the united states said, while the united states cannot circumscribe the soviet right to withdraw from the treaty, if the soviet believes it is jeopardized, the full exercise of the united states by its legal rights under the a.b.m. treaty as we have discussed with the soviet union in the past would not constitute a basis for such withdrawal. 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 m

it's the same system we have in the united states except it's two-stage instead of three. and the national intelligence estimate shows that iran can reach the united states with an icbm -- and now they're developing nuclear weapons -- they can do it by 2015. so we were trying to get this system in by 2016. but when they canceled this thing, it caused a big uproar. the white house says, well, don't worry. we've got a new plan, one that i never heard about, a member of the strategic committee. we got a new plan. we're going to do an sm-3 block iib. well, have you started on it? no. is it under development? no. it's a bigger missile than the sm-3. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed six minutes of his time. mr. sessions: i thank the chair. and so it's a different thing. and it would be ready only by 2020. so i contend that this administratioadministration, ase negotiations over this treaty and their too-anxious desire to get this treaty, too-anxious desire to reset the relationship with the russians, which we of course would like to do, made a very serious error in

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

in the united states, most of the patents were originated in the united states. but in 2009, for the first time, 51% of u.s. patents were awarded to non-u.s. companies. to fifth place in international patents during that time. the world is some form rank 48 in mathematics and education. chinese universities are leading in the '80s. china has moved from 14th place to second place in published research articles, now just behind the united states. eight of the 10 global companies with the largest r&d budgets in the world are established r&d facilities in china and theythese are facts from the gathering storm report. an american company, applied materials, recently opened the world's largest private solar r&d facility in china. there is other evidence of chinese innovation, particularly in the energy field. china has installed the largest high-voltage capacity lowest loss d.c. line and high-voltage ec lines in the world now. it has plans to integrate back down. it has broken ground on 30 nuclear reactors of roughly 50 being built in the world. the united states is bui

russia relationship in the united states but the point also has to be made that there are enemies of an improved u.s. russia relationship also in russia and and i think this agreement by getting this agreement ratified we will open the doors for greater cooperation in the future ok if i go to you i mean i would like to repeat the question the republicans willing to throw away all of the improvements that we've seen in this bilateral relationship because it really would throw a wrench into the works because they'll be there and do you agree with the ambassador there are people in the political establishment in russia would say yes see you can't trust these people who see you can't ok and it feeds upon the extremes on both sides unfortunately the extreme in the u.s. seems to be mainstream go ahead. very much hope that it will not happen dead people both sides understand again i hope to fade if you'd be a pro but if not you still have a very important list. joined interest and sort of point out we have succeeded in finding a close understanding between the two countries i should note so

phony intelligence to draw the united states into the war? >> well, winston churchill was very eager to have the united states join the waragainst hitler. and, consequently, british agents were to provide intelligence that would help this happen. they told roosevelt about the fact that the germans had taken a map and cut latin america into six future nazi vessel states, that a bolivian pro-u.s. government would be toppled by the nazis, that we had 6,000 brazilian troops -- excuse me, 6,000 german troops in brazil. roosevelt used some of this information in his speeches and in his fire side chats. it was all fabricated by he british to help encourage the united states to enter the war. >> f.d.r. is yielding to churchill led to the theft of the a-bomb. >> yeah. a curious tale. in the begin, the united states and britain were full partners in developing an atmic weapon. but as time went on and the unitestates launched the manhattan project, was putting millions of dollars into this, creating the fcility at los alamos, we became the dominant partn

yes the problem is actually is with the us it's not with the united states or with israel the arabs are insistent on remaining weak and the palestinians insisting resisting or remaining dependent upon the united states and the european countries that's a very big problem how would you regain your rights or be something in the international community if you are not strong enough if you don't feed yourself if you do not depend upon yourself that's the problem so the arabs no matter what they say no matter what the proposals they make nobody is going to listen to them and the palestinians have been making proposals that since one thousand sixty nine and nobody listens to them because they are not strong and that we shouldn't depend on the up on international blow you know international no could not be enforced unless you are powerful or a strong enough so as to enforce the law but those who are weak if they are not receiving any kind of mirror see it from the strong countries they are not going to receive anything and this is the problem with the arab proposal the saudi proposal two thousa

treaty of the united states status in the a.b.m. treaty, we did not do that this time. the state department said in response to the russian unilateral statement and i quote -- "the united states of america takes note of the statement on missle defense by the russian federation. the united states missle defense systems would be employed to defend the united states against limited missle launches and to defend its deployed forces allies and parters in against regional trets. the united states intends to continue improving and deploying its missle defense system in order to defend itself against limited attack and as part of our collaborative approach to strengthening stability in key regions." end quote. so it would appear, mr. president, that the u.s. position does not contradict the russian position in the slightest. and what then to make of the u.s. missle defense plans previously announced by secretary gates, which talked about the deployment of land-base missles, poland in 2018 and in 2020 the deployment in europe of the smm-32-b

