tv U.S. Senate CSPAN April 9, 2013 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. brass grass i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: madam president, earlier today i met with families from newtown, connecticut, to discuss the legislation that we're currently debating. obviously, for these families that come in that lost these children and also some -- just a minute. madam president, i want to start over again.
the presiding officer: certainly. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: earlier today i met with families from newtown, connecticut, to discuss legislation we're currently debating. and it's obviously very emotional, and it isn't an easy meeting to have, but it is a very necessary meeting to have, when the parents of children that were murdered or when -- i think somebody from a family that teachers were murdered, it is difficult for. i want to thank them for sharing their stories of loved ones and their concerns with me. and i hope many of my colleagues would consider meeting with these families as well because, you know, when they hold up pictures of their loved ones, like each of them -- i think each one of them had pictures of
their loved ones -- it makes it very personal what they have gone through, and here we're debating regulation that they're supporting -- legislation that they're supporting. and in my state of iowa there's a lot of difference of opinion on that particular legislation that we might be considering. but i think it's something that's very worthwhile. to sense firsthand the feelings of these meetings. at the meeting they called for debate on the legislation. right now we're in the process of having debate. and i -- and i imagine we're going to be able to move forward on this legislation. and under new procedures available under senate resolution 15, the majority leader can move to proceed to a measure and to vote on some amendments. a vote against the motion to proceed does not cut off debate
or vote on amendments. under the new procedures in the united states senate. none the less, madam president, we're in the unusual position of being asked to take a leap into the unknown. we're being asked to vote -- to proceed ttoan -- to proceed to n bill. that bill is not to be considered if the motion 10 proceed is successful. the language on background checks would change, it's been my understanding. remarkably, if the language changed, it would be replaced with language that does not now exist. and, of course, the world's greatest deliberative body should not operate in this fashion. in the judiciary committee four bills were considered separately. i think it's fair to say that there wasn't a consensus. three of them have now been
combined, and they're not ready --, but they're not ready for consideration. at the time the sponsor of the background check bill said that it was not ready, that's what he told us in committee, there were numerous problems with that bill, he told us, movement of firearms from one law-abiding citizen to another would be legal or illegal based upon arbitrary distinctions as citizens could not be expected to know. putting people in maybe in an impossible situation. this is true even though when this language was the subject of a hearing in the previous congress, a witness pointed out problems with it. but no changes have been made to address those issues. even an official from the aclu says that criminal laws should give more guidance to citizens. the bill operates in a way that
would make gun safety efforts more difficult. that does not make any sense. the bill requires recordkeeping for private sales. this is a step towards gun registration. indeed, we heard testimony in the judiciary committee that universal background checks cannot be effective without gun registration. and the acluing official is right to be concerned about the threat to privacy that background check language presents. he notes that the government would possess information concerning gun owners that it would not be required to be destroyed within 24 hours as it must be for current background checks. he also points out that the bill contains none of the restrictions in current law that prevent other parts of the government from using the data
base from purposes beyond why the information was supposedly obtained. the background check provision is also not ready for consideration because of the new federal felony that it creates. if a law-abiding gun owner's gun is lost or stolen, he or she would be required to report that to both the attorney general and appropriate local authorities within 24 hours. at the markup i asked a number of questions of the bill's sponsor about how the offense would work. for instance, who would pay for the additional law enforcement personnel who would take those calls? what would a citizen's legal obligation be if the gun were misplaced rather than lost? what would determine when the
loss occurred that started the 24-hour period? 24-hour period in which the gun being stolen has to be reported. the sponsor said that these issues would be clarified. well, so far, however, they have not been clarified. so law-abiding citizens will not know whether they are acting in compliance with the law, and if they aren't in compliance they're going to pay a -- face a five-year jail sentence. the issues have not been claire guide -- clarified but we're asked to proceed to the bill anyway. this new offense, by the way, criminalizes inaction. that is a threat to freedom. because except for filing tax returns or registering for the draft, we punish only bad
actions. we do not punish inaction. this new crime punishes failure to act. and it only applies to those who lawfully own their guns. a criminal whose gun is stolen is not required to report that fact, that that gun could still be stolen. stolen a second time. with this offense law-abiding citizens can be turned into felons, but felons cannot commit a crime. under this new offense, law-abiding citizens might be looking at five years in jail, for what? for just doing nothing. and all that is necessary for the gun to be subject to a reporting requirement is that the gun once moved in interstate
