addresses and billing addresses of everyone who purchased and had something sent in to colorado. not really a tax collection, but a reporting requirement. so that's a different twist. >> but that would highly improve -- talk about come bersome, that would seem to be fairly come bersome -- talk about cumbersome, that would seem fairly cumbersome. >> yes. they are in court in colorado and i think there will be an injunction on that, and we will see what the court says. >> scott peterson when you w were working with the state tax policy department, was this an issue? >> yeah, it was. we talked about i have been doing this for a decade, and we have actually been doing this for 70 years. they adopted their sales tax in

1982. two years later they adopted a use tax because they wanted to start collecting sales tax. we did everything we could to get sales tax collected. .

>> so what's the next step in furthering this policy or this policy debate? what are we going see next? >> i think we're going to see the court decisions. i think that what happens in new york, what happens in colorado will then set a new framework, a new ground level where we are. i think that scott's group will continue and try and get more and more states to join the more streamline sales tax. we will probably fight the main street fairness act in congress saying that they really haven't streamlined. it's streamline in name only,

trying to go into more of streamline. i think that eventually as remote sales become larger and larger, it may well will that states will start the streamline more. >> same question. states won't have any choice. they will do what they have to do. you're going to see amazon stuff everywhere because the internet is truly amazing and it has receive losed retailing in this country. if you can't get that sales tax collected, it will die. >> this is "the communicators." jerry ceasale and grant with the i.e.g. new service which serves network world, computer world and c.i.o. magazines as well as 300 other related magazines and 400 websites

worldwide. thank you, gentlemen, for being on "the communicators." >> tomorrow ron paul talks about his agenda. that's at 10:00 here on c-span. in her first interview since joining the court justice elena kagan talks with c-span on how she manages our oral argument legal brief. >> i sometimes truck them around just in hard copy. so i do both.

but it is. it's endless reading because many of these cases, not only the parties submit briefs but there are many, many organizations and individuals and governments who are interested in the case. they'll submit friends of the court briefs, an cuss briefs and some of these cases there are 40, 50 briefs. there's a lot of reading. that's a bit part of the job. and if a kindle or an ipad can make my job easier that's terrific. that's on sunday at 6:00:30 and 9:30 eastern specific. >> today a group of senators spoke with reporters. among them were joe lieberman, chairman of the homeland security committee and its ranking republican susan

collins who talked about repeal of the law can be implemented. this is about 20 minutes. >> we had four senators absent. really just 2/3 of the senators voting. it's one the best days. not just because i was committed to the cause because at a time when the people of our country are just so justifyably cynical about the partisan politics that revails here in washington and stops us from getting anything done. we've come together and proven across party lines that you can get something done. there were eight republicans who voted four repeoples. this -- four repeals.

this would not have happened unless for the support of our senators and susan collins. it was the right thing to do for our country. i just stress again that perhaps as we enter the holidays now, it's also the best thing we could do to say to the american people that we're still able to come together in a bipartisan way to right a wrong that's in the best interest of our country. senator collins? >> thank you. let me thank senator lieberman for his extraordinary leadership. he has been steadfast in his determination to repeal this unjust law. and without his persistence we would not be standing here today. i also want to thank senator

udall and all of those who have worked so hard. but i particularly want to thank my republican colleagues who voted in paper of repealing "don't ask, don't tell." it was a difficult vote for many of them, but in the end, they conclude as i have concluded that we should welcome the service of any qualified individual who is willing to put on the uniform of this country, fight for us in war zones such as afghanistan and iraq and put freedom on the line for us. so i want to thank all of the gay men and women that are fighting for us today in afghanistan and in iraq. we honor your service and now we can do so openly.

this is indeed a historic day and i am just delighted with the strong bipartisan vote. >> thanks, susan. >> senator mark udall has been a stalwart and steadfast partner in this. >> thank you, senator lieberman, thank you, senator collins. i'm flanked by two enormously courageous leader. i play a small role in this very important success today. we just were talking about a week -- not much more than a week ago and senator collins anderman came up with a way forward which is to put a stand-alone bill after the house considered the same bill. i know we feel very, very grateful of the leadership of patrick murphy on particular on the house side, leader hoyer.

