tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 18, 2014 2:00pm-4:01pm EST
department of interior and the department of agriculture to continue their work to conserve sage grass habitat. the fish and wildlife service will still be able to do the analysis work required to meet a quarterly deadline to decide whether a listing is warranted under the endangered species act. we certainly do not agree with this provision but it contains funding for the kind of conservation measures we believe will be important to protecting sage grass and hopefully preventing the need for any sort of endangered species act rule to be implemented. circumstances would the president showcases support for artists by screening this movie at the white house? >> i don't have any announcements about that. i think as you know, the president is preparing to leave tomorrow night with his family to go to their traditional hawaii vacation trip.
i know he is looking forward to adding that time away. going to bek we are showing the film here anytime soon, but i would not rule it out necessarily in the future. >> i missed your briefing yesterday, so if this is well how will we know in six months, in a year, at 18 months, whether the president's overtures to cuba have worked based on your own internal guidelines and criteria? are there concrete deliverables? can i look out of -- can i look at the news out of cuba and say they let those prisoners stay and continue their activities? the resortreed up workers in results that cater to western tourist? are there things i can look at in here and have to make that judgment? >> the first thing i will point
the president acknowledged pretty directly we are not going to see changes overnight in cuba. socialypes of water changes take time. we certainly should have seen a lot more progress over the last 53 or 54 years since the embargo was put in place. that is a reflection of the fact that policy failed. that is why the president is advocating a different approach that focuses on empowering the cuban people to take more control of their daily lives and that kinds ofct political and social and economic changes they would like to see in their own country. ultimately, it should be their own decision. i think it would be appropriate progress of the castro regime when it comes to
respecting basic human rights by watching how they treat political prisoners, particularly those who have recently been granted their release. that the talk president mentioned yesterday of the cuban government taking steps that would allow their citizens greater access to the internet and greater access to that hasof information succeeded in empowering citizens and individuals to take greater control of their own lives. we saw specific commitments from the castro regime to engage in the international community and with red cross, engagement and cooperation with those institutions that champion human rights would be another legitimate way to evaluate their progress. the other thing i'm confident to president would be quick
point out and maybe you will have the opportunity to pro him on this tomorrow -- when we see this kind of change that does not occur in a straight line, we could see two steps forward and another step back. what we are looking at is over the longer term and we certainly anticipate that because of the strategy change how will see the cuban people become more empowered and we will see u.s. policy toward cuba will no longer be a distraction and our partners and allies in the western hemisphere who have previously come to us complaining about our policy mored cuba can now spend time talking to us about the cuban government's policy toward its own evil. that would shine a light of the situation of the pressure on the castro regime to protect and advance the basic human values we have long championed in this country. >> would you argue the same thing happened in china and vietnam?
think there is a clearer story to be told about vietnam, that the progress they have made has been important. certainly not complete and certainly not along a straight line, but we continue to believe the economic progress we have seen in vietnam will lead to the kind of medical and social progress that we have seen. this should be about the people of an individual country realizing their aspirations and having some way over how their country and society is run. it is the philosophy of this administration as it has been, greater engagement and deeper economic ties facilitate the kinds of economic changes that often lead to the political and social changes we believe are important. >> i know you think they will do
it, but i'm wondering has that happened? there are people who are probably better equipped to evaluate this than i am. i will let someone else pass judgment on that will stop i believe the president's strategy is clearly in our national security interest. i do think it serves to put more pressure on the chinese leadership to respect those basic universal human rights. there was extensive coverage and debate -- >> we will leave this briefing here. president obama will hold his year and news reefing and we will have coverage of that tomorrow on the c-span networks. iswill -- on your screen secretary ernest moniz, the director of the energy agency will join him to talk to energy
policy. this is hosted by the bipartisan policy center and is just getting underway. >> i will say a few words to maybe open this up in terms of a few things we are doing and look forward to hearing maria's reservation. the iea -- i think you are all familiar with, and organization the time ofrn in energy security concerns around oil. inremains extremely engaged the energy security discussion but now is a much broader discussion than it was for decades ago. i will say a few words about that and i'm sure maria will touch on that theme as well. all know about the enormous
changes we have had not only in the for decades but in the six years the last in-depth review was carried out. i'm not going to try to review al of those but let me say few words about what are clearly some of the priorities of the administration and the department of energy. first, let me say a few words on climate policy. of the president's and in a we talk often quite committed way about pursuing and all of the above approach which means making the investments to enable all fuels, all pathways to be part of a low carbon future. that is certainly what we are
doing and most recently, the big ins was a joint announcement china which you are all aware of, the united states committing to a pretty ambitious target of 26% to 28% reduction by 2025 and jungle -- and china putting forward what is also an ambitious plan. i want to emphasize one major abouts their statement peaking co2 in the 2030 timeframe. that is extremely significant in terms of the commitment of the chinese government to pursuing a carbon strategy to clearly take responsibility to be part of the solution. i want to call attention to the other part of the initial commitment they made, the one about 20% nonfossil energy.
you start working the numbers on that and it is very ambitious. year or yearawatt of energy production equivalently. a gigawatt a week to 2030. if you put in reasonable capacity factors, that is every nuclear, towatt of get lots of hydro, two and half gigawatts of wind, five gigawatts of solar every month to 2030. i think this really was ambitious and then when you add the eu's commitment and their think wet to 2030, i have an optimism in terms of what we can move the bar
forward. -- move the ball forward. -- weook some steps always want some more, but i think we have a good foundation and one ofd to paris the things maria and i have discussed is the critical role of continued technology evolution, specifically continued cost reduction of toan energy alternatives address the issues and frankly encourage policymakers to be aggressive in the path forward. we will continue to keep that focus on technology, on cost reduction, and we will do so in looking across the board in terms of fuels and technologies. let me say a few words about
energy security. i mentioned that earlier. i will talk about one of the specific initiatives we are engaged in with the iaea and european commission. clearly stimulated by the ukraine -- russia situation, the , with directu support and collaboration from the iaea started a process energy security and coming pretty rapidly to the don'tsion -- perhaps we say it enough, that energy security is a collective responsibility among allies and friends as opposed to a purely national activity. with our dramatically increased oil and gas production -- a 26%
increase in oil, we are talking pretty big numbers. with our enormous gas supplies, we should not be complacent and thinking somehow energy security is not something in which we have a stake. we remain coupled to the global oil price, but secondly, the energy insecurity of any of our allies and friends is an issue for us. and ofthought was in itself an important focal point of a new discussion around energy security. , none of this is perhaps new but putting it notther, energy security is the discussion of the time when iaea was founded with the first oil embargo. , it involves
diversification of supplies and supply routes. europe, the discussion is principally focused around natural gas as opposed to oil, but it is a broader statement. development of competitive transparent markets is an important part of energy security. addressing climate change because of what it inherently involves is a part of energy security. enhancing energy security is a part of energy security by working on the demand side. improving infrastructure resilience is an important part of energy security and i will come back to that. emergency place response systems, including one of the main functions of the
