations that i think will make our cold war ongoing negotiations with the soviet union, and after the cold war with russia, look like child's play. the fact is there is no international consensus for nuclear disarmament, and that is the only way one could explain the behavior of those who feel threatened by american conventional power and have their own regional ambitions or own domestic regimes to build, ambitions, as the north koreans do. so if we are so uncertain about what the future is going to be like except to say it is going to be deeply unlike our past experience, why should we continued to be locked like two
scorpions in a bottle to use a cold war metaphor, with the russians? we don't know what's coming, and that is exactly the point. we don't know what kind of arsenal we will need, although we do know that the need to respond to very different nuclear crisis and potentially nuclear use, and in the face of very different nuclear threats, is a certainty. so why should we continue to go down this road with the russians? even if the start treaty itself is ultimately ratified, it doesn't really address the most pressing nuclear questions that face us now and will face us in the future. and we don't know what kind of and what array of nuclear
capabilities we will need. but again, it is almost certain that we will need some form, probably more varied forms, of nuclear weapons ourselves. so now is a good time to open the case, to take the longer view and ask ourselves not what deal can we reach with the russians, but what set of deals, what kind of arms control agreements will actually secure americans in the future, and what kind of deterrent arsenal do we need to respond to a future that is almost impossiblely different from the past? >> thank you, tom. we are anxious to get you involved in the discussion. i am going to use my mini presentation now to make a couple of comments in support of new start. and then we will go straight to a discussion. other panelists may want to
comment in the course of that on each other's remarks as well, and we will engage you in that conversation. as i expecteded, there have been some very thoughtsful comments from various postseason on this issue. i would like to say as a supporter of the treaty that i think senator kyle is being sincere and serious in the issues that he raises. there is not politics in what he is doing. republicans in the last two years have problemen that they are willing to be supportive of president obama on foreign policy issues in general where they agree with them. the politics have been largely relegated to domestic matters. this is a little bit of a the affirmation that politics should stop at the water's edge. historically it does not stop at the water's edge, but i have been struck in the last two years that we have had bipartisan issues like iraq, afghanistan and sanctions on iran. i am going to come back to that
in a second. i take at face value senator kyle's arguments that he has the kinds of questions on his mind that keith and tom have raise today as opposed to wondering whether this is the moment to give the obama administration a boost or not. let me make a few arguments in favor of new start. easily most important is the obama administration is correct when it says that new start has helped improve u.s.-russia strategic cooperation in general on other issues. the treaty in my mind, while it can be critiqued here and there, and keith has done a very good job on specific points, nonetheless is generally solid enough that i don't worry about whether in theory the bomber loophole could allow one side or the other to theoretically increase its forces, and i am not worried about how one way we use missile defense may be constrained because other areas are wide open for american and
russian consideration. what i am interested in is seeing that the u.s.-russia relationship is actually much improved. this is not, by the way, a critique of how the u.s.-russia relationship or arms control were handled under george w. bush. i agreed with george w. bush in saying that strategic detail shouldn't matter the way they used to. let's do a three-page treaty. let's agree among gentlemen to reduce forces a little bit. we don't need all that verification and consultations. let's do something fast. that happened in may of 2002 in russia. but unfortunately, over time it didn't really seem to work in the sense that it did not improve the u.s.-russia strategic relationship adequately. this was primarily because russia wasn't fully ready to move beyond classic arms control and was losing a little
bit of clout, and the bush administration was losing clout in other areas. russia wanted to resume a classic form of arms control. i basically see no harm in it i think the new start treaty is generally sound. let me itemize where i think it has improved our security in other ways. it has certainly fostered a better spirit of u.s.-russia cooperation on the northern distribution network shipping supplies into afghanistan, where we don't want complete depends on pakistan as our only way in for nato supplies for that war effort that now involves 145,000 foreign troops who require an enormous number of supplies. in much of the early years of the war, russia either opposed or tried to interfere with shipping of supplies through its own territory or through former soviet republics.
now we have seen a mellowing of that depending on what supplies you are looking at, 30% or 40% of nato supplies are coming in through the north. it is not just important numerically, but it may strengthen our hand with pakistan, to remind them that we don't depend on then exclusively and entirely the way they once might have thought. this is important as we seek to pressure pakistan to work harder against the afghan insurgent territory. the issues are interrelated, and the linkage is real. i believe we are seeing benefits in russian cooperation in afghanistan because of this generally improved relationship which is partially due to giving russia what it asked for, which is a form liesed arms control process again. again in the spirit of
bipartisanship or non-partisanship that i hope is present across our entire panel. i heard that today with serious substantive arguments. but a point i would make, in fairness to the bush administration, i think in their years in office not only did they have a very reasonable approach towards trying to limit offensive arps in a way that was -- arms in a way that was consistent with our interests of the day and in american interests in general, but in fact, russia was willing to start putting greater pressure on iran in that period of time as well under george w. bush, and it was gradually increasing. some of the sanctions under secretary levee they began to impose, some of the not just u.n. sanctions, but informal cooperation between powers was starting to improve in the 2007-2008 period, and i give
the bush administration credit for trying to identify those issues, putting pressure on iran's high tech knowledge sectors, on its banking industry. some of it was done officially at the u.n., and some of it unofficially. but it has accelerateded under president obama, and we have seen more u.n. resolutions, mour u.n. sanctions and more international cooperation, including russia now being willing to stop the shipment of advanced sa-10 surface to air missle batteries to iran partly as a result of this improved relationship, which is again helped along by the new start treaty. i don't want to get into the details anymore than i already have on the specific of the treaty. it is not to say that we should sign a bad treaty to do good things elsewhere. but the treaty, whatever minor or mid-sized flaws it may have
or points of stipulation that may not be quite as ideal as some would prefer, is generally solid. it allows us to do everything we need to with our nuclear, conventional and missile defense forces in the foreseeable future as far as i am concerned. and it helps u.s.-russia relations in other matters and gets down to other countries' nuclear ambitions. for these reasons i strongly support it and look forward very much to the conversation with you all on new start or any other issue on the future of nuclear deterrence and arms control you would like to raise. for the ben of the tv cameras and the audience and us, identify yourself, wait for a microphone first and please pose a concise question. expandy
and the prospect of the expansion on the horizon. even the issue of iran probably going to end up guiding the arab states and other states to renew their efforts to establish their nuclear programs. the question is, what is this -- [unintelligible] to get rid of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. it seems to me that in
particular, i sense that he is looking into new forms of nuclear weapons for the united states to introduce more weapons and stability. the question remains for the rest of the world, how do we get rid of the weapons of mass destruction and why don't we go through the issue of nuclear freezes for each continent. we look at this goal and everything will be measured toward that goal. >> that is the topic of my book. i would quickly say that i don't think this panel would all agree of the desirability of that goal of a nuclear-free world. there is no particular linkage between the start treaty and judging the long-term ability to reach that conclusion.
i have a skeptic who supports the vision of a nuclear-free world, but i think it is several decades into the future. i am worried about rushing too much toward that at a time where a lot of american allies are worried about whether the u.s. nuclear commitment is strong enough. of volunteer myself to start the answer, i am pretty skeptical of how much we can pass for the process in the next few years. let me go down the aisle. >> i agree that we should have the objective, and i am not sure that we can reach it. a lot of things have to happen, and we might agree here that if we can get to a non-nuclear world, it might not be a bad thing.
it would probably be about how likely is to get to the new verification mechanisms, and it would require fundamental changes in political relationships. a non-nuclear world is not bad. we have the pacific ocean, the atlantic ocean, and friendly neighbors. you may have a different view, and until you can get that likewise comfortable, the country is going to have hesitation about nuclear weapons. i have come to a different conclusion, as we think about u.s. weapons in a broader context, we have to worry about not just russia and china, but others. or it might come to a different conclusion, looking at 1550
deployed warheads or even 1000, it seems to me that that level of forces will be sufficient in deterring anybody else. if the country is not going to be deterred by 1000, you're going to have to come up with some way to affect calculations. >> i am agnostic on the gl, i must say. you have seen what a non-nuclear world looks like. it looked like the first half of the last century. it looks like world war one and world war two. of thing that was a very attractive world. i am a bit agnostic about the possibility or the possibility of that as a goal to its -- aspire to.
as long as they provide a profound deterrent effect, it seems to me that they are enormously important for us and for many other countries. let me add to that, because the bipartisan strategic commissioned i believe got it right with regard to the goal of nuclear 0, the pie partisan commission saying that it will be feasible with the transformation of the world order. i agree that it will be feasible and even admiral as a goal -- an admirable as a goal. the question in my mind is whether the transformation is feasible. if there is any indication of what might be possible in the future, the answer is that level of transformation is not possible.
the league of nations was an effort to create security to end international war. it failed. the united nations was an effort to create a security system to an international war. so far, it has failed to do that. in my mind, absent a collective security system that can provide security for all members, nuclear 0 will be difficult to get to if not impossible. let me say lastly, i think nuclear zero is the wrong goal in general. i would much prefer to see zero weapons of mass destruction. if we are going to have a goal to aspire to, it should be no weapons of mass destruction.
biologicaln't want weapons that can be every bit as devastating as nuclear-weapons. it is difficult to get rid of nuclear weapons if biological weapons are going to remain out there. some countries want a nuclear deterrent to prevent a biological attack. i would much rather see the goal of no weapons of mass destruction if we're going to pause at a goal. it will take a transformation of the world order. >> i am not going to speculate in the scholastic way as to what the world should be like. i prefer thinking more practically about the world that we actually live.
there has been a lot of fashionable talk of the last 18 months or so about containing the miracle cure. it has been interesting to go back and read what exactly containment is. and it will be sort of quantitatively being experts. to thatknow the answer question, but i think it is an open question. in the cold war, there is an intermediate range which the american side of the nuclear
bazooka, not that was a very useful solution, but we do ourselves a injustice if we think it was just that the people who were trying to solve those puzzles were completely misguided. there is a huge ballistic missile competition going on right now. there is something destabilizing in east asia. that is a game that we are constrained from entering because of past deals with the ex-soviet union. again, i just think that we have to confront the world as we find it. trees limitative armaments are traditional state crafts and strategy to achieve goals.
you cannot simply export mechanisms in wholesale fashion from one strategic era to another and expect them to be perfectly effective and efficient in the way you expect them to be. particularly when the landscape is different and the number of factors is much more perverse, inspired by a wide array of ideology and geopolitical goals. these are questions that we need to ask and did not foreclose answers now because we are continuing a set of negotiations. >> we will take to questions that time, we will take responses. >> thank you for a very excellent and analyze questions.
one was that in the first response, but let me repeat so that i make sure we are totally clear. is it the policy of the obama administration to declare -- is it a rhetorical policy or anything else, that they embraced and endorsed the nuclear-free concept? that does have some bearing on whether we go beyond the current will, or the new start make sense. secondlym, -- secondly, it is contended that given that pressure, they have mapped all of the objections and given him more than he asked for. somehow he has welshed on his commitment.
hearing him yesterday on the news shows, he may have thought a verily -- a fairly persuasive case is a request for modernization, upgrades, except in a kind of loose goals way. they didn't practically commit. isn't the illustration's policy to strive -- but to embrace it as a goal? what is their policy and in particular, the request to modernize the facility. >> >> thank you for your presentation. my question is, what about north
korea? what should the united states government to after its [unintelligible] and should the united states to review its current policy? thank you. >> a question. i will defer to others. the president of the commitment to a nuclear-free world is pretty clearly stated, and there is still a question of that is their policy. it doesn't obligate them to take any particular set of next steps. the path to get there, there are many paths to get there. the understanding is that it has
been pretty consistent about what they have wanted from the start and that the particular investments in budgets proposed by the administration have not met his threshold. and we can't make commitments for future administrations that said the bay though there are things they could do to prepare for a long-term modernization of the facilities that you describe the. i would tend to take a senator kyl's word, but have not been privy to discussions. it is hard to judge from the outside. again, i think that is another case that is demonstrative of the world, trying to describe a
very broad and general way. these are the kinds of nuclear issues that we are likely to see more of. and for which we do not have a very good response, which are only tangentially related to either our overall relations with russia and our arms control, but again, my point is not that it is bad, it does raise some important issues that need to be addressed. i would agree about the need for investment elsewhere. we're not devoting most of our efforts to the most critical nuclear problems that we face navajo and will only get greater in the future.
