tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 7, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
every election cycle we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. he's been is a vehicle and powering people to make good choices. it is like getting a seven-course five-start meal of policy, and i sound like a nerd there. >> c-span is a home for political junkies and track the government as it happens. staffers have a television on their desk is been is on. >> i urge my colleagues to vote for the cement. my colleagues will say i saw you on c-span. >> and get the history of something like grain elevators in pennsylvania or landmarks. >> good morning.
>> is so much more that c-span does to make sure that people outside the way know what is going on inside it. >> i am proud to announce -- >> i am especially running -- >> for president of the united states. politics,r who covers and for so many of my stories, c-span has been part of my research, providing you with insight about people. makeshiftre so many within the blogosphere, and all these policy areas get covered. >> how many nuclear warheads does the russian federation had aimed at us? >> and do the decision-making. >> house meetings, senate meetings. >> good morning, everyone.
phone lines are open. >> you never know what you are going to get. >> you are right -- and i am your mother, and i disagreed that all families are like ours. thatnot know many families are fighting at thanksgiving. >> live coverage of the 32nd annual miami book fair. "book tv." >> caller: caller becomes weekend c-span american history tv. >> whether we are talking about a congressional hearing or an area of history -- there is so much information that you can convey. weather at the capitol
pour on the campaign trail, they have a camera. inside the chambers, inside the conversations on capitol hill. you cannot find that anywhere else. >> i am a c-span fan. >> i am a c-span fan. >> yes, i am a c-span fan. >> and that is the power of c-span, access for everyone to be worked of the conversation. ♪ >> arms control and nuclear proliferation from the conference that offered advice to the next u.s. president on america's rol.e. school ofndiana international studies.
>> challenges and strategies. we will look at the challenges the united states has faced up to now, and the degree to which these measures have exceeded or failed. we will also look at new challenges that the next president will face and how he with them.t be spechler. assembleduld not have are fortunate that they had agreed to participate.
becausee brief introductions could go on for maybe an hour. here, senator richard lugar. senator lugar represented indiana in the senate from 1977 to 2013. he is the longest serving senator from indiana. he chaired the senate committee , and wasn relations the ranking member ever since 2007. much of his work has been devoted to the challenge of dismantling nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. lugar this end, senator worked with senator sam nunn of time, chair at the
of the armed services committee which became law in 1991. i would say this is an exceptional piece of of bipartisanship. whoseated an institutional purpose was to secure and dismantle weapons of mass destruction's and their associated infrastructure in the state of the former soviet union. and there were many other accomplishments. resultedtion program in the d activation of 7500 and warheads and the discretion of more than 500 of icbm's. senator lugar was instrumental in gaining approval of the last nuclear weapons treaty with russia. the so-called new start treaty
of 2010, which reduced the number of deployable strategic professor --ns to hecker is the senior fellow of stanford university's center for international security and cooperation. 19 97, heuntil directed the loss elements national laboratory, which i have that chief mission of ensuring the safety and reliability of the american nuclear arsenal. withssor hecker has worked russian nuclear laboratories to secure the stockpile of nuclear
materials that russia inherited from the soviet union. he has written a book on the history of cooperation. "the history of cooperation of russian and american laboratories from the fall of the soviet union." his research deals with the problem of reducing the risks of nuclear terrorism worldwide and that challenge of nuclear india, pakistan, north korea, as well as aspirations of iran. professor hecker has made important contributions about nuclear issues. recent ones that caught my attention included an article called "stop killing iran's nuclear scientists." potter is the same
non-and richard lugar professor of nonproliferation studies and the founding director of the james martin center for nonproliferation studies at the monterey student of international studies. professor potter served as a consultant to the u.s. arms control and disarmament agency, the rand corporation, and the lawrence livermore national laboratory. professor potter is a prolific author. athas written or co-edited least 20 books and has contributed articles to more than 120 scholarly books and journals. subjects such as nuclear terrorism, nuclear arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and nuclear issues involving the states in the former soviet union, especially the russian federation. he is an exceptionally well informed researcher.
his writings regularly when i deal with issues dealing with nuclear weapons and proliferation. dr. georget least, perkovich, vice president for the carnegie endowment for international peace, an organization devoted to promoting international cooperation and engagement by the united states. this is one of the world's most influential think tanks. his areas of research include nuclear strategy and nonproliferation issues. book published in 1999 shortly after india's test of a nuclear device. recently, dr. perkovich has published a monogram on the subject of abolishing nuclear weapons.
he works to educate the american public on nuclear issues ./ articles almost always make their way on to my syllabus. he co-authored a portion of a study last summer which was one of the most impartial and objective analyses i have encountered. this highly controversial deal. i would say this is a study designed to help leaders make up their own mind, not telling them how to think, and what could be better for the classroom? been,vious panels have somewhat unusual for an academic conference. i have been asked to make introductory remarks, and instead of asking the panelists to offer comments, i mandate is
to engage the in a conversation, which i will do on a variety of issues related to nonproliferation and arms control. hopefully have a half hour at the end for russia's of those of you in the audience, and i see some u.udents here at i. i will give each panelist an opportunity to make any concluding remarks. there has been no development that has posed a greater threat to american international security than the actual potential spread of nuclear weapons. the international community has taken significant steps to deal with and address this threat. i would say we could debate
this, but i would say the first and foremost of these steps was the nuclear nonproliferation treaty which went into effect in 1970. this treaty limited the states authorized to possess nuclear weapons to the five that possessed them at the time the treaty was opened signatures, and provided for international inspection of the nuclear activities of all of her states that aspired to maintain a nuclear program for peaceful purposes. 191 countries are now party to that treaty. steps wastant reason the launching in 2003 of the proliferation security initiative, a global effort to stop the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems to and from both states and nonstate actors.
initiative has done is supported by more than 100 states, and by extension number. we have had a series of bilateral russian and american arms control agreements, the last which was signed in 2010, that have helped our view to ,urb nuclear proliferation first by reducing the number of weapons and the amount of tosile cereals available those who would like to acquire them, and this has reduced her subtle proliferation. and these control treaties reduced what has been called vertical proliferation, larger and larger, more and more dangerous arsenals by existing nuclear states. the corporate of threat
reduction program, which senator lugar was so important in establishing, has made a profound contribution by reducing and securing nuclear weapons and materials. important as these steps have been, the world is far from secure from the threat that some of these weapons might be used. moreover, the challenge inherent in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seen to be increasing rapidly. if we just take that time of president obama's tenure in office, we witnessed the following highly troubling developments. i hesitate to use precise of thisin the presence expert panel, but i will take the plunge and say according to one estimate by the summer of last year iran had reached the time it would the
take for them to finish a was only twoad months. office,bama's time in north korea expelled nuclear inspectors from its country, tested three nuclear devices, including one it claims to be a hydrogen, and have conducted tests of a missile which they claim is capable of hitting the united states. during this time, i understand acquired fissile israel for more than 200 nuclear weapons and block negotiation of a proposed fizzle material cutoff treaty that would ban the production of any more fissile materials for nuclear weapons. it also failed to prevent taliban-linked groups from military targets, some of which are located near important
nuclear facilities. iraq, the assad regime in the islamic state were using chemical weapons, crude ones, despite assad's claims to have destroyed all of those on syrian territory. in belgium last week, the government revealed its concerned that the islamic state was wanting to it nuclear material from its facilities, which have a history of severe nuclear theft. surveillance footage of a top official was found in the apartment of a suspected islamic state militant. two employees at another belgian nuclear facility travel to syria, where they joined isil, and is a terrorist network that carried out the recent attacks in paris and brussels may have been planning some kind of operation at a belgian nuclear
facility, possibly one that uses highly enriched uranium. president obama is concerned. tomorrow he will be opening the fourth nuclear summit in washington, and this gathering of world leaders will focus on the subject of securing nuclear materials. these are just a few of the kind of challenges the next president will need to confront, and it is not meant to be an exhaustive list. i expect our conversation will explore some of these issues, and without further ado, let me sit down and begin posing some questions to our panelists. what i would like to start with and you have -- you have been working on the problem of securing nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for two and a half decades at least. how is the international community doing with regard to
this issue in your opinion? just that problem being addressed and promising ways, and if so, how? mr. lugar: without going to the 1986ry, let me say that in president reagan felt that after a meeting in reykjavik that there was a possibility that the united states and the former soviet union i begin arms control negotiations. 16 senators, about eight republicans, eight democrats, go to geneva. he was wise because a treaty would require a 2/3 majority. i was selected as one of those, as was sam nunn, who became my partner for a long while in this, but also bob dole and senator byrd. we met with a lot of russians. it was an instructive experience, educational for all of us. this is not to be in 1986.