iaea, taking account of the importance of fuel substitution, all of these are elements of energy security. what we are doing our case is a charge coming from the g7 viewed in a much more expensive context with europe, with partners and other parts of the world like japan, for example. eu in someof the cases. we need to take an integrated view and that is what we are doing as we are putting together a roadmap for what would be the medium to long-term directions that we need to plan toward as secure for a clean and energy future. we've already discussed with majorspecifically a
effort around the gas markets and that is something we will be integrating in to our energy security work. a third element i would like to -- this monday, we have of theteral meeting ministers of canada, the united states, and mexico. it was the first time such a trilateral meeting had taken place in seven years. said about the six years since last in-depth review, these seven years have changed the energy world completely and it was certainly passed time for our three countries to get together. first of all, it was an
extremely positive meeting. among the specific initiatives youed to enshrined in an mo is that we will have an effort on our side led by the eia to data integration for north america. have a, we just don't very good handle a lot of the eta. good maps that look at the energy infrastructure and with the very impressive energy reform going we expect not only on our northern border but our southern border to see more of that. redford fromr. canada and i were very impressed by the description -- i would
even use the word is taking scope and ambition of their reform plan. this is going to be very exciting and one of the first is to get a common integrated data approach that would be complemented by looking more specifically at the issues of resilient infrastructure across our country's. be any, my last word will update. some of you have heard this on the quadrennial energy review. this was charged by the president in january but mentioned in the climate action plan of june 2013. essence, the goal is to integrate the equities and concerns and capabilities of
agencies across the entire government with equities and our energy policy. that list of those with equities in energy is practically the entire administration. chairmanship,use the department of energy functions as the executive secretariat. it's a major effort to integrate all of these threads. this year, to get going, we have no problem saying a four-year process could be a series of one year processes. for the first year, we are focusing on energy infrastructure, transmission, storage and distribution of energy. will be coming out at the end of january, but just to give a little flavor, we are optimistic it will be consequential as to how we pursue and integrated energy
approach and how we perceive a coherent discussion between the administration and congress in terms of the energy future. while we have a focus specifically on energy infrastructure, the fact is what we have found our in our miss issues to do with associated infrastructures like rail, waterways, big challenges. certainly, the waterway challenges and getting stuff into the water has a challenge and dimension i personally have until we wentd through this data exercise and analysis. we will be posting some of these papers very soon. looking at the natural gas atrastructure, we have found
the macro scale, the challenge is not as great as we had and this will give you a tiny flavor of what will be a our currentaround infrastructure and what we need 21st century a infrastructure going forward. that gives you a little flavor. over to to turn it maria to give us our report card. [applause] >> thank you very much. you andlike to thank the assistant secretary. you and i would like to
thank the bipartisan committee for hosting us. just today, we are here to present the findings of our energy policy in the united states. it is true that development in the united states energy sector in recent years have sustainability and economic competitiveness. other challenges remain and there is much to be discussed from the renaissance of the oil and gas industry to research and development and the main focus of our work, the long-term sustainability of the electricity sector. we all know and it's good you mentioned a number of things that are already looking forward , long-term sustainability requires clarity and this means effective national policies to encourage investment, create
renewables and a common understanding of the future of nuclear power. this is something i will return to when i present our recommendations. but first let's have a look at what has changed. six years ago, when the last review was published, we said the united states needed a more consistent national level energy policy. was ane days, there absence on the federal level and as such, we recommended the united states pursue close coordination between congress, he, and government. to a large consent, these concerns are being addressed not only by the introduction of the quadrennial energy review that by the climate action plan. the united states has undergone other significant changes since that time. the most obvious thing is the surge in oil and gas production.
gas production has just a game changer for the north american market. both within and outside the energy industry, energy security has been strengthened over the past six years. as already mentioned, we were the 1974n response to oil crisis and our initial role was to help countries coordinate supply for oilil stocks to the market. maintaining stocks equal to 247 days of net imports. as well as product service and
the northeast home heating oil service. has enjoyed ary renaissance over the past six years as a result in production and that was a boom that was expected to continue if prices remained at levels since seen earlier this year. but you have seen oil prices continue to plunge into november and december. oil production remains unchanged at current prices. price drops continue, there will be an impact on production as marginal products could become economical. pullback ins a drilling that might be required, most notably as a backup formation. feature of theg
energy landscape has been the unexpected rise in shale gas production. impact gasues will shale production. on average, higher prices will be required to offset for the loss of revenues in many formations. accordingly, we expect lower oil prices to feed into higher gas prices. this scale and size of the adjustment is dependent on the actual level of oil prices and the consistency of the lower price. the united states has moved gas to from oil and being a possible energy exporter. the countries on the path to becoming one of the world's largest energy suppliers. this can only be a good thing.
hire u.s. natural gas prices prices mighter gas reduce lower projects and cost control will prove critical for the lng sector. despite this boom and gas reduction, it is cold that remains the largest source of energy. thisheless, we have seen decline as the sector switches to cleaner natural gas and climate plans and environmental recommendations will give way to the core capacity. bia he foresees more than 250 gigawatts of core capacity remaining at the end of the decade. let's have a look at the power sector. i know there has been increased coordination between congress and the ministration, and state
governments, but there are still bridges to be built. china's policy remains unsettled, a disputed energy of energy policy between the executive and legislative ranches of government. last weekend i was encouraged by the level of engagement, but we all know words are worth nothing without action. in this regard, there's a great opportunity for the united states along with china and other emerging economies to take a leadership role and drive for real action when the world meets in paris. the recent u.s. and china joint announcement on cooperation would together account for one third of global greenhouse emissions. we need real policies that build on such pronouncements. the climate action plan released
in june 2013 proposes the use of executive powers on existing laws to take on harmful admissions. the epa has also proposed a clean power plan to cut emissions from the power plant and has proposed goals and guidelines for states to follow developing plans to achieve state specific goals. these are exactly the kinds of plans that will see political commitments effectively realized. you mentioned energy efficiency and renewables. of steak has made progress reducing energy consumption. the united states has achieved a large improvement in recent decades. albeit from relatively high levels for appliances, equipment and new buildings.
since 2008, over one million low income homes have improved the efficiency for less well off emily's. the recovery act of 2009 provided more than 12 million -- 12 billion u.s. dollars in energy efficiency for low income homes, public buildings and research and along with more than 20 billion u.s. dollars in modernizing buildings, green jobs and electric technology. energy efficiency codes are projected to produce more than 30% improvement in the energy efficiency of new homes and buildings when compared to the 2006 building codes and standards. progress has also been seen on renewables. the united states has set a goal to double renewable energy
production by 2020 compared to 2012. explicitthere is no policy mechanism to make sure the country reaches this start. , the federal government has imported fiscal mechanisms and mandates among other tools to support renewable deployments. yes, the durability of some incentives such as the tax credit remains a persistent uncertainty. and yet another extension undermines investor confidence and follows the path -- and a lack of timely clarity under renewable fuel standards has created difficulty with renewable transport fuels.