>> let me address the first question, i believe it had to do with the obama administration's policy concerning nuclear zero. let me point you to the 2010 revue that the administration produced and by and large is a very good document. i think if you look at that document, what it says is that movement toward non- proliferation is the highest nuclear policy. i mention that because the administration in the past has given rhetorical support to nuclear disarmament. they tend to balance that goal of the goal of maintaining a nuclear deterrent and assuring allies with the extended nuclear deterrent.
administrations in the past have had a goal of nuclear disarmament. the really dramatic change that i see any kind of document that i refer to is the comment that this is the highest nuclear policy priority which leads to concerns that we will see is a disadvantage of requirements and assurance. it is connected with the other question concerning the nuclear program in north korea, as a see the potential for nuclear proliferation continue, north korea, other countries interested in acquiring nuclear weapons. how do we assure our allies who
live in these growing and increasingly dangerous neighborhoods? if north korea is going to stay with a nuclear capability and modernize that capability, we need to inspect the requirements to ensure that japan and south korea are likely to change ha. it will likely become deeper and wider in scope. as a country that provides these kind of guarantees, they're very important to our alliance structure. the suit nuclear proliferation does continue, it will require us to be very agile and listen closely to what our allies say about what they see the requirements are for this emerging threat.
this has been very typical of the types of debates in the united states, we identify weapons that are adequate for deterrence and say it is a good number. arms control can obtain that number and we are satisfied. deterrence is not the only role for the strategic nuclear forces. deterrence of enemies is a role for strategic nuclear forces, but assuring allies is a very important role, and i believe it was said that during enemies is 10% of what it takes to assure our allies. to see the different requirements for what the u.s. force structure needs to be to provide these important roles of deterring opponents in assuring allies, the latter goal is going to become more challenging and require more of the united
states if nuclear proliferation continues at a pace. >> in response to your question about where the obama administration is, i think that when the every time he has come back to the subject, he has made the point that as long as nuclear weapons exist, united states needs to have a safe and robust nuclear deterrent. i think he square that circle. if you go back to the time the new start treaty was signed, the administration put out a couple of plans looking at 10 years. both are with regards to the strategic retirement of heavy
bombers, but also modernization of the nuclear weapon conflict, the national labs and infrastructure that maintains the weapons themselves. the announcement was that over the next 10 years the spending plan was $100 billion for the strategic triad and $80 billion for modernization of the nuclear weapons complex, which was a 10% or 15% increase over previous plans. i think that was in part to concern.senator kyl's if you are going to reduce nuclear weapons, you have to have complex -- of to have confidence that the weapons you have a reliable. there have been a lot of exchanges of their last four months between administration officials including the vice president and secretary. two weeks ago, the administration said it was prepared to commit an
additional 4 billion to $5 billion to upgrade nuclear weapons contracts. it does sound like there is an effort on the part of the administration to address the senator's concern and to assure him that there will be sufficient funds so that the weapons complex can support the nuclear arsenal in the future. my sense is that the administration has gone quite part in this. i think there is a question of how much more it needs to go to in order to secure senator kyle's support. i would agree with keith, who said in a point of nuclear weapons is not only to deter a range enemies, but to assure allies including japan, australia, and the asia-pacific region. as far as i have seen, every allied governments so far has spoken out on the new start treaty and has endorsed the treaty. i think i have to come to the conclusion that our allies say
-- at the end of the day, the u.s. has a strategic force. in needs to be sure that force can not only deter attack on the united states but can also extended deterrence to them as well. >> let us go to the next round. i will start with gary and take one more as well. then we will go to responses from the panel. here and then in the middle, and then we will have a set of responses. >> gary mitchell from "the mitchell report." i wanted to say at the outset that i feel like a paid some attention to this issue. this is far and away the best conversation i have heard about it, because i think it is laid out, the complexity which is very very helpful. it seems to me we have heard at least four points of view. one is the treaty is good on its own merits, vote for it. the other is the treaty is good enough, and is also important
because it helps us in other issues related to russia. the treaty has been badly misrepresented and has been badly handled politically, and therefore it is in trouble. and if i can characterize toms, widen the aperture. this is not necessarily the time to be concerned about whether we close this deal but whether we take this opportunity to take a wider look at the way we think the world should be further out. i will throw in another one which is not mine, but you are probably familiar with the case that was made last week in an off-ed by jamie rubin that we do not need to do these big trees anymore because so much can get done under executive deals, and
given the difficulty that non- parliamentary governments like ours have, we ought to be thinking about that. mike also alluded earlier in his presentation to the notion that this sort of helps us with our discussions on deep- nuclearizing -- denuclearizing the world. this deal will help smooth the path. i wonder if that is operational but -- is aspirational. what i would really like to do is say, "how are you going to vote on this?" i have a clear sense in a couple of places. but i would be interested in knowing is given everything we have heard, each of your contributions and the contributions of your partners -- when push comes to shove, it is there more upside in approving this treaty and
approving it during the lame- duck session, or is there more downside on doing that? if there is no downside in doing that, what is your recommendation about how the senate ought to move forward on this? >> before we hear the vote, what is the next question, and then respond. >> i am not speaking for any organization. is there any strategic utility for the u.s. to modernize nuclear weapons? assuring allies is really just an extension of deterrence, because we are assuring the allies that we will defend them against an attack, and it is to help deter anyone who could attack them. related to this, is there any strategic advantage for high reliability for nuclear weapons? this seems to be taken as a given. but since the basic point of
possessing the weapons is deterrence, not fighting, and the appointment cannot assume that a weapon will not work -- any opponent cannot assume a weapon will not work, and so it is useful. without very high reliability that any particular warhead would work, that would actually make it so a first strike might be less likely for whoever might need to assure that a surgeon bonn needs to go off. -- a certain bon mot needs to go off. -- a certain bomb needs to go off. >> i would not support the new start treaty if i did not believe we could have very high confence with that treaty and with a comprehensive nuclear test ban. i support both those accords and
believe we can have high confidence in our arsenal, part of the reason being that we are showing the plutonium in and hold up quite well. we do a lot of monitoring for $6 billion to $7 billion a year of stockpile stewardship in various ways. i understand the debate senator kyle is having now with the administration. we are all doing a great deal to assure the reliability of the u.s. nuclear arsenal. the question is what assets be needed in the future. i think americans can have confidence in the very high reliability of our nuclear arsenal today. a couple of more things and i will pass the time to steve. in terms of jamie rubin's thinking, he did want to seek congressional action, not just executive dictate. he wanted law as opposed to treaty. that would allow a majority vote instead of a two-thirds vote. other countries will say that means the united states is not quite as committed as we would like them to be. there is a pro and con.
while i do support, way down the road, a nuclear-free road, but i do not support new start for that region. if new start prejudged the pace at which we could assure a nuclear-free road, i would not support it. we are a ways from being on that path. there things i would like to see the next round to. for example, more focus on cooperative missile defense. i applaud the lisbon summit spirit for what it has done, but it has not yet translated into programs. these are things we have to learn more about and do more of to even see if a nuclear-free world may someday be a tenable. ratifying new upstart does not prejudge that debate. -- ratifying new start does not prejudge that debate. >> i emphatically support new start. i think it is good arms control, but i think it also has other positive effects, such as on the u.s.-russia relationship.
if the treaty does not get rectified in the lame-duck session but polls in 2011, that may not be the end of the world, but i do not know what that time from looks like. i do not think it is january and february. how far back does that get pushed? that is why do linda, six days from now -- that is why the lame-duck, six days from now -- how far do we stretch that out? the longer that time goes, the more our confidence in our assessments about russia's strategic forces weakens. is it going to weaken fatally? probably not. but i think there is a certain logic there to say getting new start into force sooner rather than later will limit that time when we do not have inspectors on the ground, when we do not have data exchanges. why not do it in the lame-duck session? you have 18 senate hearings.
i think the time i heard from the administration is they have answered 955 questions for the record. there has been a lot of study over the last six or seven months. it seems to me the senators have the information they need. certainly, it is out there. they ought to be able to take that and make a decision. i do not see a persuasive argument for not going into the lane duck session. to come back to the point keith made, i think the administration is partially in this bind because i think as keith said they did oversell new start, and some of their language was in precise. it raised suspicions that do not need to be there. the administration did say -- some administration officials said there are no limits to this treaty on missile defense. i think it is more correct to say there are no reasonable restrictions. one paragraph says the united states and russia could not put a missile defense interceptor
into an old silo. that is a constraint. but i do not think it is a meaningful constrict, because we have converted five icb silos to hold missile defense interceptors and built 25 or 30 new silos in alaska to hold interceptors. the new start treaty allows us to grandfather those five interceptors. those are ok, but do not do it again. it would cost about $20 million more per silo to convert them to build one grand -- and to build one brand new. it seems it is a constraint that prevents us from doing something we would never do under any circumstances. that is probably a constraint we could live with. likewise, i think the administration was in precise when it said there are no constraints on conventional ballistic missile warheads. we have more than 5050 icbms.