we were not close really. it took several years. during that time, sam non-and i visited with a number of russians we had met, and we heard stories about the deterioration of the former soviet union. it was not a total surprise that when 1991 came that a group of these russians came to sam's office. we met at a roundtable, and is the doves, you folks will have problems because the people that are guarding the missiles on which the warheads are located, those folks are deserting in good numbers. they are not getting paid. as a result, some of those weapons might the unguarded and it could be an accident. there could be a firing, inadvertently. this came after the so-called 40 years of mutually assured destruction.
thought there was that the united dates and the former -- united states in the former soviet union each had close to 10,000 nuclear war heads, enough to cover every military installation in either country. and likewise, those of our major cities. as a young mayor of indianapolis for eight years, i had no idea that a couple of those weapons were aimed at indianapolis and could have obliterated the place. none of us understood that. and you are asked how things moved, they moved from a time in which i was shocked when i went down into a pit where they pulled a missile out in siberia. wheret the bottom of that the guards were located were pictures of american cities. i asked, was indianapolis one of the targets, and yes, it was. the reduction act,
bipartisan situation that lasted through four or five administrations, it has been suggested at least 7500 warheads aimed at the united states have been removed from the soviet union and the missiles that would fire them. and correspondingly, we have reduced on both sides. this is still a lot of material aimed at each other, but still 1500 is a big difference in unfortunately, the situation came to a conclusion in june 2013. i went to russia in 2012 trying to plead that we need to keep , and they said sure, but the war office said no. they said we are tired of you folks. that was one story, huge amounts, potential destruction of countries, including our own.
now we are at a different point as this nuclear security summit in washington starting tomorrow. a lot of the discussion will come down to things much more like what you have described in belgium recently. i do not want to skip over everything intervening, but nevertheless, the fact is in attack, during the last to belgians wisely shut down powerions that were stations, dismissed all the employees, and so why would they do that? because at least in previous weeks they found that there had been two employees at one of these places that had gone to isil and there was a real problem that there could be out there at these stations people that were not very loyal to the
belgian government and could create more of a problem than had already occurred there. many people taking a look at this summit are saying we are at a point where you can count major nations that have warheads and this is that enough. now we are at the terrorism stage. the extent to which people are able to get radiological material, the point to which some terrorist might try to create so-called dirty bombs, some radiological material that would not create a nuclear explosion, but maybe render a whole square mile of new york city uninhabitable. too type of situation is frequently discussed and comes hout much of an answer. what is to be the answer of this conference?
is there going to be in new international organization, and agreement, or will it be more than an inspection situation internationally that is respected by all nations involved? i would conclude by mentioning and the nuclear threat initiative, and this is a jessica mathews has been involved, and i have appreciated being a member of the board for a long time, and especially the work that has occurred in the publication of this nuclear security index, which includes theft and sometimes. an essential book for anybody deeply interested in the subject, because it goes through really what is happening in all the countries on earth that have any sort of potential for difficulty. one by one in terms of the amount of safety that has been obtained.
and the amount of danger that is still there, as a matter of fact. it i appreciate this because is a situation in which mdi has collaborated with the economist magazine with data that is tremendously important for each student all this. plus, at least indicators of how extensive -- is, how many countries are involved. it is often mentioned in summary at this conference coming up over the weekend that there were these 35 countries that had substantial amount of nuclear 11 of them have given it up. 24 still mean. the united states and russia ofe the most, but 1800 tons nuclear material is out there in one form or another. not as safeguarded as it ought to be. and finally you have isil
terrorists who do not need a kiloton. the question is, how are we going to do with terrorism and people in european countries quite apart from the middle east? that point sot that my -- so let me positive point so that my fellow panelists, whom i have enormous respect. spechler: senator alluded to the fact that in 2013 the russians informed us they are not interested in any more collaboration with united states in securing their nuclear materials, and as you open the front page in "the new york times" president putin has decided to boycott this round of nuclear summits. --your opinion, what is the
in terms of the russian sphere?es in this is it something we should be worried about, this unwillingness to work with united states anymore on this issue? >> i want to put it in historical context. honorit is a tremendous to be on this panel. one of my heroes, senator lugar, unn as he and sam ni knows, i have had the privilege of a nominating them both for nobel peace prizes. i want to applaud the efforts of the two senators and what they overbeen able to promote there many years in government
and out of government. that me respond to your question, dina. again, acknowledging that both of us once upon a time focused on soviet affairs rather than just russian affairs. the point that is tremendously , looking at the nature of u.s.-russian relations today, particularly as they pertain to nonproliferation, is that for many decades, beginning probably one could say with the negotiations of the nonproliferation treaty, which was concluded in 1968 and entered into force in 1970, but particularly, after the so-called peaceful nuclear explosion conducted by india in 1974, united states and the soviet union began a very --cerned that concerted concerted routine of
collaboration, cooperation for nonproliferation. every six months at the assistant secretary level, they met to compare notes about their different proliferation activities and concerns. at the london suppliers group theing that preceded nuclear suppliers group, the united states and the soviet communion collaborated much more closely than did the united states with a number of its traditional allies can including the french, germans, japanese. and in the review process, the united states and the soviet concertutinely acted in for the most part because they were both nuclear weapon states and they were not anxious to see other nuclear weapon states emerge. that applies also to other forms, such as the iaea a. what was important to note is persistedcooperation
across democratic and republican administrations, and even during the most frigid moments of the cold war. after 1979, when the soviet union invaded afghanistan, all other polite laterals were shut down. wasonly one that persisted cooperation continuing in a nonproliferation sector. message, powerful which is unknown to some -- these routine meetings seized in the 1980's, and while you have other forms of cooperation, they were of a different nature. it is indeed those unfortunate -- orhe russians will not a designate will not be at the nuclear security summit. it is most unfortunate that russia believes that it no
allyer needs to form cooperate with the united states. if one tries to identify an area in which it may be possible despite the chilled -- and the knows that in the u.s.-russian relations, icy nonproliferation remains a promising area. next week in monterey we will have senior u.s. and russian officials joining with experts from both countries to talk about his matters, particularly as it relates to north korea. be at thatwill meeting. if i can make one other set of points, and it has to do with nuclear terrorism and security. about 10 years or so ago, i
actual arsonals. those are four very different forms of terrorism. subsequent to the publication of i'd book that i mentioned, become concerned about a fifth fasterface of nuclear terrorism, which i don't think received enough attention by national governments including our own. and that's the potential for actors who don't attempt to acquire nuclear material, don't attempt to build , but think they need to precipitate an exchange between countries with nuclear weapons. "spoofing" andhis i think the best example and one that requires more attention is an example that occurred in 1995 when they did a scientific a ket, a sounding rocket, multistage rocket, was launched
off the coast of norway. norwegian authorities informed the russian authorities this the plan to undertake launch but that information was not conveyed to appropriate command control parties in moscow, and as a consequence, when this founding rocket took off, russian command and control thought it was a submarine missile, and tic they had good reason to think so. fortunately, it was a single rocket that was fired. there d to imagine, had been a dozen of these launches simultaneously. what concerns me is that's the only form of a real existential posed i see at the moment by non-state actors. i'm very much concerned about thivtle material and equally concerned with the potential by isis and others to make use of radiological sources devices.ersible that would be horrendous.
