been blessed to walk in the sunlight of freedom in this generation will relegate our children to walk in the mine field of nuclear terrorism in the next generation. mr. speaker, the preeminent responsibility of the president of the united states and even of this congress is to protect the national security of the united states. i believe that president barack obama's abandonment of the ballistic missile defense site in europe fundamentally betrays that responsibility. i am stunned that he does not seem to understand that and i am sincerely in fear that our children and our children's children may pay a tragic price for that betrayal. and i thank the gentleman for the time and would be glad to entertain any colloquy or discussions. . i look forward to the colloquy and i know the gentleman from missouri will add a broad view.

i would recap the presentation that we have listened to which is precisely worded and precisely accurate a reaches conclusions that i don't think anyone can avoid this. as i understand this, we have been setting up the nuclear shield in poland and takes five years to set it up. and about the time the president spoke about this, there was a report that was leaked that maybe iran could be ready as soon as a year. and so, i direct attention to the "wall street journal", the article where there is a unique way of oak that i think the gentleman from arizona has articulated, what we have here is an inadvertent whomage to lewis carroll. going to cancel a defense that takes five years to mount

because the threat will not materialize for five years and we will not deploy land-based interceptors in europe because we will do that will later. the gentleman from arizona care to comment on the accuracy of that statement? mr. franks: mr. halpern is correct. it takes a time line to build an offensive and defensive capability. we were on track to have our defensive capability in place by around 2012, which would have probably been before iran could have launched a full-blown inter continental ballistic missle against the united states. the alternative that the president is offering will not be in place until 2018 or 2020 at which the iranians will be fully capable of just ignoring us at this point. it gives us no real opportunity to use the european missile

defense site as a factor to help play in the calculus or prevent iran from gaining that nuclear capability. once they do it, it's hard to put the toothpaste back into the tube. >> does this on the part of president obama make it more or less likely that the israelis will strike at the capabilities of iran? >> let me say this with the gentleman's permission, i believe if the free world places israel in the untenable position of having to defend themselves, which they will have to do if no one has the courage to stand up to iran, israel has no choice. they have no room for error. ahmadinejad has said they want to wipe israel off the map. one more hit could virtually wipe israel. they are a one-bomb nation.

they cannot abide a iranian lunatic like ahmadinejad with his finger on the bomb. they cannot possibly abide that and we know that. if we stand by and force israel to respond like we have done in times past, whether it be syria or the nuclear power plants in iraq, if we put them in that position, then we really failed the whole world because that will inflame the passions of the entire arab world and set us on a path of great contention. mr. king: reclaiming my time. as i look at this and the strategic location of israel and 12 to 14 minutes for a missle to get from iran to israel and 12 to 14 months for iran to have the capabilities to do so and the odds of being able to slow iran's development of nuclear

down because of any diplomatic maneuverings that might come from sanctions, threats, blockades, have diminished dramatically because the club has been laid down -- the shield has been laid down by president obama and sends a message to iran, accelerate your efforts on the centrifuges that you have. so from my view, it puts israel in a position where they may have no choice and if they wait 12, 14 months to make their decision, the decision may be coming too late that period of time. mr. franks: the israelis will almost have no choice. this will be a defensive action on their part because they have already been told by ire iranian leaders they intend to wipe israel off the map and this would give them the capacity to do that. it is beyond my ability to articulate that we don't have

the understanding of what we're really facing here. i think mr. obama simply is naive as to the danger and mindset of jihad and how serious they are. they played rope a dope in carrier for many years and now they plan to come to a nuclear weapons capability. i believe only two things will ultimately stop iran from gaining a nuclear capability and that is military conviction or in their minds that a military conviction will occur. and if we don't respond or someone -- some coalition in the western world doesn't respond, then israel will be left with no choice. mr. king: a third alternative would be if the people in iran could rise up and take that country up. i would like to ask the

