spending money in the correct way? we are not abolishing track a. we are replacing ema was something more effective. at a time, i have to say that's the spirit members ask the question, they must listen to the prime minister's answer. >> thank you, mr. speaker, at a time when the legislature raised the participation age to 18, you do have to ask the question isn't like to spend so much money and asking people to do something that by law they will be asked to do anyway. >> thank you, mr. speaker. time and time again we seem to be exporting extreme islamist terrorism and icide bombers afghanistan, israel, and now sweden. what steps is my honorable friend taking to drink extremism from our country because i think he raises a could point anywhere from both sides of the house we have not done enough to deal with the promotion of extremist

islamism in our own country. where it is making sure that in arms coming over to study can speak english properly, whether it's making sure we deradicalize our universities, i think we do have to take a range of further steps. i'm going to be working hard to make sure that we do this. we got to thepolicing and place. yes, we got to make sure we invest in our intelligence services. yes, we got to cooperate with other countries but we've also got to ask why is that so many >> the british house of commons is in recess for the holidays. prime minister's questions returns on wednesday, january 12, 2011 starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. you can find a video archive of past prime minister's question that links to the house of commons and prime ministers website at c-span.org.

>> with the house of commons palin recess, prime minister's questions will not be seen live this wednesday. it returns live wednesday, january 12 at 7:00 a.m. on c- span2. coming up next, c-span exclusive interview with supreme court justice elena kagan. then a portion of today's senate debate on the start treaty. after that, a discussion on u.s. strategy toward yemen. >> it's hard to get here and also hard to leave here. but all of us do leave, and the senate always continues. >> search for -- federal speeches in the c-span video library, with every c-span program since 1987, more than

167,000 hours of mine, all free. it is washington, your way. >> justice elena kagan was nominated to the bench by president obama to succeed john paul stevens. she began officially serving on the supreme court on august 7. in her first interview, she talks about her reasons for becoming a lawyer, her first oral argument and her approach to opinion writing. we will get a look at her approach to her relationship with the chief justice and her thoughts on the confirmation process. she sat with c-span in her temporary chambers for this interview. >> thank you for inviting us into your temporary chambers at the court for this interview.

there was a piece in the slate magazine this month and it resonated with me. it said that once a lawyer has been nominated to the court, the next step is to become a great justice. tell me how he became a lawyer. >> i think i became a lawyer for all of the wrong reasons. when i was a law school dean i would tell people not to go to law school because you do not know what to do. but that is why i went to law school. i believe all of those things about keeping our options open. i was not at all sure i wanted to practice law when i started law school. i thought what could be wrong with having a law degree and then -- and then deciding. when i got to law school, what i was amazed to find was that i

absolutely love the law school and studying law in a way that i don't think i had loved any other part of my academic experience. i had been a good student, but i had not felt that passion for a subject matter. i like thinking about law. i like that law was something that was an intellectual challenge and a puzzle, but also had real-world consequences. you could think about using what you were learning to make the world a better place and to make people's lives better. i found it in as the interesting and challenging. in the end, i went to law school for the wrong reasons, but i was glad i got there. >> on becoming a great justice, you have had a lifetime to observe the court. what do you think makes a great justice? >> i think people are great in different ways.

some justices are great because they have extraordinary wisdom, they have an understanding of how to apply the law in their time in a way that completely is consistent the text of the law and the purpose of the law. and it is also completely write for the times that that judge lives in. there are some justices -- right or the times that that judge lance in. some justices have with them about the way the law operates in their society. one justice that comes to mind on that score is robert jackson. there are other justices who are great because of their opinions and because there are so -- they are so a quick and moving and persuasive when they write about the law.

-- so persuasive and moving when they write about the law. there are a lot of qualities that people have. many justices have been great in their own way. whether i can meet any of those standards is something to be seen and something that other people will have to say. >> you are the first justice to be nominated not having served as a lower court judge. does that matter? >> that is something for other people to decide. i am sure i come to the job with less experiences. possibly, there are some other experiences that some of my colleagues have not had. i hope the court as a whole will be enriched by my presence.

maybe you do not need nine former judges. maybe you can have some people on the court who have different kinds of experiences and who come to this job with a little bit of a different purse that -- a bit of a different perspective because of that. the learning curve is steep. there are many things i have not done before that i am doing with the first time. that is what makes the job so fun and so exciting. i hope i will be able to take whatever experiences i have had and whatever talents i might have and put them to use in this different kind of place. >> we are talking to you six weeks into the term. can you talk to us about your application process and what the first six months have been for -- have been like for you? >> there is a lot to learn.

the learning curve is extremely steep. sometimes it seems vertical. the people here have been so extraordinarily helpful. all of my colleagues have been wonderful, warm, and gracious. i think the experiences that i have brought to the job are going to help me a good deal. the solicitor general, you see the court in everything it does, just from a different point of view, from the point of view of the advocate rather than the judge. i am familiar with the practices and procedures of the court. it also familiar -- i am familiar with my colleagues and the way they ask questions and the things they might be interested in. it has been a whirlwind. new and exciting things all the time. >> do you find a level of populist scrutiny you did not

have as a solicitor general? >> that is for sure. when i was the solicitor general, i could walk down the street and nobody knew who i was. as a result of the confirmation process and your picture appears in the paper and on television, now i walk down the street and a lot of people know who i am, especially in washington, d.c. that is not so to when you get out of washington d.c.. people have been extraordinarily nice and kind. they yell congratulations to me, you go girl and all kind of things like that. i feel noted, scrutinize, in a way i never had before. -- i feel noticed, scrutinized in a way i never had before. the number of photos thats -- number of photos get further and further away.

people have been fabulously nice. >> i was reading on a blog about the court and someone noted that you were wearing blue jeans. >> it was what i was wearing and where i order a pizza from. >> justices could come here and resort into the anonymity of the court. in today's society with video everywhere, we will see. we will continue to follow you. >> it is a good thing that people talk about the court and people have awareness that is important in our society. there is some uncomfortable nest that might go along with that. -- there is some discomfort that might go along with that.