if you're really talking about threat, i think it's spoofing that we need to be more concerned about at the moment, in a number of regions, possibly including georgia's avorite area, which is south-asia. >> dr. hecker, in your opinion, acute is this problem of materials? clear in which countries are we really facing the greatest dangers there? >> let me first address the because you asked what's happened over that time and what about the russians vulnerabley, and how that that leaves the nuclear materials. 1991-92, go back to while senator lugar was russians in his scientists were interfacing with the russian scientists.pon it was totally unheard of during
tose times, and i first went their secret city, their los alamos in february 1992, and next month, i'm going to make my to russia since that ime, and most of it is addressing this issue of the security issue that we had. looked back to 1991-92, number 1, 2 and 3 and est nuclear threats concerns that i had were all related to russia and the coming apart of the soviet union and then we had , and this incredible condemnation of .s. government actions that were really important, including president george h.w.bush's residential initiatives, the visionary act, legislation.
governmental immunity really ahead in force, ahead of the government, this sort of push into action talking to each they knew it was going to take a lot of cooperation. scientists at these nuclear labs began to work together. so at that time -- and that's the story we tell in this book, in 1,000 pages, and i'm going to try to give you a quick synopsis. [laughter] in hecker: so what we faced 1991-92 is the soviet union nationspart, and the 15 that made up the soviet union, federation,y russian then having access to these assets, at a ar time when the country was literally coming apart, you economy in total turmoil, the political system changing, the safety net for the
soviet people, now russian people, going away. was really what i would call the making of a perfect nuclear storm. at that time, you 37,000 viet union with nuclear weapons. 37,000. you had a russia then left with 1.4 million ound kilograms of thistle materials, the stuff you could make the bombs out of. plutonnium-enriched iranium. the plutonium bomb, 6.2 kilograms of plutonium blew up the city. that's this much. that's it. h hiro h hiroshima was highly enriched uranium. it was this much.
you could make it out of grams ball, and an a soccer we're talking about 1.4 million ilograms, in hundreds of facilities and buildings, and knox stuff.fort one of the things that bothers nuclear security part of this, too much of this part of lock up. lock it up. just you can't just lock these materials up. acids.solve them in there's waste. you either work with them in nuclear power or in nuclear weapons. so the problem was there was all this. o we had concerned about loose nukes, and, of course, it was really essential. the second was loose materials. ould some of this material get away. in 1992, i didn't see how we'd get through the next 10-20 years without significant loss of russian nuclear materials. the third that we were worried people, experts.
had about a mplex million people working in that nuclear complex. f course, not all of them were nuclear weapons, but let's just say lots of them. about the worried loo loose. and so the fourth was the loose exports. you had the four loose nuke problems. and 24 years later, loose nukes didn't happen. loose nuke materials, a little bit. of course, again, as i said, it doesn't take much. amount of bly small thistle materials. d 's unbelievable what happene with the russians. loose experts, basically more than we ny had in the united states. loose exports, a bit of a iran the 1990s but russia has come around to be exporter.ible nuclear so those four things didn't happen, and today, the situation
in russia is significantly improved to where it was in 1991 '92. so their nuclear weapons are now really well protected. materials are much better protected. their experts, which are often 1990s, didn't get paid for six months at a time. they're getting paid. they're doing well. and it exports. hey're exporting legitimately and making actually significant money that way. complex ssian nuclear has come an enormous way. o one of the reasons they shut off that, was they've actually made much progress, and most of this program that we're talking about was focused on improving facilities, their people, and they said hey, you know, we're done. you guys, stop focusing on us. so to some extent, that's good
news. the bad news is that if you talk about nuclear safety, or talk about nuclear security, you're never done. and just when you think you are and you get complacent, is when the problems happen. in we've had those problems this country, actually more so than we've now had in russia, for hat's so important is us to continue to work together, of the this issue nuclear securities from the weapons to the materials, for exports, it for the doesn't just require the government action. we were fortunate. we had this visionary legislation. itself would have done nothing. in this case, we had two senators who kept traveling over there and kept working this themselves. but then all the way down the we had several thousand scientists and engineering from the u.s. labs and the russian other.o to each
thousas of trips back and forth. i mean, literally thousands of projects back and forth >> how much of that is still happening? hecker: so it's only through that that we got the sense that, hey, we're doing well, and now they've cut off that interaction, and that is what we would like to get restarted. >> your expertise, among other things, is south-asia and often mentioned. i alluded to it as a place where hey would like to attain materials for a nuclear device. how accurate is that assessment? spechleshg mr.: i think some of the things me, they're welcomed good news, but they're also indicative of a logic i think we ought to remember even
as we're worried, and that is including pakistan and their leaders have greater do, totions, even than we maintain their crown jewels. pakistan weapons to is the most important thing to the pakistani army. most ani army is the competent organization in pakistan. it may not be fully confident competent e most organization in pakistan. when people ask me this question, which i get asked a lot, i say nuclear weapons are the safest thing in pakistan. enough and may not sound safe, but from a pakistani point of view, they have a lot more things to worry about and i think the other things that are more worrying, if they address them, the nuclear weapons will become more safe and secure too. spechler: have they been systems? to american mr. perkovich: it's been very
quiet. there's been ongoing organization with the pakistanis on securing their assets. the been difficult because pakistani military, we worry the most about terrorists getting them. they worry most about us getting weapons.clear laden raid ama bin happened, they started moving their nuclear site because they coming the u.s. was after their nuclear weapons. there's good news in that too, because if they could secure their nuclear materials and weapons against us, they're probably securing them against other people as well. problem that e a that -- with the motivation. so the psychology of this issue, especially for pakistan, is different than you might first fairly out it, but it's positive, i would say, and their openness to cooperation without getting too close, because again, they want to make sure things from the us, and now the more that the
india, operates with which is a bipartisan objective in washington, then the more the pakistanis say wait a minute, their new best friend and partner is the indians, who's likeiggest enemy and would to get our nuclear weapons so when the americans have all this capability and want to come and talk about our nuclear capability, it's part of a plot with the indians to come get it. that have to be aware of when we're going to the pakistanis pakistanis. spechler: dr. perkovich, you published an article entitled -- well, an editorial ntitled the iran deal, no better alternative, now make the most of it. and that's very expressive, i think. would any of the other panelists like to tell us about your views of this iran deal, how much more secure does it make us? i mean, what are the problems? potter?
