we have to abolish the thinking adversary. the first phase is in 2007 and has already started. this is the deployment of the patriot system. this is the deployment of the system -- this is the system that we have today. this is the same system that we used to shoot down the satellites. . .

>> that is the way we laid it out. that capability along with better sensors and the beginning deployment of the airborne sensors, should they manifest themselves in the way we think they will, will allow us to move us from a small area, like philadelphia to washington, d.c., this would be three times larger and based on the missile and a sensor packages to address the threats that are out there. we get a much larger deployment capability and we will bring in the first phase of the sm-3, land-based. we do most of our testing on land, anyway. this is not a stretch.

we can move forward to places like europe. in 2018, we expect to see the next iteration. that is further out. we are looking for the emergence of the sm-3 block two. it will be a larger missile that will deploy on our ships and on shore. that missile will allow us in probably no more than three locations to be able to cover the entire land mass of europe. this is against intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles. that is a substantial improvement on where we are. at the same time, we're continuing the effort we have ongoing today on the ground- based interceptor which is to build a two-stage capability. the tests are funded and will continue. we will have two ways to address this threat. we believe the leverage will be

in the sm-3, that it will be the more effective killer. until we know that, we are not abandoning the work we are doing on the ground-based interceptors. the last piece of this and this is reaching out for into the future, 200020, is a land based sm-3, blocked two,a and now b . this will have a substantial capability to intercept intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities emanating from iran. this gets at additional coverage beyond the ground-based interceptor of the united states and of europe against intermediate ballistic missiles or intercontinental ballistic missiles. that technology is out there and still to be proven. we cannot abandon the capabilities we have today on a

ground-based interceptor nor do we intend to. the new technologies prove out, what they have that the current system does not is the ability to get raid size. we built the original system based on a rogue-sized threat. we are dealing with hundreds of missiles in the medium range capabilities and the likelihood of four or five taps to be considered. -- has to be considered. what you can do with the sm-3 is better for larger missiles. this is a substantial addressing of the proliferation of the threat we are saying in march. it does not emerge, we don't

have to build any more. if it does, we are ready to go after it. we put in place and architecture that allows us to be adaptable. it is a global architecture. we cover -- let me cover a couple more things -- first, cost. a patriot cost you about $3.3 million per missile. there are other ground pieces to this. the missile itself, the thad missile is about $9 million. the sm-3 is about $10 million. the newer missiles we would develop in the future would be in the neighborhood of 13-$15 million. the ground-based interceptor in the ground today is about $70 million. you do not want to go after large numbers with the very expensive missiles unless it is essential. what we need is an approach that allows us to build the layers in a way that allows us to defend

what we think we can defend today and what might be different in the future. the second thing -- this system allows us to do begren sharing. this is deployed to many countries in the world. aegis system is the same when many countries have this. we can upgrade them with technology much cheaper than we can do this doing it ourselves. we have a capability for burden -share. we estimate the new research and development effort will cost us $3.5 million. the japanese government and assorted kicked in $1 billion for that investment. that investment will lead us a capability that is far beyond just worrying about the pacific and the japanese. this is a significant opportunity to work in a global

constructs to field and fund and maintain this capability in a way we have not been able to do in the past. the other piece is the integration. we do not need to have all american systems. we are integrating the israeli air a system into this capability. we're looking at other partners in the center -- in the center and weapons side. that is the beauty of this command-and-control system. this gives us the opportunity to leverage our investment in a way that we do not have a soul gbi system. this is consistent with the budget we submitted in 2009 and 2010. we will have this debate as we submit the 2011 budget. we want to make sure that that debate is allowed to occur and we can inform the congress and american people and our allies and give them choices about the way we move forward.

