in other words, the united states rejected the argument that the russians were making that the united states withdrawal from the a.b.m. treaty would constitute a legal right of withdrawal for the then-soviet union. now, you can argue about the merits of that, but the point is that we did not want to leave unresponded to a view of the russians that we thought was fallacious, that was antithetical to the interests of a good relationship between the two countries or that could potentially impact our decision on whether to stay within the a.b.m. treaty or not. it was important then to push back. so why didn't our negotiators in geneva push back in this treaty when the russians sought to do the same thing? now, my colleague from massachusetts said, well, actually, secretary rumsfeld and even president bush at one point said, we're going to talk to the russians will our missile defense and strategic offensive weapons, and that is true. however, the united states was never prepared to take a position that those two items should be linked in the treaty. and as doug feith, former under secreta

the united states will sign the start treaty. in addition the provisions for withdrawal from start treaty based on supreme national interest clearly envision that such withdrawal could only be justified by extraordinary events that jeopardize the party's supreme interest. soviet statements of the u.s. withdrawal from the a.b.m. treaty could create such conditions are without legal or military foundation. i ask my colleagues to look at the differences between the two comments. finally i'd like to just emphasize again there is clear clearly -- clearly room for some disagreement as to what russian intentions are. but shouldn't it be clarified. shouldn't we ask the russians? couldn't we ask them tonight, say, what are your intentions as to regard to missle defense systems. there's contradictions. on "larry king" your prime minister made a strong statement about it. so has the foreign minister. so have others. we have constant communications with the russians. we could clarify some of this, anyway, if we asked the russians for a state

sincerely, barack obama, the president of the united states. mr. president, i think this letter speaks for itself. i think the facts of history, i think the testimony of secretary gates and of all those others who have come before us that make it clear that the united states has no constraints on missile defense whatsoever make clear this amendment is not necessary and this amendment carries with it dangerous implications for the ultimate ratification implication of a treaty. i reserve the balance of my time. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: how much time do i have? the presiding officer: just about 13 minutes. mr. mccain: i'd like to reserve at least the last three minutes for my colleague, senator kyl. the presiding officer: very good. mr. mccain: as we all know, we'll vote very quickly on the amendment to the new start treaty. i've offered this amendment along with the senator from wyoming, and, you know, this amendment is really an important and seminole one. it's focused on a key flaw in th

curette the hearings on this, the united nations -- a threat the hearings on this, the united nations global come back -- throughout this hearing, the united nations has been cited as a tenant for this building. making the united nations global compact the anchor tenant of that building would flip green building on its head and do the opposite. i sent you an e-mail last week indicating the global compact behaves as the united nations when it is not in the united nations. it is a group of corporations and businesses numbering over 5000 that got together and leveraged the united nations to give them a good housekeeping seal of approval. some of the members of the global compact have been and some still are nike, nicely, coca-cola -- nestle, coca cola. coca-cola colluded in the murder of union organizers in colombia. they have stolen water from communities and polluted water in india to make bottled water and soda pop. there are scores of other groups like that in the global compact. it is absolutely crucial that if we are going to have a real green business incubator, we need to send a

led to an improvement in the in the overall strategic and political atmosphere which is allowed the united states and russia to cooperate on on issues like the war in afghanistan and and working on the problem of iranian nuclear proliferation so i think for all of those reasons i think it is a clearly in my judgment a step in the right direction. it's hard for me to understand the criticism all right. we can we do this or we do that a little bit later i want to check our panel to see what they should be treated before we talk about the political ramifications if i go to you all that so much i mean is it a good treaty or a bad treaty in your opinion is it necessary. very much agree with the bus ago that it's basically a good treaty and it would be politically damaging if it doesn't get out of fright and i very much hope it will get ratified but i think it's important also to legalize that is kind of a cold war concept it focuses on russian american missiles which at the moment they don't endanger anybody so the notion that this is directly connected to current global security it's likely me

