the administration did say -- some administration officials said there are no limits to this treaty on missile defense. i think it is more correct to say there are no reasonable restrictions. one paragraph says the united states and russia could not put a missile defense interceptor into an old silo. that is a constraint. but i do not think it is a meaningful constrict, because we have converted five icb silos to hold missile defense interceptors and built 25 or 30 new silos in alaska to hold interceptors. the new start treaty allows us to grandfather those five interceptors. those are ok, but do not do it again. it would cost about $20 million more per silo to convert them to build one grand -- and to build one brand new. it seems it is a constraint that prevents us from doing something we would never do under any circumstances. that is probably a constraint we could live with. likewise, i think the administration was in precise when it said there are no constraints on conventional ballistic missile warheads. we have more than 5050 icbms. neither the united states nor russia deployed

we've already seen something like this happen with the administration abruptly ending the bush administration's efforts to build a third missile defense site in poland in the czech republic. why should we have any confidence that they won't do the same thing when something like this happens again? and that's why it's critically important that we remove this language from the preamble, to eliminate any pretext by the russians to threaten to withdraw prosecute the treaty because we are -- from the treaty because we are improving our missile defense capabilities. it's particularly galling, madam president, that the administration inserted this missile defense language into the treaty when one considers that congress made it abundantly clear at the outset of negotiations on this treaty, specifically in section 1251 of the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill, that there should be no limitations on united states ballistic missile defense systems. specifically, we said -- and i quote -- "it is the sense of congress that the president should maintain the stated position of the united states tha

lee's appointment as city administrator. he has shown his honesty, integrity, and leadership, and also has been very that is why we believe he is the right person for this position for the next five years. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. next speaker please. >> i am the director of the san francisco arts program. i am here to voice my support for edwin lee as city administrator. i can attest to how he is in close of -- inclusive of issues and voice. there was a particular meeting that i can point to in which edwin lee, several other staff members from his office for their. they were talking about day laborers. i remember how conclusive ed lee was about what was mentioned by day laborers, and also of his ideas, it almost crafted the plan of action that we were making. the community should be pressed in those conversations. we know that he is going to be the right person as the city administrator. supervisor campos: thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none,

in arguing for this treat kwraoerbgs the administration has -- treaty, the administration has tried to have it both ways. the treaty demands the united states reduce our nuclear strike force by specific numbers. yet the administration has only offered a vague range of estimates regarding where these cuts would take place. the president's force structure plan provides up to 420 intercontinental ballistic missiles, 14 submarines carrying up to 240 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and up to 60 nuclear-capable heavy bombers. even if the administration did cut the absolute maximum number of weapons it has proposed to cut, it would still fail to live up to the reductions demanded by new start. instead of giving the senate a specific force structure, the president is repeating his health care play book and telling us to wait until after the u.s. ratifies the treaty to find out the details. it is wrong that the senate is being considered to approve this treaty without knowing the details, and these details matter. the force structure of our nuclear triad is critical to maintaining effect

won't send them back because of the conditions in yemen it's just completely wrong if the administration. doesn't believe it has a reason to hold someone that person needs to be sent back to their home country immediately it's not it's not really the us is issue what the conditions are in yemen these people might be innocent they might have never committed an attack ever and have just been caught up in this this net that was cast early on now of course the most frustrating part of it is that the obama administration by signing this executive order they're still saying that they fully uphold the idea that some people need to be indefinitely day detained tough luck we're going to keep you forever and obama actually made a statement about this when he was asked about it a press conference today i want to listen to the clip there. of the fronts one of the toughest problems is what to do with people that we know are dangerous that we know are. having gauged in terrorist activity or proclaimed enemies of the united states but because of the manner in which they were originally captured the cir

during the prior administration we lost eight million jobs. the month that president obama and president bush shared the presidency in january, that month we lost 800,000 jobs. so we had a lot to do. i know people criticize our doing health care because of for various reasons. there's criticism that we did the bank reform bill, wall street reform. we did housing reform. we did -- we had a very, very busy congress to try to dig out of a hole. so i say to my friend, who like me, has been on the appropriations committee, i'm not on it now, but he is, the appropriations committee is a wonderful committee, everyone here knows why we didn't have individual appropriation bills and i say to my friend, i hope next year we can get them down. i think there's more of chance next year because we have gotten a lot done to help get ourselves out of the hole we found ourselves in because of the years that created a big hole that we've got to dig out of. mr. president, i ask the chair to lay before the senate a message from the house -- a senator: will the sen