neither the united states nor russia deployed those. there has been talk about a combined strike system, where the bush administration proposal was for strategic ballistic missiles. the administration now says if there were able to exercise the option, it would be a few tens of warheads. i know some people are uncomfortable with the idea that a strategic offensive arms treaty wouldimit any conventional capability. i am not uncomfortable with the idea that if you want to deploy 30 or 40 conventional warheads -- i do not see that cutting deeply into a total war had of 1550 on the nuclear side. how the administration originally described some of these provisions raised suspicion. i think that is where we do not
have a strong base. >> i will start with your question and follow on from stevens point. -- stephen's point. it reflects on what we talked about earlier. i am not making the argument -- i did not intend to make the argument the restrictions on missile defense are extremely significant restrictions. that was not my point. my point was that the administration took the opportunity to explain the treaty in a number of different ways. it was incorrect in its explanation. it misrepresented the treaty. the was in very important areas. these were the folks who created the treaty. they misrepresented it in open testimony. the reason why that is important, never mind for now whether the missile defense option is important are not
important -- the point was that by misrepresenting the treaty and overselling it so thoroughly and so consistently, even to the current time, what it creates is skepticism about those who are asking for answers. so i point you to, for example, senator kit bond tips speech on november 18, where kit bond it said factual, correct things about the treaty. the state department replied last week specifically to senator bond's speech. some of the responses to the senator's point are literally factually incorrect. when you have a process like that, which went on in the past and continues now, what it suggests is there would be many who would like more time to sort this out. that is why i think that not having this decided in the lame- duck would be a good idea, because there are still questions about the treaty,
given the types of responses before you have the administration. i see no value or advantage whatsoever in pushing this treaty through during the lame- duck. there are some great disadvantages i think in trying to do so. and the advantage of moving it into 2011 in the senate is that the senate will have time to methodically, systematically, seriously go through these issues that have been created by the administration handling of it. it would seem to me that the administration would want that. >> let me go to the second question, with regard to the terms. it was a fabulous question. thank you for pointing it. but the question said essentially was that nuclear weapons provide a deterrent effect even with great uncertainty about them. therefore, why do you worry about modernization or in essence the details of the structure? if deterrent effect is available
because of the uncertainty surrounding nuclear weapons, if the deterrent effect is available with uncertainty, and stop worrying about the rest of this. we do not need to spend all the money to get these things down to great precision. the gentleman is shaking his head yes. that is the point. let me suggest there is a strong tenant of u.s. thought on strategic policy going back to the mid-60s that is exactly that. that was one of the profound schools of thought in the united states on nuclear deterrence, nuclear strategy, and force requirements. the other school of thought says that in some cases opponents will not be deterred by uncertainty. in other words, you have to posit an opponent that is deterred by uncertainty for them to apply. you have to have an opponent who is deterred even if the reliability of our weapons may
not be our satisfaction. you have to posit an opponent who is deterred even if the weapons may not be structured such that they meet our satisfaction. you have to pause at, i should say, a very specific type of opponent who is deterred within a great context of uncertainty for those points to apply. that, as i said, has been a team in u.s. strategic policy for decades. that is exactly so. the other thing is that on occasion there will be opponents who will need to be deterred, lest we are allies suffered a devastating attack, and they will not be deterred by uncertainty. in fact, they may be spurred on by uncertainty. they may feel uncertainty is something to take advantage of instead of something to be deterred by. because we do not know what the future looks like and we do not know what all the opponents --
how we are quick to catch a late in the future -- my view -- how we are going to calculate in the future -- my view is we want to also a -- also deter opponents who might be spurred on by uncertainty within the u.s. support structure. michael, i believe, said i am one of those who say we want to have reliability. we want to have precision. we want to have a very effective strategic force structure. deterrence to require it. the failure of deterrence one time in this area could lead to several millions of to scores of millions of fatalities in the united states or in our allied countries. we cannot afford to take a lot of chances with deterrence in my view. and relying on opponents who are deterred by uncertainty, and thinking we have an adequate deterrent in that case, i
believe is a mistake. >> before passing to tom for what will have to be the last word, i wanted to make sure you did not want to directly respond to gary's question about the vote. the use want to say that is up for this month or -- do you want to say we should not wait for this month, but should wait until 2011? >> would probably should. -- we probably should. >> my desired outcome for the treaty would probably be for the administration to essentially satisfied its critics. -- satisfy its critics, to frame a deal that would be acceptable to senator kyl and ideally would be passed in the lame-duck session, because that would represent a commitment on the part of the administration and the democrats as a party to nuclear modernization and missile defense that has so far been lucky -- been lacking.
you could not take that to the bank for very long, but in american politics that is as good as it gets. and actually i would like to put this whole discussion in the rearview mirror and talk about the things that i was describing earlier. my ideal promoting for the treaty would be like a five-year moratorium on arms control negotiations with the russians. just simply cut it out and actually start talking about the things that are more critically important. if you can meet those threshold tests, i would be willing to vote for the treaty, and the sooner the better. >> i think you just ratified it. three votes of four. >> thank you for being here and things for the pattern. -- and thanks to the panel.
like to welcome our speaker. i would also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. after the speech concludes, i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. i would buy it -- now like to introduce our head table guess. from your right, neal roland, derek sam's. kathy andrew schneider. skipping over our speaker for just a moment, the speaker committee member who organized today's event. the director of the office of
public affairs for the department of energy. and the energy reporter for reuters. the future looked bright for dr. steven chu when he became the nation's 12th secretary of energy in 2009. he found early support the summer when the house of representatives passed comprehensive legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions and this alternative fuel sources and uses.
then the road got harder. the senate never agreed on a plan. now, with the republican party taking control of the house of representatives, the consensus of political observers is that such a sweeping bill is dead for the foreseeable future. the department may have found another approach, however. bolstered with tens of billions of dollars of stimulus funding, the department has given billions in loan guarantees to support new transmission and power products in nearly every state. a personal cause of his is to develop collaborative relationships with international competitors whose governments are committed to the policies that congress has failed to enact. on november 15, on his facebook page, the secretary warned that the united states needs to work closely with both china and japan lest we risk falling behind in the race for the jobs of the future. the self-proclaimed life guandique is the first person to be appointed in a -- life long geek is the first person to be appointed. he has taught at the university of california and stanford university and research at the at&t bell laboratories. he has that sense and published two hundred 50 scientific
papers. he also literally walks the walk on sustainability conservation. he often rides his bike to walk and often walks the eight flights of stairs to his office overlooking the national mall. thank you for making your way here today. please welcome to the national press club energy secretary chu. [applause] >> thank you. i have to say a few things. first, i am delighted to be here, of course. also, most of my bike riding is on the weekends. i virtually always walk up the eight flights of stairs, much to the chagrin of my security who have to follow. [laughter] what i want to talk to you today about is something that i feel very passionate about. unfortunately, there was a little miscommunication and i
spent thanksgiving holiday preparing a powerpoint. i was told that was not here, so you will not see a powerpoint. but i will walk you through it. i should just say that most types of our points are boring, bullet point in speaking points and they take away from the context of the audience. i would hope that, in the future, power plant coul be used because they can be used to show images and they can be used to show data. i know data is maybe a new concept here in washington, but i think it is a good one. [laughter] but anyway -- sorry. [laughter] let me start. i titled this talk "the energy race, our new sputnik moment." let me suggest that this is perhaps something that should be taken seriously. just to remind you, on october 4, 1957, the soviet union
launched a satellite, sputnik. it was about the size of a basketball, 184 pounds, and it went into orbit and it passed over the united states several times. this was a bit shocking. on november 13, president eisenhower responded to this by delivering a speech, a major speech. he said "the soviet union now has the combined category of scientists and engineers in
greater number than the united states. it is producing graduates in these fields at a much faster rate. this trend is disturbing. indeed, according to my scientific advisers, this is, for the american people, the most critical problem of all. my scientific advisers place this problem well above all other immediate tasks, over producing missiles, of producing techniques in the armed services. we need scientists for the 10 years ahead. -- ed." said he took a long view of this moment of crisis -- ahead." so, he took a long view of this moment of crisis. i was the beneficiary of that. in high school, i went to science programs during the summer. when i went to college, there was money being poured into investments for universities. i got a fellowship when i went to graduate school. i got a post doctorate scholarship. many of my scientific colleagues were trained in a similar sort of way.
the united states will cut. i want to make several points in my talk today. first, i believe innovation adds to the wealth of society. second, science and technology are indeed the heart of innovation. thirdly, leadership, which we still own common innovation -- in which we still own, innovation cannot be taken lightly. an economist at mit got a nobel prize for his work that show that increases in society productivity were the direct result of technology development.
he started with a premise that it was the investment of capital and investment in society can make to do more stuff and produce more things and that ultimately would be tied to labor. and in the long run, labor and capital would increase together. in the absence of any technology development -- as your work force grows, you can produce more stuff, but that really means that your standard of living person will remain fundamentally the same. so he pointed out, yes, that is true. but if you have technology innovation, everything can change. in fact, what he showed was that additional wealth other than population increases would be caused by technological innovation. for that, he got a nobel prize. this theme has been picked up a number of times. the fact that innovation is key to prosperity and progress has been reactivated a number of times. a committee was tasked with how will the united states compete in a flat world of the 21st
century? the committee has made a number of recommendations. but investing capital will give you more wealth creation. anyone in 2010 is entitled "rising above the gathering storm revisited, approaching category five." this talks about the collective society of america, the government, congress, administration, everybody, and the long term united states competitive outlook having further deteriorated since the initial gathering storm report five years ago. so what are other countries doing? while it did not invent the automobile, it took the invention and process it into something that had not been seen in the world before, especially in the ford model t assembly line. it took over the leadership for automobile manufacturing for
pretty much three-quarters of a century. the first airplane was discovered in america. the first transistor, the first integrated circuit, optical and satellite communications, gps, the internet, they all came from the united states. they all did wonderful things in terms of wealth creation for the united states. and so, i say that today this leadership is at risk. we are no longer leaders in manufacturing. more startling, we are no longer the leaders in high- technology manufacturing. in terms of global high-tech -- the first integrated circuits, optical and satellite communications, gps, it all came
from the united states. so, i say that today, this leadership is at risk. we are no longer leaders in manufacturing. more startling, we're no longer the leaders and high technology manufacturing. in terms of global high-tech exports, we hit a peak in 1998. the captured about 29% of the market. it has been declining steadily and so it is about 13% of the world market. europe remained the most constant during this time.
that is a fact. in fact, china says, quite candidly, and i am quoting from premier winter about any talks he gave -- from premier win jaobao in a talk he gave at a world summit. in innovation to gain worldhe is basically taking it out of a playbook from the united states. china decided to use governmentsector into playing the leading launched on a long- term plan to for another five- year plan.
-- they decided to do this and the first five-year plan falls in a soon-to-be other five-year plan. so what is the evidence that your technological leadership is at risk. in the united states, most of the patents were originated in the united states. but in 2009, for the first time, 51% of u.s. patents were awarded to non-u.s. companies. to fifth place in international patents during that time. the world is some form rank 48 in mathematics and education. chinese universities are leading in the '80s.
china has moved from 14th place to second place in published research articles, now just behind the united states. eight of the 10 global companies with the largest r&d budgets in the world are established r&d facilities in china and theythese are facts from the gathering storm report. an american company, applied materials, rectly opened the world's largest private solar r&d facility in china. there is other evidence of chinese innovation, particularly in the energy field. china has installed the largest high-voltage capacity lowest loss d.c. line and high-voltage ec lines in the world now. it has plans to integrate back down. it has broken ground on 30 nuclear reactors of roughly 50 being built in the world. the united states is building
two nuclear reactors. it just past the united states with the world's fastest supercomputer. it now has the record for the highest high-speed rail in the world. but the scandal speed is 220 m.p.h. it has plans for more models of high-speed rail. by comparison, japan has 1,500 miles. france has 1,200 miles. the u.s. has zero. according to the vice chairman of china's national investment and reform, the r&d and china, it will probably get 20% by 2020, renewable energy in china.