gentleman from missouri and i would be happy to yield to wap todd akin can consume laying out the parameters as you see it. mr. akin: i thank my very good friend for your common sense and my good friend from arizona, a fellow member of the armed services committee, both a statesman and one who has details of what's going on. i would like to say it national park similar things but in a little bit more -- he was so scholarly about it, combavelly was the obama mate a decision which was announced friday that they are abandoning missile defense in eastern europe and those locations are chosen because of physics to protect

europe and united states from a possible launch from iran. when they talked about missles, you have little ones, medium-sized one and great big ones. and intercontinental ballistic missles and those are called ground-based. the proposal was to put defensive locations in a couple of eastern european states, czech republic, among others, and to provide ourselves a defense, which is the most fundamental purpose of a civil government is to protect your citizens, particularly to protect millions of citizens, particularly to protect millions of citizens in the face of somebody who says, we're going to get you. and they are building weapons that can only be used for that purpose. nuclear bombs are not used to power power plants.

they are used to blow people up. we have an administration who has stepped away from the fundamental purpose of any government to protect their purpose. so this is a regular head scratcher of a decision. not only that, we betray people who politically put their next on the line with their constituents and their citizens, taking a controversial decision in europe to be able to be part of this missile defense thing. this was ronald reagan's dream. and i don't see how anybody could have trouble with the idea of trying to protect yourself against somebody who is trying to nuke you. that defies common sense. what we are seeing is the obama administration stepping away from the requirement to defend ourselves and president bush did the heavy lifting. he went into europe and said to the russians, you have six months and we are going to develop missile defense. the democrats say it is too

expensive and can't do it. we developed the technology. not only do we hit a missile with a missile, but we have demonstrated at incredibly high speeds we hit a spot on the missile with a missile. we have the technical ability to do it and no will to follow through. and what frightens me, particularly gentlemen, this decision is not made in a vacuum but a pattern we are seeing in the armed services committee and some of these things from a security point of view we can hardly talk about. this is not one decision by itself, we are also seeing a very strong weakening of resolve of dealing with what's going on in afghanistan. hey guys, this isn't going to be easy. like iraq, it's going to be one of these insurgent-type conflicts that is going to take

time, effort and people to get it. and we are seeing waffling. and on third point and i would get in an argument with my good friend from argue arizona that there is something more upsetting to me and that is americans' offensive capability has been based on the idea of a triad, that is big missiles that we launch from the land, big missiles we launch from submarines and the third is a bomber. a bomber can go over potential enemy's territory with impugnity. and with that offensive capability we can live in peace, because we have no intent of wanting to drop missiles or bombs on anybody. but what has happened is that this administration is walking away from one leg of the triad. my dear friend knows what i'm talking about. but this is the bomber leg.

our bombers currently are old. some of them some of them 50-some years old and it is important to develop the planning to maintain that leg and that also is being cut by the obama administration. and that's something that has not received hardly any public attention, but this is a big deal, as big a deal as cutting missile defense. and so this is a pattern, a pattern of not funding national defense, not prioritizing the protection of our citizenry. and i'm very uncomfortable with it. and i would like to toss those thoughts out for a little discussion. i yield. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i thank the gentleman from missouri as well. as i listen to the descriptions that have been delivered here in ways by the three of us tonight, it takes me back tore a memory that i believe was 1984 woos the year, if i remember correctly that jean kirkpatrick stepped down as the ambassador to the

united nations. it wasn't a big article. a little thing on about page three mr. ortiz: four and in "the morning register" and i should go back and get it veer bait im. but i'm very close. she said we are in the middle of the cold war. it was the height of the cold war during that period of time and reagan's first term and she said what is going on in this cold war, this great clash of the two superpowers is the equivalent of playing chess and monopoly on the same board. and the only question is, remember the arms race, the only question is, will the united states of america bankrupt the soviet union before they checkmate us militaryly? do at the bankrupt us before we check mate them militarily. we know what happened, november 9, 1989, 20 years coming up in a

month-and-a-half, will be the celebration of 20 years of the berlin wall crashing down. that wasn't just the symbol of the iron curtain but the iron curtain. putin said that was the greatest disaster of his time. now we watch him on this chess board seek watching him to seek to checkmate while he understands the monopoly game a little better and building wealth with the high energy prices that he has, we watch putin around the globe. the russians went in and made an offer that they couldn't refuse and they canceled the lease on the air strips that were there and shut off our military supplies into afghanistan. the russians did that.