i will now take your questions. >> neither of you said the word "russia" in your remarks. to what extent is the hope for a better relationship with russia and any future sanctions or other attempt to counter the iridium missile threat, to what extent that was a factor in making this change? >> john cartwright sat in on the same meetings i sat in on with the president. the decisions on this were driven, i would say, almost exclusively by the change in intelligence assessment and the enhanced technology. it was a zero-based look at the threat and their capability of dealing with it. that said, the russians are probably not going to be pleased

that we are continuing with the missile defense efforts in europe. at the same time, there are two changes in this architecture that should ally some of their unfounded concerns. one is there concern that the radar that was going into the czech republic looked deep into russia and could monitor the launches of their icbm's as well. the second is the russians believe, despite our best efforts to dissuade them, that ground-based interceptors in poland could be fitted with nuclear weapons and become an offensive weapon like the persian missile. it would be a weapon where they could have virtually no warning time. the move to the sm-3, that is a weapon that they cannot rationally argue, there's any

kind of threat to russia. we are very interested, as i have talked to the russians for the last two years, we are interested in having them partner with us. there is radar in the southern part of russia that could be integrated into this infrastructure. it could help us with respect to giving greater coverage to potential iranian missile launches. >> what do you say to the people in the governments of poland and the czech republic who invested political capital in trying to sell the old system to their people and who are talking about feeling let down in a certain sense by this change? >> as the president mentioned, he has talked to both prime minister's. based on the very brief accounts

i have gotten, they have been reasonably positive about this. we are very interested, as i indicated in my remarks, in continuing to work with the czech republic in terms of a piece of this architecture and we are eager to go forward with the frame agreement with the czechs that will allow that. this represents that if the poles are interested in going forward, it needs their concerns about having this capability in poland. i think this is an enhanced opportunity for the polish government also offers opportunities for the czech republic, as well. >> you mentioned there could still be a deployment of a radar in europe. do you know where that would be? >> it is more likely to be in

the caucuses that we would face this. we would get the early track. that would likely be more in the caucasus. >> many people wonder why we should trust the intelligence today when the intelligence committee got it wrong in the buildup to the war in iraq? what can you tell them? how many aegis vessels would be deployed to the gulf area on a regular basis? >> i think the important thing is to go back to what general cartwright was saying and what i said in my opening statement. this gives us some capability very soon. the other alternative gave us no capability until later in the decade. there would be a bit -- break out a scenario, we would have no hedge before 2017-2018 with the original program that i

approved in december of 2006. this gives us at least some capability early on and increasingly enhanced capability through this entire period. this gives us anymore options than the original program gave us. this is one of the reasons why i felt very strongly in support of it. >> along the same ones, i am relatively sure that the intelligence estimate will be wrong if we have a good adversary. we want to develop a system that has sufficient agility to accommodate that. our deployment scheme in and around europe for the aegis capability in 2011 is one that meters against the threat and how emerges. how many do we need and in what areas and what is going on in europe and what is the political situation? is there a threat against the public -- a particular country?

we are looking for a2-0 presence. several ships located in the mediterranean to protect areas of interest and then we would search additional ships. in the budget is a sufficient number of ships to allow us to have a global deep one of this capability on a constant basis with a surge capacity in anyone fear of time. >> i would remind you that the 2010 budget contains the funds to convert six additional funds -- six additional ships to aegis capability. let's to several more on missile defense. >> israel was mentioned a couple of times. there is concern that -- israel

opposes an existential threat we go understand the scope of this. with this system be used by the demonstration to say to israel that they will be protected and they should not attack iran? >> one of our efforts with the israelis is to enhance their missile capabilities. -- missile defense capabilities against iranian threat. clearly, the more we do in this area we hope that it will reassure them that perhaps there is more time. running out the clock on the nuclear program. our view is that there is still time for diplomacy and sanctions to persuade the iranians that their security will be diminished by going down the track of nuclear weapons rather than enhanced missile defense.

>> the issue here is much broader than just israel. if the system emerges the way we think it will, if the testing bears out, what you are doing here is providing another form of deterrent, credible deterrence that is an alternative to a nuclear capability. that has to register -- and has registered in the pacific as you can see by the investment by the koreans and the japanese. this is broader than just israel. >> can you next -- can you explain why the x-band radar would be more of a threat to russia than the czech republic? how many medium-range missiles from iran could they conceivably launch-  toward europe? is it one or two or are we in the hundreds? >> the history major will defer

to the general on the x-band radar. [laughter] >> this has to do with russia and their perception of the radar in the czech republic. that radar is in on the direction of radar. it sees 360 degrees. it has a deep perring capability into russia. that could appear as destabilizing. the x-band radar is a single- directional signals. what you want to do is get that red are as close as you can to be able to get the initial launches and understand where the missiles are going. you could determine whether they are tests or threatening the x- band radar gives you that capability very quickly.

