forward to in 2012? there will be a presidential race along with the congressional races. we do not know how many republican candidates might be in the field. there are many more democratic senators up for reelection. give us an overall handicap of what 2012 looks for this group. >> mcclatchy has a poll out this morning that shows barack obama at 48% saying that they will definitely vote against him. and among democrats, 46% say that they want him challenged in a primary. those are but troubling signs for an incumbent heading into re-election cycle. no idea -- republicans are white idea. mitt romney leads the pack with 20%, but there are plenty at 80%-15%. we polled 11 names and any one

of them could win that nomination. >> that is the wild card and probably the trump card. there have been a couple of hints of positive economic numbers this past week. if that were to continue, a suspect barack obama's fortunes would change. aside from the polling numbers and the challenges that democrats and the incumbent president would face in 2012, there is something else i learned today -- the nature of campaigning an electoral politics are changing. one way is that we will have to be accustomed to these very rapid swings in public opinion. we will see both sides doing what coleman talked about in this interview, campaigning year round. having groups that will raise provocative issues and campaign slogan challenges to incumbents. republicans started to do it this last cycle, and democrats

will be as well. >> what you think that means for voter turnout? no people were turned off far this election. -- young people were turned off as far as this election. >> i think you turnout will turn but -- come back. the drop-off is most acute among presidential and congressional among young people. it depends on the republican nominee. i think sarah palin would appeal to a lot of young conservatives who might not appeal to young liberals. they may turn out against her. i'm not sure they will be energized by barack obama as last time. i think there will be there. >> the suspect the sarah palin will run? >> it was like she is going to run. it is a different way of setting things up. i talk to other campaigns and they do not know how to navigate that. it is so different. it is not the rules they have played by. it may not work, but if it does,

we will buy it -- we will be writing new books about presidential politics in 2013. >> thank you for being with us. >> this week marked the 47th anniversary of the assassination of president kennedy. this weekend we will talk to two former secret service agents whose job was to protect the president on the events of that day, the conspiracy theories about the assassination, and the new book tonight on "q&a." >> house and senate are in session monday. both bodies will cattle in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. the house votes this week on a temporary delay in the 20% cut in medicare reimbursement for doctors. but the house and senate will take up the remaining federal spending for this budget year. and the senate continues work on expanding food and drug administration oversight of food recalls. live senate coverage on c-span2, and you can see house live on c-

span. former arkansas governor mike huckabee spent last week at a gathering of evangelical ministers in des moines, iowa on their results of the 2010 midterm election. the former governor won the 2008 iowa presidential caucus. this is about 40 minutes. ♪ ♪

>> ♪ every step i take i think the view -- i think of you ♪ ♪ every move i make i'm make with few every breath i take i've read in in youeathe everywhere i look i see your face na na na na na na

>> put your hands together! na na na lord, i lift your name on hyperiigh lord, i love to sing your praises i'm so glad you came to save us you came from heaven to heaven to show the way from the cross to the grave from the grave to the sky war, i let your name on high --

lord, i left your name on high na na na na na na ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, thank you, thank you. thank you very much. god bless you. thank you.

watching that video brought some term for it -- terrific members back for me. many of you remember that i did a book called "to the right thing." the first chapter of the book was called "i laugh iowa." my appreciation for the people of the state who in spite of overwhelming odds and a seemingly insurmountable mountain of money were willing to get behind me in the iowa caucuses in 28 and change the dynamics of the presidential primary. it was a great testament to the people of the state who were willing to listen to the message, and i will be forever grateful and i want to read something in debt -- if you assume there's some ulterior motive going on, i am not here to announce any plans or to deny any plans. [applause]

i am only here to tell you this. the one thing i will say with certainty is that i love the state and i will forever be grateful for that terrific french ships that i have forged here over the course of the past five years. i want to commend you for your selection of a great friends, a trusted colleague, and obviously a very faithful and forceful leader for the things that matter. i'm here also today to congratulate the people of iowa for their decision in a remarkable collection there resonated across america, the election to say that the judicial branch as all branches of government is subject to the ultimate office in a society like ours, the people who ultimately rule.

and if the people rule, not one branch of the government, got bless you. [applause] it was a historic election and not just for iowa but for the alleged recall the country. there was a lot of anxiety that we had as we watched, because we knew that one of two things would happen. if there was a strong push back against the conservatives in the state of iowa and the judge is retained, that was a way of saying they could do anything they want and there will never be a penalty for their ignoring the will in the wishes of the people and their elected representatives. if that have happened, it would've been a devastating blow to conservatives and christians and other people in the public

square. it would have disastrous consequences far beyond the borders of iowa. but that election with the other way. it was so significant and may have been the most important election that happened in america, because it set the stage in every other state. those who are governing will ultimately be accountable to the governed. that is a message that every american needs to be reminded of. i'm here to say, thank you on behalf of a grateful nation to every pastor who had the guts to stand in his pulpit and say, to every layperson, to every mom, every dat, every person who walked neighborhoods and make phone calls and make it happen. you are to be commended and you did a great, great work for america. thank you and god bless you. [applause]

when i got to iowa today, i was reminded of so that timothy 4: 21. that verses' where paul rights to timothy and says, if you are going to come, come before winter. [laughter] i just barely made it. [laughter] one thing i tell people across the country, what is it like to run in iowa, i say i never have been as cold in my life. many days i never felt my hands or toes. but the warmth of the people would make up for it. for that, i am forever grateful. i want to say one of the great visits my wife and i had a year- and-a-half ago was to ireland.