and then they turned to us and said, oh, never fear, we will be happy to haul that freight in for you for a price and you can trust us to do that in a reliable fashion. with a straight face and go in and interfere with our relations with them and turn around and say we have this under control and freight this equipment in. that's one piece of the chess board. another piece of the chess board that putin is playing, year ago, he invaded georgia and shut down the oil that went through georgia. if i remember right, 1.2 billion barrels a day that goes through. there is a train that hauls crude oil. have natural gas paper lines that go through georgia. if you are a chess player, it is the square on the chess board that if you'll notice in a highly contested game, it comes down to where you have a whole series of pieces that are

focused on one square. someone will put a pressure on one square of the board and the opponent will have to put a competing piece to cover that and back it up with another, another, another and the whole game is going to be fought out in that single square. georgia is that the square, it's the square that the energy has to go through on the east side of the caspian sea to the black sea to go out to the shipping lanes into the rest of the world. natural gas and oil. and putin and went in and controlled it. he has backed off but he said he can do whatever he wants to to shut the oil off. what do we hear from the germans? the nuclear power in iran is preferable to a nuclear strike to take it out, as if that was an unquestionable fact. they haven't gone the

calculation of what they call nuclear jihad. . the russians shut off the fuel going -- the gas going through to germany a year ago, a year ago, let's see, it was a year ago january, that that happened, and the germans said, don't worry about that, that's only 30% of our overall gas supply and by the way, we've created some alternatives, we're going to build another pipeline that comes through in the north from where? russia. to make themselves more dependent on them. and as i watched putin make these moves around the world and bring the resources into iran that trent frank has talked about and we are naive enough, my opically naive enough to accept or even consider that there's a rational argue thament somehow the president capitulated on missiles in eastern europe and got a prid prokyo of some kind for it, is there anything in either one of

you gentlemen's imagination, that would be worth pulling the missiles out of the eastern europe and capitulating and betraying the polls and the -- poles and the czeches of the rest of the region when they say we've told them out and stabbed them in the back? sold them out to the russians and stabbed them in the back? how could a president get a trade, a quid pro quo, what could it possibly be? i had one of the defenders of the white house say to me, well, it would be because surely the president got something for it. maybe he got a promise that putin would help negotiate with iran to slow down their nuclear development capability. really? it's been -- i'd yield to the gentleman from missouri. mr. akin: that's kind of interesting because the missile technology that iran has gotten came from the soviet union. so if the soviet union were really serious about reducing iran's capability, at least in the area of delivering large

missiles, then they're certainly approaching it from a rather unique point of view of selling missile technology to iran. so i don't think your proposition seems to make sense. if the president got something for giving up missile defense in europe it wouldn't make sense that he got something from the very country that had been giving iran the missile building capability. i don't know anything that he got for that. i'm not sure that maybe he didn't just do it just to be a nice guy or something. i can't -- i don't see anything that he got that would be valuable enough risking our population or the population of western europe. so you've really caught me. i really don't know the answer to your question. i hope the gentleman from arizona knows what the president got. mr. franks: i'm looking for some imagination -- mr. king: i'm looking for some managenary response, what would be worth giving up a shield against the nuclear capability of iran and diplomatically,

economically, tactly, strategically, the gentleman from arizona have any idea? mr. franks: i guess my first postlation here was that iran, having a nuclear capability, changed everything because it potentially worked on this coincidence of jihad and nuclear proliferation where it empowered iran to give nuclear weapons to terrorists and it's so hard for me to see a world like that that i guess that's my central focus. and the only thing that i could put forward at all is that the president was somehow assured by russia that that wouldn't happen if we worked with russia. but the problem is that russia has sold us their influence about a half a dozen times now and we've gotten nothing for it. and secondarily, you know, the most critical component in a nuclear program is not missile technology. missile technology is beginning to proliferate the world over. it is astonishing how much missile capability even smaller countries are beginning to have