commerce. the supreme court has outlined these categories of situations in which the congress can rely on the commerce clause, and, of course, this is not one of those three categories that the supreme court says congress can do under the commerce clause. if congress can do this, it can make people take all sorts of actions simply because they owned a product that once moved in the interstate commerce. like bread or like soap. and they can face jail time if they do not do what congress demands that they do. even the individual mandate from obamacare only establishes a penalty. it didn't put anybody in prison. i do not think that 90% of americans would support this universal background check if they had a chance to read the
proposals. the motion to proceed also goes to a bill that contains language on straw purchasing and gun trafficking. i -- many changes were made to that bill and they were made at my suggestion. an amendment of mine was adopted. at the time, i still expressed concerns even though i voted to bring the bill to the floor. and i spoke of my desires to have those concerns worked out -- concerns worked out before the bill would be brought up. i said that i would not necessarily support that bill that i voted for in committee on the floor out here if those concerns were not responded to. and they have not been addressed so far. and those provisions were tied to the ever-changing background
check provisions. the whole process makes me wonder whether the effort to pass a bill on this subject really is a serious effort. it seems that if a half-baked bill is brought up, the majority can be sure that they can force republicans not to agree to proceed to it. it seems like that may be just what they want to happen. if so, that is a very cynical way to treat a very serious issue. madam president, how can we responsibly proceed to a bill that contains language that even its sponsor admits is not ready for consideration? i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: i assume we're in a quorum call and would ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you very much. i am back again to speak again about carbon and climate and to
remind my colleagues that it is long past time for us to wake up and to address the causes and consequences of global climate change. carbon pollution is changing our world and it's time that our national policies reflect the reality of that changing climate. we can't pretend that the change is not going to happen when it's actually already happening all around us. air and ocean temperatures are increasing. sea level is rising. oceans are growing more acidic, seasons are shifting. and extreme events like heat waves or powerful storms are becoming both more frequent and more intense. well-established science tells us that these changes are caused by carbon pollution in our atmosphere, mostly from burning
fossil fuels. these changes to our planet will continue and likely accelerate and the consequences will be dire, so we had better be aware and prepared. sometimes even little changes can have big effects. take, for example, the winter flounder in the waters of narrangansett bay in my home state of rhode island. i'm sure the presiding officer's home state has winter flounder as well. well, many of our colleagues won't give a hoot about the winter flounder, but congress always tends to care a lot about money and the winter flounder has historically been a very popular and lucrative catch for rhode island fishermen. in the 1980's, commercial landings of winter flounder averaged more than 2,500 metric
tons per year. and as recently as 1989, it was still over 1,000 metric tons. trawlers were a common sight on the bay in winter and fishermen prospered. well, now the most recent data for 2009 and the commercial landing of winter flounder is down to about 150 metric tons. from 2,500 metric tons down to 150. and today trawlers in the bay are a rare sight. narrangansett bay waters are getting warmer, four degrees farenheit warmer in the winter since the 1960's. and spring is coming earlier. and that is not good for the winter flounder.
noaa scientists working in rhode island found winter flounder incubated in warmer water are smaller when they hatch than those incubated in colder water. smaller juveniles are easier prey when predators return with the warmer spring water. the juvenile winter flounder used to have time to settle to the bottom of the bay and to grow larger before the abundant bottom feeders like the sand shrimp were present. but now warmer water brings the shrimp in earlier, while the flounder are still small enough to eat. so, warmer waters load the dice against winter flounder in narrangansett bakers and the fishermen who rely upon them pay the price, a real price. this is not unique to rhode island. you can go find examples all
over the country. over on the pacific coach ocean acidification driven by higher levels of carbon dioxide in the water is killing off baby oysters as they try to form their shells in the acidified water. again, i don't know how many colleagues care about baby oysters, but oyster farming is a serious cash crop on the pacific coast. an oeus ster hatchery in -- oyster hatchery in oregon has seen 70% to 80% losses of its oyster larvae due to more acidic waters washing in from the sea. it's not just our oceans and coasts affected. in our heartland, rivers and forests are facing the changes that come with the warming climate. the water hyacinths is spreading rapidly across the united states
blocking waterways and choking tphae alternative species -- native species. it has been called the world's worst aquatic weed. it drains water from the drinking and irrigation supply and can clog pumping stations and hydropower infrastructure, costing local economies millions of dollars. water hyacinths can't survive winter freezing but as water temperatures warm, this invasive species spreads further and further. in the rockies, pine beetles are devastating native forests. the pine beetle larvae are killed by hard frosts, and so this kept them in lower latitudes and in lower altitudes where the temperature was warmer. but with global warming and winters not so cold, the beetle
is spreading northward and upward to higher elevations. so, fly over idaho and montana and look down at miles and miles of what was once green pine forest, now standing dead on the mountain sides. these forests provided timber, hunting, clear screams and an entire forest environment for birds and animals. and it doesn't look like there -- they are ever coming back. winter flounder, baby oysters, water hyacinths, pine beetles, these species pinpoint just a few of the many changes scientists are observing in nearly every corner of our country. thankfully we now have the beginnings of a blueprint for