she wanted to see some of the old castles. if you've seen one, to me, you have seen them all. she thinks there's something unique about each one. so we saw a lot more intact -- a lot more castles that i intend to deceive. one thing that fascinated me about them, the castles of the old were built with a moat around them, and draw bridges that would be extended down so that the inhabitants of the castle could come in. but then the drawbridge is could be raised and those who wish to invader attack would be unable to do so because the draw bridges were a form of protection. we have grown up hearing the phrase of man's home is his castle. we think of terms of his domicile, but it -- but it became more meaningful when i looked at those castles and realize that they were not billed as a mere symbol of opulence are well. they were built as a symbol of strength and protection.

the castle was more of a place of security that it simply was a posture of well. the construction of the castle was very intentional. the drawbridge over the mode was designed so that those who were within the walls of the castle would be protected against those who would seek to invade to attack and destroy. what a powerful metaphor for that which we face in our world today. in the very crisis culture. there many that would attack the sanctity of the home. of marriage, of family -- and if it were not for the drawbridge is of democracy, but those who are willing to say there are certain places that are sacred

and that we will not allow intrusion -- if it were not for that, there would be no security and there would be no place for safety. drawbridge is kept out that which was harmful. no one should ever apologize for the drawbridges. in one of the great ideological moments of moviedom, in the movie open " the godfather," you may remember that famous line spoken by al pacino, having committed a string of terrible crimes, his response was, "it is not personal. it is just business." some of you are acting like you don't have any idea what that line is about. like you have not seen the movie, and that is fine. but it is not personal.

it is just business. i would say to those that believe that this election held in iowa about the judge's was about rancor and anger. no, it was not personal. it was just business. it was the business of protecting marriage and the family. it was the business of believing that there really is a god to whom we are ultimately responsible and accountable. we ultimately will answer to a wholly god who will ask whether or not we held not to a human standards but to end internal standard that supersedes all its human standards that can be voted in or voted out. [applause] when we say it is not personal, but it is the business of protecting our families and protecting our homes and it is the business of protecting our nation. we are unapologetically about

this. faith-based voters are sometimes sneered at, laughed at, and i used to it during the presidential debates. i would go to debates and candidates would get 20 minutes to talk. i would get three or four. when i finally got a question it would be, we will throw you a religious question. they overlook the fact that that they govern the state longer than anyone standing on the stage, either democrat or republican. that was never even mentioned. you were a pastor. yes. something about which i am not ashamed nor should i be. it means that i understood the lives of people at all level that very few people ever running for public office well. for that, and had no reason to apologize. it was a way of denigrating the idea that some pipe -- somehow

people of faith are intellectually inferior that those who do not believe anything. i am tired of having it set of those of us who believe in god that somehow we are shallow or more superficial or live in tibet -- intellectual depth and do not have the press but toss that others would have who live their lives in s of predict a completely secular life style. let it be said that i believe that it takes a great deal more to believe that issues are not what they appear to be on the surface but go to the heart, bone, and soul of every human being. if anyone wants to debate an issue, i much more comfortable debating it from the standpoint of eternal values that cannot be changed, that from the steppe -- then from the standpoint of temporal values that can always be changed, not always for the

better. i suggest that we never apologized from approaching life from the standpoint that there is a god and he has created rules, and when we play by those rules, we have a better chance of winning the game. when we disregard those rules and we ignore those rules, there is a good indication that we not only will lose the game, we will not even know what the game is. i believe it is extraordinarily superficial for people who say we do not need to be talking about the issues of life and marriage because the only thing that matters is the economy. i will be straightforward with you as i possibly can be, it is the position of extreme arrogance and position of extreme superficiality to think that the only issues that matter is the manipulation of the tax code so that a few people could be better off in a few people will be worse off and a hand- picked -- and handful of people will be making decisions.

if that is the total content of political activity that matters, i suggest to you that there is a direct correlation between the character of the people, the integrity of its citizens, and the economy in which they will function and operate. i am convinced that a lot of people who are out there on the left and some people so far on the right to do not believe bit of value voters like you matter, who just say, let's not talk about these "social issues" because they do not have rebels. are you aware that with 67% of the poor and single moms in this country, if they were married to the bother of their children, they would not be poor. if we're serious about dealing with the issue of poverty, and we should be, it is an issue that ought to be of concern to every christian believer, then

the matter in which we go about best dealing with poverty is not by pouring government money into programs, it is building a strong family that has a mother and a father who raise their own kids with a level of responsibility to build a society up. [applause] that dad deficit in america, and i use that term because we hear about deficits, and you know you cannot do it in your households are your personal businesses, and yet our government continues to spend money, borrow money that it will never be able to pay back, you can join congress and a 17 years without paying your taxes, as charlie rangel did, and the best that you can really.

