george shultz and his wife charlotte. but we also have a very good working committee, which includes some prominent san franciscans. tom perkins, renown sailor. we have walter and alan newman on that committee. icahn also include ellen on the association of disabled sailors. we have the rear commodore of the st. francis yacht club. this committee has been meeting for about two months. i see this entire proposal as a three-legged stool. the first you will discuss in detail, and it has to do with the port and physical facilities and the trade-offs that the sponsors get for using the port. what do they give, and what is good for the taxpayers? i will leave that to your judgment. the second leg is the america's cup event authority, and that is the authority that is going to raise $270 million to put on a host of regattas are around the world, including the 2012 and 2013 races on the bay. our committee is committed to helping them in that regard, and those are primarily corporate sponsors, and corporate sponsors will make thei

bush, george shultz, jim baker, jim schlesinger, henry kissinger, colin powell, condoleezza rice, stephen hadley, howard baker, lawrence eagleburger and frank lucy. many of these officials serve at a time when states were related to russian nuclear arms were even higher than they are today. during the cold war, uncertainty over russia's intentions and weapons advances, this cost us 10s if not hundreds of billions of dollars. and industry developed devoted to parching soviet military capabilities. this is one of the biggest if not the biggest expense of our intelligence budget each year. the fact that we could not judge soviet military capabilities lead us to elevate our spending on weaponry. called of a sense of caution. these times predominated by contradictory risk assessments and rumors about dangerous new soviet weapons systems. we were constantly worried about missile gaps destabilizing arms deployment or soviet technology--all of this came at tremendous cost to the american taxpayer. and the psyche of the nation which lived under the threat of mutual assured destruction. i firmly be

listen to chairman mullen, secretary gates, jim baker, george shultz, henry kissinger, and others make i think a very compelling case along with the president and the vice president. why this enhances our security, why it does nothing to impact or inhibit our ability to defend ourselves in any way. >> ifill: negotiations will continue on the final wording of the treaty up until tomorrow's vote. for more on all of this and how the ground shifted during the last 24 hours, we turn to naftali bendavid, who has been covering the debate for the "wall street journal." so negotiations apparently still continue tonight over wording, over proposed amendments. what exactly are they still debating? >> well, there are a few remaining amounts, it's true. senator mccain has one. they want to make sure what's called the resolution of ratification. there's a very clear, strong statement of american intent to pursue missile defense. whatever else the treaty might say. but the fact is that this is pretty much at this point a done deal. i don't think anyone doubts that tomorrow when they have the vote on

kissinger, george shultz, james baker iii, laurence eagleburger and colin powell. these are secretaries of state for the last five republican presidents. joining together in a detailed analysis of the new start and why the u.s. senate should ratify this treaty. now there are some who may say it's not an issue of the substance but rather we just need more time to consider the provisions. consider this: the treaty was signed on april 8 of this year. the treaty went through extensive and thorough hearings and briefings on the foreign relations committee. the committee favorably reported it out with bipartisan support september 16. in the 34 weeks since the treaty was signed and the 10 weeks since it was reported from the committee on foreign relations, every member of our body has had an opportunity to read the testimony, to explore the content, to consult with the experts, to consult with the administration and to reach a conclusion. in fact, we have had more opportunity to review this treaty than the 100th congress did for the intermediate range nuclear forces treat

end at the discussion but i have to remind you, the secretary of to -- the secretary of state george shultzaid that hope is not a policy. we have to wait for the policy makers to come up with practical solutions to the problems. i think you all for thinking -- for coming. thank you all for joining us at home. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> monday is day one of the american university's annual campaign management institute, a training students to work on political campaigns. we will hear from political consultants and strategist from both parties. topics include the general political environment and the chicago mayor's raise. we will have live coverage starting and 9:00 a.m. ease band -- 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span2. come january, they will be eight new members of the new look -- of the u.s. house from the state of florida. one of them is sande adams from the 24th district along the central lentic coast. a member of the state house, she is a former deputy county sheriff and air force veteran. she defeated de

two weeks ago five former republican secretaries of state -- five -- henry kissinger, george shultz, james baker, laurence eagleburger and colin powell -- wrote an article saying they support ratification of new start because it embraces republican principles like strong verification. and last week condoleezza rice published an op-ed which said the new start treaty deserves bipartisan support when the senate decides to vote on it. secretary rice wrote "approving this treaty is part of our effort to stop the world's most dangerous weapons from going to the world's most dangerous regimes." so if some think we haven't somehow considered this treaty carefully, i'd just encourage them to revisit the voluminous record that has been produced over the last year and a half. and i look forward to reviewing it here as we debate new start in the coming days. in the end i'm confident we're going to approve this treaty, mr. president, just as the senate approved the original start treaty in 1992. and at that time there were also senators who insisted on delay. there were senators who suggested tha

george shultz, henry kissinger, james baker and on and on our in support of this treaty. plus virtually all at the united states military. there are a few outliers that may have their own reason. so i play it? why do we pass the s.t.a.r.t. treaty at the time when the soviet union was collapsing and when there was major anxiety over where the world would go. and now, when we know russia wants to move closer to the united states, russia wants to develop a relationship with the unit states, this could be positive for both countries. here is a treaty which improve the cooperation between both nations. why would we not support it? >> one quick word about reciprocity. we have a national security working group that senator kyl is a member of. and every time he wanted the briefing, we got the security folks appear to provide that briefing. what we wanted to go to geneva, that was sort no. but there has been real effort on the part of the administration and senator kerry and all of us to accommodate senator kyl throughout here. and reciprocity is got to be a two-way street. the pu