i would echo what senator collins said, encouraged votes. i want to mention the leadership that secretary gates has brought to this important question as well as admiral mull lynn. i believe admiral mull lynns' words will go down in history as ging to the core of this matter, which is if a young man orm woman, not quite so young want to serve our country, they should haven't to live a lie in order to act as a patriot would act. i know we all three are low to what happened. we'll let the historians determine the impact of this, but this is a very, very important day for those american who is want to defend our freedoms and serve us. open for questions if you have any. >> openly gay people will now

be getting medals and awards and held up as heroes. there is a broader social debate in terms of what gay people should occupy in society and the rights they should have. what impact do you think this shall have? >> in the survey that the pentagon did, i was very surprised that only 15% surveyed said they would actually reveal their sexual orientation because it's a private matter. more openly gay service people will be honored for their service as they should be. and i think in that sense, two things, one is that, we're going to be true to what america is supposed to be about. we're supposed to be about not who you are but how you did your job. gay and lesbians in the military will not be seen as gays and lesbians, they will be

seen as what they are, american soldiers efment when they do ex-sempplare service in our country, they will be seen as heroes who incidentally happen to be gay or less byian. so to me it is a step forward to a larger societal acceptance. this legislative action to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" i think is a reflection of the changing of values, if you will, of our society, the acceptance of people just based on who they -- how they do their job, not on who they are. i think one of the great -- this is a civil rights piece of legislation in my opinion. and what we're saying here is that you -- in america regardless of your race or religion or nationality or gender or sexual orientation,

you know if you play by the rules there's no limit to where you can go. society is ahead of us in this regard. i kept hearing this over and over from our colleagues and from people who would call me about this. one of the changes that's occurred as our society has become or accepting of gay and lesbian americans is that they of course have felt more comfortable and encouraged to indicate what their sexual orientation was both in a larger public context but particularly among family and friends. and so we're at a point where there are a lot of family, a lot of people in america now who either have a gay or less byian member of their family or a close friend. and so when this legislation comes up or legislation like it, it's not about them, it's about us, which is the way it ought to be because after all, we're all americans. so i think this is a very

significant day. senator christian gillenbrand was part of this night. she refused to give up and here we are having succeeded. please. >> well, i can say that this is real kwlay the american people asked us to do. the last election was very much about a statement about the american public saying that they want their public servants to come together to get the people's business done. i can think of no more important bill than speaks to our readiness. i want to thank susan collins who has been a visionary from the beginning. i can remember when we had a hearing on "don't ask, don't tell" and it was susan collins who asked the right questions of the right people to make a record of why this policy was so injust, why this policy

under mine military readiness. if removed would reduce nothing to reduce cohesion. i want to thank my colleagues for an extraordinary leadership on such an important issue and one that true sli a civil rights issue. this isal about equal rights. if you want to give your life to this country, you may do so regardless of who you love. this is one of the most fundamental piece of legislation this country could make. i want to thank everyone else in the senate who voted for this piece of legislation. this is exactly what the american people want out of this congress. >> what's your message to the 31 blouns voted against it? do you feel that they'll be on the wrong side of history?

>> it takes time for people to change long-held beliefs. i believe that if we had this vote five years ago, i would not have passed. 17 years ago it was a democratic president who signed into law "don't ask, don't tell." so i think our society is changing. and that it's important to remember who was in charge when this policy was enacted 17 years ago. strategically at what point did you see a clear turn where you knew this was going to happen? and did you have any thoughts of taking the provision out of the defense bill earlier? >>, no there certainly was some thought by people who feared that this would stop it from

being passed. once we couldn't get to 60 votes on defense authorization bill, that was just last thursday because of the process that was being followed. we talked and we decided, you know, we've got 60 or more votes for repeal of don't ask don't tell. we've got to find vehicle to be able to have the roll called so that the 60 or more votes can be registered in favor of repeal. and that wheens we decided right away to put in a stand-alone bill. things happened very quickly then. the house was immediately responsive. got together with pat murphy in a matter of days we had more than 50 co-sponsors in the snaths and our republican colleagues, senator collins, senator murkowski and senator snow all said as this came closer that they were committed

on the principle and they were not going to allow any procedural questions to stop them from voting for it. and then senator reid he really had the 60-plus votes he argued very strenuously to take this up and not wait until it. he got upset -- some people who are qu against "don't ask, don't tell requests were saying if you move it quickly maybe you're not going to get the votes. so all that came together in a remarkable show of bipartisan 1u7 port. -- support. >> four republicans said they will support it even next week. had you been lobbying the four? or are you surprised that maybe more didn't join on? >> i had been talking to a number of my colleagues. i knew that senator bona vitch was going to be with us.