adapting to these changes. last month the obama administration in partnership with state and tribal agencies released its first national fish, wildlife and plants adaptation strategy, an attempt to understand and head off or at least prepare for the changes carbon pollution is beginning to wreak on our country's wildlife, plants, coasts, and rivers. jamie rappaport clark, c.e.o. of defenders in wildlife, called the adaptation plan a science-based commonsense, look-before-you-leap strategy that emphasizes long-term planning and management for climate change on a fundamental level. the adaptation strategy stresses that we need research to understand the specific effects
of climate change on local fish, wildlife, plants and habitat. the faster you're driving, the better your headlights need to be. and it's scientific research that provides the headlights for us to see what's now coming at us. and we are past the point of avoiding what's coming at us. the big polluters have seen to that with their lobbyists and their money and their lies. they have prevented us from doing what we should have. and, of course, congress shares the blame. this institution prefers listening to self-interested polluters than listening to science or the signals of nature. so there's no avoiding it now. the national wildlife federation
now recommends managing for change rather than maintaining status quo conditions and urges that federal land and water management agencies should explicitly incorporate climate change projections into their resource management planning. a coalition of 21 groups, including american rivers, national auto bonn society, physicians for society responsibility, the wilderness society and the world wildlife fund has urged the federal government to account for climate change in all relevant programs and activities. they call this adaptation strategy a landmark strategy for making wildlife and ecosystems more resilient to climate impacts. resilient to climate impacts. clearly they recognize that climate impacts are inevitable. indeed, they're happening. the question is how bad they're
going to be, how much damage we will let the polluters do before we bring them to heal and ourselves to our senses. the natural resources defense council echoed a recent government accountability office finding that our current adaptation planning is inadequate and that this, for those who only care about money, this increases the federal government's fiscal exposure to climate change. a group of ten outdoor enthuse-- enshoes kwrafts -- enthusiasts and sponsorsmen group urged president obama to stand firm on adaptation strategies because
they know we have to adapt. the alarm has long been sounded by the scientific community which overwhelmingly warns about the effects of our carbon dioxide emissions on our atmosphere and oceans. our defense and intelligence communities warn of the threats posed by climate change to national security and international stability. economists recognize the market distortion of overlooking the cost of carbon pollution. and let me say a word of appreciation to former secretary george shultz, who in in "the nw york times" wrote an excellent piece pointing out that this is indeed a market distortion that favors polluting fossil fuels and gives them an unfair advantage against other forms of energy that would do less damage to our planet.
and of course government accountants list climate change as a threat to our fiscal stability. even faith leaders -- faith leaders appeal to our moral responsibility to shield communities and particularly the poorest communities here at home and around the globe from the devastating effects of carbon pollution on god's earth. and now the alarm is sounded by those dedicated to the conservation of america's wild spaces and living creatures. they are warning that thanks to congress's neglect, change is coming to our planet locality by locality. they're warning that we had better understand and prepare for those changes and do what we can to minimize the eventual
havoc. madam president, the american people are not sitting idly by on this. they are demanding action. three-quarters of those recently surveyed by stanford university think the federal government should do something to reduce the effects of rising sea levels. my tphaoupt title gauge -- newport title gauge in my home state in the sailing port of newport is up ten inches since the storm of 1938. when the next big one comes that ten inches will mean a lot of additional damage. americans believe that national preparations for the climate change that's around us will more likely help the economy than hurt it, and they're right. these changes will help the economy. 60% of americans believe that taking steps now to adapt would
actually create more jobs, while only 13% thought it would create fewer jobs. 60% to 13% of americans recognize that the real economic strength that we'll get is by addressing this problem, not by ducking it because of the pressure from the carbon polluters. americans clearly see the benefits of adapting for climate change. and again, for those who only care about money, americans see the economic benefits of addressing climate change. and so, madam president, i will say once again it is time for us here in congress to wake up. we are sleepwalking through history. we are asleep to the urgent demands of our time. so it's time to wake up and
prepare our national strategy to protect our nation's precious resources, protect our coasts and forests and plains, protect our animal and plant life, protect our people and our communities against the inexorable change that looms. i thank the president, and i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
aa quorum call: mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have filed a cloture motion which is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 32, s. 649, a bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm
are listed in the national instant criminal background check for every firearm sale and for other purposes. signed by 17 senators as follo follows -- reid of nevada -- mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask that we proceed to a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 77 and now -- and that we proceed to it now. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 77, expressing the sense of congress relating to the commemoration of the 180th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the united states and the kingdom of thailand. the presiding officer: is there objection?