this lack of long-term policy durability creates a challenge for investment in new projects that has to be addressed. a more balanced approach would extend a fixed time of five years while gradually reducing the level 20 on a permanent basis. this would provide greater investor certainty and spur cost reductions. let me have a look at the transport sector. the largest oil consumer, new regulations have been introduced to reduce energy consumption. federal agents finalize the program to improve the fuel economy of cars and trucks sold in the united states. more fuel economy standards for light duty vehicles model years 2012 and 2017 have been
established alongside standards for heavy duty vehicles manufactured during 2014 at 2018. these have been significant accomplishments. fact, these vehicle fuel economy standards are projected 3.6 billion barrels of oil on light duty vehicles and heavy duty vehicles built between 2014 and 2018. all is equivalent to almost equivalents of 2012. put it another way, these policies result in a fuel economy trajectory from 2014 roughly parallel to the improvements in the eu, japan and china, albeit from a much lower starting point will stop
and the drop in oil prices -- it will inevitably lead to more driving. these serve to significantly lessen the impact of that. in addition, the united states is the largest electric vehicle market in the world and home to approximately 43% of all electric vehicle sold worldwide today. vehicle deployment is supported by the federal government through consumer incentives ranging up to 7500 u.s. dollars per vehicle as well research andl's development spent between 2008 in 2012 alone. states have taken the lead on deploying infrastructure from to re-base in maryland and the federal government sports programs such as the workplace charging employersand never of
and we see here there is good cooperation. but despite this progress, electric vehicles have not broken through 1% of sales. fiscal incentives should be maintained to support this nation's market and infrastructure needs to be expanded and easier to find and use. all levels of government will need to build upon the successes to ensure the potential of electric vehicles can be met. i mention research, development and demonstration. the federal government remains one of the largest funding entities for energy technology this has played a critical role in achieving
advances in all fields of energy strategic plan provides a path to achieving national energy goals and demonstrates the government's firm commitment to basic research, development demonstration and clean energy technologies. the quadrennial technology review is providing a platform to help align energy and priorities to achieve national energy goals over a five-year horizon. the government should continue to develop approaches to ensure a long-term environment which would help meet energy technology goals and avoid negative impacts on program stability. we all know the united states is rich in co2 storage and gas reservoirs.
the united states is among the global leaders in research and development and demonstration. there were 19 large-scale projects in operation or in various stages of development, including eight major demonstration projects. kemper county project is an example of the scale of the challenges as well as rising capital cost facing the technology. landscape does remain unsettled. scheme is in place. in long-terms liability, some of which are being addressed by individual things like leadership. to the electricity market and resilience. that is the focus of this
review. today, 10 regional transmission organizations work across a large proportion of the united states and canada. this structure has delivered many benefits such as efficient use of existing assets and electricity costs. the electricity system remains fragmented. markets,he success of electricity across the board remains difficult. the balance between consolidation of system operators and coordinators between systems as needed. this need will become more it continues to grow
and greater access to balancing is required. electricity is no longer about load-balancing. and extremege weather are fundamental he the way we view energy systems. system resiliency has become a greater rarity than ever before. the combined efforts to improve climate preparedness and resilience. thankfully, regulators have begun to respond to this and are providing guidance to network asset owners to enhance the resilience of the bulk power system. you can imagine that these efforts must continue. only threat to the energy system of the last two decades. threats have expanded as a result of years of alternation,
i.t., telecommunication and other electronic medication devices. department of energy in collaboration with industry and other partners with the federal government has released a roadmap to achieve energy systems which features a strategy and related milestones for addressing cyber security in the energy sector. it is an example of strong leadership replicated elsewhere. of course, you need to have a look at investment. energy independence and security act of 2007 made it the policy of the united states to support the modernization of the electrical grid. , the energy outlook requirecy scenario will $2.1 million investment of 235.
in addition to investing in steel, there needs to be a greater coordination between the gas line system and the extra high voltage power systems. again is the need to better cooperate -- better coordinate operations as well as market and planning rules. the policies for planning and citing, cap -- cost allocation recovery are required in order to achieve the level of transmission and fired -- required. renewablesloyment of will require access over wider geographic areas that need more interconnections. despite the advantages offered markets have grid,
been slow. the market framework and regulations should encourage private sector investments in these advanced technologies and practice. we expect almost 600 gigawatts of new generation capacity will be needed for 2040. while it is up to the market to attract investment, regulation has a role. they should consider a policy .ecommendation to ensure supply this is particularly relevant in the case of nuclear power. now, to our key recommendations. the previous idr highlighted the absence of a link in policy level for security policies and recommended the united states andue closer coordination
such policies. the quadrennial process is a tool that can address this. we recommend the united states complete a process leading to the quadrennial and utilizes outcomes to establish coordinated outlooks for the energy sector. the united states has within its grasp an opportunity to set itself firmly on the path of secure and sustainable energy systems and we recommend the united states trust this opportunity and address some of the weaknesses we have highlighted. to do so, we recommend supporting the development and implementation of demand-side measures and efficiency policies with an emphasis on transportation and building safety. andring greater her ability physical resent it -- fiscal incentives to maintain investor confidence and continuing to enable common gaps and storage
through predictable regulatory framework. third and this concerns much of our -- the sustainability of the electricity sector. coordinate national polity -- national policies to reduce the uncertainties that beat investment in secure electricity infrastructure including transmission, distribution, smart grids, renewable energy integration and climate resilience. greater coordination between different grid operators in order to facilitate integration of greater shares of renewables and optimize regional transmission investments. including a statement of how the federal government will provide long-term support for nuclear power. thanks to, a sincere
everyone who contributed and as i noted earlier, there has been great progress in the six years since our last review and i look forward to seeing greater progress after another six years. inc. you for your attention. -- thank you for your attention. [applause] >> i am the executive director of the energy project here at the bipartisan policy center. i want to recognize senator byron dorgan and b domenici have been instrumental for many decades. without their leadership, we probably would not have any number of the successes we have had over the last few decades. we appreciate you being here and love working with you. while you get your questions ready, we have a roving microphone. ,f you will tell us who you are
that will help without a great deal. what a difference less than a decade makes. i only think about where we will be seven or eight years from now. we have come out of one of the worst recessions ever. this has major implications not only for what the federal government did to help out, but on the production side. other end of pennsylvania avenue, it has caused us to look at what we have done and that's a huge part that will be in the mix over the next seven or eight years. have heard the secretary say we are looking for a grade, so what do we get? a b minus? [laughter] >> i have been involved in teaching.
you tell us and we do something more. we have a question right here. >> i question is for both of you -- how do you move toward new sources of energy and away from traditional sources when we have $60 oil and quite low gas prices? >> prices are a given at the moment. when you are an oil-producing country, you're quite happy about the price.
that is a positive point. on the other hand, let's use this opportunity. it is an opportunity for a number of countries putting a lot of subsidies to face these fuel subsidies. we are talking about 550 billion u.s. dollars a year. this affects countries like mexico, thailand and malaysia who want to use this opportunity to at least get rid of part of their fuel subsidies will stop another thing is why not use his price --ty to put a tax --t the same as a you could make use of this situation and put a price on something.