he made clear that once there was an opportunity for a stand-alone bill that he would support it. that didn't surprise me because he's been a real leader on human capital issues in our commu committee and wants to make sure that we're tapping the talents of everyone. in addition i had conversations with senator enson. i knew that he was taking a hard look at the issue, that he was reading the report that he feels studying hard. i talked to a number of colleagues as well. i was confident going into the vote today that we would have six to seven votes. i did not expect eight. but i was delighted to see that we got eight. >> who was it that you didn't expect? >> i was delighted but surprised from the vote from senator byrd.

that was a gutsy vote. and i was delight. but he was not someone that i had thought to lobby on the issue. >> you didn't mean to leave us out. senator kurt, said he couldn't vote for cloture because he didn't like the process. but he was very encouraging about voting for repeal on a stand-alone bill. and then he told us that he would. >> that is really important. his vote was a key vote and it was one that we knew going into the vote that we had today. >> what day did he tell you? >> senator curk, i -- senator kirk, i will tell you definitively. he was pretty encouraging that if it came up on stand-alone he was likely to be favorable. >> i had a i conversation with him as well last thursday. i think we joined -- we had

conversation. and he like many of us was upset at the tactics the majority leader had used last week but he indicated that he was very open to voting for a stand-alone bill. >> senator collins could you take us through the timeline that you would expect the imply mentation of the bill? >> it's important to understand that the bill includes discretion for the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chief of staff and the president to implement this bill once they certify that there would not be an adverse impact on military readiness. and what they have told us is that they need to under take a training and education session. the report, the comprehensive report and survey done by the pentagon lays out an

implementation plan as well. and i am certain that the secretary will begin that implementation plan immediately. but it is going to take some time. it's not going to happen over night. one of the compelling reasons for congress to act was the secretaries arguments that the courts were likely to overturn "don't ask, don't tell." and that would cause an immediate implementation that might be very difficult for the pentagon to carry out successfully. so because we did the right thing today, we'll have an implementation that will be gradual but effective. and i'm sure it will start right away but it will take some time. >> any idea? >> i will yield to my colleagues on that. but from the conversation i had, it will be months not

years. >> that's right. and the important thing to say is that there is no time limit in the legislation by which the repeal has to be implemented and secretary gate was questioned about this a lot at the armed services committee and he said and admiral mullin said they wouldn't begin to implement "don't ask, don't tell" until the military was ready for it. they want to make sure everything is in order. so i agree with susan. it's going be months not years. >> i think that's why you had 65 votes. the length of time isn't what's important. what's important is if there's a process in place to do this right in a way to implement the fleeds oaf -- the needs of this policy. >> the military will take their to time to figure out how to apply all the different changes that has to be made to accommodate this change in policy. but the reason why this vote is so significant is that

after today no one can be outed rningts no one can be dismissed, no wlun be asked to stop their service because of their sexual orientation. >> i just want to add one thing, if anyone wants to check the record. senator webb was concerned about imply mentation and as recently as yesterday, he wrote a letter to secretary gates asking his thoughts on whether it would phase in repeal of imply mentation? and he included his letter and the secretaries in the record today. it comforted him. he was a vote. >> what is the extent of the 911 health bill? will you get closure on that? >> we have the votes we need. we've had indications from several republicans that they very much want to vote for this bill. they would like to vote for a stand-alone bill. there's general agreement on a new pay for that we're going to offer. the hope is to get to the bill as soon as this bill is completed. >> what's it for?