without objection. the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. mr. reid: i ask at that time resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now ask consent that we proceed to s. res. 94. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 94, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the sinking of the u.s.s. thresher. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid reid: there are two bit the desk. i ask for their first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bills for the first time. the clerk: s. 680, a bill to rescind the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2013 for the department of defense for the
medium extended air defense system and for other purposes. s. 691, a bill to regulate large-capacity ammunition feeding devices. mr. reid: i now ask for a second reading but i object to my own request to both of these measures. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will be read for a second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: madam president, i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business tonight, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, april 10. mr. reid: hayfever isn't something we had in nevada years ago. we have it now with all the artificial stuff they've brought in. but twef bac we have it back hee big-time. it happens every time.
i apologize. this little situation every time about this year. i should say each year about this time. okay. that after we adjourn on wednesday, april 10, that following the prayer and the pledge accident the morning hour be deemed expired -- pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved, time for leaders be reserved, following any leader remarks, the senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to s. 649 and the next hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the first half controlled by the republicans and the second half controlled by the majority. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: this evening, a few minutes ago, cloture was filed on the motion to proceed to the gun safety legislation. unless there's some agreement arrived at tomorrow, we'll vote on this thursday morning sometime. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask
that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until >> there are so few good books out there. explained how did they go about this? how do they describe these cases? one of those things can we see these cases that split the
court. what did he really think? to the personal feelings get into it? it's about not just about capital punishment it's a book about how the court operates. >> when you dig into the notes, the memoranda, the notes back and forth between justices that are available, a lot of stuff is available, you at least, i'm not a lawyer. but i was just fascinated by the human side. in many cases justices have reservations about capital punishment. >> martin clancy and tim o'brien on the capital punishment cases that have defined the supreme court sunday night at nine on afterwords, part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. weekdays fiction live coverage of the u.s. and. on weeknights watch key public
policy events. every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and data schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> rose gottemoeller says the nuclear threat facing the world is a weapon falling into the hands of the terrace. she participate in one of the panel discussions at the carnegie endowment for international peace nuclear policy conference in washington. this is about an hour and 20 minutes. >> hello out there. we're going, we're going to begin. the great news for which we are grateful is that they're such a large group here for the entire
conference. that also means that people will tend to wander in, and the same time we want to try to stay on schedule so that we can present all of the content that we have. it's my pleasure to moderate this session where we have three truly outstanding experts, colleagues and officials. we call it -- in many ways you could call it the npt agenda for the future of the nuclear order. the theme that president obama laid out in the speech almost exactly four years ago were also themes and objectives in the npt review conference action plan. they are the things that anybody who is concerned about nuclear stability, nuclear order,
nuclear energy development, the objectives he would have to wrestle with. so whatever the label is we wanted to start off the conference after the great session that the director general of the iaea, by focusing on perspectives from the three states that arguably will determine in a sense the pace of the implementation of many items on the agenda here in the nuclear order. russia, china and the united states for obvious reasons, and perhaps not so obvious reasons. really will create the necessary conditions for the progress, if not the sufficient conditions, on nuclear disarmament, on nonproliferation, including in
the role in the u.n. security council, but also the role in the nuclear suppliers group, the nuclear fuel cycle in many ways, and nuclear industry where russia and china are perhaps the countries with the two most ambitious plans for further development with nuclear energy. so these three countries are absolutely indispensable and their cooperation is going to be necessary for progress, and so that's why we want to have such insightful speakers as rose gottemoeller, alexei arbatov and general yao yunzhu here to address you. now, i should say from the very beginning that two of our colleagues are acting officials from the government, rose and general yao. that means that among other people they report to the president. which also means if i get tempted to ask a question that i should their president would be
the only one who could answer, you should stop me. and if others want to ask questions like that, i will try to avoid away and stop you in the sense that we want to the discussion about key dynamics and analytic issues, but there are certain questions about will the u.s. bomb north korea, that rose is probably not going to answer. >> that is correct. [laughter] >> or else she won't be here by the end of the session. and so we want to keep all of our panelists here the entire session, and so, you know, have that understanding. lastly, by way of preliminary comment, i personally especially really appreciate that we get to do this conference in english. because i would suffered enormously if we didn't. as toby mentioned earlier we have people from 46 different countries here, which is