>> the iranian ballistic missiles pose a threat to the arab countries in the gulf. how does the new architecture of fact defense strategy in the gulf region? >> i want to go into too much detail but the reality is we are working on a bilateral and multilateral basis in the gulf to establish the same kind of regional missile defense that would protect our facilities out there as well as our friends and allies. i have addressed this issue two years running in nama and in meetings with defense ministers before the nama conferences and we already have patriots out there. we have aegis ships out there. we are looking at strong bilateral relationships which we have in developing missile defense with several countries in the gulf. we are now encouraging to layer on top of that multilateral

cooperation, as well. >> you mentioned that the foreign minister will be in russia. >> i need to ask about the architecture. how many sites will you need to start up the 1a and 1b? poland be part of that or do they have to wait? >> initially, it is the 1b that would be the land-based system in 2015. is relatively agnostic. the czech republic and poland are candidates. it is certainly something they have to have a say in as to whether we go there. there are other candidates in that region and deeper into

europe that would be good sites for the sm-3. it is not as particular about exactly where it is located for you have a wide range of choices. any country has the opportunity to participate. even if we had three countries that want to and we only needed one, each box will have about eight missiles so we can move this around and disperse it even more for greater survivability and better assurance to our allies that they are protected. >> we have time for one more on missile defense. and then we'll take a couple more. >> the plan is from the u.s. perspective but for many people in poland and for the polish government, the most important part of missile defense program

is the presence of u.s. military in poland. now, you are offered poland another five-seven years of talks that the polish government invested a lot in missile defense in poland raided was the u.s. government's that pressed poland to agree to host the missile defense. what would you say to those who invested a lot? have you consulted the new approach with the governments of poland and the czech republic before? >> yes, the answer that i would give to poland is that we still want to partner with them. we still want poland to go forward with the ratification of agreements we have with them. we would prefer to put the sm-

3's in poland. that will still involve a presence at the u.s. -- of the u.s.. they may be there earlier than they would have been with the ground-based interceptors because they would not become operational until probably 2017 or so. we're talking about 2015 now. all the same opportunities for partnership are there between the united states and poland that existed under the previous program continue to exist under this program. >> some are calling for the general mcchrystal report to be publicly released. some of that is sensitive but other parts are clearly have been talked about by general mcchrystal openly in a number interviews and others. can you explain why they cannot get their own assessment from

general mcchrystal on his views on afghanistan? >> there has been a lot of talk this week and in the last week's about afghanistan. from my standpoint, everybody should take a deep breath. the president announced at the end of march, when he announced his other decisions on afghanistan and their strategy, he made clear that after the elections in afghanistan, we and whether the strategy decisions he made at that time continue to fit the situation that we face. general mcchrystal's assessment is part of that. i believe that the president deserves the right to absorb the assessment himself and have his

questions and my questions and other questions relating to the assessment answered before it is delivered. it is a pre-decision document. it was briefed on the hill and i understand it will be made available on the hill. the people's representatives will have access to it. we need to understand the decisions the president faces are perhaps some of the most important on afghanistan that he may face in his presidency about how we go forward there. this is a situation in which the decision process should not be rushed. if there are urgent needs, i have authorized, in the last 10 days or so, within the troop levels of the president has approved, sending another 3000 critical enablers that general

mcchrystal has asked for. i appear prepared to ask for the flexibility to send more. that is before the president makes a decision on whether or not to send significant additional combat troops. my view is that as the present said yesterday, it is important to make sure we have the strategy right before we start talking resources. some of the questions are outside of general mcchrystal's area of authority. they have to do with the political situation. they have to do with focus and so on. there is a sense of building momentum that demands a decision in days of not a week or two. i think that given the importance of the decisions that the president faces, we need to take our time and get this right. >> we have been told the general

mcchrystal has completed his report on troop report -- requests and is awaiting washington to ask for his report. is that true? >> we're working toward a process by which we want that submitted. >> the president's is about to award another metal honor to the family of a soldier that died in an act of courage in the war. people are getting curious as to why in wars in afghanistan and iraq there is no living medal of honor? has no one performed an act of courage worthy of the medal of honor and lived through it? >> this has been a source of concern to me. i pick it was one of president bush's real regrets that he did not have the opportunity to honor a living medal of honor winner.