those very words could apply to the bush administration and the obama administration's military and foreign policy. as the have put us in greater risk and it's very important for us especially the presented by congress that the pension for secrecy is not nourished further by the wikileaks events which are going to unfold in greater magnitude in the coming weeks to leave millions of citizens in our country with a debilitating dictatorial for devotee to further concentration of authoritarian power in the executive branch. floyd abrams, not known as a radical, arguably the leading first amendment and practitioner in the country said, quote, in responding to senator lieberman's precipitous urging for holder to indict assange said, quote, i would say the potential risks of we the benefit of the prosecution. i think the instinct of prosecution is rational and i don't mean to criticize the government for giving serious consideration, but at the end of the day, i think it could do more harm to the national security properly understood than letting it go. jefferson and madison had it right, informat

but the obama administration remains unmoved. on tuesday, defense secretary robert gates, thanked his south korean counterpart for showing restraint. on thursday, kim resigned in disgays for that restraint. the you has spoken strongly of not allowing north korea's aggression to go unanswered, but in practice, its only answer is to try to tempt north korea back to multi lateral disarma meant talks that will go no where because north korea supports it. contrary to what president obama claims, china does not share the u.s. interest in denuclearizing north korea. consequently beijing will not lift a finger to achieve that goal. then there is iran. the now inarguable fact that pyongyang is developing nuclear weapons with enriched uranium makes it all but certain that the hyperactive proliferate ateors are involved in uranium-based nuclear weapons program. the north koreans don't care that the u.n. security council placed sanctions on iran. and the presumptive role in iran's nuclear weapons program expose the idiocy of the concept that

amending the administrative code to provide for the electronic distribution of documents. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i like to thank you, -- i would like to thank you, yourself. i believe this is pretty straightforward. if you calculate the amount of pages that were before us in the last land-use appeal that we had, or the agreement that came before us, times 11, times the distribution to the public, we exceeded 1 million pages of printed material, the paper. in a way that i believe we can be more cost-effective, more efficient, and stick to our laurels. it provides an option so that it is not always the reflects that we are giving some much paper out but we will provide an alternative so that we can be a little bit more mindful of the resources we waste. why didn't we do this before? we are doing it, and your support would be appreciated. president chiu: can we take this item same house, same call? >it's passed. >> item 42, publication requirements. supervisor mirkarimi: i'd like to stand for this one. the inspiration of me putting this ordinance befo

tax administration they usually require a lot so for papers corpuscle documents. two years ago for example during the year we had to make almost fifty thousand different pages of corpus. to deliver to this is just for taxes is just for taxes and generally the problem is that. well it's changing first the wall and now we see that administration is ranked as we shall know twenty documents but the process is slow that's the problem and it's always about execution again even when we have and you bet the legislation you see the intent is good though on the side of likely the tax i mean nobody likes to tax people on the wrong nobody dies i don't care where you are but i mean it is the intent on the tax officials that if they simplify it they'll get their money maybe get more money but certainly get it on time more transparency everybody's more happy even though everyone hates taxes exactly and the leadership in texas mr asian has changed and they're really fully supporting the business with a simplification for this process so that is the state friend of business. becau

now i mean where the administration is in government administrations or cleaning themselves up i know that the the courts now it's harder and harder to bribe a judge when it comes to business affairs still happens but it's getting harder and harder because the law is beginning to really work and it's beginning to work for business yes i agree that situation is changing in corruption so. is always very clear we we deliver the message we now are no circumstances give people money to facilitate anything or to have compared to from the vantage but the other side of corruption a look at what what happens when i mean everybody one thing no i mean what if you say someone someone in some kind of administration that has power you know they have one of those badges and they say you know we're from this place you know and you say no we don't pay bribes i mean i'm not asking you for your personal experiences with me what does companies explain when they the the person that wants to write what is their reaction like you'll regret this or will come back or they give up their relent what happens i m

i call upon the obama administration administration to simulate the reagan -- president reagan's which provided across-the-board pressure as combined economic political diplomatic culture and military pressure with arms control negotiations, we might call today engagement that advance american interests. iranian regime is likewise right for comprehensive pressure, multilateral forms the multinational institutions need to be pushed to focus the deplorable human rights record. our broadcast into iran must be ramped up to iranian people know they are not alone. the president and secretary of state need to be consistently reminded of the impression the arabian people by the illegitimate iranian regime. the armed forces of the united states need to need to be deployed in with key partners to demonstrate our ability to respond overwhelmingly to aggression and provocation. those willing to take up arms against iran, iranian influence should have material support. the iranian of the illicit materials must be able to shadow the united states, pursuing them with vengeance. it is not too late to