fantastic. it also means that especially for panelists and speakers, for whom english isn't their native language, nuance can sometimes be difficult and tricky. so i'm going to try to speak slowly. then when we opened the discussion i will ask you all so to speak slowly. because it is arduous to be trying to have a nuanced discussion on complicated topics in your non-native language. now, with those introductory remarks let me start by asking just quickly each of our panelists to give a sense of whether since 2009 you feel like there's been progress kind of in total on meeting the objectives in the nuclear agenda, whether the ones laid out by president obama or the npt action plan in
-- are we making progress? are we going backwards? are things about the same as they were for years ago? let me start with rose. >> thank you george, and thank you very much for this opportunity to be here with my two colleagues, both alexei arbatov from carnegie moscow center and also with general yao, who i've had the pleasure of visiting at her academy in beijing, and talking with some of her very impressive graduate students and postgraduate students. so it's a real honor and a pleasure to be here on the stage today. george, you're talking to negotiate of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, so honestly i do feel we've progress over the past four years. i will say that quiet progress, new start has been in implementation for two plus years, and we've had a great i would say success story but a quiet success story in the way
the verification regime has taken shape and has come together. that is not only the inspections, what do senator lugar always used to call the boots on the ground that are so important, but the fact that we have created a real-time day in day out mode of communication between and among our strategic forces. we have exchanged over this point over 4000 notifications. every time we move one of our bombers for greater than a 24 hour period, we have to notify. anytime the russians take an icbm out of a silo and senate to a maintenance facility, they have to notify. so as a result we have not let the database that gets exchange every six months but we have a living picture, a day in day out real-time picture of what is going on in our strategic forces. and that's at the heart of it is what arms control is all about, to have that mutual predictability, that mutual confidence that leads to an
enhanced stability relationship. so i do feel we've made enormous progress on new start alone in the last four years, but in addition to that i would say that we need to take a good look at the action plan for the npt review conference. and i can say there, too, we have made significant progress. have we done everything we wanted to do? no, but next week i'm heading off to geneva to take part in the fourth conference of the p5 getting together, not only china, russia and the united states, but also france and the uk, to talk about where we go from here, what the overall stability environment looks like, and what steps we need to take to eventually get into some multilateral arms control negotiations. so i do think that what i see in terms of the richness of the discussion and the riches of the relationship among the p5, that itself has been greatly enhanced
over the last four years. i know we will have other opportunities to talk about accomplishments so i think i will just leave it there for the moment. >> alexei, are we going backwards or are we neutral? >> first of all, thank you for inviting me. it's a great pleasure. and honored to be here again. i agree with what rose said about accomplishments of the last years. however, the prospects are quite foggy come in this is a serious problem. in particular, as far as nuclear disarmament is concerned. bad news is that relations between russia and the united states is at its lower point since the end of cold war. good news is that difficulties are not blurred by friendship between our presidents. [laughter] so we are able to address the
issue in a businesslike manner. >> correct. >> the main problem is that the old paradigm of arms control is ended. since the great speech of robert mcnamara in 19 succeed seven in san francisco, we operated on the common basis of strategic stability, which was formalized in the joint declaration of 1990. and which put forward some important principles. what was this paradigm? stringent limitations on territorial ballistic missile defense. emphasizing survivable of strategic systems. reducing the ratio of warheads to launchers.
putting aside the question of certain nuclear weapons day. disregarding conventional systems which may affect the balance, conventional systems. well, the public exchange international relations are very different. technology is changing, and apparently during the last 20 years, russia and the united states have moved very far away from each other in their understanding of strategic stability. without discussing the issue head-on. for example, united states no longer considers territorial defense, ballistic missile defense as destabilizing. russia does not consider new liquid fuel at the missile as destabilizing. united states does not consider boost glide precision guided as
destabilizing. russia does not consider air defense which it is developing as destabilizing. but we are not discussing this issue. after the successful conclusion of new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, we have been talking on the issues of nuclear did terrence and the future -- nuclear deterrence. i think this is a very serious problem. the treaties that rose and their russian counterparts concluded in 2010 was probably the last concluded on the basis of the old paradigm. in the future the problem of moving forward with strategic nuclear arms reduction is not confined to the issues within the balance of offense of nuclear forces. i would say that this is the
least of our problems. if we were discussing a vacuum it would be very easy to go for a new treaty, giving the ceiling down to 1000 or below. however, the main problems are lying and adjacent areas, and those will be serious issue, very difficult issue to resolve. ballistic missile defense. conventional precision guidance systems, tactical nuclear weapon, third nuclear weapon states, how, whether we should count them, should take them into account. all those issues will be agenda of the future. and i think that to start really talking about it would have to start, and i'm using the opportunity of rose, very well-known expert i being here,o start talking with russian counterparts about the new, understanding strategic ability but we have to develop new
