it's an agreement. contracts between nations are treaties, agreements that require senate approval. that's what this amendment does. >> will the gentleman yield? >> if i may -- this sounds like something because we do a lot of commercial activity up in outer space. and what is it that brings to the mind of those who support this argument that this is just simply for military purposes that we operate in outer space? isn't it the fact that we operate commercial vehicles or commercial satellites along with other nations of the world? >> will the gentleman yield? >> if, in fact, we are doing so and i don't think it's questionable that that's a fact, but shouldn't we as a responsible nation -- we would not as the chinese did a couple of years ago without notice to anyone they fired off a missile and destroyed a satellite, one of their own satellites in outer space. and that is not something that is commercially reasonable. so who in congress is going to start a dialogue and put together a treaty or a code of conduct as i would call it? who in congress would undertake that responsibility?

the agreement has two main components. first, they agreed to cap their rate increases with the insurance companies that contract with them in years 133 and no more than the medical inflation rate plus 1.5% in year four through 10. as you see in this light, it has been about 4%. this portion of the agreement was already in place at the last hearing we had with you and has not changed. i will do a couple of explanatory points. this agreement does not mean, and i want to emphasize this, that the city is required to agree to wage increases at those levels. it just means that they may impose under this contract. the city retains all of the same ability to negotiate, as noted to negotiate below the cap. the best way to think of this provision is it adds another tool to the city arsenal, when we would not have had without the development agreement. i also want to point out that the negotiated cap to us is an appropriate level. we started talking to them using inflation as the cap, which is clearly the common- sense approach to th

agreement, which in that settlement and lease agreement. there is an early termination clause in the 2011 agreement. this is referred to the -- referred to as the early agreement termination the new early agreement option -- the new early termination option allows them to terminate prior to 2014 and the new one allows them to terminate prior to 2015. >> if they blow past the new termination, they can still pick up the second. >> exactly. but regardless, if this is approved, they will owe us $1 million this next fiscal year for the right to have the new early termination. brecht's the 2011 lease amendment has an early provision that allows -- >> the 2011 lease agreement has an early provision that allows that 49ers to leave in 2015. the 2011 lease agreement expires in 2016 with early termination in 2015, i believe. >> yes. >> and there were a number of continuation options. francesca is also here to answer any legal questions. there were a series of one-year auctions pass the time we were in the negotiations in 2011 -- options past the time

these workers are absolutely essential for these agreement -- these agreements are absolutely essential for workplace safety, for ensuring quality construction, and protecting the lives and rights of those men and women who perform extremely difficult on a regular basis. i'm reminded in toledo, ohio, we were replacing a major interstate bridge, the largest transportation project in ohio history, over $400 million. over several years. we knew we needed a project labor agreement to complete the job with as few accidents as possible. because we were replacing a lift bridge along one of the reason's most important interstate highway systems adjoining three states. we insisted, i work sod hard, that there be a project labor agreement for the construction of this complex skyway bridge over the largest river that go into the great lakes. i didn't want it to be like mac gnaw with the name os of all the dead -- like mackinaw with the names of all the dead workers who were responsible for building that bridge. we hoped and worked so hard to try to limit the danger to those men and women and we kn

none of that is in this agreement. >> ifill: does this mean that this agreement, brian katulis, this agreement is about what's not going to happen as opposed to what is going to happen? >> i actually think this is a very important agreement in sending a message, reassuring the afghans of enduring support at a time of transition. the u.s. is bringing its troops home. we have a plan to get down to 68,000 troops by the end of this year. they're going to reassess those levels, but i think it sends the signal and cuts through a lot of the debate here at home of whether we're staying or not. as seth said, it sends this message of enduring support for at least another ten years. now the devil is in the details of the financial commitments. and then how many troops will actually stay there in the longer term though. >> ifill: that's exactly the question. i'll ask you this and then seth as well, which is i always wonder about sending messages and whether the long-term commitment means anything more than those words. we don't have those numbers attached. >> the second thing that i think the ag

>>shepard: i got details on the partnership agreement you mentioned and strategic partnership agreement provides a framework for u.s. and afghanistan partnership after the transition and draw down of the u.s. troops. this would be during the timeframe between 2014 and the year 2024. the estimate is not firm. but it will be a very expensive process, in doubt. our relationship there will continue. >>reporter: that is going to be, obviously, the devil in the details as this unfolds. exactly what president obama is signing in terms of how dope that relationship, in temples of when american officials are telling us there will be continued support from 2014 to 2024. does that mean noncombat troops for a time period? does it mean u.s. aid still going there? we have to dig out more of the details but as you say, there is heavy pressure on president obama to pull out united states involvement sooner. and when we are talking about the 2014 to 2024 timeline we are not sure if president obama will be in office in 2014 and he still has an election. so there is a lot of the details to be worked out.