now we have an opportunity to do something like that. the third thing i would like to mention is we've done quite a lot. done a lot in energy efficiency, in fuel efficiency. in renewables. these rss that are more important. let's not forget about that. >> first of all, make it very that relatively low prices for gas in the united states are a real boon for consumers. we already see some of that affect coming in certainly -- i'm not going to attributed entirely to that but we saw a big jump up in term of
job creation to well over 300,000. we start with that. it's clearly very important. obviously, with a relatively soft economy in europe, china, anything that helps to get that going would be good for the world economy. having said that, we are committed to going to a low carbon future. if you points there -- even as we practically celebrate our increased oil production and dramatically reduced oil imports, we still have a major oil importer, number one. number two, we don't take our eyes off the ball of continuing to reduce oil dependence in three ways. efficient vehicles, campaign -- cafe standards and the technology that will allow us to do that will stop next
generation biofuels, for example and electrification of the eccles. it's nottually seeing a huge number but we see substantial and increasing penetration there. renewables and efficiency, we do have a large number of states that remain with strong renewable portfolio standards. that is one way of continuing the deployment. we do have and it was alluded to policies which are not economy solution area advocated for, but in different sectors like cafe standards and the proposed rules and power plants. we have a variety of mechanisms to keep pushing toward a low
carbon future. finally, going back to the technology future which is absolutely central and i want to about thoset's not oil and gas prices being low, it is about driving down the cost of the alternatives. we are making tremendous progress on that across the board. but i will go to our technology focus -- maria showed the research development and demonstration for olio or at least the budget for that portfolio. that goes to addressing the challenge in one year, 20 years, 30 years to keep trying toward lower and lower and i also don't want to forget deployment. that's for addressing me much
more immediate term. notloan program, you may even familiar with its scale but we have $34 billion of commitment out there. of remainingillion of atments and the chatter few years ago, we keep forgetting this is a highly successful portfolio that is getting clean energy out there big-time and we will continue that over these next year's. in deploymentt and further cost reduction even in this decade. >> thank you. i'm margaret ryan. i was very interested in
integrating the electricity market. have what could be called a rather fractured electricity system with state-by-state control of the market. what you're actually recommending -- are you recommending some kind of federal, for lack of a better word, takeover or are you talking about integrating on some other level? >> i think you answered the question by yourself. it's not about taking over. that's not going to help. when i compare the united states there is a similarity. if you are not capable of having betweeninterconnection
the state, three difficult to balance the grid and see to it that you can help each other when it is needed. it is difficult when you are rich in renewables to sell the board across the state will stop it's not about taking over. it's about what regulators can do and what the federal government can do. maybe it's time to have something that in core urges these corporations. meaning regional asus, a number of things. it is exactly the same. it is what europe is doing with countries having hydropower and ask boarding it to northern europe.
these kinds of mechanisms are very important to solve those problems. statesrly in the united -- various boundaries that don't match physical realities, however, that is the system that we have. it's also not only the question of state regulatory authorities that need to be addressed. but they need to be addressed and that the system. also have another challenge, utilities for example -- we have so many business structures of utilities that even things like how would you structure incentives?
welle tax incentives work for a class of utilities that are relevant to another class of utilities. very strong focus on state in the reason -- in the region and that's one reason we carried out 14 regional meetings going across the country on that. we firmly believe regional solutions are important. we can do some things to enable that through technology, for example through the recovery act , there was a massive push on phasers. the other thing is we need to have flexibility.
the 111 d rule, flexibility to states and regions to work together is absolutely central to the construct. in the draft rule, what is opposed ultimately are sets of targets appropriate to different states realities. now you figure out a way to meet those targets and you may want to find it is more efficient to work regionally. sometimes through our convening power to enhance those solutions. 3:00 and i know the secretary has to go. let's go right here.
>> mr. secretary, you mentioned your talks with your two counterparts in canada and mexico were encouraging in terms of integrating energy data. are there other energy integration projects like financing, creating a better investment clients, particularly in mexico? the moderators rule, the answer is yes. [laughter] i will add a couple of more words. the reform they are carrying out in and of themselves are critical for the investment environment. example of integration that were raised by the integrationne was
in terms of emergency preparedness and response, which could be a very valuable for example, even with superstorm sandy, the canadians absolutely step forward to provide foreign assets. there were a few problems at the border. the issue for how you prepare for that, pre-position waivers. is one. another one raised by the mexican colleagues was a strong interest in working together on human capacity development. that we all need and the workforce around what would probably be much more integrated energy sector worst. >> on that note, let -- let's thank the panel. this was great. thank you for coming.
on china relations. the two will offer their views about further u.s. engagement with the chinese leadership. live coverage starting at 5:30 eastern. >> here are some of the programs you will find this weekend. saturday night, after seth rogen discussing politics and humor with liz winstead of the harvard institute of politics. 8:00, authorg at and town hall editor katie papp what she receives as the hypocrisy of liberals. c-span2 on book tv afterwards. the top universities are missing the mark in education and students should learn lessons in how to think rid of way, be creative and have a goal beyond the material and sunday
morning, book tv visits lafayette indiana to interview several of the city's authors and to her literary sites. literary sites. saturday at 6:00 eastern on the civil war, damien shields about -- talks about patrick clay burned and life in the confederate army during the battle of franklin, tennessee. sunday afternoon at 4:00, a 1974 -- on theed these by history of police brutality in neighboring oakland. find the complete schedule online and let us know we think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter.
>> under-secretary of state arms control and international security rose scott moeller says ukraine,ensions over russia continues to implement the new stark treaty. she spoke yesterday at the brookings institution about the nuclear arms control effort. >> good morning. welcome to the brookings institution. i am a senior fellow here where initiative.ms it is my pleasure today to introduce under secretary of state who will talk to us about american arms control policy. before continuing with my introduction, i would like to to thece the gratitude carnegie corporation of new york whose generous support makes programs like today's possible. when president obama took office
in 2009. he set out of area just -- aggressive agenda for arms control. the course of the first year the administration recorded significant achievements. april 2010 at have find a new strategic arms introduction treaty. a nuclear posture review which role and launch nuclear security promise -- process. the president almost immediately laid out almost wore a aggressive roles. he talked about negotiations to further reduce russian and strategic forces and also to expand those to include tactical directions and also reserve strategic weapons in a way for the first time we have had the united states and russia negotiating on their entire nuclear arsenals.
there was a brief time when nato and russia discuss the pop the rarity of missile tests missile defense. things have slowed since then. certainly over the past year of the crisis over ukraine but even before, it was clear on major questions of arms control, the russians had still made process on strategic forces, tack to cool nuclear weapons and missile defense. the obama administration has two years left to go and delighted to have the undersecretary to talk about what to expect. she has a long and distinguished career with u.s. government. 1990 and we were at the soviet desk of the state department. she has also served at the national security council, senior position to the department of energy him and into thousand nine, the assistant secretary for arms control verification and compliance or she let the negotiation of the new start treaty and now holds the position of under secretary of state for arms control and are international security.
i should say in addition to being the government topics on arms control and security questions, the organizer of most excellent adventures. in 1994 the national security council staff and working with her on russia and ukraine questions in the state department. one day she calls to tell me, strategic demand has offered to take me to georgia to visit the submarine base in and then go down to poor canaveral. would you like to come along? is this a trick question? he then had a 2.5 days seeing preparing toay was conduct the inspections it was going to require -- required to accommodate under the new treaty , and spent eight hours on the uss maryland where we visited every compartment, drove the submarine and at one point got to look at a cited missile. this was the dream died. look forward to your conversation, and after opening
remarks, we will be happy to open up the questions to audience and have a discussion. >> what steve did not mention about the day is the fondest memory i have is actually getting a drivers license for driving to maryland. that was totally addicted list, but nevertheless, something i treasure. >> this time of year is a special time of year and and delighted to see so many friends and -- in the audience. it is actually a very good moment to come to you and speak about the plans for arms arms-control agenda over the coming years. first of all, this holiday time is a very special time for the
administration because so much in the disarmament arena was accomplished of this time. i remember in 2009 read after the copenhagen summit where president obama, and then president the dead dead -- mededev had very important meetings which resulted in another important meeting in january when they went to moscow with a team from across the inner agency to again press forward the progress in the negotiations. this period was very, very important. and on december 22, 2010, the new start treaty was ratified, the senate gave its advice and consent to the new start treaty.