it is a point and that people understand the institution and have the ability to talk about it and the people who serve on it. >> what d.c. today as the role of the core? -- what do you see today as the role of the court? >> frequently, this court decides constitutional issues. sometimes it might be statute that congress passes. it is to interpret the law and to ensure that the law is enforced and apply. that is a different role than the political role, then the role of the president and the congress. it is not a role where you are trying to give voice to what you think are the general sentiment of the american people or public opinion.

your job is to look at the law and try to figure out its meaning the best you can and to apply it. that is often hard. there are difficult questions that arise when the court tried to do that job. there are questions -- tries to do that job. we are trying to do the same thing, which is to look at the laws that exist and figure out what they mean and to apply and forced them in the way it ought to be. >> speaking of court-watchers, everyone was interested to know when you would ask your first question and what that question would be? i am wondering about your own thinking in your first oral argument. had you planned what the question would-be? was it the intellect of the moment that caused you to jump in when you did? can you tell us about that experience?

>> i do not think i stressed about it too much. it was a bankruptcy case. i did not think it would arouse too much attention. i do not think it did. it was a complicated bankruptcy case. i tried to prepare for it as well i could. i tried to figure out the issues involved. what i have done for each case is to think about what questions are important to me. what don't i understand? what don't i know? what sorts of answers from lawyers might make a difference in the way i think about a case? as i prepare, i have a running list of questions that i would like answers to. i walk into an argument with some general sense of that list. my colleagues will ask a question before i get to it often.

i will not repeat what they do. but i will try to see what my colleagues are asking and try to figure out what some of them are interested in. i come in prepared with a set of questions. i also listen hard to what happens in the argument to figure out which of the questions i should ask and which would be important and which would be meaningful. >> it looks like you intend to be an active questioner. >> most of the justices are active questioners. i was a clerk on the court some number of years ago in the late 1980's. then, it was a much less active court. it was a much less hot bench. many of the justices on the court at that time would not ask any questions. or they would ask a few questions. a lawyer could spin out an

argument than in a way that is impossible now. most of us are at the questionnaires -- questioners. the lawyer is constantly trying to ask one after another after another. you know you will not have a large amount of time. i think it is a good thing about the court. maybe sometimes we take it a little bit far. sometimes you will see an argument where you think, that our lawyer. he never had a chance -- that poor lawyer never had a chance to tell us the basic theory of the case. all of us read the briefs carefully. all of us have an opportunity to say what he thinks about the case. argument is for us to say, we have read the brief. we know what you think about the case. here are the questions that it inspired in us.

here are the uncertainties you left open. we use oral argument to do that. it is important that you respond to our questions and our concerns. >> so you come in with a vast knowledge of the cases and what they are. that helps. >> it definitely does. sometimes it will have more of an effect than other times. some people come in and they have read the briefs and they have had experience in similar kinds of cases and they know what they think. other times, you will see a much more open, exploring set of questions. you can see that the justices are struggling with some new issue or some different aspect of an issue that they have not confronted before. sometimes, it really makes a

difference in terms of, help me try to figure this out. sometimes, a little bit less so. sometimes, in those sorts of cases where the people have figured it out a bit, the justices are using the questions as much to talk to their colleagues as to talk and get information from the lawyer. that is of value in oral arguments. we do not talk about the cases together beforehand. oral argument provides the first chance for you to see what your colleagues might see about -- might think about a case, what interests them about a case and for you to suggest to them what you think. parts of oral argument is that, too. the justice are -- justices are talking to each other through the lawyer. person just happens to be there. >> it facilitates the compensation.

having been in the world, what is your mindset about the government advocate? do you think you will be a little bit tougher on them because you know what it takes to stand there? >> i think they ought to be held to a high standard. frankly, everybody ought to be held to a high standard within come to the court. they ought to know their stuff and they ought to be prepared to answer our questions. i am certainly not going to give them any breaks. i know that they work hard. i do not think i will hold it against them that they work for the government. those lawyers are performing a service. the solicitor general's office is important to the way the court works. the solicitor general post office appears in cases where

the u.s. government is not a party, but has some interest and provide expertise. i think the court listens carefully to the government when it does that. the government does not give those arguments in the more respectful treatment than anybody else's. they understand that that is an important set of arguments to understand when one is looking at a case. >> i was listening to some of the recordings of last year's cases. it is interesting to hear your colloquies with the chief. i am wondering about your intellectual relationship with chief justice roberts. often, your questions and answers were buried -- were very rapid fire. i wonder about your relationship with him. >> he was the great supreme court advocate of his time

before he became a judge. i always felt as though he could do better than what all of us as lawyers were trying to do. he did it as well as anybody had ever done it, to be at that podium and to make an argument in front of the supreme court. that is intimidating to know that the person questioning you has stood in your shoes and has done the job better than anybody else ever have -- ever has. i have listened to the teeth's arguments and have talked to people who saw >>'s -- the senate -- i have listened to the chief's arguments and tough to people who have listened to his arguments. if there is something you want to hide in your argument, he is certain to fight it. i tremendously enjoyed arguing

in front of him because you had to be at the top of your game. you should have to be at the top of your game. >> will you tell the story for the camera about because you received from the president to nominate you? >> i received it the night before the announcement. i kind of thought it was coming. it did not come completely out of the blue. i had been on the short list for the prior nomination, the one that justice sotomayor was picked for. i interviewed with the president and i had not received the good call. i received the bad call, the call that said, sorry, it is not you. the reason i say it was not completely a surprise the second time was because i could

see that there was a difference in the days leading up to the announcement between the first time and the second time. the second time, they asked me for much more material. they made me prepare a statement. i started worrying about what clothing i would wear. things like that. i thought it was a good idea. i was more in the game the second year that i was in the first. >> where water -- where were you when the call came? >> i was at home when the call came. they told me that i should be at home when the call came. the president called and he was wonderfully kind and terrific. i think i started crying a little bit. he was -- everything he said moved me profoundly.