and still threaten the united states. weather through accident, miscalculation, proliferation or any number of other scenarios, russian nuclear weapons materials and technology still have the capability to obliterate american cities. it commands the attention of our government. i relate these thoughts about where we have been in part because most senators entered national public-service after the cold war ended and even if you were worse serving in this body when we were called upon to make decisions on arms treaties. current members in the senate were here in 1988 to debate the i n f 3. >> caller: current members serving in the senate during the geneva summit between president ronald reagan and mchale gorbachev in 1985. only 11 members were in march 1983 when president reagan delivered his so-called quote back evil empire speech. only seven were here when the soviets invaded afghanistan in 1979. in a few weeks these numbers will decline even further. the final question remains as to how we manage our relationship with a f

the united kingdom eight overseas. all departments had to take this hit, including the defense apartment, probably the most controversial of all the cuts they made. it was not a 20% cut, but an 8% cut. they decided to scrap immediately britain's only aircraft carrier capable of carrying a fixed wing jets. the arc royal that resonates through history in england since king henry xiii. a 25-year-old ship was scrapped. all the aircraft flown from that carrier were scrapped immediately. two aircraft carriers are being built in scotland, i believe. it cost about something in the nature of $8 billion, $4 billion each. it is much more than an american aircraft carrier. they decided it would be more expensive to scrap them than to build them. but then they went a step further, which i must say has people scratching their head. they said, we will build them, but one of those two would be put in service for three years before selling it. they are building them only knowing it will do three years' service. the other one will be put

mix between the high-rise tower units and the lower-rise units, we are over 52% in the towers. if we take the project as proposed, it goes down. with that, i will turn it over to craig to take you through some of the proposed building amenities. >> and good evening, commissioners. i have the overall design responsibility for this project. i would like to begin with a quick overview of existing apartments, their qualities. there have been questions raised about how the new construction, the new apartments, might compare to what there is today. some are critical of the cookie- cutter-like repetition of the architecture in -- and the suburban-enclave nature. it is not without purpose. it has individual, private front doors. patios are connected directly to outside. there is a town house quality. it is a sense of almost a single-family housing. at the same time, there are challenges associated with this. it has been pointed out that these units were built during wartime shortages. materials were used for the garden apartments, plaster, plywood, material not put together wil

we do services very well in the united states. but the way it impacts small and medium sized businesses and entrepreneurs to have an appropriately, you know, market-based currency that allows you in, you know, in a relatively free market environment to get your product to the chinese marketplace which is difficult today a that means a whole lot. and it means that the 13458 and medium sized businesses probably in the next little while will have unprecedented opportunities to get their products into china. >> can we make products that will be price effective, price expect wive products that they are making them selfs? >> it depends on the sector it depends on the product. we do some extremely well, better than the rest of the world. >> rose: tell me what the neighbors are scared of. >> well, clearly the neighbors are concerned about what you pointed out earlier on in our conversation. a military, a navy specifically that is venturing beyond. they're more immediate sphere of influence at least in the traditional sense. so if you are c

the united states has 31 other countries relying on the u.s. nuclear umbrella and, therefore, the targets that we must hold at risk and the concerns that we have about adequate delivery vehicles are much different than russia's. nonetheless, we've agreed to a parity number here of 700. so they can build up to that number, we have to build down. not exactly a great victory, in my view. in fact, it's the first time since the very disastrous washington naval treaties with germany and japan before world war ii that the u.s. has agreed to one-sided reductions in military might. i mentioned the bridging agreement before. where that fell through the cracks, i don't know. the administration was apparently pushing for it. it didn't get it, and we still don't know what happened because we haven't been given the record. on mobile missiles, this is a matter that exercised -- exorcised the russians when the committee dealt with it in a very modest way in its resolution of ratification. you see, the russians have had rail mobile missile plans and don't know

soldiers as war heroes this is something that the united states is really so far staying silent about and strangely especially when the cause is so straightforward as fighting the glorification of naziism. you can get more from our t.v. with the latest news analysis and blogs always there for you on our website here's just a taste of what's on at r.t. dot com right now. former spice girl anna chapman isn't biding her time in russia as she joins a political youth movement find out what she's up to now and what her stance is. and christmas is well and truly coming to moscow as fifty santas from around the world are in the capital for a gift giving spree if you don't believe in santa just log on to our to see for yourself. it's a disease that many believe belongs to biblical times but for those struck down with leprosy it's a very present problem many russians affected are confined to remote villages with little chance of rejoining society. reports. lost amid vast families russia's old village has no streets but houses with its own fire brigade ambulance service and kindergarten it's a h