it is a goal of this administration to open the doors, keep them open. i want to make sure that we will continue doing this. that is not only a tradition, this city is changing so much and we have to be on top of the game. we have to be engage with all of the voices in the city and make sure that they enjoy all of the benefits that the city has. this is not just by way of jobs but by opportunities. so many opportunities are derived from the great talent that we have in the leadership of the city. i take this opportunity to not only be serious but also an appreciation of what this means to everyone. to make sure that this is balanced and to make sure that it reflects all of our traditional values. then, just to make sure that this city works right. this is keeping it really simple. all of my conversations with the mayor, the supervisors, the department heads, how do we make this city work well and keep it working? we keep this simple but this is incredibly complicated when you know that every citizen would like input. many different opinions both internal

we kept it on the bush administration. let's keep it on the obama administration. this administration needs to get off its duff and understand the importance of family and justice and protecting us against a real terrorist. thank you. >> thank you, michael. >> my name is melanie nezer. my job is to explain to you why we are talking about this now. why are we here to talk about this now? first of all, it is a holiday season. we have spent too many holiday seasons in dealing with this problem. it is time the administration to fix it. i do see some people here from the administration, from the agencies, from capitol hill, for many organizations to have worked tirelessly to try to resolve these issues. for some reason, we cannot get this over the finish line. families are separated and it is another holiday season. the other thing is, it should not take years to decide that someone who is already in the u.s., who has already been given legal up -- legal status comment who has already determined to be a refugee by the u.s. government, who has already gone through more b

amending the administrative code to provide for the electronic distribution of documents. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, mr. president. i like to thank you, -- i would like to thank you, yourself. i believe this is pretty straightforward. if you calculate the amount of pages that were before us in the last land-use appeal that we had, or the agreement that came before us, times 11, times the distribution to the public, we exceeded 1 million pages of printed material, the paper. in a way that i believe we can be more cost-effective, more efficient, and stick to our laurels. it

to convince the court that the obama administration really does have some evidence of criminality and that they are not completely operating outside of the law that at least they are now pursuing sanctions within the sphere of the judicial system and then i think the other aspect of it is that one of the concerns that the obama administration has is that at the many government succeeds in detaining and finding and then detaining all aki they've essentially already said that because the law is a you many citizen he's also with us today and he has dual citizenship that the men he's don't intend to turn him over to the united states and so by criminally charging him and indicting him that i think they they think bolsters their hand to seek extradition from the him any government and demand that he be sent to the united states the reality is that they're still trying to kill him this is not in lieu of trying to kill these criminal charges just in addition to as they continue to search for him in order to drop a drone missile on asserted yeah that's what i love is they're like just in case

what's the obama administration going to say? one theory i heard was -- and this was from a knowledgeable source -- that the russians actually would like to move the bulk of their tactical nuclear weapons from the european theater to their southern border and their eastern border where they fear someday they may have to use these weapons against a potential invasion from china or from muslim states to their south. and that they might agree to a concession if the united states insisted that they move these weapons back from the european theater, they might be willing to do that. that's exactly the kind of concern that we have. the russians want to do that. they are prepared to move their missiles. they know they're going to have to do so for their own self-interest. they are waiting, however, until we say we would like to bring up this question of tactical nukes. they will say if you give us something on missile defense, we'll be happy to move them back from the european theater. that's the kind of thing we're looking at, mr. pres

plant it's higher than any other plan put forward by any administration democratic or republican that should issue a republicans on the hill so i think the administration has an extremely good case to make in the next few days to get the senate to approve the ok ambassador burns what's the if we keep mixing in why the republicans are against is a lot has been said since the last time you spoke so go ahead prioritize react go ahead well i will what what what what i would say is just very briefly and it's probably i think the one most important aspect of this agreement that hasn't been discussed today and that is the fact that this agreement is the cornerstone of what i believe has become a very productive relationship between president obama and president medvedev i think the fact that they were able to reach agreement on start which whether it go harkens back to the cold war or it doesn't it's still seen as very important to both sides national security establishments it's open the door to a very intense relationship between the two presidents it's led to agreements. on afghanistan it