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

will continue to develop and deploy effective missile dwens to protect the united states. i -- i really would hope our colleagues would give credence to the secretary of defense, secretary of state, the military, the president of the united states, and to the budget , because the chairman of the appropriations committee informed me yesterday they have fully funded the modernization once again in the c.r., just as we did in the previous c.r., as a sign of good faith of the direction we're going in. so all i can say is we have bent over backwards to meet the concerns of our colleagues in a completely nonpolitical, a political, totally bipartisan, substantive way that meets the security concerns of the country. i hope we can find reciprocity with respect to that kind of action here in the united states senate. so i reserve the balance of my time, and we will respond appropriately on the substance of this amendment at the appropriate claim. mr. risch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: first i want to thank the chairman of the committee and

have to rid ourselves first of all our leadership so many of our leaders really puppets for the united states they cannot do on this thing they don't have an initiative they haven't been honest to the palestinian people so there are palestinians who have been actually the united states and israel so we the people have to do something we have to rebuild our own so see if our own institutions as long as we demand in this situation we demand so weak i don't think that the united states would get about us or is it a israel will respond positively to a lot of the months ok gail a lot of you know we hear coming from the israeli government there isn't a partner at the table here but a lot of people would also say people studying the region for decades now is that the current government in ramallah for the palestinian authority is the most reasonable palestinian politicians that is ever come about in dealing with these negotiations but netanyahu and other people in the government say he doesn't have a part. or is that if it's not really fair actually not to me i was sat in washington when the talks w

doing things like ethnic cleansing to all sorts of war crimes and these were the people that the united states ended up cooperated with in the wars in the years after the second world war of the most important interest here though is of course the voltec waffen s.s. because the united states was really caught parading tightly with people located there to try to fight the soviet union and a lot via for example a baltic state as one of is the only place in the world right now that sees former s.s. 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. way to get more from our to the latest news analysis and blog as always for you on our website it's a taste of what's about to dot com right now. biding her time in russia she joins a political youth movement and what she's up to now and what her stance is. and christmas is well and truly coming to moscow and the sand to spill around the world in the capital for giving spree if you still don't believ

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

if the united states intends to deploy more capable missiles either to defend europe or the united states, which it is our stated policy to do. so are we to believe that the administration will ever put this treaty at risk over future missile defense plans? that's a subject we'll be exploring in debt. -- in depth. certainly the senate gave advice to the administration not to limit missile defense or conventional prompt global strikers which is a capability that would permit us to deliver over long ranges, inte intercontinental ranges, something that is not a warhead, something that this administration and i think are very important for our future ability to deal with rogue states, for example. nevertheless, contrary to congress's instructions, the administration has subjected advance capabilities to limitations in this treaty. and we'll discuss that. eighth is something else. there are people that say there's nothing that stands between us and a world of -- a nuclear-free world. it's called zero nuclear. the president's stated goal of a world without nuclear weapons. some say that this tr

the first is of irish people leaving the british empire and migrating to the united states. they are over 60% of the imgrants who come into the united states between 1783 and 1820, and these are people who are mostly feeling quite alienated from the british empire and its rule over ireland. a high proportion of them are politically active, and they are concentrated in places that are very politically strategic in american politics, particularly in the sea port cities of new york, philadelphia, and baltimore where they are in positions to swing erections and narrowly contested states #-bg and they overwhelmingly support the republican party and the desire for that party and its administration to have a policy towards the british empire, and they tend to be enthusiast for the invasion of canada in the hope that it is going to start a process of unraveling the entire british empire that would liberate ireland as well as canada, so that's one migration flow. you've got a lot of people considered by the british empire to still be british subjects because the british believe, briti

yes, the united states and russia have mutual goals. and, yes, with respect to iran and other trouble spots, the united states and russia can in fact stand together. mr. president, let me move on to the nonproliferation reasons to ratify this treaty. new start demonstrates to the world that the two nations possessing more than 90% of the planet's nuclear weapons are capable of working together on arms reduction and nonproliferation, a "no" vote says we're not capable of doing that. i believe that this will pave the way for more multilateral efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons as well as restrictions on tactical nuclear warheads that could fall into the hands of terrorist organizations. and let us not forget the centerpiece of our nuclear nonproliferation regime, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. it's based on a clear bargain. those with nuclear weapons agree to eventually eliminate them and those without nuclear weapons agree to never acquire them. with the signing of the new start treaty, the presidents of the united states