let me take you through examples of what china is doing. take the coal industry in china. china has a lot of old inefficient plants. they said, this is polluting our atmosphere. we will close them down. in 1992, they bought two 600 megawatt generators better called ultra supercritical. they're working at the highest temperatures possible, commercially. they bought them from abb, a european committee, and g. they started operating them. in 1995, it established a research centers, and said, okay, this is the best of the world has to offer. this. can we make it better? between 2000 and 2004, began to
build and install and operate the first indigenous supercritical plant in china. by two thousand five, it did its first export -- by 2005, it did its first export. it holds the record for the highest efficiency coal plants now. when they started doing this, the president of the china hunan group, the largest power generating company in china said they should look at this from a purely financial perspective to represent the future. having said that, now they can build these power plants and cost permount of megawatts, for example, is now we will to this super critical plant that the united states is building, and it is cheaper than the common cold plants that used to
be made and are still being made in other parts of the world. the cost has come down and is now competitive in terms of power per unit investment. you get a lot more power per unit coal. there is a common myth, for example, that china manufacturers because it is the low-cost and cheap manufacturing and that is how it competes with the united states and the rest of the world. if you look at the largest solar portable company in china, is and not followed by the myth. chinese heritage, but he got his ph.d. in australia and he is a citizen of australia. they did not have the right environment to develop this, so
he went back to china. but this chief technology officer who is a professor at the university of new south wales, he is now in china. i toured the plant. this company, it was 100 meters by 400 meters and 4 stories per it was a high-tech modern flat that imports its raw materials from the united states. its energy is cheaper. it as the technology is, all the things that make it in china, and an it sends a terrible world to assemble it. what is wrong with this picture? it is not succeeding because of
cheap labor. not only that, it's focused on driving down the manufacturing cost, but it also set the world record for solar efficiency as measured by a german scientific institute. it is low cost and it is actually good technology. now, rest easy that the united states still has the record of crystallization in the world. this is the threat that i see. america still has the opportunity to lead in a world where that will need a new industrial revolution to give it the energy that we want inexpensively but carbon freed. it is a way to secure our future prosperity as noted by the premier of china. i think that time is running out.
i think that we should not lose sight of this and federal support for science is going to be critical for our economic pegasus. i mentioned the wright brothers. they made the first plane. very quickly after that, the airplane technology migrated to europe. by world war one, europe have the dominating airplane technology and all of our world war one aces flew planes made in france. the u.s. government established a department for aeronautics to conduct cutting edge research and encourage the avionics industry in the west. that led to a resurgence back to the united states of recapturing the lead and now many aircraft companies, commercially, it is boeing and they are in a race with airbus. other countries think they can
get into this game, including china. china has made forays into the aerospace industry. a report that came out with very recently was called a business plan for america's energy future. it was comprised of the committee of lockheed martin. bill gates, chad holiday, who is now the chair of bank of america but the former chair of dupont. this small community of seven people said, what is the plan for america's future? they noted a couple of things. if you look at the fraction of sales and an industry and how much actually gets put back into
r&d in the public and private sector, it is shocking. in pharmaceuticals, it is close to 19%. in aerospace and defense, and 11.5%. computers and electronics, 8%. what about energy? 0.02%. -- 0.03%. the budget is 6.3 trillion dollars. how much is on energy research and development? 0.14%, $5.10 billion. the trend is even more alarming. peaking in 1979, there were a few bumps and jewels going downhill ever since then. although the stimulus funding offered a huge down payment in r&d, the question is, are we
going to return to this downward trend or are we going to do something about it? this report goes on to say that government must play a key role in accelerating energy innovation. it says that innovations in energy technology can generate significant qualifiable public benefits. i am quoting from the report. these benefits include cleaner air, improved public health, enhanced national security, international diplomacy, and protection from shocks related to economic disruption. currently, these benefits are neither recognized nor rewarded by the free-market. this also went on to say that the energy business requires investment of capital on a scale that is beyond the risk threshold of most private sector investors this high level of risk -- sector investors. this high level of risk causes
this behavior. in this report, i urge you to look at it. there are little snippets from the industrial leaders. one of my favorite is from norman r. augustine. based on his own research, which faced with and major challenge content, youology wil need are in deep. -- are in the -- r &d. there is a report on the president's council of advisers in science and technology that was released this morning. it says many similar things about the need to take energy investment very seriously. what can investments do?
what we see and what the department of energy is investing is are very exciting technologies, a vehicle battery could go around a 500 mile range. a new approach at making biofuels and that could lower the cost. a program that could produce abundant domestic fuel directly from sunlight. we have a road map that says, how can we get solar energy down? that is the magic number. we are now developing plans. at what point do not need subsidies? can you get there? if you can, we will design programs to do that. we need to dramatically reduce
storage costs. we need to use supercomputers and supercomputer simulations to skip very expensive design steps. the department of energy laboratories actually designed, for the first time, a diesel engine on the computer, a simulated it, and built it and they did not need another prototype. people were skeptical that could happen. it reduced costs by 50%. we can do this in many other areas. we have introduced to innovative research funding pgrams. one is called advanced research project agency for energy. what this is is a research
program that is short-term. you have to get a private funder to do. it is a high risk, high reward. we're not interested in funding incremental work, we're interested in game changing work. an example that i gave you before, an electric battery that would be three to five times lower in cost than today's lithium battery to it is a takeoff from what is called a dink air battery of that is used in hearing aids today. can you make one that is rechargeable that lasts longer and we think that it has a very distinct possibility of giving cars that have a 100 mile range of 500 mile range at a third of the cost. there is a really good shot at this. another thing that we are doing his energy innovation hubs.
these are the same high risk, high reward. then we have to recognize that some research can be done in two or three years. it needs a bigger group of scientists working under one roof. in much the same spirit as what we did in the manhattan project. i like to call them little bell lablets. they are good at public affairs and so they spot that their name was a better name. as another example, you look at it with a plant makes chemical energy. you take some like, you take the water, and the uses sunlight and energy to split the water into hydrogen and oxygen and it takes carbon dioxide and reduces the carbon dioxide and builds a carbohydrate. we can then turn it into a sugar which we can then turn into a fuel or we can eat it.
the question is, can we design, using nanotechnology, something that can replicate what the plant does, but we have the advantage. we have what the biological world has access to, therefore we can design something better, just as when we learned to fly, we started by looking how birds flew. the rights -- the right brothers were just like large soaring birds, but they used a gasoline engine instead of muscle power. today's engines use material that nature cannot produce. single crystals of metal in the turban blades. can we do this and our officials photosynthesis and skip the hydrocarbon and go from water to oxygen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide
to hydrocarbon fuel? it has been around for awhile. in the last couple of years, there have been enough advances in a technology and science that we have a shot that this can happen in a cost-effective way in five years. and innovation how it has been started to find that type of research. we face falling behind. we need to seize this opportunity and we really cannot afford not to. in closing, let me say that there are some differences between this sputnik prevent and sputnik the event of 1957. as was noted in the introduction, while we are competing, there is an opportunity to also collaborate. we have much to collaborate with china, india and other countries.
china is going to be building buildings, cities, roads, transmission lines equivalent to the entire infrastructure of the united states. into with the 30, what india will look like they and does not exist -- 80% of what it will have a into thousand 30 does not exist today. -- 80% of what it will have it end to thousand 30 does not exist today. -- 2030 does not exist today. our infrastructure has largely grown as a rlacement of our population, although it is not growing the way india and the mass migration of chinese people from the farmland into cities is not occurring. there is an opportunity to work
with china and india. and so when this sputnik moment of today, i urge that we do two things. we should formulate long range energy policies that have bipartisan support to guide the private sector in the united states. china is doing it and it seems to be working. we should do this. long range policies. what about increasing the support of energy research and development? private investments do not usually recoup the full value of the benefit. companies are reluctant to do some of the early stage research and development, and quite frankly a lot of the new technologies could be met with resistance. the government passed to say this is the path we should be going in for long term future prosperity and we have to do that. but me emphasize that wealth creation is driven by
innovation. if we collaborate with china and india, we both come out better for it. with that, i will stop and take questions. [applause] >> we have some high-quality questions here. our first question, during the 2008 presidential campaign, now- president obama referred to a new energy economy as "my number one priority." congress has passed health care reform, financial reform, the stimulus bill, and an energy bill didn't pass. are you disappointed? >> of course i am disappointed. i think the thing is that we are
here now. i do not think that there is a lot of good coming from visiting i am disappointed. therefore you stop trying? no, i am hoping united states can recognize the economic opportunities that virtually all of europe and western europe has recognized and developed countries in asia have welcomed -- recognized. i think it is so important. america, i am optimistic, will wake up and sees the opportunity and it still has the greatest innovation machine in the world. >> much of your strategy for solving the climate change problems such as the economic stage for the embrace of nuclear and carbon capture storage, is based for price on carbon. now that it is looking almost impossible for congress to pass something like that, are you
concerned the economics for fixing the climate are now impossible? >> i think the price will be paid on carbon worldwide and we would go forward with what we can do now. having said that, it is certainly true that carbon capture and storage, if you have a stationary emitter like a coal plant or gas plant or cement plant, the immediate micro costs of those industries, it will always cost more to capture that carbon and storage. that is the equivalent of saying eat you are a city -- and we're not trying to debate to treat the sewage or just put it in the river -- the immediate costs of dumping in the river, it is cheaper for you but not for the fish downstream. the total integrated cost of doing this are much much cheaper. it's better to treated at the
source and eliminate that. this is why there should be a price on carbon. nuclear, i think, it can be cost-effective and show that it can be built on time and on hedule, it can hold its own. but you also remember that one of the drivers we're trying in wind and solar and all these other technologies is we think it can be cheaper than fossil fuels. >> what is the role of the climate change conference in cancun? >> i think -- excuse me. the answer is yes, of course we can meet copenhagen. it requires bipartisan will and support to do it. as pointed out, my task and the
department of energy is to develop and nurture the technologies to help industries go in the ght direction, to help them nurture those technologies. in the end, when push comes to shove, when the rubber meets the road, this will allow us to do iwhat we have to do. >> the internet describes you as a self as -- self-described geek? are you sticking with that was marred >> yes. >> scientist and universities have drawn of a large number of students. changes to u.s. immigration policy post-9/11 and rising opportunities and home countries lead students to return home after earning their degrees. what can the u.s. do to offset this trend and its consequences for u.s. innovation was a margin in many reports, when a student comes to the united states and its a ph.d. in
science and engineering and does well, there's a green card next to the diploma. in actual fact, what happens in graduates grants paid for. the united states is investing in these people. if they do well, you do not want to encourage that investment to go back. you're quite right. things are changing. they come to the united states to get an education, why? because the research universities in the united states still are the best in the world, bar none, and that is recognized. but they come here to get an education and get a ph.d. and to oppose dr. and then go back as a young person, then we in the united states have lost a great deal. out in the "rising storm," that the number of
people getting a ph.d. is in science and engineering are now foreign-born. there is always good news in this. as i look across the country in the last three or four years, especially, the young people are waking up to the energy and climate change problem. that is drawing them into science, just as in my day, this little 184 pound thing going across the united states, made us say, maybe i should go into science and engineering. the young people now want to go back into this. this is a good sign. it's important to the government, the federal government and state governments, recognize that this is a good sign and take advantage of it. this will be a cornerstone for our economic prosperity. >> just before this program began, was on news reports that obama may announce a pay freeze for federal employees. one of the issues in attracting
top-notch scientific talent -- are you aware of such a freeze and how will this affect your average to recruit quality scientists? >> we will see how that unfolds. it ultimately has to be approved by congress. but in terms of the ability to attract quality people in to the doe, surprisingly and number have been willing to take cuts in pay. to live in a fishbowl, if you will, because they feel it is that important. one election member -- one member is still in his 40's. he had to resign from you t- berkeley to come work for the government.