is that you might have to get up and make the terrible apology for having a misunderstanding. let me ask you to go wh 17 years not paying your taxes and breaking the rules of the irs, see if you can get by with a box of kleenex before them. if all that what happened to you is that you say i am so sorry, i misunderstood, i did not understand it, i just wrote them. [laughter] that is the most ridiculous thing. we cannot know what is in the health care bill until we pass it. because we're living in a time in which our government is and deficit spending, i want to talk about the dad deficit. we could save $300 billion in america a year. pretty simple. it will not be popular with people who do not want to think that what the family leader --

what the family is as important. $300 billion is the dad deficit, the amount of money the government spends to prop up families whose fathers have abandoned their own kids and left it to government programs to pay for them. if others raise their own kids and supported the children that they biologically faltered, it is a difference of $300 billion a year. that does not even start getting into the traditional cost in which a child grows up, a child and poverty in a single home, five times more likely to be in juvenile delinquency and drop out of school and used drug and alcohol that a child grows up in a family that is stable with a mother of author. i'm not here to denigrate people working very hard as simple parents. doing the very best they can. i have seen ladies for whom i have the greatest deal of both respect and the utmost admiration because they but come

home late at night, working two jobs, doing the best that they can. they have had some guy walk on them and leaving them with the responsibility and the entire burden of trying to raise children. this is in no way a denigration of the extraordinary effort that many people are making as single parents. but point is that unless we uphold the importance of marriage in the family, i do not care how much we change the tax code in the tax policy, we will never be able to get our economy right. what has wrong did is not an economic issue. it is an issue that goes to the very heart of the family later and organizations, the most basic form of government is not the government that will let in washington or des moines, the most fun the more rigid fundamental is the one that exists right at home. it is the single most important unit of government.

it is from that unit of government, the family, from which we learn our basic values and structures. it is where we learned manners, that some things are right in some things are wrong, where we learn to be paid, our first lessons of economy. if we work, we get rewards. if we are lazy, we get punished. do you get the impression that there are some people never learn that in the first four years of life and probably never will learned because government has told them, do not worry, duke and recklessly live your life and we will bail you out? a if you're an individual or bridge corp., is not repugnant that we will tell people that it does not matter what they do and how irresponsible they are, because someone else will clean up their mess? what has happened to the basic idea that most of us learned when we were little kids at mom and dad's need that told us that we are responsible for cleaning

up after ourselves? if we do not get that when we are four, we will not bid it when we are 40. -- we will not get it when we are 40. a nation of people expecting someone else to pay for the masses that they may. that is where we are today as a nation. what do you are the biggest company or whether you are an individual, we have been conditioned to believe that it is the government's responsibility, not our own, to clean up our mess. to bail us out, and somewhere along the way, it is critical that we come back to the simple idea of that the drawbridges of democracy start with a personal response ability and the simple notion that the best government is a mother and a father raising children in the context of understanding that some things are always right, and some things are always wrong, and when we do the things that are

right, we will benefit, and when we do the things which are wrong, we will suffer the consequences of them. that is important. they cannot be forgotten. [applause] i have often been challenge to the point to say that this is the time in our nation's history with the only thing is that matters is for us to talk about jobs and the economy and we should not talk about controversial and what some would consider extraneous, even unnecessary, issues like the sanctity of every human life. i beg to differ. i do so with respect for people who say these issues do not matter because sometimes they just have not thought them through. i am not saying today that the number one issue that a person in the congress has to face is

maybe a pro-life vote. but to say the issue is not important anymore, i take strong exception to that. this is not an issue about the topic of abortion. it is an issue of the most fundamental principle of our american form of government, which is this -- that we hold these truths to be self- evident, that all men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are light and liberty and pursuit of happiness. and the heart and soul of who we are as a people is found in this notion, that there is no such thing in this country as a person who is worth more than another person. which, by the way, there's no search person -- not us -- no such thing as a person who is

worth less than another person. some people run faster, and jump higher, some people sing beautifully, some people do not. how many of you are standing by someone who sang very nicely today? let me see your hands. [laughter] the men who are standing by their white, not very good. our basic intrinsic worth is not made different by what we externally do. it is not made the effort by our last name, if you come from a wonderful parentage in you can trace your roots all the way back to the mayflower, somehow you are worth more than people like me who roots are not so noble? my people were thrown out of better prisons in england, a drop of on the shores of georgia and told good luck. they're stuck up there -- we were told not to look up our

family tree, there were stuck up there you do not want to see. [laughter] you know what is great about america? i was not held responsible in my life for what my ancestors did. thank god. some of you should feel the same way. the value of my life is not because of my last name or the lack of its importance. neither is it by the level of my bank account. neither is it by somemy value i. neither is yours. the child that is developmentally disabled is every bit as precious as a child who is of mensa-level iq i am glad we believe that as a

country. we're going to cut the class, so too are going to be exterminated -- let's pick the two. who has the lowest test scores? a lot of you say, i am surprised you would be so crass that you would pick out children and said this one can make it and this one does not. most people would find that completely outrageous, but when we do it in the womb, what makes it any different? what happens when we decide some lives are suspended -- expendable.