i think he actually, issue more on that than i have, but i share the ssessment as conveyed in the title, you know, by george. think -- actually, it's probably a better deal than many folks thought was possible just a few years ago when we were in negotiations.these will bethe real problem in the implementation of the eal, and there the problem, as much a domestic one, as it is an international one. unparalleled re intrusive inspections of the i'm quite and confident that, you know, on that side of the street, he will be all right. t's the question of the opposition in both countries by factions to the
principle. and i think that's something that we can't, you know, take for granted that we're going to be able to sustain over time. but in balance, i think if you ask, you know, about the non-proliferation ledger, where is the good news and where is the bad news, i think the good news is, indeed, the iran deal, and let me share with you kind unanticipated, i think, consequence of that deal, americans, ink most particularly, those who work in had a very nt have negative view of iran as it pertains to international negotiations with some very good reasons, and terrorism is one of those. ut in the area that i tend to focus on a lot, and that is the review iferation treaty process. of everyrings four out
five years in which countries come together to review the mplementation of the treaty in looking forward, it's rather whether all kinds of problems at the last review conference -- in fact, i wrote an article called "the of the 2015promise" npt review. they had a subtitle in which the editors took off. it was "100 ways to say no in french and arabic." the countries french speaking nd arabic speaking weren't particularly the problems. iran was not. of thetually as a leader non-align movement this past year was a constructive force this those negotiations. it's also telling that at the committee ttee, the t the united nations for disarmament this past fall, all f the nuclear weapons professors prefer it put forward
d iran, dealing with so-calle open ended working group on disarmament, to a resolution put forward by our allies such as mexico, chile, austria and the like. so there's a very unusual dynamic we're observing now which i think is not familiar to most folks for obvious reasons, rather esoteric issues but i think it is pertinent to the question of what's the onference of this iran nuclear deal. ms. spechler: do you want to this? on amazing is how much division there is about this deal. almost everybody has a strong opinion either one way or the other, and most of them, quite frankly, really don't understand hashes.rlying technical of where they say, for instance, one of the common things is we're giving them the license that 10 years from now they'll ave an industrial nuclear weapons capability.
that's one concern. the second concern is i wish we had as many people talking about north korea as the iran deal, because that's a real problem. only had nukes. they got lots of nukes now, and up 've been building them regardless of what the whole rest of the world is doing, not just u.s. failure. it's the failure of the international community, and by.re just sitting it was mentioned earlier today, this thing called strategic patience. it's neither patient nor strategic. news.just a very bad i'm iran, at least had a chance iranian ct with the technical people, and also with the iranian political people. and so what's happened in iran s over the last 30 years, e ntially, when the
aatollamaday the idea to make constitutional pass in the mid-80s or so. if you watch what they've been doing over the last 30 years, this is essentially my opinion, they've been putting in place the capability to build a bomb. pieces you add all the together, that's the only conclusion i could come up with, they were doing what they were doing with the center fuges, why they would build a reactor made with plutonium, and why they did certain types of tests over the years. putting that in place, and also sort of regardless of what happens politically, it just kept going along. and so then what's happened with this iran deal, was in essence the administration agreed that hey would disaggregate the nuclear problem from the rest of the iran issue. in other words, separate the problem. , d by separating the problem
the good news, that's the only way they could get the rest of particularlyboard, russia and china. whatever china is doing, you get russia on board. if you focus only on the nuclear piece, they managed to get all of those guys lined up, so now they have the makings of a nuclear deal. so what they did with this nuclear deal, the technical stuff is very straightforward. at the time they started the deal discussions, the iranians could have r two made enough highly enriched bomb.um for a would have probably taken six ore months to build a crude bomb, a couple of years to build something a bit more sophisticated, but they were ithin a couple of months to be able to make the materials for the bomb. that's how close they were. deal does, and i had these discussions with the
iranians, and i didn't believe -- i kept telling them, you've got to open space between he military and the civilian capabilities. well, they opened space, and that space they opened, you year that of this you've heard, and it's pretty good. you know, that's pretty good. so what they've now done is with the deal, they've taken a year if they want to reconstitute. and if they want to cheat or as buddies say, sneak out, break-out, they could do -- that would be more the whole because inspection review is much more rigorous than anything that's been put there. what they did with the plutonium, that would have been a plutonium-producing reactor, remarkable. they essentially entombed the core of that and they agreed to otally redesign the reactor to make the americans less concerned about making would be their
second pass at a bomb. all of those steps and from a nuclear standpoint, that's all good news. if in 10 or 15 years, they want to go back and march toward the bomb, they can do that. they have the capabilities to do so, that we'd know it if they were doing it. so that's the good news. the bad news is, by disaggregating, you know, that doesn't mean they're going to behave in all these other areas. o you relieve the sanctions to get more money, their only money. what are they going to do with that money. you know, what's going to happen in this next 10-15 years? and so my bottom line to that was, i don't know what's going to happen. we don't know which way iran is oing to go, but i'd rather not face the next 10-15 years with them having nuclear weapons, and about all be worried these other issues. the me, this was by far best as george's article said, that you could do. spechler: yes?
indebted too say i'm my colleagues on the stage for the argumentation which came to facts of life he re that as this deal came up, every single republican in the united states senate indicated opposition. there was a situation in which me and e house called asked if i could help, in fact, they implored it much more strongly than this, as a matter calls sam dun, my partner, we had an article that along lished around, and with the former senator from and john kerry then called and said i'm going up to hiladelphia to try to make a case there for a national audience. i'd like to you come on my me, and start e
out by talking about some of their experiences with arms control and what have you, just sort of an interesting trip. and secretary kerry gave a tremendous speech really outlying point by point everything that's been suggested today. even at that point within the democratic party, there were not enough votes to get across the parliamentary situation as they had. but nonetheless, the excitement was that by the time we finished that day, word came, whichever senator, whoever it may have been on the democratic side, yes, as if it was finally going to get across the finish line. i mention this because we've not had an arms control treaty. now, since the ustar treaty in 2012, that was when john kerry was chairman, i was ranking member still in the senate, and it's semi o that, miraculous that this one somehow
got across the finish line, but it's very important really that did, and i just booed everybody involved in that process. ms. spechler: before we get to do, iions, which i want to want to talk a little bit about north korea. you, mr. start with erkovich, how helpful are the north koreans to making a weapon that can strike american territory. mr. perkovich: there are many reasons for that, but as you can kind of tell with my response, he talk about the threat doesn't motivate meery much, because we've known what they are for a long, long time. so north korea, depending on the how you want to measure the worry, 1992, at the latest where we really, really worried. so i was still young. so the issue is what are you going to do about it. so we can talk about the north
korea threat, but it's been there but what do we do about it? sig alluded to this problem. we can't have an adult conversation in the united importantly, e between the united states and our allies japan and south korea, about north korea. we have to have this pretend conversation about they're going to dismantle everything, going to be able to verify it all, and away.all going to go and i think, you know, at least n my view, that option went away a fairly long time ago with and regime in north korea, so as long as that's kind of the doing something about it, or the precondition for even having a discussion washington, we're not going to have the discussion because it's fantasy. bipartisan problem. democrats aren't any better on republicans. north korea has to give everything. we won't talk to them unless agree to that premise
it am it's into totally fantasy, in the way we talk to a three-year-old and tell stories because you don't want them to understand the real world, and that's what we're this issue. mr. hecker: north korea is a bipartisan e of failure, and everything is bipartisan. f you go back and you want to assess the blame to somebody, you can start with reagan when foundation ying the or a nuclear program during ronald reagan's presidency. george h.w.bush essentially got everything ready. in 1992, they were ready. and then during clinton, it y went ut they actuall back for a while, but while they went back on plutonium, they were developing the uranium path o the bomb so they made progress.