he served administrations from linden johnson to barack obama.ack from private life to the world of washington to tackle one of president obama's thorniest problems, afghanistan. >> we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of afghanistan and pakistan. which is why i've appointed ambassador richard holbrooke -- >> holbrooke went to vietnam shortly after joining the foreign service in 1962. he worked on vietnam issues for president johnson, east asia for president carter, including china when relations with the u.s. were normalized. and for president clinton, he took on the bosnian war. his biggest diplomatic achievement may have been his most personal. >> i don't think there's ever been a negotiation any more difficult than this one. 48 hours with almost no sleep, people dying, incredible pressure. >> holbrooke, whose grandfather escaped hitler in nazi germany said the conflict brought the world modern day scenes of ethnic cleansing. he reflected on that in a 2008 advise to bosnia. >> i thought, i'm seeing a color remake of

so is thiscal administration.ll of us would have loved to have had an agreement of loved tactical nuclear weapons five and 10 years ago.clear w that was not possible.ars ago work oson n this, and this provs measurable reduction in the number of nuclear warheads and measurable reductions in the delivery vehicles for thoseissie warheads, bombers, missiles,ould submarines and so on. it would be unthinkable it seemo to me for our country duty sideo no, this is not the direction in which we want to move. as indicated earlier -- as ie indicated earlier on every occasion where we have debated the issue of arms control and arms reduction, understand it is our responsibility, it falls on the shoulders of this country, p dean united states, on every occasion where we have debated the issue of trying to reducehis the number of nuclear weapons or this planet and reduce the thret number of delivery vehicles and the threat from nuclear weaponsf we've done that exclusive of this new threat which now casts a shadow of everything

so for some regional administration has to take care for the locality administration. so this is mainly a guideline that has to support local administrations in their work. and why do local administrations need this? because there is a regional regulation that says that all our local authorities need to have a local mobility plan. i heard this morning about a problem like neighbors complaining when things have to be changed and the whole debate that is coming up then. but i think we have it similar because it's our local mayors who sometimes are hesitating to put into practice -- that's one of the reasons why those cycling routes sometimes get stuck, because you have a regional cycling route, but local authorities, we have 19 in brussels, local authorities do have to give permits for that. there is a lot of criticism on that and i heard my dutch colleague say one hour ago, you can get stuck because at local levels people don't like it, although your regional plan is to be so good. that's true. on the other hand, i think that it's a good democratic process to really to

and the arrangement was made by the bush administration. and s.t.a.r.t. 1's expiration with lower rates, it is not as crucial as a was during the cold war. for the united states to the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty will allow flexible modernization and operation of u.s. strategic forces while facilitating transparency regarding the development and deployment of russian strategic forces. let me comment on accounting rules. with regard to warhead counting, knew s.t.a.r.t. had the rules of the moscow treaty. each deployed missile or bomber was attributed a maximum number of weapons. for which it was always accounted. each launcher of a missile or weapon also countered regardless of whether it performed nuclear missions or contained missiles. this resulted in inaccurate accounts of warhead, missiles and launchers. under the moscow treaty there was never agreement on what constituted an operationally deploy strategic nuclear warhead. consequently the parties use their own methodology for counting which warheads under the treaty's limits. under new s.t.a

it was not instigated by the administration. in fact, the administration has countered that and made it clear that modernization is necessary as a matter of modernizing, in order to keep our arsenal viable. the second point i'd like to make to the senator, i hope the senator does not vote against this treaty because he thinks somehow this is a step to some irresponsible, slippery slide that takes us to -- quote -- " zero nuclear weapons" without all of the other things that very, very intelligent, thoughtful statesmen have talked about in the context of -- of less nuclear weapons. but i should point out to the senator, dr. henry kissinger, who has -- is an advocate for this concept not as something we're going to do tomorrow or in the next, you know, ten years perhaps, 20 years, 30 years, but as an organizing principle, as a way of beginning to think differently about how we resolve conflicts, because whatever you do that moves you towards a world of less nuclear weapons, because we have to get 67 votes here, clearly would build

that is what we were doing.cl >> lily prellezo what about thet clinton administration?>> did they not assist brothers to the rescue? >> brothers to the rescue never asked theke u.s. government fore help, monetary or otherwise. gud of course u.s. coast guard was rstrumental because they were the ones who would actually lift the people out of the rafts and save their lives but the clintot administration what happened after the exodus of 1994 was the publicity change and than that was no longer viable to ben rescuing, to be flying missions to rescue people that were just going to be returned to guantÁnamo or returned to cuba of. >> briefly the wet foot, dry foot policy. foot >> it means a cuban leaving cuba or to make it on a raft andaving touch dry land, he would be allowed to be processed through immigration that but if he was intercepted at sea, and first ty aid would return to guantÁnamo and now if they are found they will be returned to cuba. >> i want to say in the clinton administration what is instrumental, in 19962 of our w airplanases and i was flying onr flu and