understanding of strategic stability. so it is new reality but it's not blurred. it is diluted so much it does not serve as a basis of concrete negotiations in the future. >> thanks, alexa. let me ask general yao just to pick up on alexei's point in the sense of u.s. has proposed and urged with china that would like to discuss and explore strategic stability, but i don't think there's a mutual understanding of what is meant by the concept of what is intended yet in strategic stability, and that innocent is what alexei was saying, the definition and objectives have changed. the element of the problem have change. so when you think about the nuclear agenda going forward, is
understanding the challenges of strategic stability the key next step that is required, or is there something else that can be done, even if there's not a kind of cooperation and understanding of strategic stability? >> thank you. first, i have to say -- [inaudible] >> okay, try again. >> hello? i don't know what happened. >> keep talking. i will give you mine if it doesn't work. >> i wish is going to say it's much better all the way around. i can count on -- >> i can shout. >> no, no. spirit first i have to say i'm very humbled and totally --
sitting here together with colleagues from the united states and russia. because the united states and russia are the two, by far, biggest nuclear power in the world. and actually i don't know why i am here. [laughter] china is, china has a very small nuclear arsenal, and china has adopted a no first policy for many, many years. but to be frank, i think china does have something to contribute to advance the cause, and i think it's a noble cause, proposed by president obama during his, in his nobel peace
prize speech in prague. for the last four years, i think that's some potential progress made in reducing the role of nuclear weapons in national security strategies of united states. for example, the release of -- [inaudible] -- in 2010. the nuclear summit, nuclear security summit, the npt, the signing of the new start, and the ongoing p5 mechanism to talk about nuclear issues. looking to the future, i don't
think that united states and russia both have to do at least one or two drones -- two rounds of negotiations to further reduce their nuclear arsenal before the other smaller nuclear weapon states should join in a multilateral disarmament process. and i agree with alexei that bmd and some other things should be included in the further disarmament talks. and also, i think the further reductions should also include both strategic and nonstrategic
nuclear weapons. and both deployed and undeployed, stalled nuclear weapons. so far, the question posed by george, strategic stability. between russia and the united states, i think the strategic stability between those two nuclear superpowers are still very much cold war, but strategic stability between china and the united states come and between china and russia are quite different. china tried to have strategic stability with the united states on the highly -- basis.
and china has for a long time reduced, kept very, very minimal, small role for nuclear weapons in its national security strategy. so i think it's totally different. it's totally different, but the current development, especially the deployment of nuclear disarmament system in east asia would be in chinese eyes, would be a very, very disturbing factor. having implications for the speculation of china's nuclear and strategic arsenal. >> thank you, general. you actually, you raised a
question that i was going to come back to, so let me just ask you again and we will work our way, we will work our way back. you talked about the need for one or two further rounds of u.s.-russian reductions. and yet, when one talks to people in washington or moscow, they say, well, we can't come down much further without knowing where china is going. and there's an argument that if the u.s. and russia go much further, then china will use that as an opportunity to build up much more. some people even say that china already has many more nuclear weapons than is commonly discussed. so i guess one of the questions is, what are, is it necessary then for there to be some
greater understanding soon about china's intentions, or the limitations of china's arsenal if the u.s. and russia were to come down further? do you understand the question? >> doesn't work? [laughter] >> can you hear me? [laughter] thank you. thank you. i think there are, chinese president hu jintao spoke in 2009 at the u.n. security
meeting. he made the promise that while the conditions are appropriate, all the other nuclear weapon countries should join in unilateral -- multilateral unilateral process. so what are the conditions? [inaudible] because right now the two greatest, largest nuclear powers you have more than 90% of nuclear weapons in the world. and i think it should be further goes down too much, much lower level. at the same time all the other smaller nuclear weapon states should promise, i think china can promise that china, china has promised that china will not go into arms race.
any other nuclear weapon states. and china, by that, i think china at least means china will not seek parity with the two superpowers. you were wildly off, and china will not seek nuclear superiority. and there's also some discussions around the p5 agreement of reporting form to the npt in 2015, to report the arsenal on the number of warheads, the current arsenal, the nuclear material and also the weapons that has been dismantled.
so, you imply actually that china has maybe a much larger arsenal than some experts that, that ministry experts think that china might have some 3000 missiles, warheads, somewhere in the mountains or in the tunnels. so when i read that, i cannot help feeling amused. i'm amused by the imagination, and also, and also by the approach that such -- like assumptions have been taken so seriously. i know that the most recent
national defense authorization act, which was signed into law in early january, requested the commander of the strategic command to submit a report by 15th of august, to evaluate such assumption. and also to evaluate the nuclear conventional capabilities of the united states, to try to find out whether the u.s. conventional and nuclear capability can deal with this under title network -- under tunnel network. ..