they george w. bush, built the first bombs. he said we'd never let north a bomb but by the time he went out of office, they had probably five bombs but they were pretty crude. president obama, by the time he they may f office, have 16-20. i'm not worried about north koreans hitting the united states with a nuclear weapon. they can't do that at this point and even if they could, why would they want to? that's a death wish. that's not the problem. the point, the real problem is, these guys went from having this crude bomb and a few bombs to developing an they believe in and with each nuclear weapon they their whole ut country more on that nuclear weapon. at them like aok coming pakistan, and they start thinking about nuclear weapons for all the things they could possibly do, and when you do
that, and you have an arsenal of 10-20 weapons, including possibly somewhere down the line, fielding practical nuclear weapons, that is really dangerous. that's the danger of north korea. it's not nuking the united states. they're building an arsenal, and nobody, none of us, not the chinese, not the americans, none of us are doing these things. spechler: anything? lu risk of ree we run the dangers exposed by north korea. i think we have to ask how do other states in the region respond. how will south korea respond? will it revive the nuclear weapons program it had once upon a time? how will japan respond to the situation? the ill china respond to behavior of south korea and japan? o it's a very dangerous world, and it's not exclusively a
function of what north korea not to do.do or ms. spechler: one last question for dr. hecker. can we learn from the iran deal in terms of dealing with north korea? r. hecker: what do we do in i've been to north korea seven times. the first time when i came back, actually had the great pleasure of reporting my visit senators, by the time of lugar and biden in 2004. so seven times. after the fourth visit, i tarted advising my government to say look, these guys are serious about building a bomb. -- and we ought to do is they're not going to give it up. worse.t don't let it get if you're in a hole, stop digging. don't let it get worse. i came back in 2008 and said three nos. bombs, bombs, no better and no exports. that's what we want from them, and then you've got to give them something in the return. the three yeses were, you at
least have to address the security concerns. economic and energy help. and so you need to have that adult dialogue if they can't get rid of them, at them. stop making if they had stopped making them in 2008, we wouldn't be in the today. are ms. spechler: but by implications, you think you are new e makings of a agreement. mr. hecker: they continue to make progress. who have seen u bill potter's folks are done a with the imagery of what his ball, gues called a disco which he claims to be a hydrogen bomb. again, i'm not concerned about any of that. i'm just concerned the fact that they're building the arsenal. the nos, no additional bombs, no better and , no additional bombs, he talked about the deal.
instead of three nos like that, is just saying no abouthe late nancy reagan how to deal with drugs. it's about wishing that the problem goes away, and so our now is should get rid of all, and in the end, there's not that much of a bargain. it's not grown up in the way that sig was talking about. should hler: i think we really open this to the to ence, so i would ask you question.uine don't use this as an opportunity for comments, and wait for the mike. any questions? for us? ve a mike >> thank you all very much for an extremely informative panel. around this room, and i'm seeing that it's more sparsely attended than the previous panels, and we could be
sad about that or we could as a great nk of it triumph and a credit to all of you, right? the officials in government, the scientists, the scholars who watch this problem, who negotiated and so forth, made it possible for most people to think this isn't something i have to worry about. that's amazing. amazing.ruly i was born in the year that china detonated its first it also omb, and happens i just learned the year that cooper created dr. strangelove. that was a very different time. >> 1964. >> 1964, very good. how times have changed, right? and you made me even more nervous, dr. hecker, in the middle of your comments and even happier at the end that we got to where we are now, that most people don't feel this is something to worry about. i am error worried about north korea. day told mp the other reporters at the new york times to let south need
korea go nuclear in order to address that problem. i didn't think it was a grown-up solution. i have a question. i want to go back to dr. perkovich's sunny description of park stone. a.q. was a fellow named kahn that doesn't come up much these days. you said pakistan didn't want to let go of its crown jewels. there seemed to be another logic. one had a hard time keeping a straight face as he claims it was a renegade on his own business. hahn happened to make a.q. thing of the past and how are we confident there's not more right now. the leaderch: he was of the pakistani enrichment program and beginning in the and then through selling either centrifuges or
old broken down centrifuges that were broke down. but he was basically retailing. what happened, the pakistani relied upon him throughout, so components and other things to build their enrichment, and at some point, he realized you could hit like a fan and witch on a export out through the same thing and make money. and so he did. and some of it we know in a sense was state sanctioned, so the part with north korea, even say kistani friends will that the army knew about that, stillat was -- i think it affirms my point. for them, that was not only a business but a strategic transaction. they got missiles from north korea in return. so that was a winning thing, and they weren't worried about north korea acquiring nuclear weapons, ecause it wasn't any threat to pakistan. the iran bid, depending on who was also authorized
at the time, iefs who was a shia, general beg, and has a border iran with pakistan, so they should kind of improve the relations shiites, widen their parameter, and again, iran to him, cause a problem and it wasn't like they were giving him a bomb. some ere selling centrifuges. d -- but then there was a change, once it got xposed, it was terribly humiliating for the pakistani army and for the political eadership and they realized they had a real problem. so since then, since basically 2001, they revamped the system, they've imposed a lot of under house heat, arrest, and still some people in washington will say why won't hey provide him for interrogation and the pakistani says you've been water boarding, ion hat kind of discuss doesn't go very far.
so he's there. but i think things have changed, they realize that great harm was done to their reputation. we still have a policy dilemma there, because the u.s. is welcoming india into the nuclear uppliers group, which is a cartel of exports. the other countries don't want in, but t so it's not obama has said i will do what i can to get india in. the pakistani also want to be say, of the group, and they with a.q. kahn, you'll have to restitution before then. india would thereafter forever be able to block pakistan. so then you create an incentive say if pakistanis to we're never going to be treated state, normal responsible what are our incentives? if we'relways going to be the
outcast and all we have to pay a.q. kahn and can't redeem ourselves, what do you want us to do? this is where the kurpt policy is and president obama is long on this and who knows what the next administration will do to try to reinforce what's improved since 2000. ms. spechler: do you want to react? mr. potter: actually, two points. the point george made is tremendously important because proliferation f challenges today, many of which are almost beyond our ability to control. but the issue, in my mind, at respect to the .s./india nuclear deal, the change in our export policy, the exemption given to india and the nuclear suppliers group, and now the talk about admitting india full-fledged member to the nuclear suppliers group. self-inflicted s punishment.