he gave me one piece of advice which i did not take. this may relate that to a prior question you asked me. he told me not to read the newspapers for the whole time of my nomination and confirmation. sometimes i took that advice. often i did not much to my regret. it was good advice. he was wonderful. he was kind and personnel and the second conversation was a lot more fun than the first. >> if the article in slate is correct that it is every lawyer's dream, can you describe what the motion was like? >> it is an awesome responsibility is it is a great privilege to be here. it is an enormous responsibility.

this court decides important questions. many people's lives are changed because of this court's rulings. that means you have to do your best to get it right. you have to work as hard as you can to get it right. that is humbling. it is all-inspiring. -- it is awe-inspiring. it is this whole mix of things. it is the most interesting thing you have ever done. it is the most important and the most humbling thing you have ever done. >> let's talk about the confirmation process. you said the president and-you not to read the newspapers. supreme court nominations are

sold -- the president at-you not to read the newspapers. the supreme court nominations are so politicized have. -- are so politicized. >> i got it. i think people treated me well and treated me fairly. even the people who voted against me for whatever reason gave me a respectful hearing. when i went around to do the courtesy the visits, i did 82 of them, and people wear courteous. and during the hearings, people ask me good, fair, an important question.

i enjoyed that part of it. i am not sure i expected to. it was an opportunity to talk about something that i love and something that i have been thinking about for a long time, which is the will of judges in society and the will of the supreme -- the role of the supreme court. i had a good time. sometimes what the senators really want to know, you cannot tell them. they want you to give a thumbs up or a thumbs down on the 10 hot cases of the last 20 years. or they want you to give them a sign on how you are going to come out on the next 10 hot cases that are going to be coming down the pipeline. people do that on all sides. they do it on the democratic side and the republicans do it. they have a different set of litmus issues, but all of them

want to know those things. you have to keep on saying, i cannot talk about that. i can talk about some general issues. sometimes, you think they do not care about this. they did not care what i think about constitutional interpretation. they just want to know how i am going to come out on this case. that is something i am not going to be able to tell them. a lot of the senators are thoughtful and smarts and educated about a wide range of-- smart and educated about a wide range of issues. i enjoyed my conversations with them and people were putting it to me and people who were tossing me softballs. >> how have you processed the 37 no votes?

>> i honestly, i just thinking it is part of the process. there have been a number of us. some were appointed by republican presidents and some have been appointed by democratic presidents who have had a significant number of no votes. the process has become politicized. you are going to have some opposition. i would like to think it did not have much to do with me. i think that is true of me and of a number of my colleagues. the number of no votes does not have much to do with you. it has to do with the political situation and the relationship between congress and the president and a whole world of things other than what they

really think of you. >> much was made of the fact that this is the first chord with three female justices on it. -- with 3 female justices on it. do you think there will come a time where people will not notice? >> it is good to see a court that reflects american society and the world of women in society. it is a good and noteworthy thing. i do not take it amiss that people say maybe she is a woman and baby that was part of why she was picked. -- maybe that was why she was picked.

it is a terrific thing that there are three women on the court. people are not wrong to talk about it. ginsberge o'connor and talked about wanting to had something to the judicial robe. you've chosen did just where the black robe. was it a conscious decision? >> you do what makes you feel comfortable. in my real life, and not up relief lacy person. some of the things people where is that something that struck me as that i felt comfortable with. i have on occasion when a white scarf under our road. i wore that for my pictures in my investiture. i wear pearls a lot, which will

peek out from the robe. i think the road is a symbol of the impersonality of the law. you put on that robe and who you were before is meant to go away. you're supposed to apply the law and do justice apart from any personal characteristics that you have. i think that is a profound simple, that kind of plane, a black robe that says i will try to the extent that i can not to be guided by a personal experience or professional characteristic but to apply the law in the fairest way i think it's possible. >> here comes the how did it

feel question. when you are in the robing room for the first time, any thought about that process in making the first formal entrance into the court as a sitting member? >> when i walked in for my swearing-in, this was in the summer before my big grand public investiture, the swearing-in was necessary to start work in the summer. i was met by the chief justice in he gave me a little bit of a tour, the inner rooms, the justices go to come up a conference room and the robing room and dining room upstairs. and on the torque is where he showed me the robing room and i looked and there were these would lockers, chief justice,

and they said justice stevens, and then carried on down. and alas locker was just as some of my your -- justice sotomayor. and then we ended up back in the robing room again, and what had happened was that justice stevens had come off. each of the nameplates had gone over one. and he showed me the new locker, justice kagan. it was a very as effective way of saying to me, you are here now, you are part of the institution. it was a very powerful thing to do. >> processing to the bench for the first time, after all the time and that court room, describe the difference.

>> it wasn't -- was an awe- inspiring thing. i had been there almost daily, but i was always in the front room and in the audience or behind a podium. to be on the bench and the lookout at all lawyers and the public, you very much feel us since of possibility. >> what you think of this courtroom itself? >> is magnificent. i was most surprised when i became solicitor general and i started spending a lot of time there. i have not been there for a number of years before that. what struck me as solicitor

general was how close the podium was to the bench, how close the lawyers arguing are to the justices asking questions. it really is -- you are almost on top of a lawyer. and so any inclination that the lawyer might have to make his speech, i think, goes away. you are right there, and it is much more natural to have a conversation, to have a give- and-take than for anybody to be or rating in any way. that is incredibly special about the court, but lawyers are face- to-face to the justices, so close. with that encourages is a kind of conversation which ought to be happening in the courtroom. >> what we're talking about the building, since we recorded our interviews for this documentary, the great bronze

doors have been closed because of security. there was always such a symbolic part of the process. the lawyers going down the white marble steps. what has happened to the building and the feeling of the process here with all the security measures closing those doors? >> this happened last year before i got to the court. i was not privy to any of that conversations among the justices. i do not really know the kinds of reasons people had. i am not in a position at all to think whether there were appropriate justification's for closing them or not. i just do not know. today we're not asking about the justification so much as the feel of operating in the court as a result of them being closed. >> it does not make a difference in the court. in the court, it is as grand as

it always was. the people in the court understand. people come from all walks of life. you have people who are at the supreme court bar there all the time, and many members of the public, some who come for an entire argument, some who come for five minutes, just to give them a sense of what an argument looks like, and then they go out again. in the court, it is grand and on inspiring as it ever was. >> have you decided to take part in the dinner? >> i think i have maybe missed one. wasow that justice o'connor the enforcer of that. she would walk around saying, and you should go to lunch.