>> combined with a visa fee that was voted on in the past that would just be continued at the length of time. >> senator lieberman there's a question for you on the actual legislation. >> can you say how involved was the president on getting the vote for you? and also are you sure -- are you positive at this point that no legal action can intervene, i mean nothing can change the course of this? >> let me take the second one first. obviously, we had access to the courts. we're a litigation-oriented society but you never know. i think this is a very strongly based piece of legislation based in law. i would find it hard to mount to successfully go challenge for this. so i think we're on the road to repeal this discriminatory legislation. the president east support was very important here. senator obama after all is the

first commander in chief to very clearly say that he was for repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." >> during this legislative effort, he and his staff was greatly involved. he was on the phone anymore the last week or two with senators who were undecided. there was great jubilation among the white house staff. so they really wanted this to happen. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> the senate returns tomorrow continue debate on the start

treaty. they're expected to discuss an amendment by idaho senator jim rish with a vote expected to start at 3:00. live coverage begins at noon eastern on c-span2. from this mornings etion washington journal, a discussion about the treaty. this is half an hour. host: our guest is frank gaffney. the start treaty, as far as your perspective, what should happen with this tree? guest: at the very least, the senate should postpone consideration of this treaty until next year when it has an opportunity to to do the kind of comprehensive hearings and review and debate, informed especially by the actual negotiating record of this treaty. since we know for certain that

there is, at the very least, a distinct disagreement between the united states and russia about its implications for missile defense which is what we saw in the senate yesterday. that is a matter of considerable concern and should be not just the senators but all of us at a time when the threat of ballistic missile attack against the united states and its allies is growing exponentially including most recently, we just learned venezuela will allow iran to based missis of longer range and its soil. we have no defense against those threats at the moment. that is just one example of the kind of thing, it seems to me, the senate can't possibly do due diligence, its constitutional responsibility in the remaining days of this lame duck session. if the senate, in its wisdom, the majority leader

specifically, if they decide to push it to a vote at this time, the senators have no choice but to voted down. host: one of the arguments i have been hearing on this topic guest: it is an interesting an illustrative example of how the senate foreign relations committee tends to handle these things. i believe there were 12 hearings, something on the order of 20 witnesses, exactly two were critical of the treaty. if you think that is a balanced set of hearings or that is likely to give rise to a fair understanding of what this treaty is all about, then you will want to rubber-stamp this tree. it's like me, you think the senators and the country are entitled to a more rigorous and inform the valuation of the trty, let's face it, the proponents say it is modest. the critics think it has serious

problems to it. i don't think that was really the take away from the hearings that the foreign relations committee provides. for the senate now to be basically told that you have to take it or leave it, there is not time for more debate, there is not more time for additional hearings are input, you he to just rubber-stamp this, i think that is bad government and not really consistent with the framers view of the constitutional role of the senate in the treatmaking process. host: what are the questions that lead to a more expansive debate on this? guest: let's start with missile defense. the president and his team are insisting this treaty will have no impact on our missile defense plants. for starters, that raises the question as to what our plans are. i uld suggest that especially when you have developments like

the venezuela-iran business, our plans may need to change. this treaty and a number of respects limits our ability to make the sorts of changes. if you think about it strictly in the sense of plans, that is one thing. if you think about it as limitg our options, there is no question that the russians intend to do that. they said explicitly that if we make any quantitative or qualitative improvement ♪ calles in our missile defenses,y will regard that as grounds from which drive from the treaty. at the very least, we need to know whether that is a reasonable understanding of the treaty and in the absence of the negotiating record, we're left with nothing more than the administration's say so on this. to be candid, i think there say so is not that good especially since we have learned in the past two or three weeks, they havell the other set of

negotiations under way that they never told the senate about, that they have denied were under way. it really raises questions as to whether verification should apply in host: another argument by senator john kerry was being able to see what is there. here is a bit of what he had to say. >> he asked a question," how do trust russia?" that is precisely why ts treaty is so important. the treaty is not built on trust. no one taught us that more than the most famous words from ronald reagan, "trust, but verify." we don't have verification today. we are sitting here with no verification. we are in a fourth position of "trust."