now and it's a short time before that will be sort of -- that mule is out of the barn, as they say. but the fizzle material or the material for making nuclear weapons is really the crux here. and russia has delivered nuclear fuel to iran already. so how do we somehow take their word for this situation? it's always amazing to me, i think that mr. obama in all deference to the president is that somehow he is ignoring the lessons of history. for we see malev lent individuals or countries -- malev lant individuals or countries push forward to try to push back the forces of freedom and someone blinks, there was a time when, you know, gorbachev stared in the eyes of ronald reagan and gorbachev had to blink because ronald reagan didn't. he transcended the soviet union and hundreds of people live in freedom now because mr. rage-the courage to stand strong, even above the incident of the

liberal media in his own country. there was a time when one of the other russian premiers tried to stare down president john kennedy. john kennedy stood strong and wouldn't back up and where would we be had that not happened? in just recent days mr. putin stared president obama in the eye and mr. obama blinked and it has historic and grave consequences, i believe, for the free world and especially for america and future generations and i am just very concerned as we go forward now that this president is going to somehow say, well, iran probably can have a peaceful nuclear program. well, let me just say to you, by the way, that iran has so much natural gas that it would be scales of 10 tcheeper -- cheaper for them just to produce their electricity with natural gas than to build a nuclear power plant to produce electricity. so that's a completely ridiculous notion.

here's what i'm afraid of. i'm afraid that this president is going to either naively or somehow in the hope that he in his broad mindedness will convince jihad to change their mind, which they've had for hundreds of years, to change theirs and it's just not going to happen that way. i fear that he is going to allow iran to go forward with a so-called peaceful nuclear program that will allow them in a very short period of time to become a nuclear weapons power in the world an translate that to not only to proliferation to other rogue states but to terrorists and again take us into that night when our children may have to face nuclear terrorism. i just feel like if we let this happen now that we're making a terrible mistake in futuregen -- and future generations will pay that price. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i just contemplate sometimes the naivity that can take place when you look around the globe. and i remember going up to

canada and picking up some of their history books and reading the things in history from a canadian perspective versus an american perspective. it was the first time i realized that everybody doesn't understand history the same in the world. you understand it from your own perspective. i took a legal trip down to cuba and travel there had -- cuba and traveled there with a professor of cuban history for several days and he began to tell me about the spanish-cuban-american war of 1898. i never thought cuba had anything to do with it. i thought it was the spanish-american war. and then -- so there's a couple little snapshots. and i'll take balk to late february of this year, sitting in moscow with former prime minister gorbachev who gave the lecture to me and a number of members of congress that could he still be running -- ruling russia and the soviet union and could have held the entire ussr together if he'd chosen to do so, but he identified the german

will for unity and so he decided to go forward with opening up the borders and bring about what was the, let me say the devolution of the soviet empire, willingly. what a breathtaking view of history. he said the united states had nothing to do with it. and i'm sitting there listening to that. he also wanted to know if there were any republicans in the room. so he identified me right away, accused me of going hunting with dick cheney. in any kay case, the floss anyway the united states -- in any case, the philosophy that the united states had nothing to do with ending the cold war, that that clash of titans wasn't resolved in that economic and military tactical arena, but only because of the goodwill of gorbachev recognizing the desire for german unity, when you see that and look at european philosophy, that dialogue is progress, they came to this capitol in september of 2003,

the ambassadors to the united states from france, germany and great britain, to plead with us that -- it wasn't quite a plea, to argue to us and try to sell us on the idea that we should open up dialogue with iran to talk them out of a nuclear capability. and at that point i said, what are you willing to do? they said, well, we want dialogue to open. ok, but then what? are you willing to go to the united nations for resolutions? are you willing to do saxes -- sanctions? are you willing to do block aids? are you willing to lay the or what out there that says if you cross this line then we will by force resolve this issue? and if that happens, where are you going to be on that day and what with? and they just backed away from that like they had seen a ghost. their entire mission was dialogue was progress. now, if week of got a view point, a european view point that dialogue is progress and you can always talk your -- talk away your differences, that's a philosophy that doesn't fit the