table for good interaction. if you want to come in on the spine, let's do it because there's a number of issues that affect the willingness to take next steps. >> with all due respect, of course we will be waiting for american ss. [laughter] but it would be much more helpful if china denies the official theater because without the talk of china having animal capability for restraining our priority, this is just talk of minimal capability. in maybe 200, 400, 1000, still
much smaller. but the range is quite vague and a range of assessments of chinese forces, total nuclear floors from 300 to 900 deployed forces we now can you dismiss them with imagination. china should tell us why the second artillery is building such a huge tunnel. so i think china should play a more active part. it will have very strong ground to affect the future once controlled. i think we could make another
step forward, but i doubt we could move much further beyond that because what we are having an agreement, it is usually an agreement for 10 years or so. 10 years is a long time. china with its enormous production capacity during those 10 years could load of forces to several times its single warhead missiles, yet provide that the united states did, very quick increase in nuclear capability. said china is the only country which could build up quickly to the level in the united states in the years of 10, 15 years. which could affect the global balance. israel, pakistan, india, north
korea for different reasons cannot do that. china is the only serious factor and i am talking about that not trying to create an impression of chinese threat. i want to create an impression of importance of china. not only in politics, not only in peacekeeping operations, but arms-control china should become much more to move things forward, which are presently stalled because of russian-american controls. >> let me read burroughs, -- let rose comment. >> i know you want to have conversation back and forth, so turned to my colleague, alexei, and say please type dear colleagues in moscow and say we
want to come back to the table. we do have an enormous agenda. i agree with you on that. i cannot discount that agenda at all. coming back and sitting down before you is not coming from the u.s. side. as to the issues you raise, it is very important to say these are two pretty issues in the particular context. yao arty type about these. when you talk about a bilateral interaction between russia and the united states, we are interested to understand what rush is thinking today about the development of capable, long-range systems because we see them emerging on the russian side as well.
there is an enormous value in engaging on the broad agenda strategic stability topics and we need to get back to this discussion sooner rather than later. just to say a short comment on general yao presentation that we talk about are quite important in an overtime will develop the kind of relationship in the fabric, the agenda among the five. we've been working on that very, very hard and we hope that it will lead to lower mutual transparency, but also transparency for the entire npt community and the world as a whole and will push the rock
uphill. it's not exciting, but it's exactly the type of agenda item we need to work on. i want to give full marks to beijing and the word they've been doing. they've taken on responsibility for working group on nuclear terminology. you think how boring, but when you sit on a table together and talk about how to define nuclear terms, you end up beginning to develop more mutual understanding, a discussion about how to define nuclear deterrent will have enormous value in terms of providing mutual understanding and creating the fabric for multilateral negotiations on point in the future. these are all very, very important aspects. they don't set out for big
public displays, but nevertheless i will say there is a considerable mindedness about how to proceed in this regard. one thing i would say to say unless they mention bob mcnamara from 1967, this is the 50th anniversary at american university. it launched not only the negotiation of a test entreaty accomplished in record time, but also that several years later to the negotiation of the non-proliferation treaty. and who does not remember john kennedy's word at that time but if it weren't for a successful npt process, we would have many dozens of nuclear states around the world. all of this during this conference remember the successes as well as the serious
problems we must confront in continuing to implement it. >> i do agree china should take a more active role in this process. i want to respond to the suggestion that china should be amazed nuclear capabilities. i have to say china has been very, very transparent on the nuclear intentions. china has a very small arsenal. and it's complaint being to have
a small arsenal and also to adopt, especially if you have a small hours of all, you should've taken a new option to reserve the right to strike first. you should have a large ours and all. so china's ours that all has to satisfy three requests. first it must be small. msb second straight. third, mst terror. how do we do all these things with a small arsenal? first, china has to have a survivable nuclear arsenal. maybe it had found relation with
the panels. the united states have panels. panels are to increase survivability of a very small arsenal. they have to a penetration, capabilities because after army strikes, the small arsenal must have much to strike back and china's arsenal has to be -- has to deter. they have small uncertainty, not transparency to deter.
a certain amount is an integral part of china's policy. >> i'm going to invite people to start moving into the questions session and always plenty of time. that may ask why you are doing a transitional question, which has to do with extended deterrence. in the u.s., a lot of the pressure as it were, in light of the need for the arsenal in for nuclear policy now is an extended deterrence, both in northeast asia, but also in europe and some call for the value to be enhanced in the middle east.
my question is more for alexei. people would argue extended deterrence help make proliferation less likely so it's important for non-proliferation. in destabilizing. is that you accepted enough that it's not an impediment going further with reductions or will the deterrent issue interfere with the overall implementation of the reduction agenda? >> extended deterrence is not a homogeneous notion. you may say that we may use nuclear weapons in case our allies are attacked with nuclear weapons. another kind we may use nuclear weapons if our allies are attacked with conventional
weapons. the first type of deterrence is one of the major differences in military doctrines, where we may use nuclear weapons if russia is attacked with conventional forces. it doesn't say that with regard and made the threat with weapons of mass destruction. the experience shows this country is reliably covered by assurances didn't go nuclear. of course great britain transferred undiscovered by nato
but went nuclear. otherwise for japan, south korea didn't do that. israel has never had reliable commit ends in the form of treaty. in principle, yes, but it's not an absolute guarantee. it's not an issue without exception as history showed. now we see rising moves both in japan and south korea to come back again and to see whether they should go nuclear with what they're facing across the state. >> leave a planning planning session tomorrow to south korea who will talk about this. extended deterrence in a sense is stabilizing.
