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

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

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

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 so 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 is that a good treaty or a bad treaty in your opinion is it necessary. very much agree with the bass 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 the allies that is kind of a cold war concept it focuses on russian american missiles which at the moment they done in danger to anybody so the notion that this is directly connected to current global security it's likely

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

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. 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. 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 into operation, queen elizabeth it will be called, and we will get a new generation of the most expensive aircraft ever built. they will not get those aircraft. there will not

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

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. policies haven't gotten anything out of it because these are not negotiations by any standard these are negotiations they negate palestinian rights they negate the very reference to international law and this is the key this is not about negotiation between two symmetric sides to equal sides one side is a colonial side colonizing another and the other is the oppressed side we're not equivalent in this so when we say negotiations without reference without a vision to end justice to end sets there colonialism and to have freedom for all these are not negotiations so the main issue here now is that the u.s. 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 no

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

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 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

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

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

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

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

with more than 50% of the cash outside the united states. s last political campaign, many people deemed it beneficial to their campaign to be re-elected to beat on the biotech and pharmaceutical industry. the p.e. multiples of companies in this industry, if you make lipstick, if you make potato chips, diapers, carbonated water you're worth 70% more than if you are trying to cure and find a solution with your medical researchers for a disease. it is the best stimulus to our economy. $60 trillion for the elimination of cancer as a cause of death. $60 trillion for the elimination of heart disease. this is maybe the most important industry in the united states. and, yes, china is going to be the world's largest economy, but the united states will be the world leader in medical innovation whether it's through patient care. >> i might add this is a big industry whether it's pharmaceuticals or so devices exported around the world and the world depends upon us for those products. >> let me ask you about the global economy. how do you see things? do y

we could not get the united nations. now we have.has watch there is nobody who has watched this res the evolutionta of this restartd with russia who does noterationn understand that that cooperation has been enhanced by our signint of this treaty. to not ratify it now would be at very serious blow to that cooperative effort.uld ignite according to many experts it could ignite an opposite direction that would move us back into the kind of arms raceo that we struggled so long to get out from under. so the fact is that we need to understand that relationship. i might and this -- at, i thinks that steve forbes in forbes j magazine wrote an article just n the othegr day urging the united states senate to ratifyt s.t.a.r.t. because he said it implication in terms of theide,i security component, the nucleary side.stro it has a very strong economic component. he is arguing for greater economicru engagement between ad russia and the west. he said that the s.t.a.r.t.hat relationship is critical to thac increased commerce, that coun

well russia and the united states have many common interests and we are working together . on so many of these common interests all over the world whether whether it's iran whether it's north korea economy energy europe nato less than we are are bound together as global citizens of the world and russia is one of the leading nations of the world as is the united states we need to cooperate we need to get along we are not always going to agree let i think the ratification of this treaty for our side and i assume will be done in moscow soon i think is a very significant relationship in hampshire and builder for both of our countries and i just know we've just got about a minute left mr haygood how is this report the way you did it is there a grassroots support from it from the public. yes the public in the united states has been supportive of ratification of this treaty and i think it is mainly because of the understanding that most americans have that this is clearly in the interest of the united states i think most thinking world citizens would agree that a world without nucl

it's russia and the united states. working together, we can make this world safer. working together, we can move forward with reductions in strategic arms around the world. working together, we provide the leadership so that we can move forward against proliferation against nuclear weapons. in fact we have done that, but the failure to ratify this he treaty could have a major negative impact on the leadership of the united states in this area. the u.s. relationship with the russian federation is key in our efforts to curtail iran's nuclear ambition. in june russia voted for the latest u.n. stkaourt council -- security council sanctions on iran and later canceled the sale of advanced arms defense missile system. the ratification of new start is essential in reinitiating investigations and for the united states and russia to lead the way in reduction of the nuclear arms stockpile. this is for leadership. we all talk about making sure iran does not become a nuclear weapons state. ratifying the new start treaty will help us in making sure iran does not become a nuclear w

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

president, that's the way the united states senate works. and that's the way it worked when they passed the first start treaty in five days. we're now spending more time on this treaty than we did on a far more complicated treaty, at a far more complicated time. the fact is that if we go through today, which we will, on this treaty -- and depending on what happens with cloture and when the other side decides they want to vote, we can be here for nine days on this treaty, which is more time than we would have spent on the start treaty, start ii treaty, and the moscow treaty. the time it took other senates to deal with three treaties, these folks are complaining about for the time to take one treaty. and it's going to be more time. it's astounding to me, and i hope people in the country will see through it. when the leader comes to the floor and says that our national security is being driven by politics, we really need to step back for a moment and calm down and think about what's at stake. this treaty is in front of the united states senate,

your group basically monitors the united nations but why does the u.n. even need monitoring here and watch as a non-governmental organization whose mandate is to monitor the united nations according to the principles of its charter essentially to hold the un accountable and to measure it by the yardstick of its own charter many israelis complain that israel does not get a fair deal or fair hearing by the united nations would you agree it's one of our issues that's important to us is fighting anti-semitism and also the discriminatory treatment of israel the un's obsession with israel doesn't only harm israel it doesn't only harm the peace process but it harms the u.n. as a whole it prevents the u.n. from being effective for human rights victims who never get their day of international attention why is the u.n. to use your words. u.n. has been strong champion of the p.l.o. since the early one nine hundred seventy s. this was largely a function of the soviet union together with the arab states started a campaign to attack israel and hijack many un bodies so

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 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 --

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

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

why does the united states go along with this? one reason is the lobbying of the arab lobby where the former ambassador of saudi arabia said what we need to do is go district by district and somehow how many jobs will be created by these arms sales so we make it a jobs issue more than a security issue, but also the pentagonments to sell these weapons because -- pentagon wants to sell the weapons because by selling f-15s to the saudis, they can lower the overall cost of the f-15 to the u.s. air force, and we can keep in service certain weapons systems they might otherwise have to cancel if they didn't get enough orders, so the pentagon sees this as being in their interest, and certainly the defense companies believe it's in their interest, and it's also partially a transfer of wealth. we give the saudis millions for oil, and they give it back to us in arms. there is an interest there to justify. there's another problem how this relationship works and how this money is spent, and the dangerous thing is that the saudis are at the same

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

he said if this doesn't pass, the united states is headed for a double dip recession. >> i was there when he spoke. he said it would raise the possibility, materially raise the possibility of a -- >> double dip. okay. but he raised that -- he raised that word again. >> but there's no doubt that it would be deleterious to the economy. every economist has said -- look, almost every economist has raised their estimation of what our growth will be in 2011 based on this package. >> so what will this package do? >> well, what it'll do is in addition to putting money in the pockets of middle class people that they will spend and accelerate our economy, it includes some business tax cuts like one that will allow corporations and small businesses to buy equipment in the next year and to further taxes on it, and that will spur investment and get some of -- there's $1.8 trillion sitting on the books of corporations across this country. we want to get them in the game. this will help get them in the game. >> and on the key issue of employment, unemployment, you've said that it's going to create m

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