i don't see a redeeming quality. reason is that it asically devalues the benefits of being a non-nuclear weapons state in the non-proliferation treaty. you now have representatives rom three different legally binding nuclear weapons-free zones who are basically ignoring obligations not to engage in nuclear trades within india. planning toat i was say but i felt obliged to make comment. i think -- i mean, i believe the demise standing of the a.q. kahn network, that illicite other trafficking networks out there in dealing with technology. s is that problem there are so few prosecutions for engaging in nuclear trade punishments are almost inconsequential
inconsequential. sometimes when i'm asked to television his for or radio, i make reference to the fact that it's unfortunately not only funny but i think it's true, that there are more severe penalties for driving under the influence than for driving with material, whether it's plutonium or highly enriched uranium. question of the developing world, whether africa, latin america, asia, it's in the industrialized countries as well so we have eal problems in terms of providing meaningful disincentives to engage in nuclear trade. mr. hecker: i wanted to add, that was very legitimate. it was egregious, no question. since that time, the pakistanis have been trying to clean up their act. and it's a very important issue, whether you're talking about india, there are the concerns that you had with
nuclear weapons being in the governments. and then there are concerns that you have of nuclear assets getting out of the hands of governments, and those two things are linked. nd while we were trying to get the nuclear weapons out of the hands of the pakistani so that we actually take the nuclear weapons away from them, so they would go ahead and denuclearize, they were not willing to deal with us on the security aspect. however, now, the current essentially n has said with india and pakistan, hey have nuclear weapons and there's not much we can do about that. so now you actually have a chance. george and i and bill are worried because there might be a pakistan nuclear exchange but to make some nce gains on the nuclear security peace, and there might be an opportunity -- and i'm working with the pakistanis precisely in
that direction to say whether, ook, we're not asking for nuclear weapons. we just want to make sure you control all of your assets. no more a.q. kahns, the terrorists and everything else. i think we have somewhat of a chance chance. >> jessica matthews. since you're in here, three related quick north korea questions. do you think hat they want nukes now for? presumably, it's a defensive move against south korea, right? i mean, i'm asking the question. they fear use way? lypse in some but i was puzzled by your saying that what troubles you is
they're building an arsenal they believe in. you 't quite know what meant by that, and it seems to me actually sort of a good thing. very often, it's one thing nukes can do. and potentially could in a well.-asian context as the second is that whatever your answer is, how sure are you? because in my experience, every had withgotiator we've north korea or special envoy, the longer they spent with them, the less sure they feel like they understand. and, i mean, that's a serious comment. and the third question maybe is overtaken by events, but at least while we're having this six party talk, i always wondered why on the question of we ng the korean war, why didn't just say yes.
i understand it's a bargaining chip but if it's one they really care about and it's one that buys us nothing, right, we don't give up anything by saying yes, we agree, the korean war is made the d it have difference, do you think? just on r: so we monday, we had a session at tanford, at our center, with the discussion about north and south korea, and actually, it was with chinese, and so for the i heard the only thirdable reason for that question is to why not just give the peace treaty and say that was it. that was always my feeling. and the comment from one of my with t s was that the -- what the u.s. government is concerned about in this administration particularly, is the signing of that peace treaty, and ending the
armistice, is actually a mechanism by which the north would like to split south korea states.om the united and so that it might be a mechanism for creating space south the u.s. and korea. it's the only one that i've heard. i'm not that worried about it. right now, that alliance is about as good as it's been for time.some n the first one, my view had always been that it's for regime know, more so than the country survival, for their security, and indeed, as one looks at it, why do countries build nuclear weapons, that security part was the most important part as to why they built the weapon, when usually sort of an eason is international one, prestige, you know, trump card. i wasn't sure i wanted to use that word. [laughter] mr. hecker: and the third is
domestic. in north korea, the first two once play that role but tested, all of them played a role so now getting rid of the weapons will be difficult because of that. why do they want them to still primarily, i think, regime survival. however, again, that discussion we had this week, some of my actually brought up the fact that, you know, kim , he had recognized south far out ahead economically that the idea of ever taking south korea over is gone. young man is a very and the economy is actually oing reasonably well in spite of all the sanctions and everything, so it isn't clear that there aren't some thoughts that if he builds up this arsenal of 10 weapons, 20 weapons, 30 weapons, he actually looks at that as a mechanism by unificationould get
back, and so i would not rule regime. in this current it wasn't there during kim chung il, and it may be there now. that's very worrisome. another question. >> wave your hand. there you go. >> i'm wondering if you could continue with this theme of regime survival. o if this is the case that pakistan and iran and north korea are wanting to acquire nuclear weapons technology to continuationort of in their regime, is that applicable to other more advanced industrialized economies? why britain ultimately pursued nuclear weapons as well and france? it seems to me that we seem to, -- in these discussions proliferation, we
seem to disaggregate between, regime, you stable know, these are the countries that we're comfortable if they have nuclear weapons but these countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons at all, even though the strategy might ultimately be the same. mr. hecker: it's a good question. me ge can answer but let take one slice of that. iran, i wrote a piece a couple related to the iran deal, and i actually ositted the fact that iran actually does not at this point want nuclear weapons for regime survival. they think their regime will survive better right now without pursuing nuclear weapons. so in my opinion, they've put nuclear weapons into the and ground, and to underst that, you have to understand how iran sits in that neighborhood. they're essentially the only ones left standing. they don't need nukes right now. hey apparently are not worried about being nuked by somebody else, unless they pursue nuclear weapons, so i think in iran's
case, it's actually not the same korea.th mr. perkovich: that's exactly right on iran, that it's precisely the one thing that could topple the regime, would be trying to get nuclear weapons. because that would have intensified the sanctions, which ould have intensified discord, and as obama had said in the atlantic article with jeffrey goldberg, which some of us had interpreted a long time ago, you go , he wasn't prepared to enrichment, but he was prepared to go to war and same with the israelis. from the iranian poi of view, after saddam had been nicely emoved from the scene and what's ook over iraq, their problem? it could only be something that could attack them because of a nuclear weapon program. more over, what they're very eenly aware of and there's an
incredibly intense loathing between iran and saudi arabia, more intense than anything i've ever experienced, whether it kind of debraces them in the united states, india, pakistan, nothing compared to the iranians and the saudi. themselves ans see as vastly superior to saudi arabia in every possible way, and say the only thing that saudi arabia could do would be to get nuclear weapons if we did. if we don't get them, the world saudi arabia from getting them. i totally agree with sig on it. i appreciate the spirit of your question. i think france is a great whom e of a country for nuclear weapons are the cm security the council and great power status. this is why the french apoplectic gets whenever the u.s. government disarmament. when president obama gave the sent an official a
day later to talk to the u.s., what are you talking about, stop saying that. whereas the british, much more ambivalent, they have a monarchy. so they either keep the monarchy and could get rid of nuclear weapons or get rid of the monarchy and keep the nuclear weapons. but there's a -- you know, more going on.ot nd russia, clearly the way putin sees the importance of nuclear weapons and the c where they'reri talking more and more about nuclear weapons which i think exaggerates actually what they're doing, but it's clearly guarantor of russia's great power standing in the world is nuclear weapons. you make a point that is valid to the other states at least. ms. spechler: we have five more inutes and as much as i'd like to give you the last word, i think we'll take one last questio
question. >> hi. zachary forbes. i'm a student here at the school of global and international studies. we've been talking a lot about other countries and how th value- the importance and they place on nuclear weapons why they've pursued nuclear weapons programs but i was sort of wondering if we could be a little self reflective and talk about today in 2016, what does he united states government, what value do we place today on pile, the stock symbolic value of it, the possible, like, credible military use of it? s it still considered a credible military tool if in crisis, or is cal it -- what is the u.s. stock pile in the eyes of the u.s. government today?