the sooner we get the treaty ratified, the sooner we provide a foundation underneath the important question which is that if you can't trust them, you have to have verification. the point is that you build a relationship even in the worst of times so that your country, our country is more stable and more protected. during the wst of the soviet union, during the worst years of confrontation, we still built up a series of treaties in -- and arms agreements and various other agreements in order to try to tampen down the chance for hostility. our hope is that we can do that as soon as possible here. guest: i am struck by this representation. on the one hand, the president himself is responsible for them

not being any verification in place. he let it lapse one year ago. it never seemed to be a problem or at least a crisis until the rubber-stamp congress or senate was in prospect as perhaps the only chance the president has to get this treaty ratified. it is suddenly a crisis and we have to have it. this conflict with the idea that we severed relations with the russians which is another major theme of why we need to do this. it is getting us there help on iran and other things. i haven't seen all -- a whole lot of help there. beyond that, even the treaties proponents noted that it is modest. one of the things that is particularly modt relative to some of the treaties we have had in the past with the russians and fore that the soviet union, are the verification arrangements. they are very limited. what it gives rise to is a

potemkin village effect. catherine the great was diluted by her subset -- subordinates into thinking that all was well with the people of russia because they showed her this marvelous village they created for the purpose of and pressing her. i anticipate we will get something like that. scoop jackson used to say when you have these kind of verification arrangements, very limited and controlled by the russians, you are basically seeing what they want you to see. he likened it to the analogy of the drug dropped his watch in the dark, looking for it under the light because the light is better there. you will not see what is in the dark you will not see what the russians don't want you to see. we know for an absolute ft that the russians and before them the soviets have cheated on

every treaty they have been involved with withs. although this is not a problem in its own right, these limitations and the control the russians will exercise, we also know that we can be perfectly confident that they will perform according to past practice and cheat. host: if you want to ask questions the phone numbers are on your screen. the first call is from howard are republican line, marietta, california. caller: good morning. thank you very much for being there. i think you just made some news. it was the fact that venezuela and iran are working on some kind of missile agreement.

this could turn into another cuban missile crisis. venezuela is a helluva lot better than cuba. let me ask this question -- it seems that most of the debate in the senate about this agreement is the preamble to the agreement. there seems to be some misunderstanding among republicans and democrats about exactly what the preamble represents. and also how the russians have raised it to create the image that we have to combine our offense and defensive weapons basically together and the russians will take advantage of that. there has been talk about new missile silos being built and using the old silos and

restrictions of the new silos and putting conventional warheads on ballistic missiles and the russians have a problem with that. i barely have a working knowledge of the debate going on. there seems to be a request on the -- from the republicans to get the transcripts of the negotiations that the president and his negotiators used to determine exactly what was said and who said it. guest: your question is evidence you have been seriously trying to follow this and i commend you. i wish more of our countrymen were being exposed as you have been to the kind of information that they need to have.

frankly, the senate needs to have this to make informed decisions. the business about venezuela and iran is relatively recent news. the fact that it has not appeared more prominentlyn the press or for that matter in the debate today is troubling. it is one of the examples of the kinds of threats that are developing very this all wikileaks business is underscored about how dangerous the world is. we are approaching this new start treaty with preamble language which clearly links ofnsive and de force of -- defense of forces in a way that says they are find now, the interrelationship does not undermine strategic stability, but very explicitly indicates thathat could be a problem in the future and the russians have said ty believe it will be if we make any quantitative or qualitative change. they have gone on to say that

they will withdraw from the treaty. if you have an obama administration that has been as hostile to missile defensethey have cut billions of dollars from our program. they have council deployments in europe. it has made no secret that their plans arvery limited indeed. hence, the line in the testimony you have heard that this treaty won't interfere with our plans. when you have that combined with the russians vy insistent position that there be no changes, i think it constitutes effectively a veto on missile defense. i should say that in the treaty, there are a number of provisions that do as you have indicated, interfere with our ability to put missile defenses in place where we currently have offensive missiles. in closing, this question of whether there is a fundamental disagreement between the united states and the russians or not or whether the united states government has effectively said

to the russians that they are right and we will not do anything that will make you unhappy with respect a missile defense, this is precisely why we need to see the negotiating record or the senators do and i am happy to hear that the newest senator, mark kirk fr illinois has been assisting with the administration. he cannot basically make an informed vote on this tree without studying a bad record. i hope he will stick to that. every senat should be expected to have the opportunity to review that record in order to make informed decisions about a treaty that is deeply problematic. host: had you factor in that senators like senator lugar support the stacks guest: there are senators that supports this on eher side. you have a whole host of other people who have lent their names to this thing. my personal experts and government and i worked in the