american view point. we don't go to the chamberlain school of diplomacy as perhaps obama did and then you have to also put into that the mindset of putin, the russians, gorbachev, the mullahs in iran, the islamic approach, the nuclear jihad approach. we can't measure this on the part of just simply the goodwill of the united states doesn't control missiles in iran. and i'm afraid the president has come to that conclusion that his goodwill will control missiles in iran. the gentleman from missouri. mr. akin: i'm inclined to, as you start reminiscing a little bit of lessons from history, that we don't learn from history, one of the things that i remember hearing about when i was first elected to congress in 2001, i was on the armed services committee, we made the votes to fund the building of missile defense, but there was also a guy by the name of rumsfeld who was secretary of defense and he came in and spoke to us on some pretty clear kinds

of lines of reasoning and he said, if your secretary of defense there's three -- you're secretary of defense, there's three situations. there's the things you know about that you should worry and those are things that are of concern to us. but the things that are particularly of concern is the things we don't know about that we should worry. and then he gave an example of that. one of the examples was, we had a treaty with the soviet union and the treaty said that nobody is going to build biological weapons and what had come out was, in fact that the soviet union had all kinds of missiles pointed at america with biological weapons in those missiles, including smallpox. and so we didn't have a clue because we took their goodwill that they certainly wouldn't violate a treaty. and it seems to me that a more american way of thinking is, if

you're worried about somebody shooting a nuclear missile at you, maybe we just ought to have the capability of shooting it down before it even gets over our ground. that seems to be an awful lot more dependentble -- dependable mindset than trusting people who have systemically lied to us in the past. this was a terrible decision by our administration. it can be viewed in no other light. it can only be viewed as stepping a-- stepping away from the responsibility of defending american citizens and western european citizens and creating a less stable world. this is not a decision that the american people should let stand. this is something that must be reversed. it requires action on the part of people who are pate yachts and people who love this country -- patriots and people who love this country, who love life and freedom itself. mr. king: reclaiming, the gentleman from missouri, i refer to a statement made by john

bolton before i yield to the gentleman from arizona, john bolton, former ambassador of the united states as well -- united nations as well, and a solid, very brilliant tactical thinking man. diplomatically tact caling thinking man. he said that the president's decision not to deploy anti-ballistic missile defense is unambiguously wrong. it reflects the concession to russian belligerence and an embarrassing abandonment of two of america's strongest allies and an appalling lack of understanding of the present and future risk posed by iran. worse, this unforced retreat of american hard power clearly signals what may well be a long american recessional globally. that is a chilling analysis and i yield to the gentleman from arizona. .

mr. franks: you talked about history. someone said the only thing we learn from history is we don't learn from history. but it was said, he who controls the present, controls the past and he who controls the past controls the future. they have tried to rewrite history in order to try to shape the future and it concerns me greatly, because if you look just in a glance at history especially since the nuclear age came upon us, when we had a great enemy in the soviet union, they had thousands of warheads aimed at us and we had thousands aimed at them. and it was almost a fearful tension there because they knew they launched against us, we could launched against them and we would destroy each other. so in a sense we called this mutually assured destruction and

there was a grim peace achieved because we put our security in their sanity and they did the same for us. but some things have changed in history since then. first of all, terrorism has come upon us. and second of all, nuclear proliferation has become to make a march across the world. and we live in a generation that sees terrorism or this jihad coming together with nuclear proliferation and when you put all those things together, the historical prempses seem to fade now you face an enemy whether it is a nuclear warhead at one of our cities, i hope that members really try to learn, we face the situation where an enemy that has no regard for its own life that they would be killing to kill their own children in order to kill ours, eventually if we continue down this path are

going to find their way to the nuclear button. and if they do and they gain this technology, it will change our concept of freedom forever. i am convinced there is nothing that nothing only and al qaeda would like to do is put a nuclear weapon 100 yards off the steps of this building and you say that is an impossible scenario, it is unthinkable but not impossible. but to somehow blink and take away our capability to devalue our nuclear programs or stop an incoming missile to blink is to hasten a day like that. and i hope that somehow we regain our sanity in time and realize how serious equation is. and i appreciate the gentleman giving me this time tonight. mr. king: i appreciate the back grouped the gentleman has put in all of these years and having