why would native peoples support the united states? well, they are peoples who are living on reservations in which they are essentially surrounded by american settlements, and early in the war, the americans tell the indian peoples we don't want you involved. they insisted that it was barbaric for the britishs to employee indians in the war, and the americans were going to take the high and low ground without employing indians. this turns out to be disastrous because they are affective in the forced warfare which is what most of the war consistents of in canada and contribute to some very embarrassing defeats by american forces that invaded canada, so come 1813, many american officers are saying, okay, we tried the high road, now we want our own indians, and they put pressure on the indians within the reservations that, look, you need our friendship, and you better come and help us. now, there are some native peoples that have their own reasons to be involved in war in part because young men want to prove themselves as warriors and kind

is the natural partner for the united states. these are our traditional allies, these countries are all democracies, they share our values. there are differences between the two sides of the atlantic to be sure, but the kind of world that we want is basically the kind of world that the europeans want. so from my point of view the stronger and the more active europe is in foreign policy, the better it is for us because that lightens our load. but i don't think that's going to happen. the kinds of economic burdens that we face in the future will be even heavier for the europeans. their societies are aging even more rapidly. their social programs are even more generous. they're going to struggle to pay their version of social security and medical care. the united states is actually in a better position going forward than the european countries because our population is growing. our work force is not dwindling. but the populations of every major european country are due to shrink. so they are not going to be in the mood to pitch in an

for a long time before that ok all more fun go to you in ramallah how do you react to that i mean the united states has been we've heard this term peace process in the greater middle east for thirty years at least ok and a lot of people would say and i probably you would agree the palestinians haven't gotten much out of it. the policies haven't gotten anything out of it because these are not negotiations by any standard these are negate they negate palestinian rights they negate the very reference to international law and this is the key this is not about a negotiation between two symmetric sides to equal sides one side is a colonial side colonizing another and the other is the oppressed side were not equivalent in this so when we say negotiations without reference without a vision to end justice to end said that colonialism and to have freedom for all these are not negotiations so the main issue here now is that the us is not an honest broker has never been an honest broker but now israel and its lobby are flexing their muscles much more than before because they felt that obama might not be

a nuclear fuel swap deal in ne the agreement was rejected by the united states. and the rain in that nuclear facilities could be attacked if diplomacy fails so says a senior israeli military analyst for the interviews coming your way this in ten minutes but here's a taste. like to attack israeli leaders understand the possible horrendous results of such an attack however. if diplomatic pressure economic sanctions don't work in iran is getting too close to a bomb then i think that the european intelligence community and the united states who still hope close israel to launch an aerial strike on their nuclear facilities or to run. the business news next hour with ariel bushell. into business a host of political and economic deals have been signed during president medvedev trip to india these in compass the defense and nuclear power stake theirs as well as oil and pharmaceuticals our correspondent in the vehicle a look at some of the business highlights of the two day trip. well prison be good if studio visit to india has resulted in signing about thirty deals worth

she was the executive officer of the nato unit for the canadian army. she was acutely aware of the dangers that were at here and in iraq and afghanistan in the war zones. she said there's a chance that every time you go out there is a chance you might not come back. all of the women who served in the u.s. military have traveled many miles and can point to their military service in thousands of miles on the map. however, the journey along the road of military history has far outdistanced all physical models and it leads clearly into the future. even so, the women are still fighting for in the military and as u.s. citizens. all of the military women we interviewed couldn't be included because of time constraints but they have earned our respect and admiration and the heavy police in our memories and hopefully in the national memory. it is a history that is said to be the sole of the nation and it is a historian's job to keep healthy and bride putative finally, i would like to close within the e-mail we received last spring from then corporal patricia, the