this is a community and people should get to know each other and try to understand each other and care about each other. and so to the extent that she said, lunches are time for doing that, i think it is tremendous. >> the conference room, if you have special roles in there. cause you were the junior justice. you want to that door for the first time, the place where no one but justices can go, what is it like in there? >> it is a lovely room. as every room in the court is. i have never been in the room before. i clerked here for a year and worked here as solicitor general, but even as a clerk, i

had never been in the room before. to walk in and to see it -- is a very striking experience. >> what is the conference like? >> we sit in the assigned places. the senior associate justice, justice scalia, sits at the other end, and it goes by seniority. my chair is the chair nearest to the door. the reason is because i have special responsibilities. one of those responsibilities is to get the door when anybody not to. so people could not because somebody left their glasses or for a message. i get what effort is because no one comes and. ofe of the clarks' do, none

the secretaries, assistance, anybody who works. it is a double set of doors. i have to open one and open the other one pick up whatever does. my other job is to take good notes. at the end of the conference, i go to the clerk's office and tells them exactly what the justice has decided. we might talk about a discrete number of argue cases but we also talk about a large number of other things, related to which cases the court is going to take. there are a fair number of grants of some kind that i have to convey to the court. i am busy writing away all the time that i sit there. sometimes these two roles conflict with each other. you have to get the door. i might be writing a note and

i'm not quite sure what to do. those of the special role of the junior justice. >> explain the process because the solicitor general, you had to recused herself from a number of cases. >> on the cases i have recused myself from among any discussion other than a moment's i actually get up and walk out and let me know when i should come back. that is consistent with the general practices that if someone is recused then there's some discussion about the case, the person will not be there for that discussion. >> the worst month was october. by the middle of this year, most of them are likely to be gone.

even after this year, and in the spring, a lot to recused myself, but it is subsiding. >> we've done a number of these interviews and we've heard varying accounts of tenors inside that office. others have painted a more combative situation. what is the temperature like in there? >> there been really good discussions. it goes around the room. there is a rule which i like, because i am the ninth person, no one can speak twice before everyone has had a chance to speak once. the means that everybody gets a chance to be heard before people start going back and forth with each other. but each person talks about the

way that person sees the case, what the important issues are, how they would resolve those important issues, and then sometimes that is that. it is clear what is going to happen and it is clear there are not any questions to be batted around. but often there will be. people go back and forth. people will say that they have changed their view. i heard what some other justice has to say and that is a better way of doing it. or people will say, we do not seem to have a clear majority for any approach. let's talk about it until we develop a sense of where that clear majority will come from. sometimes people will argue with each other. it is never hot or combative. it certainly is never angry. but there is a good discussion. >> it is hard for people outside of court, especially those passionate about issues, if to understand how you can have so

many 5-4 decisions and still have a great deal of comity. how does that work inside this building? >> i am sure i will learn more about that as the months and years go by. it is very striking. it is not unusual, not the only court that works like this by any means. collegiality is generally prized as a real collegial virtue on many courts. this is surely one of them that value very much their personal relationships with the other justices, by you their friendships, and they all know that they're born to disagree with each other some amount of the time, but everybody understand that everybody else is operating in complete good faith, everybody is trying to do their job as best they can,

trying to read the constitution and a lot as fairly and forthrightly and honestly as they can, and people give each other credit for good faith, for faultless, for prayer mindedness, -- for their mindedness -- fair mindedness. one of the great things about the court right now is that even when people disagree and sometimes sharply, they are important and hard questions that people have strong views on, but then they can understand that everybody is trying to do the best they can and everyone is working really hard and everyone cares a lot about the law in this country as well. i think that none of that is

fake. it is very real, the kind of respect the people have for each other. have you been assigned an opinion? >> i have. the general practice and i will be much more specific than this, but every justice gets at least one opinion from each sitting. that general practice has been followed. judith this is part of the job -- the art of persuasion to opinion writing. >> i like my opinions to be as clear as possible. i would like people to pick them up and understand them. i would like them to be as thoughtful as possible. i would like to write the kind of opinions which really do attract the competing arguments, don't try to sweep competing arguments under the rug, but try

to address them fairly and forthrightly. i guess i would -- i am trying hard to write opinions that i think our awful and complete -- are thoughtful and complete. >> we're running out of time. we learned last week about how the breves follow you everywhere. justice scalia has taken to putting his breeds on an ipad. how are you managing the briefs? >> i have a kindle. i also of course sometimes track them around in hard copy. i do both.

but it is in was reading. many of these cases did not only the parties give briefs, but there are organizations and individuals and governments interested in the case, so they will submit amicus briefs. that is a lot of reading. that is a big part of the job, and if they kindle or ipad can help you, that is terrific. >> are you reading all the time? >> i have always worked hard but i found the time to do the things that i like to do. i am hopeful that they will still be the case. last question is about educating the public. do you plan to be a public

justice? do you plan to be speaking thomas speaking on panel sessions, writing books? what will be your approach to interacting with the public? >> i do not plan to be a public justice in my first year. what i am planning to do is try to learn as much as i can about the court and about the issues the court handles. so it all in and not -- soak it all in. over time, i hope to do more than that. it is an important part of the role to be a person who helps educate the american public thet the process es of judicial role and legal interpretations. i think what it into doing that.