emerged as a handful of leaders in the nuclear defense shield. and i realize there are a couple of minutes left. i want to reiterate a statement. we put our security and sanity the muscleas have a different rational -- mr. speaker, woy ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record these two articles that i introduced in my statement. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. king: mr. speaker, i would call this a good time to yield back to you and if you recognize me for a motion. the speaker pro tempore: recognize the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i would now move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands

also of bill honoring victims of the flooding in georgia. still possible to come this week, temporary funding for the end of the fiscal year. more live coverage when members return tomorrow here on c-span. president obama gave his first address to the united nations general assembly today. he called for and new era of engagement. his remarks are next year on c- span. and after that we will hear from general david petreaus who heads of u.s. central command.

the senate finance committee working this evening on health care legislation. a live picture on your screen of the committee. you can watch the marked up right now on our companion network, c-span2. this is the second day of the markup. they have been offering, debating, and voting on amendments. we will bring you some of this later on tonight hear on c-span. >> join booktv here on saturday with a national book festival here in washington. your calls as well. booktv every weekend on c-span2. >> here at the united nations general assembly, but the tunnel, ast global leaders for cooperation. in his 35 minute remarks, he also spoke about continuing the middle east peace process. he talked about north korea and iran's nuclear programs and u.s.

relationship with russia. the u.n. general assembly is meeting this week in new york. >> good morning. mr. president, mr. secretary- general, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to address you for the first time as the 44th president of the united states. [applause] i come before you humbled by the responsibility that the american people have placed upon me, mindful of the enormous challenges of our moment in history, and determined to act boldly and collectively on

behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad. i have been in office for just nine months, though sometimes it seems a lot longer. i am well aware of the expectations that a company my presidency are around the world and these expectations are not about me. rather, they are routed, i believe, and the discontent with the status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences and outpaced by our problems. but they are also rooted in hope, the hope that real changes possible, and the hope that america will be a leader in bringing about such change. i took office at a time when many around the world had come to view america with skepticism

and distrust. part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. part of it was due to opposition to specific policies and i believe that on certain critical issues america had acted unilaterally, without regard to the interests of others. and this has had an almost reflective anti-americanism, which has served too often as said -- as an excuse for collected in action. -- collective inaction. will never apologized for defending our interest but he is my deeply held belief that endear 2009 more than at any point in human history the interests of nations and peoples are shared.

the religious convictions that we hold in our hearts and forge new bonds among people or they can tear us apart. the technology that we harness can light a path to peace or forever darken it. the energy we use can sustain our planet or destroy it. what happens to the hope of a single child anywhere can enrich our world or impoverished it. in this hall, we come from many places but we share of common future. no longer do we have bill luxury of indulging our differences to the exclusion of the work that we must do together. i have carried this message from london to hong kong, from port- of-spain to moscow, and it is what i will speak about today. because the time has come for the world to move in a new

direction, we must embrace a new era of the engagement based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work must begin now. we know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. speeches along will not solve our problem. it will take persistent action. so for those who question the character and cause of my nation, i asked you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months. on my first day in office, i prohibited without exception or equivocation the use of torture by the united states of america. [applause] i ordered the president guantanamo bay closed and we are

doing the hard work of forging of framework to combat extremism within the rule of law. every nation must know america of will lift its values and we will lead by example. we have set a clear and focused dole to work with all members of this somebody to disrupt, dismantle, and it beat al qaeda and its extremist allies, a network that has killed many thousands of people, with a plot to blow up this very building. in afghanistan and pakistan, we and many nations here are helping these governments to develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort while working to advance opportunity and security for their people. in iraq, we are arrest -- we are responsibly ending on the war. we have seven timeline of next august to remove all of our combat brigades from iraqi territory. and i have made clear that we will help iraqi transition to