the agreement that they're signing tonight will be an agreement for post-2014. stand by for a moment. you see air force one that landed about an hour and a half or so ago at the bagram air field. the president is in the presidential palace right no with karzai. it's now after midnight in kabul. pick p nick payton walsh is in kabul. what do we expect, what are afghan officials and u.s. officials in the afghan capital telling us? >> it has been a blanket of complete secrecy, shattered i must say about six hours ago where became clear afghan media reporting the possibility of a presidential visit here by barack obama about that that was immediately quashed buyer same statements by u.s. officials and everybody afghan officials desperate to keep this this rare trip under a say of svail of se. initially he went to bagram to meet troops there and then on to the afghan presidential palace in the heart of kabul here. locals remarking on the silence that key extended over the city. lockdown in some areas. and a real sense that something was about to happen, but nobody wil

but just as a point of comparison with disposition and development agreement, under that former agreement, the event authority would have extended about $111 million to improve the waterfront both preand post match. here the port would spend $25 million is the estimate we're working with from proceeds repaid by the rents that the port will retain over the long term. under the former long-term agreement the port was going to give up $3.9 million in rents on an ongoing basis and by getting -- being able to retain those rents, we have added deck capacity as elaine forbes will explain in more detail. so our recommendations are to approve the project, that would allow you to approve the lease disposition agreement and authorize the port executiver to epter that ageement. following that approve the form of venue lease. if commission takes actions there are additional permitting steps that are required and contracting steps that are required both through the port and some of the permitting agencies. we expect we would be back in front of you to provide regular updates about what's happening over

a developer agreement that would cover all cpmc campuses. the planning code text in that amendment before you today were introduced by the mayor and the board hearing on april 10. at the st. luke's campus, the planning code text amendment would create the cesar chavez- valencia st. medical use sud. f.a.r. of 2.5 to 1. we would update sud map to show this new sud. cathedral, the text of minutes with creed the van ness medical use sub district. 9 to 1 at the hospital. 7.5 to 1 at the medical office building. it would update the sud map to show the news that district. at st. luke's and cathedral, and several general plan amendments proposed. covered on april 5. moving on to the conditional use authorization conditions before you today, at st. luke's, there's several conditional use authorizations required. to allow pdu, exceptions, off- street parking, and to allow a deviation from the bulk limits bid up at cathedral hill, there are several conditional use authorizations required, including those to allow medical center, to demolish five dwelli

the draft development agreement amendment does not propose to change that. rather, it addresses the need i just expressed to create additional options for those hospital based psychiatric services i just described, whether acute psychiatric services or another. the amended to limit agreement specifically allows for the innovation fund to support partnerships with the liberal health service providers to support community-based alternatives to inpatient psychiatric care that allows patients to receive services in the most appropriate and least restrictive setting. under this model, a community- based urgent-care center will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to accept patients who may be in need of high level services, such as medication support or counseling, but who do not need to be in a hospital to receive these services. the urgent care center, which currently partners with san francisco general hospital, is a good example of what we are envisioning. it was designed to assist san francisco general and other hospital emergency services by acces

it is an agreement to then negotiate more agreements. when there were whispers that the president was going to afghanistan earlier yesterday. you started seeing protests asking if he was going to spike the football. once it was clear what he was up to the response from republicans ranged from muted to outrate praise. lindsey graham. this is a day i have been looking forward to for over two years. the agreement sends a signal that we are not abandoning afghanistan. senator mccain. i am pleased that the president has travelled to afghanistan. i would urge the president to speak more directly with the people about the vital national security at stake. hawks on the right have criticized the president for not using his pulpit to sell the war announcing an on going commitment on the bin laden anniversary was the ultimate use in political capital. for the most part republicans praised the president. mitt romney had an interesting release. here is what he said. i am pleased that president obama has returned to afghanistan. our troops and the ame

and if that agreement is to be made, what sort of agreement would that be, which would be acceptable by pretty much all afghans. thank you. >> i wish i knew the answer to that, what the pakistanis are doing and the taliban. i can tell you from my speculation more looking at the situation. first of all, the partnership agreement does not have any specific issues of what would happen. it does commit the united states to regard major non-nato ally. that's a big word because of countries such as republic of korea and japan. that could change on how specifically this would look. the agreement does not have any specific issuings on the basings. one is those bases will not be used against others and so on. so we need to kind of be still in the negotiation process. but, yes, the idea is the united states will stay committed, as you're correct. everybody said the announcement of 2014 will say, look, we just got to wait it out and we have it. the question is, what kind of afghanistan -- okay, you have a presence where true international help, not just u.s. -- this is a nato agreement, maybe so