or rather recipient. we are looking at this. without getting into details, there are some in the process. as everybody knows, it is a very time-incentive through -- time- intensive care process. there are some living potential recipients that have been proposed >> >> the vice president said the decision about troop levels would be made when all these troops are in place and the civilians are in place and the government is in place. is he right in saying that no decisions on troop levels will be made until after the civilian surges finish which might be the beginning of the year? >> i will not get into the timing. the president will make his decision when the questions that he has passed and the assessments that are going on have been completed.

i don't think anybody should put any conditions on that. the troops he has already approved are almost all there at this point. the civilian search is beginning to flow it remains to be seen how long it will take to see the outcome of the election. there is no question that the nature of the election in afghanistan has complicated the picture. thank you. [no audio] >> a group of house republicans spoke out against the obama administration's decision not to build missile defense systems in the czech republic and poland. this is 20 minutes.

>> the obama administration announced they are terminating the missile defense system of 10 interceptor's plan for deployment in poland and radar in the czech republic. we are seeing the administration's real national security policy merge. it undercuts allies, caves into russia, and kowtows to iran and north korea. this unit rattled decision -- this unilateral decision undermines the polls and the checks. this approach -- they provide support the administration is capitulating to russian demands.

despite the administration's adamant statement that was not making the decision on tree with missile defense, on the eve of negotiations they give russia what they want. it hardly seems the way to start negotiations. contrary to the intelligence and evidence reports that indicate a growing iranian threat. the obama administration claims that the threat is now downgraded. we have seen nothing to indicate any downgrade of the threat. iranian behavior the past year clearly demonstrate their intent and capability to develop long- range missiles. obama has clearly reneged on his pledge made in prague that he would move forward with missile defense in europe as long as the threat from iran exist. the u.s. and europe will be leveled, it vulnerable. i run as an open invitation to focus on long-range missile

development which it already is doing. this decision did not appear to be made on the basis of cost effective grounds. according to a 2008 independent study required by the democrats, the czech and polish plants are the most cost- effective. with a $1.2 billion cut in missile defense in the recently passed defense budget, the administration's program investments do not match its policy. will we see necessary missile defense investments in next year's budget or will it be cut further? while the ministration has announced its decision today, the congress as an important role here. we expect to hold comprehensive hearings on the so-called downgrading of the iranian threat. as we move forward in the conference on the ndaa, we will continue to push for an fund missile defense capability that will protect your and the u.s.

i am the ranking member on the armed services committee. we are happy to have with us eric cantor, republican whip. >> thank you very much good afternoon. the safety and security of this country is of the utmost importance for what goes on in this building and in this town. washington's ability to guarantee the safety of american citizens is premised on many things. first and foremost, it is consistency and committed to our military and our allies and enemies. this sudden turn around, this sudden release of intelligence information that has not come by way of capitol hill is somewhat puzzling to say the least. congress has received briefings of intelligence about the threat that iran poses to u.s.

interests as well as the united states itself on our homeland. we are very concerned about what seems to be a sudden turnaround and a shift in terms of the analysis of the intelligence that we received. we await the answer is associated with the turnaround from the administration. even more than that, i am very troubled by some reported statements of the vice- president. i am hopeful that the reports misquoted the vice president. essentially, vice president joe biden said that he was much less concerned about iran because iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile at the united states. implicit in this statement is that we should not necessarily concern ourselves with the threat to our allies in europe, to our allies in the middle east, such as israel, which

iran's current capability. not to mention the fact that there are troops, american troops, men and women on the ground in the region, in all those areas within the ability for missiles to do serious damage to our interests in that region. we are here at of that concern. we want to reiterate our commitment to our allies that the united states is committed to the defense of our security and their security. >> we will hear from mike turner, who is the subcommittee ranking member on the missile issue. he is from ohio. >> this is an important issue because we are beginning to get a picture of this administration's defense posture and plan for the united states. they have cut missile defense by $1.2 billion in funding.