in fact, in the united states, no opportunity for access by terrorists. not so much on the other side, but clearly there is a great difference between tactical and strategic weapons, primarily because of the way that they are -- primarily because of the way that they are deploying. but senator collins said also -- quote -- "president obama's 2010 nuclear posture review echoes the concern of nuclear terrorism. the threat of nuclear war has become remote, but risk of nuclear attack has increased. today's most immediate and extreme danger is nuclear terrorism. al qaeda and their extremist allies are seeking nuclear weapons. that probably summarizes as clearly as anything the discussion i had at the outset about the difference of 40 years ago versus today and the -- and underscores what in my judgment is so important about moving this dialogue forward instead of getting -- staying in the rut of where we were 40 years ago and focusing just on numbers. well, again, it's not just the republican side of the aisle. almost two decades ago, the sort treaty, another n

coming from abroad particularly from will donate the countries and the united states this means that they want to dismantle the palestinians into individuals who are seeking to be at oconomowoc interests this is not fair this is not in a lot of own interest so if somebody sees that their current situation is improving and that was then it does take it is it doesn't depend upon a strong economy infrastructure. i know it's at the palace so here goes on and on and go ahead ok the palestinians are not just those in the west bank i mean let's be honest here the palestinian people are those in the west bank those in gaza those inside israel as well as those in exile who are the majority of the palestinians are refugees in exile so when we're talking about the situation of the palestinians has improved this is very disingenuous the palestinians in gaza are facing very severe seach conditions that amount to acts of genocide according to some international law experts the palestinians in exile are denied completely all of their basic rights even in the west bank mr hoffman refers to the jews i

and with the attachments to this unit, 300 military soldiers. on the day that the u.s. and coalition troops started moving across the desert in the direction of baghdad, major carroll flew her cobra helicopter above and in front of the advancing american and ally troops. a sight she would never forget. she said, i was in desert storm in the first infantry division. they led the attack across the burn. i think one of the most exciting things that i did was i actually flew missions on the ground attack. it was like a world war ii movie because you had tanks and ammo carriers and big tracks and refuelers moving across the desert in a line, and it was like the whole world was rumbling. in 2005 colonel carolyn carroll deployed to afghanistan. she worked closely with american soldiers and special forces. she was executive officer of a nato unit for the canadian army. she was acutely aware of the dangers that were inherent in iraq and afghanistan war zones. she said, there's a chance that every time you go out, there's a chance you might not come back.

permanent representative to the united nations. professor in the practice diplomacy at georgetown university school of foreign service. the chair of the albright stoneridge group, the honorable madeleine albright. >> thank you very much, i'm delighted to have this opportunity. distinguished guests from the people's republic of china and visitors and friends. i am truly honored to be able to introduce to you today a person whose name and faith and career are familiar to anyone who has been paying attention these past few decades. john kerry first appeared before the senate committee on foreign relations as a witness about 40 years ago. his hair then was dark brown, his face unlined and his words eloquent. one of the senators boldly predicted that the young man might one day himself become a committee member. today, as you will soon see, his hair is more distinguished, his face radiates the wisdom of experience and here in his capacity, want as a member of that senate panel, but as i chairman. john kerry was first elected to the senat

general kevin chilton is the commander of our united states stratigic command. i can say with confidence this treaty does not constrain any current or future missle defense plans. now, the ballistic missle defensive review report filed earlier this year, made it clear that there -- to defend the homeland in different regions of the world against missle threats from nations such as north korea and iran. he talked about the phase adaptive approach to missle defense in europe. the secretary of defense and the joint chiefs of staff have recommended the phased adaptive approach unanimously. these are our top military people. they're advising us. this is not some political agenda which is being implemented by this treaty. this is a military and security necessity for this country. that's not just me saying it. this is the top military people of our country who are saying it. the nato stratigic concept. this is what nato is saying about that phased adaptive approach which has been criticized during earlier statement on the floor. this is what the nato folks say about it

defenses of the united states because we are being rushed into ratifying a treaty without the full capability to amend it or that we don't make sure in every detail, as senator kyl has said so many times, that we have preserved our capabilities to defend our country against any enemy and, secondly, that we have the capability to go on offense so that any country that might decide to send a nuclear warhead into our territory or into any place where our troops are on the ground fighting for freedom, that they will -- that country or that group of rogue nations would know that we could because our arsenal of weapons is viable. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: first, i would ask that the next two senators on the democratic side would be senator leahy followed by senator shaheen. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and i want to respond to the comments of my friend from texas, who was very passionate