we attribute the value of life as to whether or not it represents a financial burden on the biological mother or whether it might be a social disruption in the life of the caretaker. if it is possible to determine there is such a thing as a life that loses value and it has so little value it is expendable because it represents financial hardship to the caretaker and we have a right to terminate that life -- if that is true, then at whatever point that life is in, when it becomes a financial burden or a social disruption to the caretaker, that person would still retain the rights of expanding, ending, or exterminating that life. can you live with the logical

conclusion of that? i say we cannot. none of us can. no rational person can believe we would become so completely bereft of any moral conscience that we would arbitrarily go through a crowd and say you are too expensive to your family. you have become a heavy financial burden because of your health. you, you are not smart enough. your brothers and sisters are smarter than you. they are going to be able to have good jobs and make money. we are going to have to take you out. i know that sounds absolutely beyond belief somebody would suggest that. these are not near extraneous moral issues. they are the heart and soul of who we are, because we have believed every life has value,

and that value is a valued that does not come from the iq or the income. it does not come from the last name or the land owned. it comes because it is a creation of god, who had a purpose for that life, and it is a sin against him and against that life for of -- for us to disrupt that natural flow he decided when he created that life, and it is our job to protect everyone. it is the very heart of who we are as a democracy, and if we ever get to the place where we decide some among us are expendable, remember that one day the rules may be written where we are the ones written to be expendable, and that is why you will never be able to see me apologize or back down from the idea that these issues

are of utmost importance, because they do represent a major part of whether or not our economy will survive, and quite frankly -- if the only thing we care about is whether or not we have a greater level of comfort and are willing to do that at the expense -- expense of a life around us, even if we politically could pass it, i believe we would answer to god almighty, and he would bring us down. our idiot politicians would not have to, and we would deserve it, because god would never be a book to plus a nation whose devalued its people so they began to it exterminate them at will because they deem them less valuable than others. i salute what you do, and i ask you not to depart from the battle, but to gear up for it,

and because there are some that say these issues do not matter anymore and we should focus on the economy, i say to push back and remind them there will be no strong the economy if there is not a strong commitment now to what is right. there will be no strong sense of economic survival if we do not even obey the simple principles of survival and protecting that for each other. i was in the news for something other than politics, and it was pretty extraordinary. the army staff sergeant was given the congressional medal of honor. one never says a person won the medal of honor, because you do not win it. you received it -- for extraordinary and heroic duty.

he received his because he ran into two different torrents of bullets being fired by taliban and afghanistan as he was going to retrieve his fellow soldier, a sergeant in the army. he ran into the wall of pulitzer -- bullets to get the wounded body of his colleague, put him on his back, and carry him back to safety. unfortunately, sgt brennan did not survive. for this action, the staff sergeant received the congressional medal of honor, and when he was awarded it, he proved to all of us why he deserved it, because he said he

would forgo any recognition if he could get the life of his fallen soldiers back, that their lives, their existence was so much more important than any metal that could be draped around his neck. it was not lost on me that in that message is the message that we are here to affirm common -- to a firm, that we honor him, reward him, hold him up as an example of our greatest, because he recognized even a wounded and bleeding soldier has a value and that the life of that soldier never cease having value because it was no longer able to be a fighting soldier. he was now wounded and morally

so, but his life had so much in value of that the staff sergeant was willing to risk his own to try to save his wounded colleague. when i think of the greatness of america, i do not think of those who selfishly use the lives of others to advance themselves. i think america is a great country when we are willing to risk our lives for even those who may be wounded beyond the point of being saved. we do not have medals for those who would snuff out the lives of those around them. we have medals and a special place of honor to recognize the higher value of every life as a gift of god. if others want to fight the battle and say the only thing

that matters is what the tax rate is, let it be their battle, but as for me and my house, i say to you and ask you that for the churches across the land, i hope they will never be silenced. if god gives is the life god values, and it is a life we will and protect. if we protect the lives of the weakest among us, god's blessing will be among us, but if we harm these little ones, these pressures once -- precious ones, these defenseless ones,

but of millstone be hanging around our neck and let us drowned in the debt -- depth of the sea. our future is in the recognition of all holy god and the people he creates and whether or not we will stand with him for them. please let us never forget that message, and may god bless you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [applause] >> won the 112th congress

convenes in january, 94 members of the house will take the oath for the first time. here is a close look at some of the new members. in the fourth district, mike pompeo don't -- defeated. he was an army veteran and is president of oil-field equipment and aerospace manufacturing companies. democrat and richmond defeated the republican incumbent. richmond has served since 2000. watch c-span for continuing political coverage. a discussion on the latest efforts to enact a new missile treaty with russia.