they're now retreating from the deployment of the missile defense shield in europe. they have proposed the cut by 1/3 of missile defense that we have proposed for alaska. the president is proposing a reduction in the missile defense capability that would protect our allies and the united states. he is doing so after a $1.2 billion cut overall to missile defense funding. he is proposing not providing the united states with long- range missile defense protection until 2020. the plan he is cutting would have protected the united states as early as 2013. what is odd about what the president is proposing is there is already a classified study that was undertaken and our committee had the presentations that detailed the cost effective plan to protect both europe, our allies and our strategic interest there, and the united

states was the plan that was proposed for the czech republic and the poles. i am asking secretary dates to release the classified version of that report. it is a plan that has been already assessed independently to affect the united states and protector of the time when that is important is to remember the president's is taking the missile defense protection of the united states from 2013 to 2020. i don't believe that is acceptable to me or the american people. >> we will now hear from mike peense, our conference chairman. >> i want to thank our colleagues in leadership for stepping forward. only one year since russia

invaded georgia with very little global consequence. and 70 years to the day since the soviet union invaded poland. the obama administration is continuing a policy of appeasement at the expense of our allies. history teaches that weakness and appeasement invite aggression against peaceful nations. in advance of direct talks with iran, a nation that is -- has publicly ruled out discussions on its own nuclear weapons program, this administration now seems to have chosen appeasement with russia, a country with deep ties to the dangerous regime in tehran. the first nine months of the obama administration have coddle

dictators across the globe. russia has now been awarded for bullying and threatening its neighbors. not since the carter administration has america looked so weak on the national stage. house republicans are determined, with a strong leadership represented here on the armed services committee, to take a stand for our allies, to bring this debate forward and to ensure that america continues to be a shield for freedom-loving people around the world. >> that you very much. we will now hear from trent franks. >> thank you. one of the main reasons that america has become the greatest and most powerful nation on earth is because of our cross history. people have known they can count

on us to keep our word. today's announcement by the president, canceling the missile defense site in europe, fundamentally offers that paradigm. it disgraces our nation by openly breaking our word to our loyal and courageous allies in the czech republic and poland. one of the critically important purposes of a european missile defense site was to counter the very dangerous strategic and tactical advantage iran could gain by developing missile capability. the time lines exist and it is highly unlikely that any alternative to the system that was planned will come too late. any system will come too late to beat up a significant factor of a nation like iran to develop missile capability that will threaten the peace of the real world and nations like israel. the alternative plan that

president barack obama places on the table is not only far more expensive, it does not have the capability of protecting the american homeland against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles fired from rogue states like iran. i believe president barack obama's actions today fundamentally betrayed protecting the united states. i am stunned that he does not seem to understand that and i sincerely fear that theichildren this and future generations will pay a price for that betrayal. >> yes? >> they said that under the new plan would be more secure. what do you think of that? >> it replaces a system that

will take awhile for the long- range ballistic missiles. he is saying that this will protect us in the short range but we will not look at the long distance capabilities that they will have. i think mike at the nail on the head. if you move the capability out to 2020 instead of 2013, that presupposes that they cannot do anything between now and 2020. we know they work closely with north korea and north korea has been sending up missiles that have long-range capability. they could easily buy one of those missiles and have the capability to more. -- tomorrow. it boggles my mind that we put everything on hold for those years from 2009-2020, 11 years.