reagan administration a long time ago, and have been watching these things very closely. the more exulted the position of individuals, cabinet oicers, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, even commanders of strategic command, let alone united states senators are very busy people. their personal familiarity with details aeements like this, let alone how they came to pass, let alone some of the implied it not explores the problems with them, is very limited. they rely on other people to tell them what has gone on here and whether it is a problem. as an example, i would be willing to bet that all of these cretaries of state who have sent letters in and testify, i bet none of them has taken a briefing on so on -- on the defects of history. they have relied entirely on the

government's position and their presentation. that is what the senate is being served up because it is not being given an opportunity to take any other information aboard. i used to work in the senate, too. i worked for senator jackson and senator tower. distinguished senators are spinning in their graves because the constitution of the united states says that the senate's role as being a quality control mechanism on treaties -- i think the framers may well have had a treaty like this in mind in the broader sense -- they would be horrified that in a lame-duck session -- there were no lame duck sessions back in the day -- there were certainly no reason to believe that the senate, which is opposed to a vote on a 2/3 majority basis, that is the kind of high threshold the framers had in mind for a treaty-making -- are

being forced to accede to a range as that denied them the ability for them to do their constitutional duty. i think the american people should be furious about this. host: when it left the foreign relations committee, there were only four nays? guest: that is true. that was a stack the deck in terms of the hearings. we have factories that have not had any critics of all. every sine one of the members of the senate foreign relations committee voted to have treaties reported. what do you expect if they are not given a full, balanced information to make judgments? it is hardly surprising that you get these kind of lopsided votes. the membership of that committee is somewhat better than it used to bait. the membershi is basically

fairly left-leaning. this has been historically a problem. it is unfortunate that it is reinforced by the way the chairman of the committee, sometimes the ranking member as well, have run the committee. host: new mexico, are democrats blind. think youreally don't have much of any credibility given year history of support for the iraq invasion, didn't you trying to get people to believe that saddam hussein was involved in 9/11 and even the oklahoma city bombing. you are one of the neo conservatives who is bankrupting this country, trying t support a worldwide empire. i find that you have absolute zero credibility.

guest: i have always regarded ad hominem attacks as reinforcing my point that we need to have more debate about things like this treaty. i would have the to the debate on another occasion the points you raised. my fear is that far from having an american empire, we are at the press as of moving back into aosition of somewhat isolationist view that will not only greatly intensify the dangers this country is facing, but cost is vastly more than being prepared as ronald reagan used to say using the philosophy of restraint to avoid the sorts of wars that we have entered into historically. i fundamentally disagree with you. host: republican line, arizona.

caller: i had spent the day listening to the senate debate as assaultsii treaty and your remarks were very one-sided you may as well have been one of the republican senators talking. you failed to mention bad virtually all the joint chiefs of staff all agree that the treaty should be passed and passed now. the last was the general who had a -- who was a career expert on nuclear weaponry. he gave his blessing to the treaty. a number of well-known people as well. the republicans disagreed with it overall, the arguments presented by the republicans on the preamble that they interpreted

as inhibiting the united states from developing star wars enter- ballistic systems if the need would arise in the future. that is not an agreement and it is contrary to what the negotiators negotiated when they negotied the treaty with the russians. the russians found no objection to an antiballistic missile system that was already in place and working. characterizing the russians as not being able to trust them and they lie -- i know you want to say dirty communist but you cannot call them that any more. guest: i think i touched on the fact that a number of eminences

in the and out of office le the joint chiefs of staff have endorsed this treaty. i stand by my earlier position which is that i think the further you get away from actually firsthand experience with these issues, the more you tend to rely on other people. especially when you are concerned with other issues having to do with the military. i think this is the kind of thing which is the sorts of issues that should be the subject of much more balanced set of hearings and much more fulsome debate in the senate and before there is a ratification vote. ve indeed saidave envi that they are happy to have nothing more than a very

limited, quite modest, and largely irrelevant missile defense capability to the sorts of threats that are now beginning to develop. it is indeed iran and venezuela, have they put missiles capable of reaching the united states in venezuela, we do not have defenses against those in place at the moment. i think the russians would almost certainly regard putting that in place as evidence of the kind of quantitative or qualitative improvement they say will cause them to withdraw from the treaty. if they have grounds for doing that, we need to know that now. without negotiating record, we won't know that. while we focused on missile boat -- missile defense, there are a number of other problems that i would think the joint chiefs of staff would be concerned about. for example, there is a 10-1 advantage on the russian side right now in terms of what our