the president of o the united. tes, the secretary ofcoander defense, the joint chiefs of staff, the commander of u.s. thy arategic command, and otherse have all determined that we canr safely reduce our deployeddepled icbms and our deployed slbms -- and our deployed heavy bombers. the three legs of the triad thao they could be reduced to the 70e member. now, that figure was dead obviously after an enormous amount of thinking by all ofstrm those parties concerned, strategic command, the air forcm folks, the navy, slbm and so did forth. afte and they did so only after seeing the results of force onor force analyses of exactly wheref that would leave us in terms of america's response, should there happily in the current atmosphere be the unlikely event of a nuclear confrontation.aboue tew obviously we need to thinkln about these things in that of so larger context, a sort of where we are today, what direction are we moving in, what's the kws, reality.with and as the senator knows withous going into any details, that fo

in afghanistan along with the drone attacks the invasion of a sovereign country. a united states joint special operations whose means of attack include death squads and assassinations and night raids would exacerbate the tremendous almost tidal wave of anti-american sentiment amongst the public united states establishment the military industrial complex companies have learned that you can make an enormous profit you can stuff your financial portfolios and run to the bank and that you can do this in another limited way and they've learned that lesson and they would like to continue it but as far as what the united states might have learned from listening to people on the ground who are in touch with those who bear the brunt of the united states warfare i'm talking about the families whose loved ones have been slaughtered i'm talking about families where people are now widowed and orphan the united states doesn't learn from listening to the cries in the pleas of people who beg us to stop the killing. and the israeli government is uprooting arab tribes from the desert dave li

what is happening in the united states. our next guest is matthew parris, a columnist for the times of london. he also has weekly radio program on bbc. he was a conservative party member of the house of commons from 1979 to 1986. our interviews were recorded in the studios of westminster located across from the houses of parliament. >> matthew parris, back in april 2010, you said that the truth is simple. we are living beyond our means. the change is change that we were really prepared to embrace. we will have to live within our means. that was seven months ago. that is something that not just on, but a great many commentators have been saying since the early years. all of us in britain, nearly all of us, have the impression of prosperity, a growing prosperity which appeared to be beyond any explanation in terms of anything that we were producing ore exporting. people said that they could not believe that we were getting so much. what were the houses so much more? the reply from the economists says that it all has to do with

the new coalition government, at its plant cuts, and to compare to what is happening in the united states. our next guest is matthew parris, a columnist for the times of london. he also has a weekly radio program from the bbc. mr. parris was a conservative party member from 90--- 1979- 1986. >> matt the paris, back in april 2010, you read -- the truth is simple, we are living beyond our means. that was several months ago. >> and it is not so just died but a great many commentators have been saying since. at least the early years of the century, all of us in britain, nearly all of us, have had the impression of the prosperity, a growing prosperity which appeared to be beyond any explanation in terms of anything we were to -- producing ore exporting. then people said, i cannot believe that. why are we getting so much richer? why are our house is worth so much more? the reply from a clever economists, we did not need to make things any more. the added value is taking place. i had never been convinced by this. that was the last 15 years old. i get that impression that we were just eating up t

of course the united states is free. i mean, that's one -- we're not going to ever let another country say we're not free to do something that's in our national interest. but the point, is the administration -- but the point is, the administration was unwilling to say we were committed to doing this, and i think that makes a very important point. the whole point of what we're arguing here is that the russians would like to put whatever pressure they can on the united states not to deliv deliver -- excuse me, not to deploy missile defenses that could be effective against russian strategic systems. that's been their goal for decades. i think we can all stipulate light to that. they would like -- i think we can all stipulate to that. they would like to bring whatever pressure they can bear against the united states to avoid us developing those kind of systems. unfortunately, in the negotiation of this treaty, we have opened ourselves up to that kind of pressure by, for the first time, not pushing back against the russians wh