>> the plan says that the president will not have capability for potential future icbm threats until 2020. this is their own plan. the plan he is scrapping would have provided protection by 2013. it is absolutely absurd for them to say this is a diminishing threat. everyone in their homes watching the news understands the increasing threat that iran represents. they could always buy this technology and get it in advance where we would like behind in deployment. >> one thing that concerns me is that the primary purpose for the european site was to counter the iranian threat. part of that strategic effort was to devalue the iranian nuclear program and the first place because they knew we would be prepared when they were prepared to launch a missile.

on this time line, this alternative system that the president proposes, we will not be prepared to intercept an iranian long-range missile in time. it simply puts no pressure on them and it takes away our ability to be any factor in preventing iran from getting nuclear capability. that is probably one of the most critically important points that i can make. >> you mentioned ndaa. how does this announcement affect [inaudible] do you think that is realistic? >> we have a meeting on the 24th. i guess anything's possible. with some of the complications i have seen in our negotiations so far, i would not predict a bill

done by the end of the month. that is overly optimistic. they already have, in this bill, the $1.2 billion cut in the missile defense. that did not go as far as their announcement today i do not know if that will complicate further -- further complicate the conference. that remains to be seen. it is a trend that really bothers me. we have cut our defense has starkly in this country after wars, after world war two. after all wars we keep cutting back. to my knowledge, we have never had the cuts in defense during a war and right now we're fighting two wars that we have in this budget that we're dealing with now. yes? >> you said this plan

[unintelligible] what is the game plan? is there anything you could do in talking about your concerns about this? >> we can win the next election. it concerns me because we are also talking about afghanistan. i thought we had a national debate on a chemist and. the statements -- debate on afghanistan. obama said a afghanistan was the good war. he said a new policy in march and we put in a new commander.

we gave the commander 60 days to come out with how he was going to carry out the president's new strategy. he has done that. that has worked its way up through the chain of command to the administration. we hear now that we need to have a national debate as to where we go on afghanistan. you look at cutting back missile defense and what that does to our allies in europe and what it does in iran. we have seen correa and what they have done -- korea and what they have done and we look at russia. we are entering negotiations with them. we have given them what they want before we enter into negotiations. it seems like we're stepping back everywhere. i have real concerns. it seems like the president is totally engaged in health care reform of our national defense, where is he?

>> you were saying that in this budget that secretary gates had said it would not affect his plans for the problem with that is that it should give everyone pasue. the plan they had was good for 2013. they say phase 2 would give us the ability in short and medium- range missiles, medium-range is not come into play until 2015 and long range is not meant to play for 2020. it is a big question as to how the president could walk away from a system that was going to provide us protection, put forward a system that portions of the do not exist and extend out past another decade.

it doesn't show a commitment to defense that the other system would do. >> you have to get up there to vote. >> the defense secretary has signed on to this even though you call it the president's plan. >> it is the administration. >> did he give you a heads up on this? >> i got a call this morning. it was from general cartwright. we have not had much notice. ok? thank you very much. we need to get back. >> arizona senator john mccain also spoke about the missile defense issue on the senate floor yesterday. his comments are 10 minutes.

>> i believe this has the potential to undermine american leadership in eastern europe. given the strong and enduring relationships we have forged with the region's nations since the end of the cold war, we should not take steps backwards in strengthening the ties. i fear the administration's decision will do just that and at a time when eastern european nations are increasingly wary of renewed russian aggression. the administration's decision to abandon the site comes at a time when the u.s. is in the midst of negotiations with russia on reducing strategic nuclear

weapons. russia has long opposed the planned missile defense site in europe and have tried to link reductions in strategic nuclear arms with defensive capabilities such as missile defense. in fact, president vladimir putin, on many occasions, stated in belligerent tones is up petitions to this agreement that was already made between the united states and poland and the czech republic. the u.s. should reject the russian attempt to further this argument and capitalize on these ongoing negotiations. as countries push the nuclear envelope and worked tirelessly to develop weapons capable of reaching america and its allies, we must aggressively develop the systems to protect ourselves

and enhance national security and protect our troops abroad and support our allies. enhancing missile defense capabilities in europe is an essential component to address threats we currently face and expect to face in the future. as i ran work to develop ballistic missile capabilities of all ranges, the united states must reaffirm its commitment to its allies and develop and deploy effective missile defense systems. i would like to point out two important factors -- the united states of america does not believe that missile defense systems are in any way a threat to any nation. they are defensive in nature and i believe they are a key component and factor in ending the cold war. now, intelligence assessments apparently have changed rather dramatically since january 16.