this is about 40 minutes. >> on your screen now is the assistant secretary of state for arms control, and she is here to talk about potentially passing the new treaty. passing the new start treaty. rose gottemoeller, what does this new start treaty do? guest: it's in e united states security. it's our best way to predict what's going on with russian nuclear weapon. we have no arms control in place right now. it has no verification measures. it it gave us inspectors on the

ground. that predictability and helped us understand what's going on with them and by the way, they with us. host: what does this add? guest: it will bring about some reductions from 1700 to 2200 warheads down to 1550 under the new treaty. give us 18 on-sight inspections and have a great exchange of data and have a look inside russian nuclear forces. host: now john bolton wrote in the "new york times" and what they said was that senators should be in no hurry to sign this. the low limits ignore the enormous disparities of between

american and russian global responsibilities and the importance of america's nuclear umbrella. guest: the entirely leadership has been supportive of this treaty and underscored the necessity of getting it in force sooner rather than later. the argument is the defense of united states doesn't only depend on our nuclear but our defense capabilities. we are a country with worldwide reach. nobody need forget that. host: is russia an ally? guest: it's a partner. we have had a great national security partner with the russian federation. it's gotten much better since the reset button was hit after

president obama came into office. we have a great partnership with them on transporting our military material through russia to afghanistan. super partnership there. none proliferation. we have worked with us closely and particularly, ihink after the new start treaty was concluded last april, we can see the affect and they agreed to strong stronger sanctions against iran. host: charles friday in the washington post columnist. president obama's ideahat the eat powers must reduce weapons to set a moral message to the rest of world is childish. does anyone seriously believe the thugs will in any way be deflected by their pursuit of

nukes by a reduction in the u.s. arsenal. guest: people like former secretary of defense, have made strong statements in support of this trty. if we fail to ratify this, we are going to forfeit any leadership. i don't think these people are childish. host: what is the last time you had a conversation with john kyl? guest: we work with him from the very first time i went off and started the negotiations through the period when we concluded them, i briefed senator kyl and he was very interested in the negotiations. even came out to geneva with

senator feinstein. i was appreciative he was interested. host: a lot of print about his role and whether or not he will be supportive. guest: he has been concerned about an issue that's not directly linked to the treaty. the infrastructure over the last decade has suffered from lower budgets and so, president obama and president kyl have been working at this time on that goal. host: we would like to hear from those of you from outside the united states as well. our guest, rose gottemoeller.

finally, senator richard lugear, the ranking member on the senate side. host: is he supportive of this and has he been able to sway fellow republicans? guest: he has been really important and spoken out in recent days and weeks. they worked intensivelily through the summer. by the way, we had 18 hearings in support of this treaty and answered over 900 questions. it's been almost a thousand questions we have answered ford about the treaty. the upshot was in september, senator lugar and kerry, working together. 14 senators in favor including

republicans. host: to ratify this, how many votes? guest: 67. host: w many d you have now? the treaty should come to the floor. the second she said, she thinks we have the votes. host: host: rose gottemoeller our guest. caller: hi. thanks for taking me call. while the united states is running around and telling everybody how many nuclear weapons they can have. how do we address the fact that the united states has nuclear weapons than any other on the planet? thank for taking my call. guest: that's a very good point. the united states and the

russian federation have the most. that's why there has been so much work. from 12,000 deployed nuclear warheads when the start treats of put in force down to 6000 and now thanks to president bush's treaty. and we hope toet to 1550. it's a very, very important question why do we have so many nuclear weapons and president obama, as you know, has spoken about thatn prague in 2009 saying we need to get to a path of a world without nuclear weapons. i think it's a good question. it's one we're trying to work. host: what's the down side if this doesn't pass and tie it, should it be debated now with the lame duck or with the next congress?

guest: first and foremost, it's the national security we pay. if we don't have inspectors on the ground, we're thrown back to the cold era and think of ways to modernize. we don't want to spend money on nuclear weapons. i think also we do risk endangering our relationships. president obama laid this out as the first step in a continug step of negotiations. if we want to go after tactical weapons, we're not going to get that unless this is ratified. those are important costs. host: on our democratic line.

bob. caller: thank you for c-span. i wish that we're probably going to abide by all agreements we have made and probably the soviets are too. trust but verify what we're leaving is the trust where he's preventing us from verifying this trust. you know, and i think that he has every righ to vote against this treaty. but he's blocking any possibility of voting for this is getting close to capital treason. i'm very serious about this. he's endangering the security of this nation. host: rose gottemoeller. guest: bob, that's a really strong view, as i said earlier, we have a close and fruitful working relationship with

senator kyl throughout this treat and he the negotiations as we have moved through the ratification process. we take very seriously the senate's responsibility to give us consent of ratification of treaties. so, we feel like we have been doing our due diligence. getting them all the information they need. we will continue to do that. senator harry reid said it best. he's the leader in the senate and said he will be making the possility for th treaty to get to the floor. i think that's the important, really important next step. host: among different jobs and titles. gottemoeller served for russian