full responsibility for their future and keep our commitment to remove all american troops by the end of 2011. i have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. in moscow, the united states and russia announced that we would pursue a substantial reductions in our strategic warheads. at the conference on disarmament, we agreed on of war plan to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. and this week my secretary of state will become the first senior american representative to the annual conference of the test ban treaty. upon taking office, i appointed a special envoy for middle east peace and america has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states, israel and palestine, in which peace and security take root and the rights of both

israelis and palestinians are respected. to confront climate change, we have invested $80 billion in clean energy. we have substantially increased our fuel efficiency standards and provided new incentives for conservation launched an energy partnership across the americas, and move to a leader in international climate negotiations. with the economic crisis, we worked with a g-20 nations to coordinate i coordinated international response, to bring the global economy back from the brink. we mobilized resources to help prevent the crisis from spell it -- from spreading further to developed countries and we join with others to launch a 20 bollard -- a $20 billion global food security initiative to lend hand to those who need it most. we'll also be engaged the united

nations. we have paid our bills. we have joined the human rights council. we have signed a convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. [applause] we have fully embraced the millennium development goals and we have addressed our priorities here in this institutions. for instance, through the security council meeting that i will chair tomorrow on nuclear non-proliferation and the issues that i will discuss today. this is what we have already done. but this is just the beginning. some of our actions have led to progress. some have laid the groundwork for progress in the future. but make no mistake, this cannot solely be america's endeavor. those used chastises america for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for america to solve the world's

problems alone. we have sought in word and deed a new era of engagement with the world, and now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. if we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility. consider the course that we are on if we fail to confront the status quo. extremists selling terror and pockets of the world, a protracted conflict that grind on and on, genocide, more nations with nuclear weapons, melting ice caps, ravaged populations, persistent poverty and pandemic disease -- i say this not to sow fear but tuesday that there -- to step back.

-- but to state a fact. this body was founded on the belief that the nations of the world can solve our problems together. franklin roosevelt, who died before he to see his vision for this institution become a reality, put it this way. "the structure of world peace cannot be the work of one man or one party or one nation. it cannot be a piece of large nations or of small nations. it must be a peace which rest on the cooperative effort of the whole world." the cooperative effort of the whole world -- those words ring even more true today when a not -- when not -- when it is not just our peace, but our health and prosperity. we also know that this body is made up of sovereign states, and

sadly, but not surprisingly, this body has often become a forum for selling discord instead of forging common ground. a big new for playing politics rather than solving problems. after all, it is easy to walk up to this podium and point fingers and stope divisions. nothing is easier than blaming others for our troubles and sobbing ourselves of responsibilities for our choices and our actions. anybody can do that. responsibility and leadership in the 21st century demand more. in an era where our destiny is shelled -- shared, and power is no longer a zero sum game, no nation can or should try to dominate another nation. no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.

no balance of power among nations will hold. the traditional division between nations of the south and north make no sense in an interconnected world, nor do alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone cold war. the time has come to realize that the old habits, the old arguments are irrelevant to the challenges faced by our people. they leave -- delayed nations to act in opposition to the goals that they claim to pursue and did a vote, often in this body, against the interest of their own people. they build walls between us in the future that our peoples seat. and the time is come for those walls to come down. together we must build new coalitions that bridget told the bites, coalitions of different faiths and creeds, of north and south, east, west, black, white, and brown.

the choices are ours. we can be remembered as the generation that chose to drag the nation -- the arguments of the 20th century into the 21st and put all our choices, produced a look ahead, failed to keep pace because we define ourselves by what we are against instead of what we were for. or we could be the generation that chooses to see the shoreline be on the rough waters ahead, that comes together to serve the common interest of human beings, and give meaning to the promise embedded in the name of this institution, the united nations. that is the future america wants. a future of peace and prosperity that we can only reach if we recognize that all nations have rights, but all nations have responsibilities as well. that is the bargain that makes us work. that must be the guiding principle of international