i always feel free special about this time of year for a number of reasons in our arena, in addition to the normal good fun that ensues. as all of you might know, i have been traveling quite a bit lately. i just got back from a trip to the hague to visit the opcw, continue our work on weapons issues. prague, to do a speech on our disarmament agenda going forward, and i will replay some of those points today, but also expand on them. this laid the groundwork for the following two days at the vienna conference on humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons use. all of that will be woven into what i have to say today. the third stop on his most recent trip of mine was in ukraine. i had the opportunity to go to kiev. the anniversary was the anniversary of the budapest memorandum entering into force on december 4, 1994. i had an opportunity to speak to a ukrainian audience. as you can imagine, there were sharp questions about the import
of the budapest memorandum for ukraine. i will be glad to talk about that during the question and answers. it is another reason why the season of the year is a very important one. what i would like to say about ukraine in my beginning remarks is, first of all, we see a government that is focused on problem-solving and intent on moving strongly forward with the reform agenda that they have, i think, failed to fufill over so many years now. i am very hopeful after this trip to ukraine and hopeful for -- not only hopeful, but convinced of their continuing partnership in the nonproliferation treaty regime with strong commitments voiced to their non-nuclear weapons status under the npt. a very good visit in many ways. i come back here with many recent and important impressions and look forward to sharing them with you, in addition to hearing your thoughts and your questions this morning. i will say to begin with, what i said in prague.
first of all, there should be no doubt the u.s. commitment to achieving the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons is unfailable. we will keep faith with our nonproliferation treaty article six commitments. our responsible approach to disarmament has borne fruit in the form of major reductions in nuclear weapons and nuclear infrastructure. these efforts have led us to reduce our nuclear arsenal by approximately 85% from its cold war era highs. in real numbers, that means we
have gone from 31,255 nuclear weapons interactive stockpile in 1967 to 4804 in 2013. we know however, we still have work to do. 4804 nuclear weapons is still a lot of weapons. as we can consider future reductions, our focus must be on verifiable measures that all interested parties can nuclear states and on a clear states alike, can trust. our past experience, successes into supplements, will inform how we proceed each step we proceed each step building upon the last. when we take stock in the last 30 years, it is clear our path has been the right one. we have accomplished so much. if we had all been gathered together in this room for nuclear host the event at brookings in 1985, i don't think anyone in the room could have imagined or predicted how much we were able to accomplish. i was right down the road in 1985 at 21st and m street at the rand corporation and i know i would not have protected how much we have accomplished. by the way, my next-door neighbor at rand corporation was ted warner, a very good expert in our field who has passed on recently. and i know there are others among this group who miss him as much as i do, but his legacy is truly a great one and i did want
to say a word in tribute to ted warner this morning because he was a great colleague and a great friend. within that decade of 1985, washington and moscow would conclude the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty, the strategic arms reduction treaty start, the presidential nuclear initiative, and the purchase agreement. these various bilateral and parallel, unilateral initiatives led to an array of impressive and long reaching efforts, banning an entire class of missiles during the other
weapons -- nuclear weapons, by over 11,000 weapons, drastically reducing and eliminating whole categories of tactical nuclear weapons on removing others from routine deployment and converting russian nuclear material equivalent to an astounding 20,000 nuclear weapons into fuel for nuclear power plants. these efforts were followed by the strategic offensive reductions treaty, sometimes called the moscow treaty, which further reduced u.s. and russian deployed strategic forces. in 2010, the united states and russia signed the new start treaty. when it is fully implemented, new start will limit the warheads to the lowest levels since the 1950's. new start is enhancing strategic and security stabilities between the u.s. and russia. both are faithfully implementing the treaties inspection regime. even during a severe crisis with the russian federation, the russians are continuing in a businesslike way to implement the new start treaty. current tensions with the russian federation highlights durability of the verification regime and the important confidence that is provided by
data exchanges and notifications, onsite inspections under the treaty, as well as security predictability provided by mutual limits off central sources that are verifiable in nature. none of these achievements good have been predicted back in 1985, nor laid out in the long term time bound process. on the contrary, it was the faithful implementation of each individual initiative that provided trust and confidence and the strategic opportunity to move ahead to the next phase. underpinning all of our efforts, stretching back decades, it has been our clear understanding of recognition of humanitarian consequences of the use of these weapons.
that is the message that the united states delivered in vienna last week at the conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. we appreciated hearing the testimonies and statements of the participants, including many victims of nuclear radiation contamination. while we acknowledge the views of those who call for the negotiation of a nuclear weapons ban treaty, the united states cannot and will not support efforts to pursue such a ban. we believe the practical path that we have so successfully followed in the past remains the only realistic route to our shared goal of a nuclear weapons-free world. again, it should be remembered that we share the same goal, we just have different ideas about how to process to that goal. the international community cannot ignore or wish away the obstacles confronting us that slowed the pace of progress on arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we must all acknowledge not every nation is ready or willing to pursue serious arms control and nonproliferation efforts. we are seeing new and enduring pressures on the nonproliferation treaty, pressures that threaten global
stability. we're seeing nations turn away from cooperation and the common good of nonproliferation efforts, and clinging more tightly to their nuclear arsenals. as we push those nations to accept their global and ethical responsibilities, the united states will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal for the defense of our nation and our allies. this is not a stance mutually exclusive of disarming goals. it simply means it recognizes the international security environment in which we find ourselves is one which we must take account of and pursue further progress in a very difficult overarching situation. we are concious of our current obligations and responsibilities, and we are meeting them. the united states knows it has a responsibility to lead efforts toward disarmament, and i can affirm to you we will never, never relent in this pursuit. there are people here in washington and people around the world who see the landscape and
say that we cannot control the spread of weapons of mass destruction or further limit nuclear stockpiles. they are wrong. it was in prague that president obama reminded us such fatalism is a deadly adversary. for if we believe that the spread of weapons is inevitable, then in some ways, we are admitting to ourselves the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. the united states cannot and will not accept this. when we failed to pursue peace, the president also said wednesday's be on forever beyond our grasp. the united states will press ahead even in the face many obstacles. while we have accomplished much over the past five years, we will continue to push forward. we have no intention of diverting from our active efforts to reduce the role in numbers of nuclear weapons, increase confidence and
transparency, shrink the nonproliferation, and address complaints challenges. we will do so pursuing all of the available and practical avenues. the united states earlier this month contributed resources and experts to the successful on-site inspection exercise held by the comprehensive test ban treaty organization in jordan. the so-called ife14 field integrated exercise. such practical efforts help to ensure the international community will have an effective verification regime in place for the day when the ctbt enters into force. the united states has made clear clear we are prepared to engage with russia on the full range of issues affecting strategic stability and there are real and meaningful steps we should be
taking that can contribute to a more predictable, safer, secure environment. given the u.s. and russia continue to possess over 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world, this is an important and worthy goal. in june of 2013 in berlin, president obama stated he willingness to negotiate a reduction of up to one third of our deployed strategic warheads on the level established in the new start treaty. progress requires a willing partner and conducive strategic environment, but this offer is still on the table. on the broader world stage, progress toward disarmament requires the states take greater responsibility to resolve the conflicts that give rise to proliferation dangers. it requires ending the nuclear buildup in asia that iran, join an agreement for restoring full, it is in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program, and that north korea returned to compliance with its international obligations. and requires a make progress
elsewhere when we can. this includes in the middle east where we will spare no effort to convene an historic conference on a zone-free of weapons of mass destruction and systems of the delivery. and thomas countryman is fully engaged in this progress -- project. as the u.s. considers arms control and nonproliferation priorities, we will continue to consult closely with our allies and partners every step of the way. our security and defense and there's is simply nonnegotiable. we are in a difficult crisis period with the russian federation. i began with that. matters include that only ukraine, but also russia's violations of the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty. addressing both situations is an ongoing process. with the violation, we will continue engaging the russian government to resolve u.s. concerns. our objective is for russia to return to verifiable compliance with its treaty obligations as the treaty is in our mutual security interest, and that of
all countries around the globe. indeed, we need cooperation with russia and other nations to address new threats. first and foremost, the threat of terrorists acquiring a nuclear weapon or nuclear material. they need his cooperation for their own security as well as for the security of other countries around the globe. as i've outlined, there's no way to skip to the end of four go the hard work of solving the truly daunting technical and political nonproliferation and disarmament challenges that lie ahead. it is not enough to have a political will to pursue this agenda, we have to have a practical way to pursue this agenda.