president lee is often times seen as a puppet of the united states and. the area around his office is called by many south koreans the news united state of south korea south korea certainly seized on any opportunity it can to escalate tensions there is the sinking of the south korean. chain on that which was immediately blamed on north korea over north korean denials and there are many in south korea who do not believe the official inquiry then we have the artillery exchange that happened on november twenty third which has been blamed on north korea however the exchange was triggered by south korea and marine garrison on an island that lies very close to the north korean coast you consider that you consider president leaves hostility toward north korea. it's his policy of confrontation deescalating war games and it's hard not to conclude that south korea is trying to precipitate a fight to to pick a fight and trying to provoke its northern neighbor. this week the brother of the late polish president who was killed in a plane crash in russia claimed that th

of the ones that are two-units and larger, 7% of the total units are 3-bedroom and larger. a little bit more than half, 52%, are in the towers. in relation -- there is a broad range of housing types. there is a gap between existing low rise and the towers. there will be a component of town home. three stories, four stories. going up towards the scale of the existing towers, there will be 8- and 10-story buildings. there will be a wide range of housing types and building types for people of different means -- needs. multi-story units can become challenging. people may prefer to live in elevator-serve the units. families may find it more desirable to live in ground- level units. the project would provide a greater diversity. there was a specific question about how many walk-up units are comparable to the existing garden apartments. we have the project sponsor do the calculation. there would be over 800 direct, sidewalk-access, walk-up units in the project. it is important to note that the design requirements, the design standards, require ground-floor, walk-up residential unit

today russia and the united states are not enemies. that's why a lot of this is of less concern than it eerld would be. the big concern is just that ultimate concern of a breakout. what if all of a sudden they would decide to confront us over some issue relating to a country on their border or something else and we weren't aware that they had gaininged a significant advantage over us? again, the preparation of the united states to deal with that takes a long time. i won't get into it here, but it takes a long time. that's why verification and intelligence is so important. so, mr. president, i've just talked about two things here this morning -- the conventional global strike and the verification issues -- as well as the general concept of a world without nuclear weapons, which unfortunately i think this treaty, at least in the minds of a lot of people, is viewed as predicate for and which would be very dangerous. there are some other issues that eventually i would like to speak to, including the whole question of whether or not, as a ra

two nuclear superpowers that goes with it for weeks and months the president of the united states all members of the of his administration all of the military all living former secretary of state and up to fans were calling for senators not to ruin this reset opportunity for us russia relations and the outcome of the world will show whether or not their calls fell on deaf ears in congress once he's going to japan reporting their well joseph syrian siani the president told the campaign group the ploughshares fund says barack obama has done well to overcome the many obstacles in the starts treaty ratification process. most of the opposition to this relatively modest treaty has been political the opposition what thought they could deliver a knockout blow to president obama they missed and he struck them down instead part of it is ideological there's about twelve to twenty senators in the car in the senate that are just opposed to arms control treaties they're arguing to the bitter end but they're a minority they're losing they were trying to run out the clock they kept making the argumen

we get companies to stay in the united states. you have to get some of the companies that moved out of the states to come back. if it's done by tax equaling the wages that they're not paying their overseas workers, compared to ours? that might be something. but like with england, england has a tax system where it's an end user tax. they don't tax anything until somebody buys it. and if it comes here, the companies over there aren't paying any tax at all! and we pay our tax on it. host: so you think a value added tax would work in the u.s.? caller: i spent two and a half years in england. i don't like the added value tax. host: this is from our twitter page -- ron bronstein writing about this, he says overall the u.s. still imports minnesota than exports. and the list of products formerly made in america remain daunting. opinion point shows that the public is increasingly sour on free trade, but the familiar narratives of decline and retreat before a tide of low cost imports doesn't cap sure the full ledger of america's place in the

rivalry of the past is finally laid to rest for weeks and months the president of the united states all members of his administration the military all living former secretary of state and of defense were calling for senators not to ruin this reset opportunity for us who are sure relations and the message did resonate with many senators every senator knows when you're trying to get things done relationships matter and the relationship between the united states and russia has been critical since we fought together in world war two and will be contin and will continue to be so this is an on parallelled opportunity to enhance that relationship and to say by signature and by ratification of this treaty that yes the united states of america wants to work with russia despite the huge support the treaty had received on many levels a number of republican senators in the early sabotage that their actions provoked an avalanche of criticism from the country's top security experts. feared that the treaty could become a victim of political games on capitol hill the arguments the treaty adversaries br