he gave up but tenured position. it is not as though he were -- losing his gas. no, he was entering into his incredible words of high productivity and we've got a bunch of others like that. it is tough and you have to be a little bit crazy and a whole lot patriotic, but we can still get some good people. to some republicans in congress have intimated that they may rescind some recovery act funds. well would that mean for the energy department in your efforts? >> i hope that they do not. i think that this recovery at funds that the department of energy are important down payments to what we have to do. and the real question i pose in my talks was, certainly after the recovery act, we are looking hard at how we can use our
precious resources into the future in order to go forward. i think this fundamentally as a bipartisan/non-partisan issue. it is all about economic prosperity. >> on note -- among the new majority in the house are fairly vocal climate change skeptics. given the increasingly vocal voices on climate change debate, do you anticipate that you'll be going back to fighting that climate change debate itself rather than pushing for solutions to it? >> i hope not. if anything over the last six years, the evidence is got more compelling. but sometimes you get sideways on this debate if you say, have you proven with 100% certainty that this is happening and some bad things are happening?
and maintain you do not need 100% certainty. 89% and maybe 90% certainty is enough to say, ok, how should you want to plan your personal life? let me use this as an analogy. you just bought a home, the electricity comes in, the wiring a shot. you have to replace the wiring. this is how much it will cost. the teen thousand dollars. you are strapped. -- $15,000. how can you do that? you get another restaurant. i do not know, but the sec alleges in says you have to do it. it will be bad if you did not. you shop around for the one in the thousand electricians to say it is ok? not really. do you actually go and say, well, ok, i think it is more
cost effective by major my fire insurance is up to date? your family is in the rigid living in a home that could burn down while they are asleep. -- your family is living in a home that could burn down while they are asleep. what i'm trying to tell the american public is that this is an economic opportunity. it is not as a you are -- you have to make this tax expenditure. you're making an expenditure because in the long run, for the future economic health of the country, and that future is not 20 years in the future, we're talking three years, you have to make these investments. >> you would trust china and its own alternative energy development in your remarks. -- you addressed china and its own alternative energy developments in your remarks. what research and development is the energy department's pursuing
to develop u.s. capacity to develop alternatives? >> i think that was a wake-up call, and if you depend on the producing 95% or more of this around well, and you have a single supplier that you run the risk. there has been a mine in california that has been shut down, and we are in discussions with that mind to help start up again. there are a number of employees -- it is not that rare. what is at stake you have to be very careful in an environmentally responsible way and we're working that. many other countries have gotten concerned and looking at other places for supplies.
we're look going deeper and that. we're looking at ways to use the more efficiently but also technological ways to get the same benefit. it depends on using electronics for paris high efficiency motors, or and displays for flat screen tvs and a number of things, looking at alternative substitutes. what has happened in some of these rares, the prices gone up tenfold. that has worried them and we're doing a lot in terms of what you say, looking for substitutes. >> on the topic of energy independence, if you do a lot of work with the usda, especially on the s&l -- ethanol produce. -- at tunnel project. this december 31, there is a tariff and subsidies for corn- based ethanol of 4 expiration. this question as, to accord
ethanol subsidies still need to cur -- do. ethanol subsidies still need to -- corn at an all subsidies still need to occur? >> this is a complicated economic issue as well. is -- ite focusing on is a good way of getting it going, knowing that americans drive their vehicles using agricultural-based fuels. but we're primarily focused on developing the new technologies that can supersede ethanol made from starches and sugars like corn, but we're also focusing on ways to go beyond ethanol. it is not an ideal transportation fuel. gasoline, kerosene, jet fuel,
and diesel fuels are much better things to use. they did not require changing the infrastructure. one of the things we are focusing very much on is how to take biofuels the make direct substitutes for these tools that can be blended into the gas tank? let me add that because of this, we started some -- four years ago, before my time -- three energy centers under the same rubric says these energy hubs. we have smart people that go, come up with dramatically new technologies, and within six months, one of these centers bacteria that you find that the of your stomach and put in a new metabolic pathway. when you bet it sugars, they
produce correct -- direct substitutes for gasoline and diesel fuels. when they reported this discovery and "nature," i called up the director, a friend of mine, and said, jake, that is great. what you need to make it commercially viable? pick a price. any price. $80 a barrel? he said, it has to be within 80% of all we think is what we can produce and we are not there yet. it has to be this price. but by then, but atomic up publish, a private company had already picked it up. the scientist that to the basic research, saying that this could actually work, let's do a little bench top prototype production think to see what other things we need to figure out. so again, the idea that you get really smart people trying to
solve a problem, not to publish a paper, is the way the we have got to go. we see a lot of that evidence of that coming along. didn't this is a matchup of two questions which is always dangerous. both questions from the audience. the administration has indicated a desire to pursue development of nuclear. but also opposition against dumping spent fuel at yucca mountain. how off the table is the get the project, and assuming that it is, how does the administration plan to deal with and lingering issue of nuclear wastes and advocating billions of dollars in nuclear produce? >> we believe that it is the right and proper thing to do to start the american nuclear industry. we believe this is not only good for going through --
increasing up -- decreasing our carbon emissions, but it is good for us economically. the analysis used to be the leader in this. this is one of those things that we have lost. the leadership is now in france and japan and south korea. and now china is going in such a big way, it has plans to build four new nuclear powers. i think the problem of the nuclear waste is the problem fundamentally can be solved. it is but the scientific and political problem. the political problem is in beijing early and making the people in the area wanting it to happen. how can that be? we actually have that. there is a low-level waste repository that we run in new mexico. initially the people were worried about this because they
were worried -- you stick this stuff on the ground in the formation. once you go down to the solow formation, it's been proven to be stable for tens of millions of years. even during the time the continents had been drifting arou, this is ok. so the downside is, have used a kitten, it encapsulated and you can i get back at it. that was not the original requirement at the amount. you wanted to not move around and not get at it. there have been no accidents. it is been done very safely. it's been the economic generators for the area around it. so the story has two parts to it. there may be better strategies,
better ways of approaching, and that is why there is this new commission looking into this. the nuclear regulatory agency has already said that we can keep the storage where it is now, storage for 50 or even 100 years, so the commission's task is to tell us technically what we should be doing, what are the best options, what kind of storage you want? it could lead to will, it to be permanent disposal, it could be lots of things. but knowing that you have 60 years, that we are not in a crisis situation, we can do much better job this time. that is the task of the commission. there's a realization that it is solvable. would you say, let's not do anything for the next 50 years until we prove it?
not really. if we think about it, this is when the war, we know it is going to work, let's move ahead and restart our nuclear industry. again, it is important also to restart not only for economic issues but for the nobler version issues. -- not poor preparation -- nonpolar operation -- non- proliferation issues. there are a lot of reasons why we should be team players. to do one topic that has not been discussed in great detail -- energy efficiency. what you see is some of the most promising initiatives in that area that you may be risk -- you may be pursuing? >> estimate energy efficiency. i'm glad you raised this.
as you know, i am fond of saying it is the lowest hanging fruit. it is actually something that we are pushing very strongly. this is a secretary for energy efficiency, now acting undersecretary for the department of energy, we're pushing very hard to show that energy efficiency means saving money. if it really means saving money, then this is something that should be happen by itself. it is not happening by itself. why is it not happening? whether capital and initial investments, whether ignorance, whether a lot of thing --
habits -- can change that. we firmly believe that energy efficiency is the fastest, quickest way to make us more competitive, save money that will go back into the economy, many things. and it ultimately will be saving lots of dollars and lots of carbon. this energy efficiency is something very basic, especially when you think of cars. we can do better there. buildings are a very big deal. we think you can build a building or decrease the energy consumption of the building by a factor of four in a way that would pay for itself in a quarter of a lifetime of the building. and we started in innovation up to show that you can do this with computer-aided design, it can be built, especially retrofits may abet factor to,
and demonstrate that if you do this you actually save money. once you begin to demonstrate this, we hope it takes off by itself. however, there are some things that you have to be very conscious of. you have to be willing -- for a factor of two, a better design. know the current technologies that exist today. the next factor for additional investment, are you willing to invest in a lifetime of a 50- year building to get payback time in 10 years? if you say no, then you can i do some of those things. that is something -- and you cannot do some of those things. that is long term, one of the issues that we have to overcome in our thinking of investments. >> we're almost out of time. before the last question, we
have important matters to take care. to remind our members and guests of future speakers. we have booked the chairman and ceo of the coca-cola company. our first luncheon will be on january 12, and someone from the red cross will talk about one year after the haiti earthquake. i like to present our speaker and into murmuration with the national press club mud. -- commemoration of the stay with the national press club mug. for our audience and to get a better sense of the man, we have one final question. you have a ph.d. -- excuse me, if you have a ph.d., you of your nobel prize in physics, a lot of people come with the assumption that you're pretty smart. [laughter] as many of us know, having lived and worked in washington, we know there are people in washington aren't -- who are
not so says mark. present company excepted, please, how was the secretary of energy and a nobel laureate deal with people who do not get it in washington? [laughter] >> please tell my mother that i am smarter than she thinks. i do not think that you go into any job with an attitude like that. i was a professor for many years. my attitude always -- when i was working at bell labs, sometimes i would have an idea and i would go and talk to management. i want to do this. that would say, no. my reaction was, ok, not that i am smarter than they, but ok, i went back and said, what did i not explain right? and then i would go back. this is what i think.
once i went back three times and might then boss -- and might then-boss at said that i have the better things to do, he ended up actually letting me do it. he was not thrilled. but i always come in with the attitude that if you do not succeed the first time, try again. or they can try to convince you that they are right. that is part of the discussion. i could be wrong. ok? so you have this give-and-take. the final part of this, this guy turned out to be a very good friend of mine that i have no for 35 years now. 32 years. is now the department of energy, the director of office and science. so he for gave me. [laughter]
>> thank you, secretary chu, and thank you to the staff of the national press club. and they keep to the staff of the energy department that scrambled into the situation, and thank you all for coming here today. this meeting of the national press club is adjourned. [captioning performed by nation captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]
we don't want anyone in any countries that could be affected by those alleged leaks here to have any doubts about our intention and commitment. that's why i stressed in my remarks that policy is made in washington. the president and i have been very clear about our goals and objectives in dealing with the full range of global challenges that we face. we will continue to look for every opportunity to work with our friends and partners and allies around the world and to deal in a very clear eyed way with those who we have differences, which of course brings me to iran. it should not be a surprise to
anyone that iran is a source of great concern not only in the united states. that what comes through in every meeting i have anywhere in the world is a concern about iran your honor actions and intentions. so if anything, any of the comments that are being reported on allegedly from the cables confirm the fact that iran possesses a very serious threat in the eyes of many of her neighbo neighbors. and a serious concern beyond her region. >> there was not a concern because of the united states said please do this for us.
they reached the same conclusion that the united states reached. we must do whatever we can to muster the international community to take action and prevent iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state. if anyone reading the stories about these alleged cables thinks carefully what they will conclude is that the concern about eye reason is well founded, i wouldedly shared, and will continue to be at the source of the policy that we pursue with like-minded nations to try to prevent iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. >> you are watching public
the 112th congress. [ applause ] during the 2007-20 election cycle, these three congressmen found the yog guns proam. a member-driven organization of house republicans, dedicated to identifying, recruiting and >> according to congressman mac ar think, as and solve problems using conservative beliefs. pete sessions, the chairman of the nrcc, adopted the young guns program as a candidate
cruitment for house republicans. the results of the young guns program to date have been very successful. in the 2008 election cycle, four young guns were defeated incumbent democrats. dozens of young guns candidates were elected to the house of representatives as republicans took back the house for the first time since 2006. together these three congressmen have entitled a book "young guns, a new generation of conservative leaders." it offers their collective vision for the future of the republican party. and now on behalf of the kennedy political union is my distinct pleasure to welcome eric cantor, paul ryan and kevin mccarthy. [ applause ] >> thank y very much for coming out tonight. i'm kevin mccarthy from california. and i'll give you a little bit about the recruitment. i was recruitment chair for the national republican congressional committee.