and ukraine issues. guest: i started out with the rand corporation. i was a split next baby. i was taken out in the the yard when the sputnik went up. the soviets put up a satellite. i got interested in what the soviets were doing in science and technology. i had an early beginning with the sputnik. host: and you remember seeing it? it was something that frighted your father? guest: my dad was an interesting guy. came fm a family of roosevelt democrats. his father was in politics. he was fascinated by international relations and

wasn't frightened by the space race or the kind of cold war threat. but he was fascinated by what was going on in our relationship with the soviets at the time and wanted to understand that and imparted that to the whole family. host: next call. center port, new york. caller: hi. can you hear me? host: yes we're listening. caller: these arm control have been approved by democrats and republicans alike. it's very disappointing to see this and it's all political. there's a $9 billion budget for refurbishing our nuclear arms. it appears that the republicans want to move that to 18 billion. and i don't understand why we're

increasing the amount of money for nuclear arms when bob mac namera said we probably need six not a thousand. guest: i would just like to stress once again that we are looking at shrinking the overall footprint of the nuclear infrastructure. president obama feels it's important that we improve the budget profile for the nuclear weapons infrastructure because it has suffered some fall off in recent years over the last decade. it's important to beain mind, a lot of facilities were world war ii vintage and need to be replaced. the whole notions we are actually shrinking the overall footprint and the overall infrastructure for supporting the nuclear weapons arsenal in a

responsible way. we want to head toward a world free of nuclear weapons. but we must have a fe, secure arsenal. that's what these figures are all about. i do think it's important to reize there was a falloff and we're trying to do mitigation of that problem overall. if i may, i wanted to comment on this bipartisanship. i serve president clinton and now president obama. it's interesting in each case, when i came into my job, i picked up on what the previous administration had been doing. president george bush, jim baker. we took those two documents and

that helped after the soviet union fell apart. that was an important bipartisan relationship there. we feel the same way now. we're taking the legacy. president george w. bush and taking it forward. host: we have heard a lot about the suitcase nukes, are they still a threat? guest: the nuclear material security. we find the new start treaty on april 8th in prague. the president was gathering a whole group of leaders here for a nuclear summit and we have to work to enhance the protection of the materials whether part of a proam or peaceful program. president obama got the

commitment of a whole group of international leaders, presidents and prime ministers to enhance and improve the protection of the material in the next four years. that's a very, very intense effort of the administration. follows on great work done in the clinton administration. host: next call for rose gottemoeller, assistant secretary of state. robert, independent line. caller: hello, i just have two questions. why is it now just coming to the senate if the start treatynded last year? and also, why do we keep hearing that it's a national security concern that it be passed, but

we're not giving more information just that it's a national security concern? host: thank you, robert. guest: great questions, robert. first i want to stress, the treaty is not just appearing now. when we got back from gena last april, we put together a whole package. 200 plus pages that goes to the senate and describes everything about it. it went to the senate in the middle of may. we started a series the hearings. 18 over the coue of the summer and used the summer all to answer the questions the senators threw our way. so the senate has had the whole summer to be looking at the treaty, and we have been working closely with them throughout

that period. in september, we had the vote to recommend the full and whether they will give the full advice. it's been six month period of intense work. on the national security. that's a good question. it'sot the cold war. we don't fear a soviet strike. the russians are good partners to us on national security and other fronts as well. so what are we dealing with here? the ash and trash of the cold war. we still have to deal with the build up of the nuclear weapons that took place during the cold war. otherwise, they are just the. we may end up with loose nukes problems or probls of accidental launch of missiles. as weapons are sitting around

and systems are deployed and not getting attention, over time, they may suffer problems in terms of their maintenance, security and in terms of the way they are handled overall. so it's very, very important i think to continue to pay attention to reductions and eliminations in a responsible way with verification and compliance going along with those reductions. host: are we looking at doing treaties with china on this issue? guest: that too is a very good question. i will talk about two things. first the reamble to the start treaty. they are just a statement of policy and what our desires are for the future. we agreed with the russians that this treaty is part of a step by

step approach toward further reductions in strategic nuclear arms extending to a multilateral approach. there are five nuclear weapons states. they include uk. france, china, russia and the united states. multilateral approach, looking to the future and also of course, we have it to address the whole issue of nuclear weapons around the world. countries like india, pakistan, and of course the countries we're very concerned about on the nonproliferation. north korea and iran. host: are we still manufacturing nuclear warheads in the united states? guest: the president doesn't support the notion of having a

nuclear weapons. what is going on now, we have a very, very intense stockpile stewardship program. it does maintenance, does very significant work to ensure we're replacing mponents and making sure the weapons will be safe, affective and reliable. at the present time, no as far as production. host: can you tell us where these parts are made? guest: all over. we have nuclear weapons establishment. los alimos and production facilities around the world, around the country for example, the so called y-12 plant in tennessee, which is where we historically have produced the material for nuclear weapons that is one of facilities i

mentioned earlier that is in the queue for modernization because it's an old military and needs modernization. host: next call from beaver damn. caller: hi. i'm a nuclear veteran. i lived on a nlear submarine for four years. i think one major thing you need to work out with russia, we need them as a partner to get china on this start treaty. we both need to verify china nuclear weapons. i would like to hear what you say about that. guest: could i just ask you a question first? host: he's going. i was going to ask which submarine he was on.