i think that over time i will do more than that, but i will play it by ear, try to figure out what audiences are most important and what messages i think are the most appropriate forms to me convey. >> the biggest surprise you want people to know about the experience so far. >> the biggest surprise? gosh. >> is that all that you expected? >> i'm not sure that i have an answer to that. to have something be a really big surprise, if you have to have a set of expectations. for the most part, i did not know what i would find, it did not know how the justices would relate to each other and

conferences. i did not know how the internal processes would work. this is a little bit of a black box in terms of how the american public views the pol -- use the court. they see certain processes, not even as much that they hear about arguments, tapes of arguments, but i do not think they have the right a idea of what happens inside the institution. that is true of lawyers that appear before the court all the time. i think there's a lot of guessing. what does go on in there? i was not sure of what i would see. what i see has been very inspiring. i think you have nine people for working really hard and who are trying the best that they are able to do something really important in this country. i think what i see is an

institution the worst. well and that america should be proud of. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> to watch this interview on one, go to the page at c- span.org for more, check out our web site at c-span.org /supremecourt. this updated version of the original documentary includes comments from the newest justice, elena kagan, as well as a look its recent developments at the court. that is sunday, january 2, at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. coming up next, all portions of today's senate debate on the start treaty. after that, a discussion of u.s.

strategy toward human. then a forum looks at the referendum in sudan that would split the country. tomorrow, a discussion on how the health care law will be implemented in its impact on consumers and health care organizations. participants include nancy-ann deparle. live coverage from the center for american progress on c-span. >> you are watching c-span, bringing you politics and public affairs. every morning it is open " washington journal " the" about the news of the day, connecting it with elected officials, policymakers, and journalist. if watch the u.s. house and our continuing coverage of the transition to the new congress. congressional hearings and policy forums. also, supreme court oral

arguments. you can see our signature interview programs on sunday, news makers and prime ministers questions from the british house of commons. you can also watch our programming anytime at c- span.org. it is all searchable at the c- span video library. washington your way. a public service created by america's cable companies. >> the senate continues debate today on the u.s.-russian arms reduction treaty. discussions focused on an amendment offered by jim rich of iowa. proportion of that debate. -- here is a portion of that debate. is according to "the bulletin of atomic scientists." you know, we estimate they have a large inventory of operational nonstrategic warheads, 5,390 is the number here, tactical warheads, air defense tactical,

et cetera. so they still do have more. and it still is a very legitimate concern to us. that is why -- that is why, my colleagues, in the resolution of advice and consent, we have the following declaration: the senate calls upon the president to pursue, following consultation with allies, an agreement with the russian federation that would address the disparity between the tactical nuclear weapons stockpiles of the russian federation and of the united states and would secure and reduce tactical nuclear weapons in a verifiable manner. that's one thing we say that's tactical. that's in the resolution. you can vote for that. in addition we say, recognizing the difficulty the united states has faced in ascertaining with confidence the number of tactical nuclear weapons maintained by the russian federation, the senate urges the presidt to engage the russian

federation with the objects of, one, establishing cooperative measures to give each party to the new start treaty improved confidence regarding the accurate accounting and security of tactical nuclear weapons maintained by the other pared, and, two, providing the united states or other international assistance to help the russian federation ensure the accurate accounting and security of all of its tactical and nuclear weapons. so, mr. president, i'm prepared, if that language doesn't satisfy folks, let's go aittle further. i'm happy to do that. but we're not going to do it in a way that precludes us from going to the very negotiations that you want to have it just doesn't make sense. not to mention the fact that it puts the entire treaty back into negotiating play. who knows how long it will be. the estimates i have from the negotiating team could take two years, three years.

we've already been a whole year without inspections, a whole year of not knowing what they're doing. ly talk tomorrow in the security briefing about the impact that has on our intelligence and the dissatisfaction in the intelligence community with a prolonged and continued delay in getting that. so i simply say to my colleagues let's do what's smart here. secretary clinton said, t new start treaty was always intended to replace start. that was the decision made by the bush administration. i want to emphasize again, president obama was not the person who trade the decision not to senate -- who made the decision not to extend start i. neither of us wanted to do it because under this start agreement, we actually put in a better system and, one, let me add that general chilton emphasis reduces the constraints

on missle defense. reduce them. so here's what secretary clinton says further, i would underscore the importance of ratifying the new start treaty to have any chance of us beginning to have a serious negotiation over tract kal nuclear weapons. now some -- tactical nuclear weapons. some senators are saying, why didn't they address them at the same time? why didn't they go in and say, why didn't we get this done? why didn't we get that done? for a couple of reasons. one, russia's tactical weapons are primarily a threat to our allies in europe. and knowing the differences of that equation to have linked our own strategic interests to that negotiation at that time would have left us who knows how long without the capacity to get an agreement, number one. number two, last year when we began the negotiations on new start, nato was in the midst of working out its new stratigic

concept. our allies were in the midst of assessing their security needs. so it really wld have been impossible to really have that discussion without them having made that assessment and -- and -- and resolved their own security needs and definitio. but now nato has completed that stratigic concept. we've heard from a lot of european governments about new start. what do they say about new start? what do our allies say? we're not in this ballgame all alone. they are united in support for this treaty in part because they see it as the necessary first step to be able to have the negotiations that bring the reductions in tactical nuclear weapons. let me quote sekorksi, poland's foreign minister said, without a new start treaty in place, holes will appear in the nuclear

umbrella that the u.s. provides to poland and other allies, the collective security guarantee for nato weapons. new start is a necessary stepping stone to future negotiions with russia about its tactical nuclear weapons. so they believe you've got to pass start to get t this discussion. this is the lithuania foreign minister, we see this treaty as a prologue, as an entrance to talks about sub strategic weaponry, which is much more dangerous and quite difficult to detect and we living in east europe especially know this. and the secretary general of nato said this -- quote -- "we need transparencynd reductions of short-range tactical weapons in europe. this is a keyoncern for allies, but we cannot address this disparity until the new start treaty is ratified." i don't know how many times, you know, you sort of have to make