>> i think the united states should be a nuclear rise with deterrence because the allies that the united states still made the nuclear component. maybe some asian allies and japan still has a nuclear component. i have some different views about it. in most cases, the threat mission, d. p. r. k., but only a
and i notice that japan from going nuclear. on the other side it is humiliated are motivated to bp arcade to look there. they frequently mentioned to me that we want to nuclearization of the korean peninsula they are, the nuclearization means to nuclear attack is not a nuclearization. >> i just say one thing before we go to the floor? we had this process going on and
implementation study is still being completed, but one of the basic principles that the nuclear posture review is to less than the role of nuclear weapons in u.s. national security strategy to reduce that role. that's been one of the basic guiding principles. there's been another principle to continue to have a strong deterrence relationship where we had those responsibilities. something that reminded me in the position of those principles and that is the extended deterrence does have many passes to it. it's not only a nuclear extended deterrence. it's also comprised of other military and policy resources. so i do think that is an
important point and the point the general yao made reminded me of that and i just wanted to reflect comment. >> please. >> well, extended deterrence is important for alliances, but it should not necessarily rely on nuclear weapons located on the territory of allies. american technical nuclear weapons was withdrawn under security didn't suffer. maybe it is suffering because of economic problems, but not because this has weakened the security and russia. so i think the commitment are much more dependent on foreign
policy priority and who are the partners, who are the enemies. those are the strongest foundation for reliability of commitment and including deterrence. >> they deterrence should be nuclear rise. there's no need to have a nuclear component in extended deterrence. i think the u.s. policy should make it clear because the npr didn't make it clear. >> i would just say as we are meeting here to disarmament initiative is meeting in the hague i believe in that initiative, which involves 10
middle powers basically has emphasized the importance of nuclear weapons in seven of the 10 allies that the u.s. rely on extended nuclear deterrent. so the broader point being it is just as well have received the extended nuclear deterrence to also wrestle with these policy issues and what they expect of the u.s. and whether they can do that without a nuclear component. it is happening in washington. it is a discussion the allies need to be involved in an needed to be invited to be involved in by others. but let's turn it over to you all that will start baby first and then come back down.
please say who you are and where you're from. you know the deal. >> i'm at the office of secretary of defense at harvard university. i have a question -- [inaudible] >> you stated that china does not seek nuclear parity with the u.s. and russia and this is not with a lot of skepticism. and what ways is china seeking to become a superpower with regard to its defense? if it's not nuclear parity? >> he said china doesn't want to seek nuclear parity, but a lot of people are skeptical about that. in what would it be a military supervisor? >> china does not peek as a
military civil power. >> the question is basically -- [inaudible conversations] >> in this town, people think we come down -- [inaudible] >> said china has capability now to the reduce the nuclear weapons as they produce issues that close. china can catch it very, very fast. china has producing for 20 years
almost consistent. it's consistently small. if china has been producing nuclear weapons, by now it's the largest nuclear power in the world. >> how many a small? [laughter] >> at the minimum level, to, to retaliate against any strike against china and what is the retaliation capability. china wants to have a potential
adversary as certain, whether it could wipe out china's arsenal in the first disarming straight. >> thank you for clarification. to be continued. [laughter] >> tom coin-op arms control association. thanks for being here. general yao, i think it's great you been on the panel is your answers are eliminating. i've a question for you and mr. arbatov. as the missile defense policy thing is going to cancel the european missile defense deployment and at the same time in the next few years at additional intercept various into the west coast appointment in alaska. i'm wondering how you personally in your governments feel for the
stability of an russia and china would feel about that. and how that's been received in your countries. thank you. >> eisai howitzers seethed in china and she can say how it was reviewed in russia. >> i would not tell about china. i'm not in the position to speak. and russia, you know the official position. at first it was quite reserved. then that was a little bit more flexible and there were some
signals that it was accepted. and russia that now the prospects are about the header and does not resolve fundamental issue of legally binding. this sense is not against russia and so on and so forth. what is below the water? does and russian strategic community and agencies who are sincerely concerned and scared by american ballista miss those. this gave a sigh of relief. those who were not concerned, but pretended to be concerned that his art irritated by this new complication.