i was out myself on the clinton administration. i had the honor to go on the maryland. it was fascinating. let me just talk a moment more about what this treaty does. we have again, 90% of the deployed nuclear weapons in th world between the united states and russia. this treaty will help russia and the united states continue to get our numbers deployed down to 1550 warheads and 1700 deliver vehicles on each side. that's a big, big step going forward. when we look at the other countries, their numbers are as much smaller. france will be hosting in the next year, an important conference to begin to look at transparency and cooperative measur together with china,

uk, france and russia. that's an important step. we had a conference back in london in 2009, but this next conference, which france announced in september will be a big step in that direction. so we are thinkg aboutit. we have an important bilateral task because we have such a preponderance. we need to continue with them and having a good verification regime. >> how much of your thanksgiving liday has been taken up? guest: not very much. but north korea is not really my responsibility directly. host: next call. chris, republican. caller: hello. host: please go ahead with your question for secretary

gottemoeller. caller: hi. i'm a republican all my voting life. getting very worried with the republican party. especially john kyl. i don't understand why the republicans are not voting for this and i will fight furiously when next time to vote to vote john kyl out if he does not follow through with this. this is definitely important to our country and i am worried and i have everybody in the country does not, the republicans do not vote for this, i hope their constituency votes them out. if the tea parties are the people who are for erica, then this should be voted for america. this treaty. guest: well, thank you very much. chris. i do feel strongly nuclear arms

reduction and control should be a bipartisan matter. i do think it's very important. i have been fascinated and really glad to hear the interest you have shown because i have had the opportuty over the last month while the senate and use were out, the opportunity it to travel around the country and talk to people all over the place, des moines. louisville. it did go on the back burner after the cold war. as i said earlier, i worry about things drifting if we don't pay attention. if we don't continue reducing in organized way with the russians. then we don't end up being able to verify what's going on. in that case, we're un sure what

we're up to and they're un sure they're up to. host: one of our tweeters sent this in. do they allow the right to inspect in our borders? can teams inspect on private property? guest: as far as other countries are concerned, it will really depend on the treaty. on the start treaty, this is bilateral, the united states of america so this is simply a bilateral matter. we have our teams going to russia. they have their teams coming here. and the inspections take place on military cilities. we know in advance what the list is of their facilities they can go to, and they know what falities they can go to in our country. so there's nothing unpredictable about that. and they are not going to show

up at anybody's door ddenly. in essence. it's a very, very well-organized matter. that was so important in the care we took in these negotiations. the are hundreds of pages we negotiated. it's very clear what rights and obligations the inspectors have and what they can and cannot do in the course of an inspection. >> yes, thank you, i appreciate c-span and what you're doing. what i'm commenting about is i'm not against, i think it's everybody as far as republicans and democrats in washington d.c. are all to blame. but, it's like trying to put a finger in the dike.

this lady is just rresenting her job. they're not going to stop us trying to deal with the republicans is mute. the equipment like iran which north korea has. it's not a problem to us. russia feels like we do. these countries like france and all the nuclear nations. we have had more countries today with nuclear weapons than in 1960. host: leave it there, secretary. guest: i can't agree more. russia is not really our threat.

the pentagon did a posture review with regard to nuclear arms reduction. they pointed to the threat of nuclear terrorism and the threat like iran and other countries that may emerge. it's impornt to keep our eyes focused on those very, very important 21st century threats that are confronting us. i will say though, that as far as the leadership that our work with russia conveys to the international community, i can see the result already when we finish the negotiations in april. signed the treaty in prague. within a month, we were at the nonproliferation review. back in 2005, we had a dust up at the conference. we didn't end up with a consensus agreement at the end. this time around, coming out of

those negotiations with the russian, came toew york. got a consensus agreement and a really good action plan coming out of the nonproliferation and work hard with all the countries around the world on confronting those important problems you're talking about. irans and north koreas of the worl the leadership we have shown really helps us with the problems we have in strengthening the nonproliferation. st: silvia. you're on. caller: i tnk the focus on john kyl is only t mouthpiece.

i think the directives are coming. >> mitch mcconnell who sees the ratification for the accomplishment of president obama. that would be a loss for the republicans. i wish we would speak frankly and openly about that aspect of it. guest: i mentioned i was in leona lewis -- lewisville, i had the opportunity t see the legacy of senator mcconnell how he handled domestic policy.

it's clear he's a leader that believes in consensus. it will play out in the up-coming work on the senate floor for the new start treaty. you're right, he will play a very important role has the republican leader. he is a very, very experienced hand and somebody that has been woing these issues. host: that's a very diplomatic answer. guest: it was quite a coincidence, i didn't have a chance to visit that center. i had a spare hour and it was very, very interesting. host: host: madam secretary. have you had a chance to speak to sator mcconnell? guest: on the on this issue. host: will you be spending time on the hill this week? guest: i have been spending a lot of time on the hill.