we can all acknowledge verification will becoming increasingly complex as lower numbers of nuclear weapons while -- as we lower the numbers of nuclear weapons, while requirements for accurately determining compliance will dramatically increase. everyone who shares the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons should be devoted a lot of time and energy nowadays to address this challenge. with that idea in mind, i announced in prague a new initiative, the international partnership for new greatest moment verification. the u.s. proposes to work with both nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapons states to better understand the technical problems of verifying nuclear disarmament and develop solutions. the united kingdom and norway have high near this type of work. this new initiative will build on the spirit of that experiment to create a nontraditional partnership that draws on the expertise of talented individuals around the world, both in government and out of government. and in that regard, and sibley delighted the nuclear threat initiative will be a prime partner inviting intellectual
energy and resources to this project. we are excited to be working with them on it, and hope to work with more of you on this initiative as well. i do hope we will have opportunities to develop an ongoing discourse as we rolled out the agenda for the initiative further and hope to hear good ideas from you, whether it is on the process side, procedural side, or on the technology side as well. we truly do want a wide range of partnership with the nongovernmental community. beyond this effort, we will continue to work with the p5 on transparency and verification. the united kingdom will hold a conference in early february in london.
the regular interactions cooperation and trust building the happening now in the p5 forum is the future for negotiations. in closing, i would like to make it clear the united states has plans and we intend to see them through. at the core of our efforts is our deep understanding of the human impacts of nuclear weapons. that is why i traveled this year to the marshall islands, to hiroshima, and two times two utah to talk with those who have suffered at the use of nuclear weapons, radiation contamination, and economic problems as well. that is why the united states sent a delegation last week to the vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons use. the united states understands that nuclear weapons are not a theoretical tool, they are real and any use of nuclear weapons would exact a terrible toll. no one in this country, or any country, should ever forget that. thank you very much for your attention. i look forward to our discussion period. thank you. [applause] >> first of all, thank you for the overview. let me take the moderator's
approach with a couple of questions and open it to the audience. we have about an hour to grill you. the first question would be general. when you're looking at the overall u.s.-russia relationship, there has been this crisis over ukraine that has been a big shadow. you did mention despite that, the russians have worked in a corporate away in terms of implementation of new start, but you have also had a series of other exchanges. you have been to moscow.
you have met with the deputy minister. how has that affected those changes? do you see an impact? >> i think, quite honestly, and there are a lot of speculations out there that things have gone severely worse since the crisis in ukraine. i would say some of the hesitation we saw from the russian federation about the disarmament agenda had merged well before the crisis over ukraine. there were concerns about -- and many of you remember there were a series of issues they said were of concern to them before they wanted to engage in further strategic arms reduction negotiations, including missile defenses come in the presence of nuclear weapons in europe, including conventional global strike -- a number of issues were out there. which i saw, essentially, a serving a blocking function to any further discussion of nuclear disarmament measures in the period immediately after new start entered into force.
oh, by the way, another key russian talking point throughout that period in the run-up to the ukraine crisis was that, essentially, new start would have to be fully implemented before they would agree to proceed with any further negotiations. new start will be fully implement it on february 5, 2018. we don't have that far to go. nevertheless, i've been arguing regularly to my russian colleagues that not only is the berlin proposal and their security interest as well as ours and no country enters into an arms control treaty, including our own, unless it is international security interest. furthermore, it is the further proposal that could be implemented -- that we could implement new start and build out from that in implementing the berlin proposal. i just want to make people aware we had, i would say, hesitations and barriers in the way even before the ukraine crisis emerged. since the crane crisis emerged,
the situation has been complicated by the severity of that terrible crisis. however, i would also say i think there are some interesting continuing signs out there of pragmatism and a businesslike attitude. in addition to the new start treaty, we had tremendous success with implementation of the chemical weapons project, getting 1300 tons of chemical weapons out of syria in the time between september 2013 at september 2014. at the very height of this ukraine crisis, we continue to work very successfully with moscow as well as with the u.n. task force that was assigned with an cementing this project to get those chemical weapons
out of the country. there is still more work to do. we're dealing with our concerns about the capabilities that syrians and not have declared to the opcw, but nevertheless, that is a good sign. i think of a continuing business-like attitude in moscow. the third area has been one for my colleague wendy sherman, and that is the so-called p5+1 talks. they continue to help to move that agenda forward. it is an interesting mixed picture, i would say, people of asked me why i continue to be optimistic despite the negative trend lines. part of it is associated with this businesslike attitude that i have seen when the russians have clearly decided it is international security interest to continue to cooperate. >> let me ask a second question. you mentioned the russian violation of the inf treaty. shortly after the formal
judgment was announced publicly, the russian said, well, we have three concerns in terms of the use of drones, targeted missiles. a question about the vertical lunchbox plan for the deployments in romania and poland. how do respond to those charges? >> first and foremost, with a clear statement that the united states remains fully in compliance with the inf treaty and furthermore, i talked about the very careful compliance assessment process we carry out, the defense department has the lead for those assessments, but nevertheless, it is with close consultation with other agencies of our government and so we say that we have a process in place and we come to careful determination and we say to the russians, don't you have such a process as well? essentially, that is part of my discourse with them, to talk about the necessity of compliance, being considered as a whole of government type of issue.
i'll put it that way. i will say, also for this group, i know there's been a lot of interest in this and taking from the interest we've heard from the nongovernmental community, we're putting together a fact sheet that will provide you some unclassified information about why we clearly believe these three systems are in compliance with the inf treaty. i wish i had it to hand out today. it is still being worked. it will be available on our website, so we will make sure that is available for everybody. i am completely confident we are in compliance with our inf treaty obligations based on a very solid interagency process. >> let me open up the floor to the questions from the audience. keep it short and it should be something resembling a question mark at the end. >> good morning, madam secretary. since you are speaking about the
dangers of nuclear weapons, wanted to ask you about the u.s. modernization. specifically, i want you to comment on the news article by a professor, which is about to be published in the latest issue of "the nation" magazine. so i don't distort his views, i wanted to read a few brief passages with your permission. close analysis reveals technical sophisticated effort to use nuclear forces for direct confrontation with russia. and point number two, the modernization draft is a disturbing indication the u.s. military believes a nuclear war against russia can be fought and won.