saudi arabia is actually an ally of the united states. but it's also true that some of the revenues from oil that included saudi arabia find their way into the hands of terrorist groups, including this group that attacked the united states on september 11, 2001. .. >> begins with the united states because we're the largest consumer. ask the way to consume less oil is to have a much higher gasoline tax. if we all pay more for gasoline, we'll all use less, and it will also produce substitution, alternative sources of energy to oil will become commercially viable, and over time the world can wean itself from oil. if we get the price of gasoline high enough then, say, lek call-powered cars become commercially attractive, and when they do, lots of private money will flow, and the development of ever more powerful wateries which is really what is needed -- batteries which is really what is needed to make electric cars good enough to substitute for gasoline-powered cars. so that's a roundabout way of saying that the most important thing we could

the u.s. are seeking to destroy north korea as an independent state. the united states' policy for the last sixty years has been to seek the collapse of the north korean state and its absorption into the south. the lead government is more closely aligned with u.s. foreign policy goals on the korean peninsula than say the government's president's role in presidents kim. in south korea. 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 states of south korea south korea certainly seized on any opportunity it can to escalate tensions there is the sinking of the south korean corvette chain on then 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 marine garrison on an island that lies very close to the north korean coast y

however, daniel had crossed the rubicon and enlisted women to serve in the united states navy and the u.s. marine corps. now there was a record of the military service of women in the united states armed forces. a record that testified to the patriotism, the courage and the contributions that helped mightily to the u.s. numbers and for the winning of the war. in fact, one could argue that military service of women in world war i was a significant turning point and giving american women the right to vote. once again, women were barred from serving in the u.s. military and the battle to change that fact was just the beginning. as in the game of monopoly, when in were told they had to go back to the starting point as if their service in world war i had never happened. the battle for the rights of american women to serve in the u.s. military was just beginning and had a long way to go. in 1941, the battle was joined again pleading with edith robert from massachusetts one of nine women in congress at that time wrote and presented the bill on christmas eve, 1941, to include women as a perma

provide for their children contribute to our economy and serve in the united states military and i think that's a kind of immigrant of 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 the 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 an entrepreneurial ship is supposed to the services through education that they take your trailer illegally legal. down properly deborah is exactly right i 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 according to the pew hispanic organization immigrant men between the ages

the problems that occasioned all the troubles that have enveloped the united states and europe and iraq and the iraqi people since 2003, all those problems remain. there has been no fundamental political reconciliation in iraq. i have fought for a very long time, from the time that i was there, ever since then, that the keeper of the peace, to the extent that there has been peace, and there has been a lot when the last two years or three years than most of my time there, has been the united states, for which there are reasons that are not to for to see. but i do not think that what the united states will leave behind in iraq will likely to grow stable. i think we have to open our minds to the possibility that much of it will be washed away, that there could be an onset of something like a civil war, perhaps not immediately. it might take a year or two years or three years. if i had to put my money on a likely outcome, it would be that peace in iraq, and it might be a very harsh peace, is likely, ultimately, to be imposed once again by it an autopsy. -- by an autotocracy. we just have to

it makes them eligible to work legally in the united states. this congress should not allow unemployment. i'm sympathetic to the young immigrant children who are brought here by their parents because their parents disregarded united states immigration laws, they are in a difficult position. this bill actually rewards the very illegal immigrant parents who knowingly violated our laws. once they become citizens and turn 21, if they haven't already, they can sponsor their parents, spouse for citizenship and others and this will further hurt american workers and american taxpayers. i -- this new amnesty will encourage more illegal immigration because other illegal immigrants will bring their children to the united states because they expect to benefit from the dream act. as soon as an individual files an application, the department of homeland security is prohibited from removing them. so there is an automatic stay from deportation for anyone who applies under this bill. and criminals are not excluded. those with histories of passport fraud, visa fr

guest: tensions are arguably greater between iran and the united states. e obama administration has decided that they are prepared to renew relations with iran but under certain conditions. s cooperation iran' with the united nations on their nuclear program. this is a quantum change. we have gone through periods of tension were neither side has wanted to deal with each other. even the bush administration toyed with the idea of opening eight u.s. interest section. --a u.s. interest section. host: charlotte, n.c., good morning. caller: good morning and thank you cspan and good morning, robin. i think the real issue this comes down to her regarding national rate -- natural resources. under the disguise of imposing democracy, how does this country justified demanding a country to be defenseless so that we can in turn go in there and privatize their oil fields and take control of the strait of hormuz. i think this is what the agenda is and to lead bp's back in there when they were in there in the 1950's and were ex spelled out of iran because they were pillagin