tactical nuclear weapons. anyone that is hit with one of these tactical nuclear weapons will not know any difference between that and strategic nuclear weapons. our allies are a threat from these and vladimir putin is as dangerous as the communists were in their day. he harkens back to that. i think he lusts to restore a productive soviet union. he is moving tactil nuclear weapons closer to our allies in a transparent effort to intimidate them. this is at the same time we seem to be weakening our strategic position. this is for the betterment of russia's strategic interest and the detriment of hours. these are the sorts of things

that we can debate here longer if we had a chance. we shall certainly see it debated fully before there is a vote in the united states senate on this tree and that can't happen if, as currently is the case, the administration and the senate leadership on the democratic side, at least, is determined to try to drive this thing into a very near term votes after a very truncated debate. i think it is irresponsible and could be quite reckless. host: are the votes there? guest: i don't think they are there this minute. the boat is not being taken this minute. my sense is that a number of senators are increasingly upset at the way this lame duck session is being run and the extent to which legislation clearly would pass in the next session. i think it probably wouldn't pass if there were proper debate

on including the so-called " don't ask, don't tell" legislation and the dream act are bng jammed through. that reinforces the point i am making which this is no way to run a railroad. if you try to railroad the united states senate, they cannot do their job as the world's greatest delivered to body. . .

i mean, the political of the start treaty -- first negotiating by a repuican president shows how far you guys have gone over the last how many years? so, mean, the ability to being able to verify how many hydrogen bombs the other nation on the planet has had the greatest number of hydrogen bombs has, this successful, you know, going there to russia and investigating and having -- this is -- you have politicized this and turned this into a political negotiating chip to me as an independent, it's just, i mean,

nauseating and again, how you can say that this is, that you are behaving in a way which is putting nation over political party. i mean, i just want to thank you because you're living proof of why a third party candidate is a viable alternative. >> we'll leave it there. guest: and i have to say, i personally as a men who worked for democrats and republicans feel strongly that this should be non-partisan. i'd like to think that this should be beyond politics. we should not be in a situation which a democratic control ed congress is not trying to force the ratification of a treaty that when the senate is recotituted in january would almost certainly require improvements be made to the

treaty, not because of partisanship but because it is deflec activity. there are serious deficiencies to it. we will not know how many. we will not know where they are. we will not be abl to count them. we will not have as modern as arsenal are they. they will have, i believe, a veto over our missile defenses. there is not a genuine reset in relations. if the president of the united states of america see this treaty and i can assure you its approval by the senate should that happen as validation of his belief that the united states needs to set an example of denuclear san diego for the rest of the world.

denuclear rising the united states whether it's through dramatic arms cuts like he's proposing here or more worrying to me, quite frankly is through the atrophying of our arsenal that he and, again, this is not a partisan defense, george bush and bill clinton before him and george herbert walker bush before them all allowed it to happen. the atrophying of our arsenal. do you know that we have weapons today that are on average 30 years old? that's our arsenal. they've not been tested realistically for over 18 years. there has been no modernization of these weapons for about 15 years.

>> we need to have a viable safe effective and reliable nuclear deterrent. the president has said he thinks we may see it for the foreseeable future. he's n providing for it. that's troubling. the senate has not been given an opportunity to properly evaluate that by being jammed up against christmas in what i think is a very partisan effort and your criticism is miss placed and finding fault with me about this. host: off of twitter. a viewer asked -- guest: i think the chinese are under no illusion that we are deliberately con strange the compatibilities of our missile defense so as not to be able to counter their growing missile threat.

this treaty does nothing, nothing, to minimize the threat that china is going to pose in the future. it does nothing to deal with the north korean or the iranian or syrian or pakistani nuclear threats. we are looking in short as a construct that says let's go back to that old cold war sort of paradigm with two super pours and we'll just fixate on those when it's a very different world and one of my concerns i have to tell you is the kinds of cuts that are -- with the russians again, would be an invitation to the chinese to accelerate the build-up of their nuclear program and i think establish themselves unmistakably as a superpower which