by lugar: let me start saying that i think the united states feels with some accuracy that we are the country that has "control" the world, but at least make ossible peace and security for everybody. we are the essential country, situation. nd a part of that means military authority. the nuclear weapons are a part of that military authority. and it gives us at least -- not necessarily the bargaining power, but understood leadership ituation in which if things go badly in europe, the middle east, with russia, with china, else, we can be counted upon. s we get into a debate as to whether we ought to get rid of
more nuclear weapons, it's possible. i've mentioned the new star treaty. e've once again reduced the number of war heads that we have, as well as other parts of that that. there have been suggestions we it with the nto russians again with a nuclear would on situation and not really jeopardize what i ind initially about our role the world but at the same time, there isn't any desire on the part of the russians to talk about it at all. as we know, president putin will showing up at this point and the senate of the united states, there is no for it, so regardless of philosophically however we might look at it, as a practical matter, we'll have what we'll have for a while. mr. potter: i think this relates o the viability of the international non-proliferation
regime. you mentioned in your introductory remarks, depending on the counts and the position 198 or so , we have parties to the non-proliferation treaty which is the most likely subscribed to treaty in the world. dprk, if you count them, and the five npt nuclear weapons states, we have well over 180 non-nuclear at are weapon states or parties to the believe the npt was indeed a bargain and they take very seriously that bargain today, so it's very difficult. i think it was mohammed al verde, he gave the analogy with the chain smoker of the out of his nging mouth telling other people not to smoke. it's very difficult foritous virtues of nuclear disarmament with our current nuclear arsenal. the other point, and i think we
ould be remiss at a major educational institution >> i haven't heard education mentioned once. emphasizing a point gardener raised, they talked about complacency. i was at two of the major challenges we face today, our ignorance and complacency. it is the body politic more generally, it applies to elected officials and internationally. to counter that we have to invest more than we have in this armament and nonproliferation. i don't suggest everybody has to embrace my mission but it is striking to me how many major universities in the united courseshich have more and instructors teaching in this
realm in any country, that it is difficult for young people, undergraduates and graduates to pursue a program of training in this realm. nightt sleep very well at in the field that i focus on. one thing that gives me hope is interacting with young people who have the energy and idealism. when he to provide them with opportunity. there is an opportunity to also invest in this armament education. , i will teach a thenar which will focus on problem with nuclear weapons. much.you very we appreciate the panel and you're coming to this. [applause]
do you want presidential candidates to discuss. one of our second rise middle school winners are from silver spring, maryland. matthew weinsheimer and preston beatty, if greater's from eastern middle school want presidential candidates to discuss criminal justice reform and their video is titled "the american criminal justice system: are we doing it right? >> imagine 100 different american adults of different economic, ethnic, political, religious, and racial backgrounds. one of those people is currently in jail. one of the most stunning effects about the u.s. incarceration system is that while u.s. citizens account for just 5% of the world's population, u.s. incarcerated citizens represent 25% of the world incarcerated population. 40% of the incarcerated individuals are serving time for
drug-related rides very mandatory minimums, a mandatory sentence where judicial discussion are limited by law are a highly controversial part of the judicial system. it convicted individual and leave little or no ability for a judge to give individual ruling. reform of the criminal justice system and mandatory minimum in particular is the toughest debate all the little has been done by the presidential candidates to address this issue. eric holder, former attorney general is an expert on the criminal justice system and believes criminal justice reform is the only way to solve this issue. how effective is the criminal justice system currently? mr. holder: i would give it mixed reviews. i think it is better then it was, not as good as it should be. we incarcerate way to many people. we have a high recidivism rate, people come back into the
system. i think we can -- we are doing better than we did in the past but we need to change the approach. >> eric holder and other politicians all point to many issues within the system in order to make their case. >> the task force has recognized our problems. incarceration rates in this country have skyrocketed, our nation now has the greatest number of prisoners than any country in the world. nearly one in every 100 adults in america are in jail. president obama recently suggested that some of the $80 billion spent each year to incarcerate prisoners should be used to prevent people from coming into the criminal justice system in the first place. how do you believe this money would be better spent? >> people have to understand that mass incarceration comes at a huge cost.
$80 billion is a lot of money. it is money that could be used in different ways. if we used them of that money on prevention activities by coming up with mentorship programs for younger people, to have afterschool programs. >> mandatory minimums is commonly pointed at as the easiest and fastest way to cut back on the number of people incarcerated as it would reduce the amount of time each prisoner is sentenced to carry on the topic of mandatory minimums, do you think mandatory minimum sentencing should be -- can be effective? mr. holder: we make too much use of mandatory minimum sentence. i believe it can serve a purpose especially for those committing violent crimes. too often they have been used to show that the politician was being tough on crime. >> mandatory minimum is 20 years to life, you get 20 years so he
will do 18.5 years in the federal system. the state systems are different. every state is different. if he did 18.5 of those -- unless he cooperates. and usually but we do come it was not about arresting people it was a matter of going after the command control structures of that organization. you need to arrest people and we need them to tell us who their boss is. supporters of the current incarceration system often point to statistics that show the crime rate is the lowest it has been in 50 years. at the same time, the prison population is depleting. one group opposed to reform is the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys for the
naausa. it leaves the war on drug trafficking has been extremely effective. the major principle behind the organization is just because a drug trafficker -- does not not mean they are not violent. here is the president, steve cook -- convicted of drug trafficking. >> we are not talking about releasing low-level offenders. the federal prisons are full of significant drug traffickers. if you look at this is just a, what you will see from the sentencing commission is that less than 5% of the individuals incarcerated in federal prison were found by a district judge to have a mitigating role. they had a minor or minimal participation. >> the claims of those with this view is that for the most part drug traffickers are wrongly being used -- viewed as victims of the crime they committed. according to the naausa, the
system has done what it is intended to do. reduce the amount of drug gangs in the u.s. cook believes the criminal justice system has succeeded and he is in no way a loan in that belief. it is indisputable that the drug-related crime rate as well as that overall has decreased since mandatory minimums very the issue for many is how justly that was accomplished. the factors in different solutions as to whether the series issue of public safety and a fair criminal justice system should be talked more about in the 2016 election because criminal justice reform impacts our economy, social welfare, and public safety. crimes are going to be committed in how we deal for those responsible is a legitimate problem that will affect everyone around us in a direct or indirect way. regardless of viewpoints or beliefs, we must come together
to fully solve this issue and to create an effective and fair incarceration system. for that reason, the presidential candidates must address this issue and its lane their approach to resolving the problem of massacres recent. regardless of why this issue is being discussed, it is still an important problem that must be addressed and conversations are the only things that can lead to a resolution. >> to watch all of the prize whizzing -- prize-winning documentaries, visit student cam.org. >> president obama spoke about the supreme court in his nominee earlier. it is at 8:00 eastern here on c-span. journaln's washington live every day with news and policy issues that impact to you. paul will joint us to discuss the state of the
manufacturing system. johns hopkins university held a lab director will talk about the recent hacking of several health care systems resulting in records being compromised. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live. join the discussion. >> now a look at the impact o . he put together a study on the
most and least regulated states. if we are talking federal rules and regulations, shouldn't they apply uniformly up ross the states? rank morene state regulated than the other? guest: it has a distributional regions ands states. we are looking and industries. we can say where are those industries concentrated, what is important relative to the nation overall and we can put those facts together and say that is moreis state impacted by regulation. host: let's put state examples with the melon -- with the methodology.