it's in the best interest of the united states of america. the best interest of the world and, frankly, in the best interest of the russian federation." howard baker, former senator, republican from tennessee. he said just a few days ago, "a world without a binding u.s. nuclear u.s.-russian treaty is less predictable than the one we live in today. trust but verify he says. ratify this treaty. george schultz, a constituent of mine, secretary of state for president reagan, he wrote with sam nunn, democrat, former senator from georgia who we all respected on these issues -- quote -- "noting the full support of the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and following our own review of the treaty, we urge the senate to give its advice and consent to ratification of new start as early as is feasible." and i just hope we don't have a lot of delaying -- more delaying tactics around here. because it's not necessary. and i -- i heard colleagues say, what's the rush? what's the rush? what's the rush? we ha

of america, in the premise of the united nations organizations. you know, up to now, we've been able to adopt concerted positions. our position is open. iran is aware of our position. and we'll continue to cooperate with all the participants of this process, up till the final settlement of that problem. and i count greatly on the fact that this settlement will occur and i believe that this is the interest of the neighbors of iran. israel are very much afraid of the iranian programs. iran also and the iranian people as well. i don't see that in any way as being prejudice or undermining the interests of iran. if they were to fully open all their programs and satisfy the legitimate interest of the international organization, iaea, that is in their effort. >> larry: we'll take a break -- >> translator: i don't see that as being -- at the same time, i still maintain that iran has a right to implement nuclear programs under the oversight of the international organizations. >> larry: when we come back, we'll ask about the possible ratification or nonrati

to the pew hispanic center you've got about forty two percent of the illegal alien population in the united states under the age of thirty so clearly the dream act the so-called dream act is a massive amnesty plan disguised as an educational initiative and in the process of an acting this act which by the way zaba billy not going to has the senate has we would be giving that we would be giving. we would be giving away financial aid grants loans scholarships and very limited college admissions floods at the expense of us residents and all to mentally the dream act is and there's no way to get around this fact it's an amnesty and like all amnesties it's fundamentally unfair to those who have come here to the united states illegally it rewards law breaking and most importantly it simply encourages yet another round of illegal immigration into the united states ok martin you would you want to jump in already go right ahead i'll be with you as always i disagree with bob go ahead he's got his facts wrong go ahead well first of all the congressional budget office did a score of this legislation an

the united states look at these trends. we conclude that ending this conflict once and for all and achieving a comprehensive regional peace is important for safeguarding israelis future. we also look at our friends the palestinians. we remembered the painful history of the people who never had the state of their own. we are renewed in our determination to help them finally realize there a legitimate aspiration. the lack of peace, the occupation that began in 1967, continue to deprive the people of dignity and self determination. did this is unacceptable. ultimately, it is unsustainable for bo. for all the people of the reading, it is in their interest to end this conflict and bring a lasting comprehensive peace to the middle east based on to state or to people. for two years, yet heard me emphasize that negotiations between the parties is the only path that will succeed in securing their respective aspirations for them this remains true today. there is no alternative other than reaching mutual agreement. the stakes are too h

and provide for their children contribute to our economy and serve in the united states military and i think that's the kind of immigrant that the united states values the kind of immigration that we should be encouraging and that's what this bill does it's part of comprehensive immigration reform and the senate should act immediately to make it law ok deborah you want to add a last word before we go to the break. yes yes i do i think we have to remember the advantages of immigrants first of all number one if you look at state by state in their states studies on this in almost all cases the contributions immigrants make including illit undocumented immigrants present a net gain in terms of taxes and entrepreneurial ship is supposed to the services through education that they take you right now here trailer illegal you know what exactly are you that's exactly right down properly deborah is exactly where it to understand that they contribute in general and what we also know is when they're legalized they add more to our economy number two the fact of the matter is they at immigrant man