cooperation. today, let me put forward four pillars that i believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children. non-proliferation and disarmament, the promotion of peace and security, the preservation of our planet, and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people. first, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons. we must see the goal of a world without them. this institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man's capacity to kill had to be contained. for decades, we have averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower standoff. but today the threat of plan preparation is growing in scope and complexity. if we fail to act, we will

invite nuclear arms races in every region and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine. a fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the nuclear non corp. treaty. it says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy, that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament, and those without them have a responsibility to forsake them. the next 12 months could be pivotal in terming whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve. american indians to keep our end of the bargain. we will pursue a new agreement with russia and to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. we will move forward with ratification of the test ban

treaty and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. we will complete a nuclear review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. and we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in january on a treaty to end to the production of fissile material for weapons. i will also host a summit next april that reaffirms its nation's responsibility to secure nuclear material on its territory, and help those who cannot. because we must never allow a single nuclear device to fall into the hands of violent extremists. and we will work to strengthen the institutions and initiatives to combat nuclear smuggling. all of this must support efforts to strengthen npt. those nations that refused to

live up to their obligations must face consequences. let me be clear -- this is not about singling out individual nations but standing up for the rights of all nations that to live up to their responsibilities. -- that do live up to their responsibilities. this would leave all people less saved and all nations let's hear. in their actions today, the governments of north korea and iran threatened to take us down this dangerous path. we respect their rights as members of the community of nations. i have said before and i will repeat, i am committed to diplomacy that opens a path to greater prosperity and more secure peace for both nations if they live up to their obligations. but if the governments of iran and north korea choose to ignore international standards, yet they put the pursuit of nuclear

weapons ahead of regional security and the security and opportunity of the wrong people, if they are oblivious to the dangers of nuclear arms races in both southeast asia and the metal is, they must be held accountable. we must get together to serve that this is not an empty promise in the treaties will be enforced. we must insist that the future does not belong to fear. and that brings me to the second pillar for our future, the pursuit of peace. the united nations was born of the belief that the world of -- the people of the world can live their families -- live with their families and resolve their differences peacefully. we know that in too many parts of the world, this idea remains an abstraction, a distant dream. we can either accept that outcome as inevitable tolerate constant and crippling conflict or we can recognize that the yearning for peace is universal.

reassert our robots -- reassert our resolve to end conflict around the world. that effort must begin with the determination that the murder of innocents will never be tolerated. on this there can be no dispute. the pilot extremists whose support conflict by distorting fate have discredited and isolated themselves. they offer nothing but hatred and destruction. in confronting them, america will forge lasting partnerships to target terrorists and protect our people. we will permit no safe haven for al qaeda to launch attacks from afghanistan or any other nation. we will stand that our people on the front lines as we and many nations will tune in pledging support for the pakistani people to more appeared we will pursue positive engagement that build bridges among faith and new bridges for opportunity. our efforts to promote peace,

however, cannot be limited to defeating violent extremists. the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings, the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroyed. a new day can begin. that is why we will support and strengthen our support for effective peacekeeping, while energizing our efforts to prevent conflicts before they take hold. we will pursue a lasting peace in the sudan, and support for the people of darfur, and the implementation of a comprehensive peace agreement so that we secure peace that the sudanese people deserve. and in countries -- [applause] and in countries ravaged by violence, from haiti to the condo to east timor, we will work with the u.n. and other

partners to support an enduring peace. also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between israel, palestine, and the arab world. we will continue to work on that issue. [applause] yesterday i had a constructive meeting with prime minister netanyahu and president abbas. we have made some progress. the palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. israelis have facilitated greater freeman of movement for the palestinians. as a result, the economy in the west bank has begun to grow. but more progress is needed. we continue to call on palestinians to end incitement against israel and we continue to emphasize that america does not accept the legitimacy of continued israeli settlements. the time -- [applause]

the time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions, to address the permanent status' issues, security for israelis and palestinians, borders, refugees, and jerusalem. the goal is clear -- two states living side by side in peace and security, a jewish state of israel with true security for all israelis, and not viable palestinian state would continue as territory that begins the -- that ends the occupation of 1967 and recognizes the palestinian people. [applause] as we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between israel and lebanon, israel and cereal, --