granted my problem is this i do not think the administration has adequately made the case for the new improving relationship between united states and russia were on the verge of a historic agreement that would lead to russia entering the w t o the world trade organization i know for a fact that that would not have happened without a lot of behind the scenes support by the obama administration and that discussion between president obama and president medvedev and w t o started in the context of their discussions over start so what i think we're really talking about here is not an old cold war issue but process a new opportunity after all the expectations and disappointments in the u.s. russia relationship before a decade or more to really move this relationship to a win win situation rather than the kind of. contrarian problems that we've had in the past that's what's at stake here i mean time what do you think and then add one thing it's not just the republicans yes there are enemies of an improved u.s. russia relationship in the united states but the point also has to be made that t

the administration of george h.w. bush. nothing in the treaty bars the development and deployment of missile defense for countering those very real threats from the likes of iran and north korea, nor does the treaty give the russians any say over missile defense or any kind of veto over it. the fact that we and the russians remain at odds over missile defense is, to some degree, nothing new. it has not prevented overwhelming support for arms control agreements in the past, including this treaty's predecessor, the original start treaty. a more radical strand of criticism argues that our missile defense should target russian forces and should, in fact, seek to render russian strategic forces useless. i won't have much to say about this criticism. in reality, it's criticism of the entire foreign policy consensus of the united states that has prevailed across party lines, at least since the end of the cold war. secretary gates has spoken about the danger and the needless budget-busting expense of this perspective. so sett

i call upon the obama administration administration to simulate the reagan -- president reagan's which provided across-the-board pressure as combined economic political diplomatic culture and military pressure with arms control negotiations, we might call today engagement that advance american interests. iranian regime is likewise right for comprehensive pressure, multilateral forms the multinational institutions need to be pushed to focus the deplorable human rights record. our broadcast into iran must be ramped up to iranian people know they are not alone. the president and secretary of state need to be consistently reminded of the impression the arabian people by the illegitimate iranian regime. the armed forces of the united states need to need to be deployed in with key partners to demonstrate our ability to respond overwhelmingly to aggression and provocation. those willing to take up arms against iran, iranian influence should have material support. the iranian of the illicit materials must be able to shadow the united states, pursuing them with vengeance. it is not too late to

if you see a situation where people think that the bush administration went too far or the obama administration went too far, they are but the congress and the courts have ample authority to stop them if they want. the consequences for the country have been battered when those branches have -- at have beenbetter windows branch's work with the president. thank you very much. >> david cole has challenged executive power in cases he has argued before the court. he is likely to have a less sanguine view of the extreme deference to law and congress exhibited administrations. >> i can't say that i have learned never to disagree with john yew -- [laughter] i want to start by thanking judge callahan for the brilliant collective introduction of the panel. i am sure it was not lost on most of you. 90% of those accomplishments in that collective introduction were judge, general, diem, president starr's. i don't know why i am here. [laughter] that was just brilliant and i will be indebted to her for that. i will agree with -- i will agree with john this respect -- everybody on this panel would agree that p

we think the zoning administrator did an accurate job at the previous hearings. further, the issues of the easement and what was said before the not have a bearing on the requested variance. there was a lot said in the past about the owners could do this or that. there was a lot said. i do not have enough time here to go into that now. the main fact is that in terms of having a rehearing, we feel there is no new evidence. we respectfully request that you deny the request to have a rehearing. thank you. commissioner garcia: what is the owner intention as regards the easement? >> it has shifted. the owner intentions are to extend the street down at the bottom, which would automatically abandon the easement. commissioner garcia: that was my understanding. i am not saying my vote was based on a quid pro quo. but it did seem that representation had been made. you're stating that will be fulfilled. >> we are pursuing the extension of the street. we have actually received a letter of support from members of the open of directors. it is the first very good move we have a