this connection. general chilton, who's -- who's in charge of our nuclear forces said this to the armed services committee, "the most proximate threat to the united states, us, are the icbm and slbm weapons because they can and are able to target the u.s. homeland and deliver a devastatingffect o this country. so we appropriately focused in those areas in this particular treaty for stratigic reasons. tactical nuclear weapons don't provide the proximate threat that the icbm and slbm do. the disparity in the russian and tactical arsenals, i have are repeat, we want to address it i'm prepared to put something in here if the senator from idaho thinks we can find the language as we did with senator demint who has very strong language in here about missle defense, let's

put it in here. but it doesn't put us at a stratigic disadvantage. secretary gates and admiral mullen stated in -- in -- in response to our questions for the record -- quote -- "because of their limited range and very different roles played by stratigic nuclear forces, the vast majority of nuclear weans bush russian nuclear weapons could not directly influence the stratigic balance between the united states and russia." maybe you want to listen to what donald rumsfeld said to the foreign relations committee a few years ago -- quote --i don't know that we would ever want symmetry between the united states and russia in tactical nuclear weapons their circumstances is different. and their geography is different." general chilton said, russian tactical weapons do not directly influence the stratigic balance between the.s. an russia. -- and russia. numerical symmetry exists in

number of weapons, we estimate that russia possesses when considered in the context of our total capability and given forced levels of structure in new start, this acemetery is not adessed to affect -- affect the stratigic ability of the united states and russia. we have a couple of other colleagues who want to say something. let me say to my colleagues about the process as we go forward here. there's some talk now that we're reefg a point we're on day- reaching this a point. we're on day five, wednesday afternoon, thursday, friday, saturday, sunday. start i took five days. if we filed a cloture petition at some point in the evening, for instance, we would still have two ds before we even vote on that. two whole days before we vote on that and then presuming we were to achieve it, we have 30 hours after that which can amount to almost two days in the senate.

that would mean nine days if we go that distance, we would have nine days on a treaty that is simpler than start i. we would have more days on this treaty, simpler on start i, than we had on all moscow start i, start ii treaties put together. the majority leader has given the time to this effort. we're giving time to it. we would have a time to vote on each amendment, deliberate each amendment, but i think it's important to us to consider a -- the road ahead here. i reserve the balance of our time. the presiding officer: the senator from georgia's recognized. mr. chambliss: mr. president, i rise today in support of the risch amendment and the distinguished senator from massachusetts just helped make

the case as to why this amendment is so important. i -- in every hearing we've had in armed services and intelligence, every conversation i've had either in person, by telephone with every administration official, everyone who's in support of this, i raised the issue not of what's in the treaty as being the most signifint thing in my mind, but the issue of what's not in there and that's the issue of tactical weapons. i hear what the senator's saying. and what you reinforce to me is th we've been talking to the russians about tactical weapons for over two decades and we have not yet been able to get them to sit down at the table with us. and if we get them now, when? i understand what theresident said that he's going to make a real effort to get them to the table, but we -- you get them to the tle when you have leverage. the russians want this treaty. they want this treaty bad. we had the opportunity, in my opinion, to discuss tactical weapons with them to get them to

the table for this treaty. but we didn't take the opportunity to do that. so i am rising today, mr. president, to talk about the issue of tactical nuclear weapons with respect to new start and the two amendments that have been filed on this issue,he risch amendment as well as an amendnt filed by senator lemieux. we all know that tactical nuclear weapons is one of the issues that the treaty does not address and also an area where there's huge disparity between the united states and the russians relative to the numbers of weapons. perhaps most importantly, the intent of arms control treaties is to control and limit arms in order to create predictability and security. and by not addressing tactical nuclear weapons in this treaty, we have left the least predictable and the least secure weapons in our nuclear inventories out of discussion. russia has somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 weapons.

i don't know what the numbers have bee there have been some numbers bantered around here. the numbers vary widely and the point is we don't know. and that is the real problem with tactical weapons. many of these nuclear weapons are near eastern europe in proximity to u.s. troops as well as to our allies. these weapons are different. not primarily in terms of how powerful they are because the warheads are in some cases similar in size to stratigic nuclear weapons. instead they're different primarily in terms of the range of the delivery systems. the russian advantage in tactical nuclear weapons is at least 5-1. could be as high as 10-1. again, we don't know because they won't tell us. it is also the case that the u.s. and russia both agreed in the 1990's to reduce tactical nukes. the united states has, but we don't know that the russians have. they said they have.

but do we really trust the russians? we shouldn't. in fact, we have cited the -- and in -- we have cited the expansion of nato as a change in the -- in the stratigic landscape since then. tactical weapons are the least secure nuclear weapons in our nuclear inventories. they are deliverable by a variety of means and for these reasons are more of a threat of being stolen, misplaced or mishandled than stratigic nukes. it is a mistake and unfortunate that this treaty does not address tactical nuclear weapons, because in an adwreement to reduce -- agreement to reduce these weapons is where we need to focus. relative to the overall security to the united states and the world, it is, frankly, more important than reducing and controlling stratigic nuclear weapons. briefly on senator risch's amendment, the amendment would add a statement to the preamble of the treaty which addresses

the relationship between the nonrelationship and stratigic offensive arms. that is, the relationship between the stratigic and tactical nuclear weapons. senator risch's amendment is correct in that as the number of stratigic offensive arms is reduced, this relationship becomes more pronounced and requires an even greater need for transparency and accountability and that the disparity between thearties' arsenals could undermine predictability and stability. we are reducing stratigic nuclear weapons under this treaty. by doing see we're making tactical nuclear weapons much more important a much more relevant and, therefore, we should seek to achieve great transparency and accountability on both our side a as well as on the russian side. that brings me to the second amendment which is not pending but which is filed and which i'm a cosponsor and that is senator