and we won 63 seats. there are 85 new freshmen republicans coming in. but 63. 62 of those 63 were young gun candidates and the whole idea of young guns getting candidates to go through. but how do you go out and recruit and if you would go back about a yr and a half from today, republican party wasn't that popular. the president was very popular. and it wasn't the easiest thing to get people to run for office. so what i did when i was in charge of recruitment, i went back and i studied 1994 and 2006, the last two times the majorities had switched. if you reay want to do the oddness, i mean, you go about how many candidates they had. 421 republican candidates in '94. 422 democrats in 2006. this time we had 430. so you have to have a large number out there. an odd fact is, no minorit has become a majority in modern history without bringing a
professional athlete with them. and we kept true to that, because we got john runnion, lineman for the philadehia eagles. he is now a congressman. and so what i decided to do was, every thursday i'd bring a number ofeople in that current members -- like a microcosm society. we would look at the districts and look wre we are going to go run. and we thought this would be a wave election. so we thought we would challenge people that had been there a long time. we would be three sitting committee chairmen. unbelievable. we literally would go on the road. i'll give you a quick story on somehow of how we recruited. we would go on the road, i'd drive in. and we didn't have much money, right? i'd just rent a car. i would get lost a lot of times. we would go into illinois, because that was the first primary we would recruit. we were supposed to be in iowa. i did a u-turn, went down and
recruited. i had been gone about week. i was with another congressman, westmoreland. we were going into tennessee. we decided would have to challenge the democrats to even get them to retire. i went into tennessee, and before i got there, my staff calls me and says, you're going to meet this guy. we're going to try to find someone to run against tanner. tanner is a democrat congressman ahead of the blue dog, has $1 millio in the bank, two years ago no republican even ran against him, right? so as i go in there, they said, you're going to meet this guy and he's nervous about meeng you. i said, why? he said, he's from tennessee, he has a strong tennessee, he has a strong accent. that's not a problem. but you're from california, he thinks you're all fruits and nuts. probably true, but so when i get there, i meet with a lot of people, i don't realize it's him. in comes this guy, he's 38 years old, good-looking guy, brings his wife and sits down. this is how the conversation goes. mr. kevin, i'm steven fincher from frog jump, tennessee. i don't kn where frog jump is.
and i don't tell anyone ever to run, ask them why they want to run. steven gave me the same answer that about 400 other people gave me. i said why do you want to run for congress. he said well, you know what, i watched the country change before my eyes and i don't know how to tell my children i did nothing. i said steven, that's a great reason. he goes but you know, i don't know if i'm the best person to run, i've never been elected to any offi before. i said well, that's good. he goes but i got to be honest th you, i've never even been to washington, d.c on vacation. i said as of right now you're the top recruit in the nation. and you know at, he got into the race, never running before from frog jump, tennessee. he ended up raising after like a six-month time, $600,000. you know what happened to tanner, who had never been challenged the last two years? he ended up retiring. we went to the road to al gore's old seat, gordon had it, won with 74% of the vote. once he got challenged, he
retired. snyder in arkansas, won with 77% ofhe vote two years prior but all these things that the democrats were passing ended up retiring. then i thought for a national campaign, what is this campaign going to be about? it could be about jobs and spending, right? who in congress best represents spending? the chairman of appropriations. who's the chairman of appropriations, he comes from paul's state. the guy named obey. you know how long obey's been in congress? since 1969. he got to congress before we landed on the moon and before woodstock. and he's never left. so paul is helping recruit, paul finds this young guy by the name of sean duffy. sean duffy was on mtv "real world." his wife was as well but they weren't in the same year, but they met. he is four term district attorney but you know what's really important in northern wisconsin? he is, what, five time world champion lumberjack. not a big deal here. big deal there, right. well, he runs and no one gives him the time of day.
but he starts campaigning on those national issues. you know what happened to the guy that always dreamt since 1969 of being chairman of appropriations? he ended up retiring. and that, just those four races, showed that we were going to win across this country. but the thing i will tell you is republicans that win the majority, the democrats got fired for the same reason republicans had gotten fired 2006. they spent too much. but the democrats have overplayed. that same thing steven fincher told me he watch the country change before his eyes and he wasn't going to sit there and do nothing, that motivated people across this country and when y look at this freshman class, you have to go back to 1938 to find an election like this one. this is such an earth-shattering, and what's most odd to me is that the democratic party kept the same leadership that led them off the cliff for this election. so those were just some of the
recruitment things but let me turn it over to paul to give you some of the fiscal issues we were talking about as well. >> well, i don't think of myself as that mu of -- i am x generation. it wasn't too long ago i was hanging around here in au campus. i'm actually kind of an alumni. i went for a semester. yeah, all right. spent a lot of time here in this building, bender arena. maggie's is gone. is quigley's still down there? these are the bars you've never heard of because they're already out of business. it's good be back here at au. riley graft goes here, he believe. he's a family friend. he's one of your power forwards. you have a pretty darned good basketball team here, by the way. that's something to be proud of. let me tell you why the three of us founded this group. the three of us founded this group because we wanted to get people to run for congress not to get a career in politics but
to come up here and advocate a cause. you see, democrats are not our enemies. they are our adversaries and they're our adversaries in the battle of ideas. our enemies are people who fired planes into our buildings, who put roadside bombs up against our shoulders. but in this battle of ideas this is avery, very momentous time in this country. the future you are about to face when you graduate from here is going to be decided in the next few years. this is one of those sort of pivotal times in this country, in our nation's history, where the next few years will determine what america's going to be in the 21st century. and the idea we are fighting over is what i would call t american idea. what does that mean in a nutshell? in a nutshell, according to the declaration of independence, our rights come from nature and god, not from government. very important idea. that means we are a society where the individual is the nucleus of our society, not the vernment. the individual's the nucleus of our economy.
so these are very important principles that we've lost sight of over the years. and this struggle of ideas or of an idea is coming to head. let me give you the fisl effects of this idea. i'm 40 years old. my wife jen and i live in wisconsin, where i'm from, we have three kids. they are 5, 7 and 8 years old. by the time our three kids are my age, the size of this government is projected to be double what it is today. just to pay for what we ha right now. we have taken over the last 40 years, 20 cents o of every single dollar made in america to pay for the federal government. when my kids are my ag we are taking 40 cents out of every dollar. i asked the head of the budget committee what are the tax rates on my kids' generation going to be mid-century, when you are in your peak earning years raising your families, what are the tax rates going to be. they got back to , said well, let us do some math. what the lowest taxpayers pay that's now 10%, that goes 25%. middle income taxpayers will
have to pay 66% tax rate and the top income taxpayers, mostly small businesses, will pay 88% tax rate. in the next sentence, they said this could have some negative effects on the economy at that time. the point i'm trying to say is we have a fiscal train wreck coming in this country. the general accountability office told us three years ago the unfunded liability, the debt that this generation is paing on to your generation was $62.9 trillion. that's more money than we are worth as a people and citizen together. that's more than the gross domestic products of the world, for the most part. well, last year they told us that number went up to $76.4 trillion. know what they told us last week? no, no, that number is $86.6 trillion. that means $88.6 trillion would have to be created and set aside today, invested at treasury rates so the government could continue making the promises it is making to the current generation of retirees, my generation and your generation.
we have a debt crisis coming in this country. there's no two ways about it. the question is do we get ahead of it, do we preempt it, do we prevent that from swallowing us like is happening in europe. you see france, y see young people coming into the streets in their teens and 20s, throwing molotov cocktails, you know. they burnt down a school the other day. they're doing it because the french government is trying to raise the retirement age to 62 years old. young people are taking to the streets before they even started their careers d are protesting having to work longer. they're already thinking about their retirement. think about this. that's not who we want to be in this country. the great thing about this country is whoever you are and wherever you come from, whatever your condition or story is, you can be whoever you want to be. it just takes your own effort, your own god-given talent. what do we want to do. what we are trying to do here is turn this thing around before it's too late. before we have a european austerity debt crisis kind of system. what i mean when i say that is
we want to have an opportunity society with a sound and reliable and sturdy safety net to catch those people who can't help themselves, to catch people who are down on their luck so people can make the most o their lives. we do not want to turn this country into a welfare state which saps and drains people of their incentive and will to make the most of their lives. unfortunately, that is the path we are on. we are on trajectory in this country because of the tax system, because of our debt burden, because of the fiscal train wreck coming, into a federal welfare state. the goal is not only to protect our rights so we can make the most of our lives and promote equal opportunity but the government sees its role and goal as equalizing the result our lives. that's not who we are. that was never who we were intended to be. that is not what our founders created and that is not what our veterans fought for. so this sort of fiscal day of reckoning, this economic realism is here right now. so why we founded this young guns organization s to get people to come to washington, stop trying to be career
poticians, and do what's right for this country so that your generation actually has the kind of tremendous opportunities and potential that us and previous generations had. thank you. >> thank you. he's got his hand on a roaming mike so i'll try and keep it short. first, thank you for coming out tonight. i know that many of you are facing, if not all of you are facing final exams the next couple weeks. believe me, i get it. i've got two teenagers, i've got one at university of virginia, one at university of michigan, both of whom i sent backo school last night and they were complaining every bit. so i guess you could have taken the route that paul did and hang out at the bars tonight, but you came here instead, so we're excited you're here.
but just to try and sum it up to see where we're headed as a new republican majority, i want to say this. we as republicans, i know the room may be equally divided, we as republicans look at this last election not necessarily as an endorsement by the american people, young and old, for republican leadership. it was, in fact, as you heard us all say just now, a repudiation of the direction the public has seen over the last couple years. in fact, i think all of us would ke the case it's not just the last couple years that have turned america off. it is probably the last decade or sohat people have come to the realization that they want to see their federal government working for them again, and it is about delivering results for everybody, for all americans. again, it is not just about republicans being in this spot. democrats are as well. we're all facing some very
difficult choices as far as how we go about focusing this country d what we're going to do,as we assume majority, we will take the will of the people which we feel is less government, focus on job creation, get us back to a point where we can believe in our economic fute as students from your perspective, from working families, from small businesses, every aspect of the society we're in right now is facing a bit of uncertainty. in some cases, a lot more than others. so we see it as our role to try and detangle some of what has happened in this town so we can send a signal that america can lead again. so it's about delivering results, delivering results for you. how many in here are going to be facing the job market within a year? two years? all right. so you are getting close to half
the room, at least. so this decision on taxes will affect you. because it is a certainty connected with the extension of existing rights which will allow small businesses and large the confidence that they need to go about putting money to work. when you deploy capital, you create jobs. en you create bs, it's opportunity for l of you and frankly, for our kids as they come along. d that's the very real nature of what we're doing. now, finally, i would say this. you know, paul and kevin both talked about american exceptionalism, about why we're so different in this country, and some have said in the past well, you ow, we're unique in america just like the british feel they're unique, just like the french feel they are. well, i think that all of us can agree that we have something very special here that does really set us apart, and as paul just said and kevin as well, in
recanting their experiences, it is about being here that has bred what we have seen success-wise, whether it's microsoft, google, facebook or you name it. why is it that those entities have been spun in america and not elsewhere. because we have been a breeding ground for innovation. we have been the country where you can start a business in your garage, five years later make it to be the biggest hit on wall street. that's what america's about. i can tell you from my family experience, and all of us come from somewhere because we are a country of immigrants, my grandmother came from eastern europe and it was there at the turn of the last century that her family decided to escape religious persecution and to come and find a better life. they were lucky enough to make it here, came through ellis island, new york harbor and the rest. but i thk that what separates
her upbringing from my upbringing is that no matter how hard she worked in eastern europe back under the czars of russia, no matter howmart she was, there was only but so far she cod go because of who she was, what religion she practiced, and where she lived. you compare that to what you've got today, you don't have to go to the right schools. you don't all have -- this country doesn't all have to be here at au. that's the beauty of it. you know, you can do what you want to do here and nothing's stopping you. and what we've laid o and talked about tonight is the direction that the government is headed, it's gotten so big, you have such an amassing of capital here in washington, that when decisions are made here, they begin to impact the ability for you to do what you want, because all of a sudden it becomes more important that you know somebody
capitol hill for your business to be successful than it is for you to work hard, play by the rules and expect to t ahead. so all of a sudden, a rational capitalist begins to think wait a minute, need to go fight in washington to gain my competitive advantage. that's what's gone wrong. that's what our congress is hopefully going to be about. it is on behalf of all of you, all americans. whatever political idealogical stripe you come from, we are about trying to make a better economic future for everyone and that's going to take some tough decisions and support from all corners of this country. so we ank au and the kennedy polical program for sponsoring us tonight. i know we will be glad to answer any questions you have. >> hi. my name is elissa.