we see the administration opposed this provision. it is clear the attorney- general still want to have the option for civilian trial on the table. host: "the washington post" notes that at least one democrat who is influential indicated he wanted this stricken from the final legislation. guest: his opposition to the provision is very important to know, being a senior member of the committee that will be working on the senate version of the funding language. i think there are many like senator leahy who have come in the past, been supportive of civilian trial, the use of civilian trowels as an effective means to combat terrorism, but also preserving the president and administration's prosecutorial authority to decide the most appropriate form for these cases. this would be an unprecedented restriction on the administration's ability to move forward with criminal cases in a particular forum. it is unusual for congress to step in and say you cannot try cases in a particular course, and prevent the administration from pursuing justice. s

both the bush administration and the obama administration at various points has sent convoys quietly to make this point to the pakistanis -- imagine what united states might have to do in the tribal areas if an attack like the times square bombing attacks was significantly more successful. think about doing that now for that moment came up. i think that is one very big question. the second question which no one really wants to take on in the midst of this mid-course review of pakistan strategy, is, of which country is strategically more important united states, afghanistan or pakistan? i think the question answers itself. it is clearly pakistan. that is a very difficult issue to take up. even the mere discussion of it makes it more difficult to work with the pakistanis. >> can i have one thing more? what david just said is extremely important but also important that it not be leading to a misperception. pakistan may be the most important country but what pakistan will do, " we can do with pakistan, depends a great deal on their perception and believe that we're corps to stay in afgha

i'm not representing the administration.m there to see if there's anything that i can do to cool things down and see where we go from here. >> but you wouldn't go if they said to you, governor richardson, don't go, this is a bad time, for you to go, nobody in the obama administration said, don't go? >> that's correct. six months ago they invited me. the north koreans did, and i asked the obama administration if they felt it was okay for me to go. i'm a private citizen. i don't have to get their approval. but i want them to sign off and i didn't go for six months. recently i told them i got this significant invitation from their chief nuclear negotiator to go and they signed off but as long as i said it was a private mission and that's what we're going to do. we're going to try to persuade them to cool down what they are doing, to see if there's a way that we can move forward on negotiation. >> reporter: let's bring in a doctor from stanford university and the direct for of the loss alamos laboratory, you were just there. and

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 when they tried to make their usual interrelationship between the defense and offense and say that if we develop missile defenses effective against them, then that gives them a legal and binding right to withdraw from the treaty. we did

so is this administration.ll of us would have loved to have an agreement on tactical nuclear weapons five or six years ago. but that was not the case. so now we work on this and this provides measurable reductions in the number of nuclear warheads and measurable reductions in the delivery vehicles for those warheads -- bombers, missiles, submarines, and so on. it would be unthinkable, it seems to me, for our country to decide, no, this is not the direction in which weement to move. -- in which we want to move. as indicated earlier, on every occasion when we have debated the issue of arms control and arms reduction, understanding it is our responsibility it falls on this country, the united states to assume the leadership -- on every occasion when we have debated the issue of trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons on this planet and reduce the number of delivery vehicles and the threat from nuclear weapons, we've done that exclusive of this new threat which now casts a shadow over everything that we talk

bush administration. to go back to francis biddle, ken starr told you that francis biddle counseled against the japanese internment. he lost. he said of f.d.r., i don't think the constitutional difficulty greatly troubled him. i don't think the constitutional difficulty has ever troubled a wartime president. that's the rest of biddle's memoir. truman was unrepen tant about the steel seizure. the court struck down truman's seizure of the steel mills to avert a stoppage of the production of steel that was necessary going to troops in battle in korea. the supreme court struck down that act saying it exceeded executive authority, it lacked legislative authority and they did so at a time when his approval ratings were hovering around 22%. it may have been perceived the court can stand up to a president that is less powerful. when the court smacked lincoln for suspending the writ of habeas corpus, it did so after the war. the court may only stand up to the president at a time when the president is weak. truman

then obviously there are some administrative costs with any fee structure that we put together. there would be application processing to cover fee collection, so cover the bus path development and distribution as well as management and oversight. so the bottom line is it is highly unlikely that we would be able to collect fees to cover the costs. if 62% of students qualify for free or reduced priced meals that leaves only 38% who are possibly fee paying. if a bus carries 42 students per roundtrip saying that a bus will operate around 2/3 full, using the district average, 16 of those students or 38%, will be fee paying. if that bus makes three roundtrips per day, 48 fee-paying students would be served. even if we charge $8 a day, that is going generate between $67,000 and $68,000 at maximum so it wouldn't cover the cost of the bus, much less the administrative costs of running that program. so, i have provided other ways to look a at it. can you go to the next slide? in a full recovery, to cover the costs of a bus, you need to generate $568 per day in fees. so i've got a chart he