>> i disagree profoundly with both of those points. and one point i have made repeatedly to my interlocutors in moscow is that we have been down this road before of an action/reaction cycle. the last thing we need now is to repeat the mistakes of the cold war. of course, if necessary, they would be in our national security interests, but we don't see them as necessary at this time. what is necessary is some judicious modernization of our nuclear forces. it is interesting, i would say the moment, there is it disconnect russia after the period of the 1990's were a lot of the russian strategic nuclear arsenal was essentially going out of its guaranteed period of service. they passed out of their service life so russians had a mass to deal with.
in this first decade of the century, russia has been focusing on modernization of strategic forces and putting resources into that. the second decade of the 20th century, now underway, the united states is putting some resources into judicious modernization of our strategic forces. there is a bit of a lag time here, but i would say both moscow and washington have in making some decisions about what i consider to be judicious modernization following cold war era systems going out of their service life.
>> thank you. rose, thank you for wide-ranging brief. one of the challenges out there that you mentioned is the growth of nuclear arsenals in asia. i was wondering if you could expand a little bit on that particular problem, and how your part of the administration is thinking about dealing with that long-term problem. more specifically, if you can give a sense of the quality of our discussions with the chinese on these particular issues? not just in the p5 context, but bilaterally on the question of should you took stability. >> i will say word in support of the p5 process. i remember the first meeting in london in september 2009, which i considered a proto-meeting. it was one of those meetings if you have been in government, you recognize that people exchange their talking point scripts. it is still -- stilted, to be honest.
in the five years since, there has been a steady increase in the amount of true direction in these meetings and a maturation a new sophistication, i would say, in the interactions among all of the p5. i welcome -- the u.k. hosted the first proto-meeting and now returning at the end of the first cycle, to a meeting in london. i know the discussion will be very rich and interactive and actually we are, i think, putting a lot of issues on the table with regard to strategic stability. and having a chance to air them in exchange views on them at p5, which has not happened historically. i very much welcome. in terms of bilateral interaction with the chinese, i want to talk about several levels. first of all, i want to give due credit to the non-governmental community for the track one and track two discussions that have been going on with regard to china and a lot of the organizations around through have been carrying them out in one way or another.
there is a lot of interesting new developments, i would say, no settings with the chinese being willing to talk about the details -- in those settings with the chinese being able to talk about verification regimes in that type of thing where they have not been willing historically to touch on those topics or simply have been in a listening mode and not willing to really come out and discuss her participate in projects. these kinds of second track activities are reflected also on the government side in particular, practical, i would say developments. a couple of weeks ago, i was there for the vip day. one of the most impressive sensors was a noble gas detector that the chinese technical teams had worked on and brought and they had a dare and were showing how it would operate for us the vip's, many of us not knowing anything technically, but it was
good to see entire chinese technical team there and the respect and the regard for the technology that they had brought by the rest of the team. that was good to see on an international basis. it was also good for those of you who know of professor, they're as their vip, and one of the negotiators. to see him there, he was interacting with all of us, of course, but interacting with the technical team that was there and it was very fun and gratifying, actually. i am seeing, with china, a kind of willingness to engage that i did not see before i given to government this time in the last five years, i think, there's been a real intensification in their effort to engage both
unofficially and officially with some true practical results. >> good morning. i was a little curious about the international partnership. is that something that needs funding? would that go in the fy16 budget? i was wondering when we might see results from the partnership and what kind of reception you have heard from our international partners on the partnership? >> are you talking about the global partnership? >> the international partnership for nuclear disarmament. >> verification partnership, i figure pardon. we are starting small with this. we have some particular early projects that we are engaging. we're working very, very closely
with the u.k. and norway, who has the early project, as i mentioned, on war had verification. we want to emphasize and focus on warhead verification because it is something we've never tackled as a true international matter. part of the rationale is to convey to non-nuclear weapons states the complexity of this upcoming stage of the nuclear disarmament agenda. that is, monitoring and verifying reduction and elimination of warheads. and monitoring holding the warheads. it is -- has to be handled in a way that doesn't allow sensitive information to get out and continue to any proliferation threat. as a first-order business, we will be concentrating on building on the u.k.-norway experience and building out from that.
i should give full credit, by the way, to some bilateral work that was done under the 1990's under the so-called warhead safety and security exchange agreement between the u.s. and russia. at that time, there were some really decent work that was done on information barriers and that type of thing. and there are other foundations that we can build on. but i don't want to limit it to this because it is a set of projects that were successful at the time, but are now over a decade old. i think we want to also look at more recent experience, such as the u.k.-norway project. >> good morning. i was wondering if there has been a date set for the next discussion with russia about inf and what that engagement would entail on the u.s. side? >> i would never, ever talk about our quite diplomatic
scheduling in any detail, but i can assure you the interactions are ongoing. >> i have two questions on korea. do you see -- the prospect on the korean nuclear issue for 2015? in the region and globally? do you see the will be in a developing on the progress in that direction next year? the second question, in south korea, [indiscernible] how do see the prospect? >> first of all, with regard to north korea, we are very interested, of course, and returning -- in returning to the process of denuclearization of the korean peninsula. but that process can only take place if north korea reestablishes before the
international community we need to really see some concrete indicators that they are serious about negotiations, serious about the process of de nuclearization. we will continue to press them on that matter. our ambassador is still the full-time envoy focused on that matter and serious about -- we are serious about trying to continue to make progress in that area. but pyongyang is going to have to take some steps to convey they are serious about moving forward. the other comment i would like to make about that is that i think that if we have a successful negotiation in the p5+1 context, and we're all hopeful that negotiation will produce good results in the next coming months, innocently hope we'll see some good results for the time of the review conference in april and may,
that i hope it will have the effect on the north korea situation and that it will be a kind of signal that it is time to move forward with some problem solving also on the korean peninsula with regard to north korea's nuclear weapons. so we will see how that works, but i hope the will be some momentum that results, perhaps from a number of different directions in the coming months, but that is one i think is worth watching. on your second question, i'm referring to the -- yes, the 123 agreement. agreement for nuclear cooperation with the rok. i don't to comment on confidential diplomacy that is going on right now, but i will say we had made excellent progress, in my view, and the negotiations. i don't see any reason why we should not be able to complete it in short order. i don't want to talk about any details of meetings and so forth.