thank you for being here tonight. my question is with regard to your earlier statement about repealing the health care bill. i have a conditionthat's chronic and has no cure and i will probably be taking pills for the rest of my life. the provisions that are already in the democrats' health care bill involving not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions and for dependents to remain on their parents' health insurance until 25 are the exact same as the health care bill that you republicans have already requested that be passed. so my question to you is by repealing the current health care bill as it stands and starting new deliberations on a bill, it will lengthen the amount of time that these two provisions can be implemented. will you try to preserve these two positions -- sorry, preserve these o provisions as they stand or continue toush for a full repeal of the health care
bill? >> what i think you will see us do is to push for repeal of the health care bill and at the same time, contemporaneously, submit our replacement bill that as you correctly point out has in it the provisions which you speak of. as i said tonight in the interview with greta, we, too, don't want to accept any insurance company's denial of someone in coverage for that person because he or she may have a pre-existing condition. likewise, we want to make sure that someone ofour age has the ability to access affoable care whethert's under your parents' plan or eewhere. so we in our formula have a way to produce those benefits without raising the costs for everyone, and we have put in protection for those such as yourself with pre-existing condition that neither will you have to face exorbitant costs that in fact put you in the
category of uninsured. so we feel we have taken the positions that adequately address those problems but done it i a way that we can preserve what's good about our system without bankrupting this country, which is exactly where the obama care bill will tak us. >> thank you gentlemen for being here today. congressman mccarthy, my question is for you. you have described the senate as the country club and the house as the i-hop and one of the ings you have pushed for -- i's true. >> one of the things you pushed for is allowing all members of congress to have a little more power, like allowing every member to submit amendments to spending bills and giving the change of the political makeup of capitol hill, would you ill support such a move or have you changed your position? >> no. and what you talk about, first, let me tell you what i think. why is one a country club and
one's the i-hop, i guess. it's because it's where the founding fathers created it. we're the revolutionaries. we're all up for office every two years. we should be very reflective of what america thinks because i caput everybodyin, it can throw you out. you just had two big waves. the senate is every six years. what you find from a senator, they get elected then for four years they're off and the founding fathers, it's a little check and balance. you're talking about the pledge to america. we all worked on it. i happen to be the head of it. part of it was we went around listening to america and we sat with a lot of individuals and said how could this building work better, because our belief is politicians don't have power. the people have the power. they put it on loan every two years and they decide whether they want to loan it again. well, how can you, and we wrote this when we were in the minority, how could we guarantee that absolute power doesn't
corrupt absolutely. because i ran in 2006 and when i ran, i ran against the republicans and the democrats. the one thing i found when the republicans were in the majority, you put too much power into leadership and so what we said, and for the last two years, you know, yeah, i'm just a bill on capitol hill you're supposed to go through and you get to the committee and wait and you make it to the floor, then people ca offer amendments. that'sot how it works. goes to the rules committee, for the last two years, no one could offer amendments. they would pick what the amendment could be and they would pick the ugliest amendment and put that on the floor. that was youonly option. we said in the minority what do we think is the best way. we said when it comes to spending, every single person that's sitngin congss got elected about from the same amount of people. we do that every ten years, right? aren't they all the same power, because the people have the power and they loaned it, ght? so we said every single person can offer an amendment on a spending bill.
we take away the power o that leadership to keep it away. what happens then, it's not about republicans or democrats. it's about america, because what happens, the best idea wins at the end of the day. if your idea is so bad you can't sustain an amendment, it doesn't -- it's not worth becoming law. and you know, if you're a political science major and you're thinking you want to be the czar or whatever, you would hate that amendment. but if you were a founding father, an american sitting out there, yeah. that proves the people have the power. we support it then, we support it now and it's going to bece our rule. >> hello. gentlemen, thank you for being here tonight with us. we really appreciate it. my question is directed to representative paul ryan. i just want to know being that there's so much political grid lock in washington today, what's your take on immigration refo
and also, in specific, the dream act that's coming up to the floor fairly soon? >> first of all, this isn't something we should be whisking through in a lame duck session with no committee hearings. didn't we just have an election that said we wanted congress to act with more transparency a accountability? let me first say this is a nation founded on immigration. i'm here because potatoes stopped growing in ireland a number of years ago. this is -- we are an immigrant country. that's a great thing. i believe in manifest destiny. i believe in the melting pot. the way i would proceed with immigration reform is first of all, let's fix the root causes of the problem. i think the dream act, as noble as some of those ideas are, it's two wrongs trying make a right. let's do a border control bill. let's do an employer verification bill so we can make sure that we get at the issue of identity theft because illegal immigration and identity theft are often one and the same thing. let's deal with visas. let's deal with making sure people can find work. let's make sure we have a good guest working progm. let's deal then with much more difficult issue of how to handle
those who are here illegally and do it in a way that does not create an amnesty, that does not reward those who cut in line in front of others. to me, we can do this, it's tough to do this without a lot of emotion but you got to do this in a methodical way that respects the rule of law, that respects the fact that this is an immigrant society, that also respects the policy of assimilation so that we can me foard to try and improve upon the american idea, and moving bills in like this, in a lame duck session without any hearings in congress to treat a symptom without trying to address the root causes of the problem, which dream act flows from, to me is not the right way to legislate. this is a litical move meant to try and jazz people up. there's protesters at my office while we speak right now on this issue. let's do this without all of that. let's do it methodically, let's do it honestly out in the open d let's deal with the root cause of the fact that we have a broken immigration system. that's not fair for immigrants
and citizens. let's make it so that it works so that we can embrace legal immigration which makes our country better. >> thank you. >> hi, congressmen. my name is james connors. i'm from wayne, pennsylvania. thanks for being here tonight. so the 2010 elections just wrapped up and everyone is obviously looking towards 2012. one big candidate that the republicans are looking at is mitt romney. now, as yo know, i'm sure many of you in this room know, mitt romney passed a bill similar to obama care. obama has even said that the architecture of obama care was based on mitt romney's bill. so i'm curious as to how it would work politically if you guys were to repeal the health care bill and then have our presidential nominee be someone who supported obama care. how do you think that would work politically? >> you got to ask mitt romney that question. i don't know who wants to go -- >> again, i don't, you know,
we're going to go about trying to effect health care reform i a way that makes sense focusing first on bringing down cost for everybody. because we believe you bring down cost through promoting competition, giving patients more choices through insurance options as well as the ability to make decisions with their physicians. that's the kind of health care that we know in this country. that's the kind of health care most americans should and do want. so i do think that in the end, that mitt romney probablywould say he did not support obama care, and i'm not familiar enough with the plan in massachusetts to know why it is that that is different but i think, i'm not putting words in his mouth, but he would be supportive of our position when we voted against obama care. i know that. >> i wouldsimply say the mandate doesn't work. this is something we had opposed as part of obama care. what's happening in massachusetts is sort of a foreshadowing of what will probably happen here which is
you don't buy the insurance until you're really sick because then you can buy it without a penalty. what happens then, only sick people actually have the insurance and what actuaries call this is a death spiral. you have sicker people in the pool, pricesgo up, everybody's insurance premiums go up and if the penalty for not having insurance is not as high as actually having the insurance, then you have this problem that manifests itself. that i think is one of the undoing of obama care. this is why the presidential chief actuary, medicare/medicaid services, is telling us obama care will not work. will be bigger deficits, they are telling us it will make health care costs go up, not down. it's not that we just dislike this law because of these mechanical reasons. it's because we believe because all the independent fiscal authorities are telling us it's a fiscal, economic and health care house of cards that will lead to higher health insurance for most people, it will create a massive, massive deficit and debt and it's going to reduce the quality of health care and lead to rationing of health care serves for the elderly with
l these new medicare bureaucracies created in the law. so this law is going to collapse under its own weight rather than watching that happen in a very ugly, slow pace over the next number of years, let's repeal it and replace it with health care reform that works. the point we are trying to make in obama care is you can have affordable health insurance for all americans, for people regardless of pre-existing conditions, without having the government take it over. by having a patient-centered system where the patient and doctor are the nucleus of the health care decision-making system, not the government. that's what we want to get to at the end of the day. >> thank you for coming. there will be a net loss in the number of women serving in the next congress and we are going from having a woman speaker of the house to having fewer women in the majority party's leadership. do you see this as a problem? >> let me try and address that and i will let the head recruiter do it. just to put some numbers out there, we in the republican
conference now have nine new women with us and we will have more diversity in terms of hispanics and african-americans than we've had since i've been here in the ten years that i've been here. so i think your point is one well taken, is that congress needs to look more like america looks. our party, we get and as we are here tonight as founders of the young gun program, part of it was about saying look, it's time for us to find individuals who want to come join us to change the way washington works, not to come to washington for a career but to come here for the right reasons. we also felt very strongly that our party had been pushed into a corner, in many cases warrantedly, because iseemed to be a party of exclusion, not inclusion. and because of that, i think all of us are very excited about the
increased diversity that our conference will have. >> one thing eric touched on, if you look at the class that just ran for the republicans, it was the largest republican class in the history of the republican party. 430 candidates. if you look at people, you have to go through a primary and general. take everybody that s recruited to run, there were more women running than ever before, it was more diverse from nationality than ever before. that was a great start. look at who the freshmen elected, the largest class, 85 freshmen. they elected tim scott to be their representative in the leadership table. we have two freshmen leadership tables, we have never had the freshmen at the leadership table. they have two. they weren't picked because of gender or color of skin, because they were natural leaders inside their freshman class, and to me,
that is a very good sign because you want to look at okay, where we are but where are w going. where we're going, especially with this class, is a much broader party that reflects america. and when you look at who won and where they won, they won from all parts of the country. so that it's not a party that's based in one section of the country. it is really a majority party. ann marie burkel was the last race. we have one more race to be called. in new york, she came from behind. another new republican woman coming through. you go to martha robey. in the book, not to force you to try to buy it, we talk a little bit about this. >> thank you very much for coming, gentlemen. my question is for ngressman ryan. congressman cantor mentioned the difficult choices in deficit reduction. it looks like the bull-simpson commission is going to have a lot of those difficult choices in it. i was wondering if you could
reflect on some differens between that and the road map you proposed? >> sure. i'm on the commission so i'm very familiar with it. with respect to tax reform it's not all that dissimilar. we both agree that you need to broaden the tax base to lower the tax rates meaning if you take a look at all the loopholes in the tax code, they're mostly enjoyed by higher income earners. take the way the loophole you can lower the tax rate on everybody. we agree with that direction. i don't use those procds to raise taxes. they use about $1 trillion in ten years. where the big difference lies is in health care. bolls-simpson basically embraces and furthers obama care. it doesn't do any restructuring around obama care. actually does some things that makes obama care implement itself even re quickly. obviously i have a big problem with that. i go in a different direction. so in response to that, i proposed an amendment to the
process with alice rivling, bill clinton's budget director and vice chairman of the federal reserve under bill clinton. alice is one of the heads of the brookings institution. she's a democrat on the left side of the aisle, i'm republican on the right side of the aisle so we had thelan we proposed as a substitute for the medicare and medicaid reforms. that's something that we're trying to advance in bolls-simpson where we block medicaid to the states to let governors innove and customize their health care programs to meet their stats needs and for medicare which has a $38 trillion unfunded liabili, the biggest fiscal problem we have in the federal government, obama care would actually exacerbate the problems in medicare. we propose for a younger generation, the program work just like what we have in congress, like what federal employees have, where we have a benefit and we can use that benefit to select among a list of private plans competg against each other, exactly like the federal program works. i believe we should means test some of these so the wealthy don't get as much of a subsidy
and help lower income people as they age and people who are sicker. those are the things in the proposal. so that's -- i don't think you're going to get -- you need to get 14 of the 18 votes to have anything pass. at this point, this week it wraps up, i don't see an area where you will get 14 votes for any one of these big ideas. my name is second because i wanted to defer to alice because she's a really cool lady. >> president obama got in trouble recent on "the view" by saying that a 20omething did his tweeting. i'm curious who does the tweeting for your offices. >> did he? >> i tell you a funny story aboutweeting. the tweeting comes from several 20-somethings, but i will say this. i was a tweeter and in fact was
on a codell tweeting and was admonished for tweeting. so in all seriousness, we found lot of success trying to access the likes of all of you students around the country, people who have, you know, sort of really become engaged in the political process, because of the incredible development in technology, whether it's social networking, facebook's provided tremendous ability for us to access folks. we in the whip office, this congress initiated a program called youcut program is very much what itsays, you have the ability to propose cuts to the federal deficit. what we did was we put out five choices every week, if you go to
republicanwhip.house.gov, it's ere right now and you are able to vote on one of the five ways to cut the federal deficit, and then theollowing week, we bring that provision up under thrules to push yet again the emphasis on trying to cut spending rather than grow it. over the last, i don't know, six months or more, what republican members of congress did is they voted for $150 billion in program cuts, deficit reduction, and that's one of the things the pledge of america we said we were going to continue which was every week, we're going to listen to the american people that were on twter, facebook, and the rest who bothered to come to youcut and have their voices heard. well, now well over 2.5 million votes on that program. so twitter and the rest, go get them, because it's been a terrific ride for us and we want to continue that.