but it's no accident that george shultz, bill perry, sam nunn, just to mention a few others, both of the 2008 presidentialor nominees, senator mccain and hae president obama have all agreed that this is a principle were trying to move towards. the road to a reduced number of nuclear weapons in the world, r which reproduced the anonymousal fishable materials that have a been potentially available to ts certainly doesn't pastor a nuclear tehran. if were going to have our bona fides to be able to leverage north korea and leverage iran, we need to at least prove we can put at three bilateral agreement between the two countries that are 90% of the world's nuclear w weapons. so i would hope h my colleague would not do this, given all ths sign-ups that have accompanied it from our national securityrom establishment, from the joint chiefs of staff of the militarya leaders, from the national intelligence community, from ouo laboratory are scum the em strategic commanders. all of them have agreed 1550,aue the current number of launchers we have, et cetera, this isto pe going to permit the unit

people like henry kissinger and george shultz are not just supporting the treaty but saying that thise first of a number of steps to steadily reduce all the nuclear arsenals lambda world, eliminate the major threat to us, and in so doing working on the countries like iran and north korea. you consider example of that. goneat new website have gons up, securityconsensus.org. it is a group of retired military and former security officials from both parties that argue that now's the time to take this step by step reduction of nuclear weapons. we can do with a lot fewer nuclear weapons, save money, and improve security. host: ellen on the line for independents. thank you for calling. largestthe world's deposits of uranium is located outside of virginia. there's a movement to mine the uranium. with this treaty stop them from going forward? guest: no, it would not. there are no restrictions in mining uranium. it's very common to its as common as tin in the earth. we have uranium. we also import uranium from canada. we no longer need any more uranium for our nuclear weapons. the reason people

people like henry kissinger and george shultz are not just supporting the treaty but saying that thisthe first of a number of steps to steadily reduce all the nuclear arsenals lambda world, eliminate the major threat to us, and in so doing working on the countries like iran and north korea. you consider example of that. goneat new website have gons up, securityconsensus.org. it is a group of retired military and former security officials from both parties that argue that now's the time to take this step by step reduction of nuclear weapons. we can do with a lot fewer nuclear weapons, save money, and improve security. host: ellen on the line for independents. thank you for calling. largestthe world's deposits of uranium is located outside of virginia. there's a movement to mine the uranium. with this treaty stop them from going forward? guest: no, it would not. there are no restrictions in mining uranium. it's very common to its as common as tin in the earth. we have uranium. we also import uranium from canada. we no longer need any more uranium for our nuclear weapons. the reason peop

apparently just to try to get president obama -- if this is just a bad treaty, why do secretary george shultz, secretary jim baker, secretary lawrence eagleburger, and i believe one other republican secretary of state and defense -- bill cowen. they all support this. if this is so bad, i am lost to understand my party's explanation. caller: -- host: q. do not think politics should be part of this. this is open with the baltimore sun" analysis -- "baltimore sun" analysis -- if lawmakers reject the pact, it could be seen by foreign leaders as weakness at the moment when the president needs a foreign-policy victory. the outcome of the vote could have a wide influence on how much other world powers help the united states in active -- in the afghanistan war, contain iran's nuclear program, and efforts to obtain middle east peace. caller: i think that is dead-on in the sense that my party is willing to endanger the safety of this country to play politics. it is just repugnant to me. host: what about senator kyl's argument that they should take more time and that it does not deal with tactical weapo

former secretaries of state george shultz and henry kissinger have joined forces with former senator sam nunn and former secretary of defense bill perry to make this case. in a january 4, 2007, op-ed in the "wall street journal," they called for united states leadership in building a -- quote -- "solid consensus for reversing reliance on nuclear weapons globally as a vital contribution to preventing the proliferation into potentially dangerous hands and ultimately ending them as a threat to the world." we can now do our part to build that consensus and help ensure that we never again see the destruction caused by nuclear weapons. and once again i return you to these charts. i was 12 years old when i saw these pictures. i was 12 years old when i realized what a 21-kiloton and a 15-kiloton bomb can do. ladies and gentlemen of the senate, these bombs are well in excess of 100 kilotons today. the number is classified, but trust me, they are well in excess. we can destroy the planet earth with these weapons. and they are deployed and they are targeted, and they are on some time-release sc

and i would hope my colleague would look hard so* at how henry kissinger and george shultz and bill perry have framed this concept of moving in that direction as an organizing principle. i don't expect it in my lifetime. i doubt the senator does. but i wouldn't vote against this treaty that provides a window into what russians are doing, provides verification, reduces the threat, creates stability. i would link the two and i would hoept senator does not. -- and i would hope the senator does not. mr. sessions: i believe earlier today you made the point -- quote -- "make no mistake, we're not going to amend the treaty itself. we'll accept resolutions that don't kill the treaty. i think i understand that. i do assert, as we both know, amending the treaty is not something that is easily done. we've got to deal with whether or not we think the treaty is helpful. we can do some things to the amendment process to make it more palatable and acceptable to people who have concerns, and i don't dispute that. but i do feel like that fundamentally this day ought to be discussing the overall strategic

and i would hope my colleague would look hard so* at how henry kissinger and george shultz and bill perry have framed this concept of moving in that direction as an organizing principle. i don't expect it in my lifetime. i doubt the senator does. but i wouldn't vote against this treaty that provides a window into what russians are doing, provides verification, reduces the threat, creates stability. i would link the two and i would hoept senator does not. -- and i would hope the senator does not. mr. sessions: i believe earlier today you made the point -- quote -- "make no mistake, we're not going to amend the treaty itself. we'll accept resolutions that don't kill the treaty. i think i understand that. i do assert, as we both know, amending the treaty is not something that is easily done. we've got to deal with whether or not we think the treaty is helpful. we can do some things to the amendment process to make it more palatable and acceptable to people who have concerns, and i don't dispute that. but i do feel like that fundamentally this day ought to be discussing the overall strategic