we will get to that when we get to the development agreement. the way that the current suggestion is for approaching mental health is that it to be included in the innovative program or innovative services, whatever it is called. and they are going to find that with millions of dollars. the way i read the process, it says that somebody has to apply for a grant in order to get the money. to have that come up with some kind of innovative program and apply for grants. but there are no goals and the innovative program that i can see currently that makes mental health any kind of goal, objective, or priority. >> we did not get to the goals or objectives, but is in the amended development agreement that you have had it specifically calls about the behavior health service that does, as i described earlier. the innovation fund will be a partnership between the department of public health, the city, and the san francisco foundation. the three of us together on grant making will develop of the goals and objectives that will be used in the distribution of

in this agreement, does address control or just availability? >> if it was only 90, then i believe there would be no change from the amended 2003. if it is more than 90, like the full 150 that was contemplated in the original parking agreement, i think that provision of that 150 parking spaces and that waterfront area would trigger other terms and the parking agreement, where it is possible the parking agreement will terminate on completion, and so the matter of control is something i think the parties would have to work through at that time. >> and what are the plans in terms of the temporary parking spaces during the time of construction? and also, if you can confirm, i remember reading that there are parking areas that are closed on saturday because there is less demand because the people not coming to office space, coming to work basically. is there any plans to work with those parking garages to potentially open up during the construction phase? >> supervisor, i think they planned for the exact -- the parking market is a very fluid market,

talk about this agreement and this formal, strategic partnership agreement, nick, that the presidentai. >> reporter: it's big on symbolic talk about their future partnership. it's big on talk of economic agreements and aid, how they want to be democraticlesnd commitments and the type of relationship they want to see po. at's when most nato troop will be gone from here. it doesn't address how much money will the unitestates be giving to afghanistan in the years ahead because that's ometsng congress has a distinct say in it and it doesn't address the former issue. what kind of military presence will america have here once the nato campaign is finally drawn down in 2014. we're really talking about a president here who a year ago talked about the tide of war receding, making his third trip here in his political career to this country ahead of an election campaign on the anniversary of the death of osama bin laden, perhaps for many americans, a reason to end the war in afghanistan. he was the reason he came here in the first place and he died a year ago so many people sitting at home seei

we think the agreement is good. we obviously would like to know the details. >> senator, you have been very outspoken, very critical of what the president did recently politicly with an ad boasting about getting osama bin laden and hitting mitt romney for it. do you think this trip is also part of his political campaign? >> no. i can't accuse the president of that. a lot of people both here in congress including senator graham and senator lieberman worked on this agreement. it is important that we spend the message to friends and enemies alike that the united states has a long-term commitment to afghanistan. >> so this is not spiking the football in the end zone as you said? >> i don't view it as that and i wish the president would explain more often to the american people why afghanistan and it's important that afghanistan not return to a base for attacks on the united states of america. >> that is one of the key reasons i think we are not hearing more criticism from republicans about this trip because we have hear

you heard what pj crowley said about the agreement. do you agree with the three goals you think were identified in that? and how important is the strategic interests of that agreement for the united states? >> i think clearly laying out a game plan to maintain and increase stability in afghanistan is a a strategic interest in the united states. secondly it's to tell the pakistanis that we are going to stay in the region. they are >>you just think there is no low they won't go to. oh, no. if al gore's watching today... i.q. will go way up. how are you ever going to solve the problem if you don't look at all of the pieces? >>tv and radio talk show host stephanie miller rounds out current's morning news block. >>you're welcome current tv audience for the visual candy. >>sharp tongue, quick whit and above all, politically direct. >>you just think there is no low they won't go to. oh, no. if al gore's watching today... putting boots on the ground and having two0105 -1 4844 5 pp0140 -1 ç1cppr15506Ñ 50 p you don't look at >>sharp tongue, quic

was voted on each of these agreements and for that matter every agreement since nafta while you cook on your map you can type in your zip code you don't need near the person's name and it pulls up the member all the trade votes and then you go and ask what was your vote about not they did the right thing and interesting lee more democrats voted against this trade agreement and vote against nafta the percentages are growing but a bunch of these tea party republicans who sad i'm against offshoring i'm for buy america buy america per curiam it is banned in these agreements right and these international tribunals that the us get submitted to to have our laws attacked republicans shouldn't like that it's a loss of sovereignty and it operates nine hundred thirty five franklin roosevelt passed a law called the buy america act which explicitly says that if the federal government is going to source anything that's going to buy anything they have to first look to an american supplier and they can and they have to have a waiver in order to buy it from a non american supplier and so you know dur