>> thank you. thank you for your overview. thank you for pressing ahead on the tough issues and challenges. a question about the upcoming review conference and the manager in impacts dialogue. we are pleased to see the united states for participating in that meeting. as you know, one of the motivations for that meeting and that gathering has been a disappointment about the progress on the disarmament action steps agreed to in 2010. one of the issues that was raised at the meeting was concerned about the incompatibility of potential use of nuclear weapons with international humaitarian law
and the laws of war. are you thinking about or planning on engaging with some of the nonnuclear states through the p5 process to discuss how the united states and other nuclear armed states have reduced the role of nuclear weapons and is the united states willing, thinking about providing its rationale for how the u.s. nuclear war plans are compatible with the laws of war as the 2010 russians say the 2012 nuclear posture review reports suggests? >> first of all, the guiding principle here is a policy that i have often repeated but has often been repeated by our president all the way down to my level and on.
and that is that the legacy of the practically over -- nearly 70 year nonuse of nuclear weapons must be extended forever. that we must continue to do everything we can to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used again. and that is at the heart of the u.s. policy in this regard, and certainly, is at the heart of the de-emphasis on nuclear weapons in our own national arsenals and her own national doctrine that was put forward in the nuclear posture review and the implementation study that ensued from the nuclear posture review. we will continue to be definitely willing to broach the points that were made in the npr and the follow on to it, the implementation study and a talk about it not only in official circles such as the p5, but also talk about it publicly as well. that is actually a good reminder to continue to remind the international community of the
very significant, in my view, policy steps and initiatives that the administration has undertaken since it came and office, to really put in place -- came into office, to really put in place the doctrine of policy and our overarching military arsenals. good reminder and i think definitely that will be something we're ready to do. >> thank you. specifically on the inf treating. in a hearing with congress last week, you were pressed to make the statement, yes, the united states stands at russia that russia is not compliant in the treaty. so specifically, what exactly -- what exactly is the reasoning for its noncompliance? is it the cruise missiles? where exactly, location wise, is a noncompliant? is it crimea? is it kaliningrad or some other place? >> i was impressed in the hearing on that matter.
so specifically, what exactly -- what exactly is the reasoning for its noncompliance? is it the cruise missiles? where exactly, location wise, is a noncompliant? is it crimea? is it kaliningrad or some other place? >> i was impressed in the hearing on that matter. we've been very open in public since july when we published our complaints report that russia, in our view, is not an complaints with the inf treaty. and the reason is aground launched cruise missile that has been tested, and development in the russian federation. i should be clear for this audience, if you're not familiar with inf, it is a total ban on intermediate range nuclear and the reason is aground launched cruise missile that has been tested, and development in the russian federation. i should be clear for this audience, if you're not familiar with inf, it is a total ban on intermediate range nuclear
missiles and not a good missiles, for that matter. a total ban on missiles between the ranges of 500 and 5500 kilometers. it doesn't matter if they're deployed or not. just that there seen being tested, if they're in development, then they are not compliant with the inf treaty. is that concern we raised any complaints report in july of 2014 and have been continuing to raise with the russian federation. it is aground launched cruise missile. -- it is a brown launched cruise missile. it is not the condor or the other one. i think it is really, really important to focus down on a good discussion of this matter. that is my basic point. the russians have made certain allegations against the united states. we have already raised that this morning. we believe we are in complete compliance with the inf treaty and are willing to talk about that with the russian federation, but we need to hear from the russian side as well that is the most important thing
from our perspective. this cannot be a one-sided conversation. >> thank you. madame under-secretary, one point i want to totally emphasize is that we have asked you to send a delegation to the vienna conference. inf treaty and are willing to talk about that with the russian federation, but we need to hear from the russian side as well that is the most important thing from our perspective. this cannot be a one-sided conversation. >> thank you. madame under-secretary, one point i want to totally emphasize is that we have asked you to send a delegation to the vienna conference. thank you on behalf of our members all over the country,
our allied organizations are also asking you to do so, thanks to you and secretary kerry and president obama for making the decision. i know it wasn't easy. another thing is about the nonproliferation treaty. i think the united states policy may be out of step with the urgency of the situation, which was expressed at the vienna conference, especially by people like eric schlosser, author of "command and control," who essentially is telling us we are living on borrowed time, therefore, since it has been 44 years since the u.s. promised to pursue disarmament, there are some impatience in a sense we're not moving fast enough. i know you feel we are engaging and judicious modernization, but i think at the npt, you may find other nations and people here in the u.s. also since three of $55 billion in venture over the next 10 years, $1 trillion over the next 30 years, is not judicious and not indicative of a nation that is moving to live up to its article six.
what is my question? it is a favor. would you ask the president to put the brakes on the modernization program in order to improve the optics as we go into the review? >> them he said a few things. first of all, about our decision to attend the vienna conference. we really saw it as an excellent opportunity to make the case i made to you this morning, and have a really good discourse and debate with the entire community, with a broad spectrum of views. i welcome the opportunity to hear other views in this room this morning, but these will be a continuing source of discussion and debate. no question about it.
our core rationale for going to be and it was to make sure our story was out there ,too. i want to make sure from our perspective, 85% reduction in u.s. arsenal of strategic -- of nuclear weapons full stop since 1967 is a significant step on the road to disarmament, and we're continuing further elimination in the settlement efforts every single day. i just don't accept the notion that things have stalled. i want that message to be very clear for this audience. we will continue to press that message forward them and we can debate it. and this matter of whether our modernization is judicious or not, i'm sure will also be shortly debated. i welcome the debate. it are reason for going to the conference was a practical one, and that is, we felt a very important to get our side of the story out there. and i hope we will have an opportunity to continue with open-mindedness among the
community to hear what we have to say as well. and so i think that is how i will answer your question. so thank you. >> my name is rebecca gibbons. i wanted to ask you about the partnership for verification and if it is been determined what other states are going to be involved in that effort and if it is when to be an interagency effort? >> is surely will be an interagency effort. and it has been a good to this point. we cannot make an announcement of this kind unless we have broached it and discussed it thoroughly, aired it among the interagencies -- for those who have served in government, you know how delicious that activity is. it is very necessary. it has been an interagency effort to get to this point. i said in my remarks that we wanted to work with non-nuclear weapons states as well as nuclear weapons states.
and so at this point, we're open-minded about who will be dissipating. i also want to say, however, we hope to invigorate the work on verification matters among the p5, because we also think it is very important and nuclear weapons states develop some sophisticated understanding of these matters. in the last year, we've had success in establishing a p5 working group that meets in vienna at the same time that working group b meets. that is the verification working group that deals with comprehensive test ban treaty. it looks a technical verification issues in the context. i think is fine for the p5 to begin work on the other verification because that provide a lot of very good technical information that can then -- in the future, the broadened out in other directions as well.
the verification initiative is a great new approach, i think, but i don't want you to say -- or anybody to say -- that we are abandoning our effort to discuss these matters among the p5 as well. it is one of the most important rationales for the p5 process as we see it. >> that's the first time i've ever seen it described as delicious. >> just a hint of irony. >> hi, rose. two questions on strategic. is there anything you can share about efforts in southeast asia to share best practices with countries outside the p5? second, types matter. do you have any thoughts on prospects for constraining or discouraging land-based on longer-term? >> that is one point i wanted to make a better own stabilizing
activity over the last generation has been our move to demerv the icbm force. we see that as one of the core steps in the direction of a more stabilized strategic relationship among countries. so, yes, as a general matter, we constantly focus on the necessity of avoiding multiple missiles, and they create multiple target your -- targets. our is a target on discourse on these matters internationally. and they will continue to be so. greatk we had some really track to and track one activities in pakistan.