our days get busy so i will send e-mails saying tweet this, tweet that, and so that's how we do it. >> hi. thank you for being here. the a.p. had an article over the weekend that said that representative ryan's plan wasn't included in the pledge for america because it didn't do very well in the polls and the focus groups that were used to t the plan -- the pledge together. is that true? >> we didn't poll it or focus group. the reason we didn't put it in there, i will just take it as -- we wanted to put --e didn't want to promise things we couldn't deliver.
with divided government that we have right now, i don't think it's practical to think that this tng could pass with the senate the way it is and the current occupant of the white house. that's why in the pledge, we put out things that we thought we just in control of the house, if we got that, could work on delivering. we didn't want to overpromise things we knew we couldn't deliver. that's why it wasn't in there. we had to get our budget under control and pass a budget that does this, but i for one don't think it's possible given the divided government we have to pass the amendment into law right now. >> paul worked on the pledge with me. the three of us spent a lot of time together probably more than most people want to. paul helped, when we did the pledge when we wrote the preamb preamble. you got to think what the pledge is. the pledge was itten not as a political tool but things we could do in this congress right now that could make the country better, with jobs, with spending, you could say about $100 billion. paul's plan and the road map is
75 years. so i never talked to that a.p. writer so i don't know where they got that. i don't know that paul ever talked to them. but eric talked about the youcut ideas within there. this was a collective body of everybody going through and there were pieces of legislation that could have been brought up before we left congress that would have made the country in a much better place. >> to be shameless in promotion of our book, and i would say all proceeds go to fisher house. none of us make any money on this book. but we have a chapter in the book that talks about and is dedicated to the road ma i think all of us are here telling you we understand the tough choices that we're going to have to make. paul's road map is a plan, the only one that's been out there, frankly, for some time. while there's been lip service paid by others, finally perhaps now we're going to see other
plans come to the fore with alice rivling, simpson-bowles and the rest. >> paul wrote a plan sitting in the minority. since the budget act of '74 passed we always had a budget until this congress. we have a $1.3 trillion deficit and no budget. what happened? they attacked paul because paul laid out ideas. what paul was trying to do, here's an idea, now why don't you lay out an idea and we can start finding where we have common ground. it's hard to do it if only one side does it. if you patake a political scien class, the first thing they tell you is you never put out ideas but we put out outside, we put out the pledge to america with ideas and what happened was they started saying the republicans were no longer the party of no. they actually had ideas out there so they just wanted to criticize the ideas.
>> thank you. thank you very much for coming. in recent years, inequality has been on the rise in america. what step do you or what steps do you as repuicans support to try to lower inequality? >> if i could just take a quick stab at that. inequality i tnk lately has been couched in terms of the disparity of incomes in this country and the rich getting richer and the poor staying where they are or getting poorer. and what i say to that is the only way to fix that is to level the playing field as far as opportunity. you can't sit here and ask washington, expect it to be able to, by waving the magic wand, by writing a big check, you know, on a bank account that's out of money, you can't impose an outcome to say you're going to close the gap on incomes. what we've got to do is be serious about making sure that everybody in america has a fair shot. and what we've seen in our
institutions of late, whether it is the corruption existing at all levels of government, whether it is the scandals that have ripped through wall strt, or whether it is any of the number of things you can pick up reading the paper at any point in this country, people need to be assured they've got a fair shot, that they don't have to know the right people. remember, it goes back to the sense of you can be anything, do anything in this country. so if we're serious about affording everyone opportunity, we talked about health care and how we believe we can do that. we ve talked about job opportunities and how we need to open up the economy again for more optimism and growth. we also have to be very focused on where we are right here, which is education. not only higher education but secondary education. if you really want to know where fair shot is developed, it is to make sure everybody's got access to quality education eay on.
so those are the kinds of things again, long term, these are problems that are going to just get worse if we don't go ahead and make the decision to make priority now to make sure everyone in this country's got a fair shot. >> that's an insightful and important question. there is basically o ways to go at it that we have been struggling with in this country for this and the last century. with respect to inequality. do we believe that the economic pie is fixed and therefore, it's the government's role to restribute the slices more equitably? i would argue that's sort of the prevailing doctrine that's occurred in the last couple years. or do we want to grow the pie so that everybody can increase in their opportunity. that's really a different idea. so what is the aspiration we want to have as a country, then let's go do that. do we want to have this kind of opportunity society where everybody, people who have never seen it before from corners of the country that have never had it before, really have a shot at making the most of their lives.
that's what our policy ought to be designed to do, not taking from some to give to another, but giving people the opportunity to make something of themselves. because if you keep raising e barrier or putting new hurdle or bars by taking from some, then you won't be able to have investment. you won't be able to have risk taking. we want to put a premium on hard work and success. we want people to earn success in this country and enjoy the fruits of theirabor and the rewards. we want more people to get it. that's the kd of society we ought to be striving for. in milwaukee, we have the worst, the lowest african-american graduation rates of anywhere in the country. it's a crime against society. why should we not be giving these poor families who are trapped in these failing schools a voucher to go to a good school so their kids can t a good education. there's things like this that have bee bothering people like me for a long time that we want to do to give people who have never seen opportunity before a chance at opportunity so they can make the most of their
lives. this is not a rob peter to pay paulind of society. this ought to be an opportunity society where we do everything we can, government has a really important role to play in this, to democratize capitalism, decentralize wealth in this country so everybody is an owner. i have been pushing social security reform for years so everybody who is a worker in society is also an owner in society so every person owns a piece of the free enterprise system so they have a stake in the outcome of our society and economy. these are things we can achieve in this country which means everybody can tap and reach their potential. if we think that that idea of america is over, and that it is the job ofovernment now to decide who gets what, when and how, when it comes to health care or income or retirement, then we are simply managing our decline. we are turning ourselves into what you're seeing going on in europe. a welfare society that cannot sustain itself, where we manage our decline. that is not the kind of path we want. let's fi those pockets of
america and there are lots of them, where people don't get those opportunities, where they can't pull themlves u by the bootstraps and they can't get that kind of education they need to get ahd, and let's address those problems. >> my name is benjamin. i'm a freshman here. thanks for coming tonight. i just had a question about bipartisanship. i know myself and all my friends have been frustrated, especially with the recent elections, about how one side accuses theother, especially when it's politically convenient. that comes from both sides of the aisle. i get e-mails from democrats saying those republicans d i know a bunch of republicans including some of yourselves have accused democrats and it goes with political game. i was wondering if you could discuss some of the ways that political or committee appointments and leadership, some of the ways they hurt or encourage bipartisanship and if there's any light at the end of the tunnel you see anyways we can work on smaller bills are
better and kind of come together on ways that actually hp americans instead of the big decisive issues and all that. >> the best way to do is i have a belief that ructure dictates behavior. you either adapt to the structure or you leave. the structure and the way congress worked for the last little bit was dysfunctional and one-sided so you didn't see bipartisansh. part of the thing we did in the pledge was just allowing any member to have an opportunity to offer an amendment so you didn't have to go to rules which is stked nine to five on one side, so one side's always going to win so you always get your amendments, you get none. anybody could bring it up. the idea that bills have to go through a committee and be debated. the idea that a bill has to be out in the public for at least 72 hours. sunshine cures a lot of things. that small structu change within congress right there hopes to start building the bipartisanship.
but i think when you watch this engagement with greta, what if the president says this, what if the presidensays that. we don't know. we haven't been to see the president yet. the first things that we did when we came into office when the president won, you know what we did? we invited the president to our conference. in our conference, we have them every week, okay, and it's all the republicans come and the democrats do their own conference and the president got up, i thought it was a good conference on bo sides. i thought the president was very honest with us, sometimes he would say you know, i disagree with your whole premise or you know, you've got some ideas there, we might work on that. and we weren crazy. we weren't going saying things, you know, crazy about him. we were talking about how to make a better stimulus. know what the president said? we sat there and said let's all work together. yeah, let's work together. know what happened when he left the room? pelosi introduced the bill. so she created a structure that boxed him in at the same time, that he had to make a choice. either he could have saidno, we
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive TV News Test Collection Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on