host: raphael on our independent line. caller: i was really amazed you never bit on any of these attacks. i was a young kid during the iranian revolution. i am afraid of war by proxy. russia helps these countries build bombs. what about the star wars or missile defense system? i would rather invest in nuclear bombs. guest: one of the interesting things about our work with russia is how they stepped u to tackle problems with iran overall. in particular, as you know, the moment up of our cooperation picked up through the

negotiations, through other activities taking place on the re-set button, the russians have been willing to sign up for stronger sanctions against iran and cancelled the aircraft system. i can see that the russians are working with us as good partners here. frankly, they are doing important steps to strengthen their exports and controls. you're right, there has been a problem in the past. i worked during the clinton administration. they were selling technologies to the iranians. we are seeing improvement on export controls. it's important to stay linked up with them and have them be a

partner. on the missile defense side. in lisbon. we have a summit and we agreed to cooperate on building affective missiles in europe and will work with the russians to develop a partner relationship to cooperate in missile defense in europe. we would like to be doing more of that on a bilateral basis. there's a lot going on in developing affective missile defense against regional missile threats. we are concerned about iran developing a msile threat in the next five years.

we want to get that capability on the ground sooner than later. overall, president obama is very committed to missile defenses and the phased adaptive approach. host: madam secretary, what's the process on the russian side? has it been signed by president in russia? guest: they signed it and it was absolutely terrific experience. they did agree at that time, the process of ratification, we will try to coordine between moscow and russia. they did vote it out of their international affairs committee in july. we voted it out in september. now they're kind of, i think watching and waiting to see what happens with our floor action. i don't believe they will act on

the duma floor. and their upper house. they will be waiting and watching to see what happens. host: let's say it pass here, is there any doubt it will pass in russian? guest: i have been talking to my counterparts, i think there's a lot of support for the treaty. i don't expect there's a problem. one never knows. host: a few seconds left with our est, rose gottemoeller. caller: yeah, good morning yes. question to assistant secretary. we were drilling constantly about missiles. do you see the capability of

iran to strike it out at our navy sitting out over the coast? guest: well, that is a good question. how much iran and north korea have worked together on developing technologies. to be honest, it's not my real area of expertise. we are trying to ensure they caot develop those systems. to our deployed capabilities to ou allies and the united states itself. i think that we wl have to continue to do everything we can to ensure export control. it sounds boring. as a matter of fact, when countries pay attention to what companies are doing and regulating commerce in these

technologies, it can make a difference. we are continuing to push that rock uphill because it's very important. we're looking at two state who is haven't been working cooperatively with the international system. that's an especially hard rock to push up hill. we are applying sanctions and ratcheting up pressure so they know how serious it is. and they should respond to their international commitments. host: rose gottemoeller worked as deputy of secretary of energy. when was that? guest: that was in the latter years of clinton administration. from 1997 to 2000. host: how much over lap? guest: a lot. i am all responsible for new

technologies for verification. where we go in the future for arms reduction and control of nuclear and chemical and biological weapons. the work i did with the department of energy and our national nuclear and science labs very important work with what i am doing now. host: prospect heights, illinois. caller: i want to say the public is playing with our national security can. kissinger, baker. all supported the start treaty. they are endangering our national secuty. not to give obama credit for our symbol of success. guest: well, thank you for your comment. i want to stress again how important by partisanship has

been historically in this arena. and it has paid off for this country's national security to have the two parties join arms and work on these problems of nuclear arms control. it's really made a difference both in security policy and in the broader area of working with other countries on a national security problem. i said again and again, how much success we have had. they are willing to be our partners in the arms arena. the way we have been able to extend our cooperation so we are transporting military materials through russia to our troops has about because of our relationship with russia. it's good for whether you're red, blue or in the middle as an

independent. >> madam secretary. if it doesn't happen during this lame duck session? guest: we're looking at delay. we go back to the committee again, the senate foreign relations committee and start over. if it fails and just takes a couple months it will be the spring. no. could be as much as another year or 18 months. we will be 2-1/2 years potentially without a verification regime on the ground. that does not serve our interest. host: the cynic in me says if you give them lead time, they will hide illegal operations. guest: that's a great question.

one the things we have learned, we have 15 years of implementing and the immediate range nuclear forces treaty. yes. you're absolutely right, if you give them an inch, they take a mile. so, and this is something of course that is on us as well. we have to ensure that we have the same procedures because it's a bilateral deal. what happens essentially, these are sort notice, no warning inspections. our inspectors fly into russia. they don't this will them where they're goin they know they're going for an inspection. they say, okay. we're going to go there and within a very short period of time, the russians have to fly them to the base. until the last minute, they don't know which base they're going to or which missile they

want to look at. it's very, very important principle, one we have learned through the school of hard knocks. you have got >> tomorrow, and jake sherman talks about what is ahead for congress. pete domenici and minarik discuss the proposed debt reduction and tax reform plan, and an author talks about his polk, "last exit: privatization and deregulation of the u.s. transportation system