according to eric adleman, the undersecretary of defense during the bush administration, intelligence reports on the irony in threat has as recently as january of this year were more troubling than what is being portrayed by the current administration. mr. adelman maintains that something really dramatic may have changed since january 16 and now in terms of what the iranians are doing in terms of their missile systems but i don't think so. i don't think so either. i think the fact is that this decision was obviously rushed. the polish prime minister, according to news reports, was called at midnight. the agreement was made and ratified by these countries after consultation, discussion,

and the proper process. they were not even notified of this decision. the decision to abandon the missile defense sites in poland and the czech republic came as a surprise to them. i understand that administration officials were on applying to arrive in poland today. i might add that members of congress were also not briefed on this decision prior to reading about it in the newspaper. i was not informed. i did not know what new technology it was being recommended to be put in the place of the agreement. as short a time ago was august, the united states said that we are committed to the security of poland and any u.s. facilities located on the territory of the republic of poland. the united states and poland

sent to -- intend to expand cooperation. we all know about the irony in ballistic missile threat is real and growing. we all know that the administration is seeking the cooperation and help of the russians. now we will say. now we will say. why was this a good -- now we will see. why was the abrogation of this agreement between the united states with poland and the united states with the czech republic rescinded in such a dramatic and rushed fashion. ? the iranian ballistic missile threat is real and growing. how many times have the intelligence estimates been wrong, dating back to and including the cold war? as many times as they have been

right, i tell my colleagues, whether it be their assessment about the war in iraq or whether it be the capabilities of many of our adversaries including korean buildup which we have been consistently long. poland and the czech republic perceived an unpopular agreement, despite threats from russia, both governments recognized the importance of a defense capability which would provide to their citizens and europe as a whole and agreed to allow the united states to place ground-based interceptors in poland and a radar site in the czech republic. what will these countries to the next time we want to make an agreement with them, mr. president, in view of the way this decision was made and was announced without, made known to the media, before they were even

told about it? it will be very interesting to what we get in return. it sounds like, according to a "christian science monitor" news blog, it is a pragmatic decision. it suggests that internal u.s. factors, mainly account for mr. obamas a choice. obamas approach is understandable given the economic crisis because this project would have given nothing but trouble. it sounds like moscow has already discounted the concession from washington. experts suggest that is because russia's foreign policy establishment had been expecting such a decision at least since obama hinted he might give up the missile defense scheme during his summit with russian president

dmitri medvedev in moscow last july. he said we have been getting signals since last spring that seemed certain the missile defense plan will be set aside, according to the editor of a leading moscow foreign-policy journal. mr. president, the russians seem to have anticipated this decision. unfortunately, the polish government and the czech government did not. members of congress were certainly not informed of this decision until after reading about it in the media. it is not the way to do business. ike leggett sends the wrong signal. -- i think it sends the wrong signal to the russians and their allies. and so, there are consequences

of every decision. i believe the consequences of this decision may encourage further belligerence on the part of the russians and a distinct lack and loss of confidence on the part of our friends and allies in the world and commitments of the united states of america i ask unanimous consent that newspaper articles be made part of the record at this time. >> without objection? so ordered. >> i yield. >> next month take a rare visit inside the supreme court as we talk to the justices about the role, traditions, and history of the court. >> brandeis said he would not come in here. the reason you wouldn't come is he said this building is so elaborate it would go to their heads. maybe he was right. might have become a symbol of

the third branch of government and the need for stability and rule of law which is what america stands for. >> supreme court week starts october 4 on c-span. as a complement to this production, cspan offers teachers free teaching resources on our judicial system. go to cspan classroom.or. g. >> up next, it is today's " washington journal" i've with your phone calls. we will then have frc action and coverage of their live town hall meeting. securities and exchange commission chairman mary schapiro will speak at a finance conference at georgetown university. and in about 30 minutes, we will talk about missile defense with former nato ambassador robert hunter.