the most regulated states are louisiana, alaska, wyoming, indiana. the reason those states are at the top, as of 2013, they are specialized in one industry. all ofot the same across them, but they tend to have a large portion of their economy come from a single industry. is also heavily regulated. chemical relies on products manufacturing to produce things in their economy as well as oil and gas extraction. those are heavily regulated industries. states will maximize the resources they have available to them. if the industries are heavily
regulated, those will be the states that rise towards the top. the rules and regulations of the federal government, the code of federal regulations to figure out the rules that apply, there are over one million regulations that prohibit some form of activity. form, a chart of how it has grown from 71 thousand pages two 174,000 pages. the reasons for that sharp growth? of the line ise the same slope over time. there are a couple of deviations here and there. the reason for it is congress has passed laws, installed permanent agencies. agencies will make
regulations until congress d funds them, which is rare. you have constant growth from the addition of more and more agencies. of agencies has grown over time and so have the number of regulations they produce. is your report only looking at the cost side of regulation? there is the argument that regulations have benefits, whether they are safety, environmental. how do you quantify cost versus benefit? guest: we are not measuring either of those. are designed to stop people from doing something or to make them do something. we are trying to caption that. it could lead to benefits, it could lead to cost. we are trying to measure that in the first place to better understand the consequences.
leastthe states at impacted. guest: new hampshire is first, washington, d.c., rhode island, massachusetts, vermont. states in the northeast that tend to be near the bottom of the list, and some on the west coast. not just variation across states, but across regions. aboutwe are talking federal rules and regulations and the impact on dates. we want to hear your stories. give us your perspective across the country as we talk about these rules and regulations. epublicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will put those numbers up on the screen and leave them there
for you so you know what number to call in. however, democrats from louisiana, the state most impacted by regulations in 2013. myself, one question is, haves it that people that low incomes, working all of myself, when ie go for assistance or some type of stamps assistance, they tell i can't get $15 a month. after i get that, they tell me i have to reapply after 90 days. i am trying to understand that. there is a connection between regulation and different income groups. ,ne thing we have noticed regulations tend to have
regressive effects. they disproportionately harm lower households. regulations by obligating or prohibiting an activity can make it more expensive for producers to make food, other products that are basic necessities. electricity is a heavily regulated. that is one thing lower income portionds spend a large of their budget on compared to high income households. is something that could be and it should be better considered when regulations are being designed. unfortunately, the state of practice for that is not perfect. karen wants to know is the study broken down by state versus federal regulation. guest: we are just looking at
federal regulation based on what industries are in the state. host: here is the growth of regulatory restrictions during presidential terms. lowestreagan with the amount of new regulatory restrictions. ,resident obama's second term rateslinton's second term third. first term,ama's what led the way? one law? the dominant feature is dodd frank. congress passes laws. those instructed agencies to create regulations or a new agency. dodd frank did both.
over 27,000. compare that to every other law passed in the obama administration, add them all together, it is still less than what dodd frank has produced. teresa, good morning. i see the district of columbia has the lowest bestations and it is the economic in any county in the country. a correlation there. maybe they need to be regulated more. i hope they get donald trump in there and he goes in line by line and gets rid of these regulations and saves the country. thank you. d.c. is certainly be of theto least regulated
states or at least impacted. d.c. is an area with an educated workforce, lawyers, accountants. those are not industries disproportionally impacted compared to those that rely things such as natural resources. what you said earlier, do they lead to cost or benefits, there will be some industries were regulations could create jobs. in d.c. ares created because of regulations. host: al is waiting. had a comment and a story about regulations and the question. ohio, the home of john kasich, we have a lot of fracking going on. i am in the epicenter of it.
we do not have any regulations written for that industry. ofare bringing all kinds waste from other states and we are getting revenue from matt. a little bit of revenue. the legislators are fighting the tax portion and the recovery of that cost. they are letting them go as they go. even my local officials do not know what businesses are in our ora or what violations previous existing regulations were used. have you reviewed any of the local and state regulations? in this town, i could be incarcerated for three days over a license plate light violation, but when a local company has
hazardous waste violations, the officials don't even know. thank you for your answer. guest: the layer of regulations we have to deal with in america can create a lot of confusion. on top of that, federal regulations are growing over time. large volume of rules from the federal government layer on top of state, on top of local rules. it can be overwhelming for small business. can berge business a costly to figure out what information is relevant to the business. looked at state and local regulations, we are building that up. the database creation has been intense. finding those regulations is a tough thing to do. at that.o look state first, local, i just don't
know when we will be able to pull that off. what is the mercatus center? we focus on economic issues related to public policy designed to communicate the economics, things that researchers are looking at to people practicing public those until we can inform choices. we have learned a lot. that is the reason we have more regulations. asbestos.d with it used to insulate pipes coming out of boilers.
many of these regulations are about what we learned. they are good for people. maybe some of these college kids could hire blue-collar workers to have age on them. they could tell them about some of the dangers things they have done in life. take care. learning about risk can inform regulatory choices. congress will react to real or informed risk. do a good jobon't learning about, is how congress impacts change. we may be hope they are going to work and address some risk we have identified. we don't look back and see if it did reduce the risk. a lot of debate centers
around cost versus benefit when these issues come up on capitol hill between -- come up on capitol hill. a recent tweet about the benefits of a clean power plant. he goes through the different health benefits. compare those apples and oranges? guest: it appears to be an art more than a science. there is consistent methodology to it. you need to outline what the outcomes the regulation is trying to achieve our. a regulationeating
about the safety of trains, what is the outcome you are trying to achieve? let's train accidents. that is something you can measure and observe. the rule is at how designed to reduce the specific negative outcome. can help youtheory look at the rules, if you can achieve it, you can look at the risk analysis and see that the rule is addressing the correct mechanism. if it is not, you are not likely to see benefits. they willnow if achieve that, but what we can do is look at how the design >> washington journal, coming up
president of the alliance for american manufacturing will join us to discuss the state of the manufacturing sector and react to the most recent trade numbers. universityhopkins avi rubin will be on. and melissa yeager for the sunlight foundation talks about organization's ongoing efforts to highlight what they described as the outsized role fundraising plays in the daily lives of congressional representatives. beginning live, join the discussion. >> the supreme court cases that
shaped our history come to light with the c-span series landmark cases. it explores real-life stories and constitutional drama behind the most significant decisions. puts the things about that -- that may not be expressly said in the constitution. >> he said as you did in your article the case is accepted by the culture. how many can you say about that? as onesolated the u.s. of only four nations across the globe that allowed abortion for any reason after fetal liability. it has not settled the issue at all. establishedse that
redistricting issues paving the way for the one man, one vote of american democracy. watch tonight at 10:00 >> tonight on c-span, president obama calls on the senate to consider his supreme court nominee, merrick garland. then the senate judiciary chair discusses his position against holding confirmation hearings for the nominee. later on c-span's late mark -- landmark cases, the case of baker versus carr. today, president obama returned to the university of chicago law school or he wants taught. he made the case for his supreme case nominee, judge merrick garland. he spoke of