it was not expected that the united states would do anything for the palestinians it would do so many things against the palestinians that's true so since the establishment of the authority we have been harmed a lot and the united states as i said is not broken they are not states and israel are allies and they are not states that not do what it has to do against israel they have to take measures against israel if they want the solution we see the united states immediately takes measures against arabs against muslims but against israel they don't take any measures and so far they have been with the pressure on the palestinians particularly because the palestinians are so much dependent and their food on the done it in countries and they do not decide how the money is spent in the west bank and partying does so what the palestinians have to do we have to rid ourselves first of our leadership so many of our leaders actually puppets for the united states they cannot do on this thing they don't have an initiative they haven't been honest to the palestinian people so there are palestinians

it seems to me that the united states would have an effect similar to what has happened in the past here in afghanistan that along with the drone attacks the invasion of a sovereign country by a united states joint special operations who is means attacking the death squads and assassinations and night raids would exacerbate the tremendous almost tidal wave of anti-american sentiment amongst the public and i think that would be the main effect now the united states will say well we have to dismantle and eradicate this is president obama's stated goal but do we really think that our kind of figures are waiting around in the mountains of pakistan near the afghan border to see if the united states is going to come after them and so it's likely that there would be second and third level people who have been suggested as possible taliban agents whose families would be hurt whose desire for revenge would be ongoing and the bloodshed and the killing will continue will be perpetuated and what made look like a perpetual war so if these operations do take place what's the reaction likely to be from

let us be absolutely clear: the president of the united states, the united states congress, the executive branch agencies on behalf of the american people control our destiny on missile defense. the russians continue to argue and maneuver all they want on this issue, but there is nothing in the treaty that says we have to pay any attention to them. therefore, mr. president, i would say, first and foremost, fundamentally, if we amend the treaty text, the fret is gone. mr. president, that does relate to a second argument that we may have later on with regard to verification. we have all pointed out that for over a year, since december 5, 2009, we have not had verification in russia. many of us feel that's very important, there may be arguments on what the treaty provides in verification, but if there is no treaty and floss verification, those arguments are not particularly germane today. instead, the best course for the united states is to make clear we will pursue our missile defense plans whether russia decides now or in the future not to be a party to the new start treaty and that russia

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

all the value ends up being associated with activity in the united states. phone, but itp my fu will say made in china. the value of that ponchos up-in accounting. the actual value embodied in the fan, the vast majority is produced in the united states. we missed the fact that china's efforts to lift itself out of the final assembly point and a rise in the value chain is upsetting the talents for american companies but it is upsetting the entire value chain of the region. what will be interesting is to see how things play out we seem to be getting back into trade agreements in asia. it may have an application for apple as it thinks about what it does next as force components and final assembly. >> let's turn to the audience for questions. please raise your hand and identify yourself. i will start in the back and come toward you. >> how could president obama be able to double exports by 2015? his policy runs against this initiative. sold arms to india. they are rushing offshore production to there. more offshore production means more exports and more employmen

states, this treaty would never have been sent to the united states if the treaty did not have adequate verification measures. so it ta÷ -- it talks about all of these verification measures. then he says, it is the judgment of our military, our state department and our intelligence community that the -- that these measures are adequate. well, that may be true with the current -- those that are answering to our president who are strongly in support of this treaty. but if you look at the state department and the military and the intelligence of the past, those comments who -- ho those who commented -- those who commented, james baker states that the start treaty is weaker than its predecessor, testifying to congress in may of this year, and i happened to be there, testifying that the start treaty does not appear as rigorous or extensive as the one of the diverse obligations under start i. this complex part of the treaty -- i'm still quoting -- crucial when fewer deployed nuclear warheads were allowed than were allowed in the past. insofar as military is

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

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

what role should the united states be playing? are you satisfied with the role that the united states is playing with the speech made by secretary clinton the other day at your forum? >> i am -- yes, secretary clinton opened the saban forum in washington on friday. and she made a very compelling speech, and i really agree with i would say 99.9% of her thoughts as she put them forth. you asked hani a minute ago why isn't peace happening. it's a very complicated area loaded with emotions, and at the moment, you know, the leaders on both sides i think are very well intended but at the same time they need some more encouragement, and what we're hoping is that the united states will supply that encouragement and basically the safety net that both the israelis and the palestinians need, because there are significant risks involved for both sides, so the united states absolutely can play a very significant role. and i believe that this administration has every intent to do so. >> larry: hani, do you have faith in the american commitment i