lemieux's amendment. that would require the u.s. and the ruins enter into negotiations within one year of ratification to address the disparity in nuclear weapons. both of these amendments address what i believe is one of the most crucial issues and one of the isss the treaty should have addressed but didn't and i urge my colleagues to support both these amendments, but particularly today the risch amendment. the presiding officer: who yields time? the senator from idaho. mr. risch: the proponents of the amendment have how much tiesm leftimeleft? the presidg officer: 15

minutes. mr. risch: we've 15 minutes left, other than my 10 minutes of closing? the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. risch: i would yield the floor to senator sessions. mr. sessions: mr. president, i would be asked to be vied of four minutes. mr. president, i think senator risch is correct and senator chambliss is correct to make the point that tactical nuclear weapons are more available for theft and to transship than stle-- than strategic nuclear weapons and it is a high policy of the unid states to reduce the risk of terrorists obtaining weapons of this kind, and this treaty does nothing about that. it does nothing about tactical nuclear weapons, which the russians care about; it is a big part apparently of their defense

strategy. and they gave not one w on it. and whereas our president, who says he wants to move towards zero nuclear weapons in the world, a fan taft cal view -- a fantastical vw really, one which endangers our world, creates instability around the world and would he create more national security risk- did not negotiate this in any effective way. i think that was a failure of the treaty, a failure of negotiations, another example of the fact that we wanted the treaty too badly for what i guess is primarily public relations matters rather than substantive matters. that's just the w i see t and so the russians have been steadily reducing our strategic weapons. we're reducing ours. and this strategic relationship has been moving along.

it does not have to have a treaty. we'd like to have a treaty. i think the russians would probably like to have a treaty. but it's not essential that we have one, if they won't agree to some of the things that are important, like tactical nuclear weapons. i do think that this is a weakness in the treaty, and i'm disappointed our negotiators didn't insist on it. as mr. mr. fies said, he said tt the -- you just have to say no. and then you can move forward once the russians know we're not going to give. but they will push, push, push until you- they are satisfied you are not going to give on it. and then they will make a rational decision at tt point whether to gforward with the treaty or not go forward with

the treaty. he said "no" on curtailment of missile defense in 2002678 the russians insisted, insisted, insisted and he saifinally, no treaty. we don't have a treaty with china, with england, we don't have one withndia. they have nuclear weapons. we don't have to have oneith you. we'd like to. and at that point the russians conceded and agreed. so i don't think we negotiated this at autumn. we do not need to continue with this large dispari between tactical weapons an in the unitd states and russia. i appreciate senator risch for raising it. i'll perhaps talk a little later about the national missile defense question and president obama's letter. but president obama's letter -- the presiding officer: the senator has consumed four minutes. mr. sessions: i'll finish up. mr. kerry: will the senator yield for just a question? mr. sessions: on my time or

yours? mr. kerry: we can share the time. depends on how long you take to answer. mr. sessions: well, i'm not giving up any time on this side on the president's letter. what it fails to acknowledge is that we were on the cusp of implanting a g.b.i. in europe about 2016, and that was completely given up in the course of these negotiations. this is the same missile we have in the ground in alaska and california. that was given up, and we're now proceeding with a phase iv theory that might be completed by 2020 if congress appropriates the money for the next five congresses, and some president who's then in office, not president obama ten years from now, is still supportive and pushes it through and congress passes it. so this is a big mistake.

we made a major, major concession on national missile defense, and even put words in the treaty that compromise our ability to do the new treaty, because -- the statement of mr. putin that we'll be obliged to take action in response did not say just g.b.i. it also referred to the capabilities of an sm-3 iib that would be what the president said is going to be deployed in 2020. i thank the chair and thank senator risch and yield the floor. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: mr. president, could you l me know when i've used four of the five misseens that i'm going to have here. i rise today to support the amendment by my friend and colleague and next-door neighbor onhe foreign relations committee as well as my next-door neighbor of state, senator risch. i want to discuss the issue of

nonstrategic nuclear weapons, also known as tactical nuclear weapons. while the united states and russia have a rough equivalence in their strategic nuclear weapons, there is a significant imbalance in tactical nuclear weapons, and it favors russia. russia currently has a 10:1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and it is expected that e number of tactical nuclear weapons in russia will continue to grow. well, this imbalance directly impacts our security commitments to nato and to our other european alls. mr. president, i've been to the hearings in the foreign relations committee as a member of the committee. we hear that there were statements by former secretaries of state of both parties. henry kissinger testified before the committee. he said that the large russian stockpile of tactical nuclear weapons unmatched by a comparable american deployment

cod threaten the ability to undertake extended deterrents. and former secreta james schlesinger called this imbalance russia's tactical nuclear weapons, he casted eight the frustrating, vexatious and increasingly worrisome issue. and in the past, many curren members of the united states senate have expressed their concerns with russia's tactical nuclear weapons. even vice president biden when he was a member of this body, when he was on the foreign relations committee, spoke and said, we were hoping in start iii to control tactical nuclear weapons. they are the weapons that are shorter-range and are used at shorter distances referred to as tactical nuclear weapons. well, mr. president, as i look at this and work through this, it seems that clearly this administration did not make

tactical weapons a top arms control and nonproliferation objective in the new start treaty. the negotiators of this treaty did not make this issue a priority. and they gave in to pressure from russia to exclude the mention of tactical nuclear weapons. so i want to point out that while the administrationailed to negotiate the reduction of russian tactical weapons in the new start treaty, it did allow a legally bindi limitation of u.s. missile defense, and that's, i believe, a mistake. so i disagree with those who argue that ratifying the new start treaty i needed in order to deal with tactical nuclear weapons in the future. now, i believe that the issue of tactical nuclear weapons should have been addressed together with the reduction of strategic nuclear wpons in the new start

treaty. the administration lost a real opportunity by not negotiating a deal in this treaty. it is unclear what leverage will remain for us to negotiate a reduction in russian tactical nuclear weapons. mr. president, the risch amendment trieso resolve the colete failure of the administration to address russia'sdvantage in tactical nuclear weapons in the new start treaty. the risch amendment acknowledges the intrelationship between tactical nuclear weapons and strategic range weapons, which grows as strategic warheads are reduced. the risch amendment seeks greater transparency -- the presiding officer: the sn te senator has consumed four minutes. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the risch amendment seeks greater transparency, greater accountability of tactical nuclear weapons, and the risch amendment recognizes that tactical nuclear weapons can undermine stability. so with that, mr. president, i

support this amendment. i urge my cleagues to adopt the amendment and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: i understand we've four and a half minutes left, plus my ten minutes at the very end. the presiding officer: that's correct. mr. risch: and senator corker has incated that he would like to take those 4 1/2 minutes. so i would yield the floor to senator corker. mr. corker: thank you, senator. i appreciate that very much, mr. president. i appreciate the courtesy. i wanted to follow up -- i think senator kerry was down here earlier today talking a little bit about proceeding. i know we have people in the cloakroom wondering how we go forward with the amendment process. so i just thought, if i could enter into a conversation with him through this, this, unlike most procedures, whe you have a 60-vote cloture, you're -- your ability or your strength on

the issue itself rises because it actually takes 67 votes or two-thirds of those voting to actually ratify a treaty. so it is not like when a cloture vote goes by here and you go from a 60-vote cloture from 51. in this case you're actually strengthened because it takes more votes after cloture to actually pass this piece of legislation. and i just wanted to, if i could, to verify with senator kerry the process of actually offering amendments, not just on the treaty, because i know we're still on e treaty, but also on the resolution of ratification where i think numbers of amendments might actlly be approved and accepted. mr. kerry: mr. president, the senator -- mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. kerry: mr. president, the senator from tennessee is absolutely correct, obviously. e key question here is, is there sufficient support to ratify the treaty?

and once we get to that sort of question postcloture, when and if that is invoked, that's what the threshold would be for the passage of this item. it is not as if you have cloture and all of a sudden, boom, 51 votes necessary to pass it. secondly, i would sty my colleague -- i want to emphasize this -- if the majority leader were to put the cloture motion in this evening, it doesn't ripen until tuesday. and so we would have the rest of today, all of tomorrow and tuesday to have amendments, continue as we are now, and then if it did pass, we'd have another 30 hours, which as we all know, takes the better part of probably two days. so we're looking at conceivably thursday under that kind of a schedule -- and i know a lot of senators are hoping not to be here on thursday. so i think that's quite a lot of time within the context of this. but the senator is correct.

the answer is to his is "yes." mr. corker: if i could ask one other qstion. if a senator colls to the floor and wants to offer -- if a senator comes to the floor and wants to offer an amendment not on the treaty itself -- which we realize are more difficult to pass because of what that means as a result of our negotiations with russia, but if they wanted to offer an amendment on the resolution of ratification, which is something that might likely be successful and accepted, it's my understanding, all they have to do is come down an offer that he amendment, call up -- or ask unanimous consent to call it up, is that correct? mr. kerry: mr. president, without the help of the parliamentarian -- but obviously we're expwield to do a lot by unanimous consent here. and that is one of those things. we will not object oiously. we want to try to help our colleagues be able to put those amendments in. it would be without objection on our side. mr. corker: so, it is my understanding to be able to track with other senators --

talk with other senators who have an interest in the treaty itself and would like to do some things to strengthen it, it is my understanding that what i just heard was the chairman of the foreign relations committee would be more than willing to accommodate unanimous consent requests toctually offer amendments to the resolution itself and that he knows of no one on their side that would -- at present that woul would objeo that. so if people wanted to go back and forth between the treaty and the resolution itself, they now can do that on the floor. mr. kerry: that's correct. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. mr. kerry: i thank the senator from tennessee. mr. president, i will yield five minutes to the distinguished chairman of the armed services committee, senator levin, to be followed by seven minutes to the senator from oregon. i would as

-- i would ask thsenator from oregon, is that enough time, is seven minutes enough time for the senator from oregon? thank you. i would thank the chair and reserve the balance of our time. mr. levin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: mr. president, the risch amendment states a concern which is a legitimate concern. i think probably everybody would agree to that. this concern has been there in the start i treaty. it was there in the moscow treaty just a few years ago. that we need to address the imbalance or the -- yeah, the imbalance, i guess is a good word, between the number of strategic nuclear weapons that exist on both sides and the nonstrategic nuclear weapons. but that was true during start i in 1991, when president bush negotiated it. there was no effort to,n effect, kill the treaty with an amendment stating that concern, although it was a concern then. during the moscow treaty debate here in 2002, i believe senator

biden again raised the same concern about this imbalance. it is a legitimate concern, but you don't kill a treaty because there's some legitimate concerns about issues. the russians have concern about our large number of warehoused warheads. we have a big inventory of warheads compared to them. they have a concern. we could state that as a fact, the russians have a concern about the number of warheads that we have. but putting that into the treaty kills the treaty. we could make anytatement of legitimate concern. if it's in the treaty text, it will kill the treaty. now, senator biden in 2002, i believe -- or it may he even better in the first srt treaty -- raised this issue about the imbalance and it was legitimate issue, but there was no effort to kill that treaty which had been negotiated by president bh by inserting a

legitimate concern into the treaty. there's a number of legitimate concerns. the russians have legitimate concerns about our conventional capability, about accuracy, about our encryption capabilities. they were not addressed adequately for the russians in this treaty, but they have a concern. should we state in the treaty the fact of legitimate concern -- excuse me. yeah, should we by an amendment attempt to insert in the treaty the factual statement of a legitimate concern, just kills the treaty. and that's what concerns me, as to why it is that there is such a determination to try to kill this treaty by means of an amendment which states a legitimate concern which has been true during the last two treaties negotiated by two president bushes. that's what troubles me. and that was the difference that