they're managed trade agreements. if they were free trade agreements, they would be a couple pages long, would get rid of all of our trade barriers, you get rid of your trade barriers. all our subsidies, their subsidies. these go on, as you know, for hundreds of pages because they are really special interest pieces of legislation. and a special interest that has played a very important role in shaping trade negotiations are intellectual property interest. entertainment industries and the drug companies particularly. and their concerns have been more to maximize the ranks that they get out of their drugs than maximizing innovation or maximizing the health of the world. so an example of particular concern goes well beyond issues of patent. it goes to issues like data exclusivity, which means that in other countries, they cannot use data, even when it's partly financed by the u.s. government to license generic drugs that would provide the basis -- you know, that are equivalent and that would enable poor people in their c

in a few minutes we will go over the agreements. first i would like to summarize the project for you. it is the construction of a new five-story, 80-bed full service acute care hospital. it will be built on the existing parking lot. the existing hospital will stay in operation until the new hospital is ready. it also includes a new five-story medical office building adjaceant to the hospital. at cathedral hill the project includes the construction of a new 555-bed, 265-foot tall hospital at the seattle of the closed cathedral hill hotel. across from that a 130-foot tall medical office building. construction of an underground tunnel connecting the two buildings. once the cathedral hill camp suscomplete, in about 2017, the acute care services at california and pacific campuses would be transferred to the new cathedral hill. lastly on dubose a new 46,000 square foot, four-story medical office clinic building housing a neuroscience constitute -- institute. that is a brief overview of the project itself. i am go to ask briefly the planni

what that size is when there is such an agreement entered into that within 60 days of the agreement being entered into the secretary of state has to notify the house and the senate where presumably the house and the senate for all of our powers whether appropriations powers. or authorization power to take appropriate action. now i do think the gentleman who offered the amendment is correct that there is a technical possibility here that the executive branch could bind the united states, at least for this 60-day period before this would happen. i guess i would ask anyone on the other side. mr. turner would know this. are there any examples where this administration has bound the united states to such an agreement and then complied with the 60-day notice that is in title one second 112 b. have they done that at all? since 2009, does anyone know? >> i do not know but one addition from our hearing. they expressly stated in our hearing that they intended not to seek senate approval for this. >> and i apologize for not being present here and i'm not in your subcommittee. i would have been an in

we were following the terms of the agreement. the last contested dealt with the monitoring assignments, that is part of the issue we have would be separate pay and labor systems. our time is tracked very accurately with regards to active assignments. we have people monitoring movement on a day-to-day basis. some people are working in active assignment capacity. the request of the audit was to pull data back from our cases. they do not categorized the employees in the same way. we are looking to be able to clearly identify that and be able to go backwards and extract the data. that is our brief presentation. supervisor farrell: colleagues? thank you very much. tonia, same question. go forward? it seems like the settlement does not exist in paper form, a bad record keeping. i am sure it is not a preferred practice, it is what it is. in terms of their -- how do feel about going forward? >> it will solve many issues that we are having in our payroll system as it relates to tracking and so forth. because we are decentralized. it will

i think when an agreement only calls for four rights -- 40 local hire jobs per year, that is not an agreement. that is kind of a joke, right? when a large entity agrees to invest only $2 million to support workforce development. that is not something to applaud. when an agreement does not take into account the job security of its existing employees, only a small select few are benefiting from this deal. an agreement that is beneficial should include local hire to at least 50% at all job levels. it should also include workforce development. an agreement that is beneficial would include protections to current employees. they will face possible job loss by allowing them to transfer to the new facility. san francisco is a city that others look to as a model. do not lead a lobar be set as a precedent. -- do not elect a local bar be such as the president. -- low bar be set as a precedent. >> i lives near st. luke's hospital. i want to ask you to look closely at the justification for the size of st. luke's hospital. it does not make any sense. the 80 beds -- it is inappropriate. for years, cpmc has

to make an agreement. what do you mean? >> well, you know, this -- according to the senior administration officials i spoke to this afternoon, there's going to be a year when they negotiate the money for the afghan national security forces and the number of troops on the group. and you know, some of that is conditions based. to get to the forces agreement which is a technical term for longer -- this is what's described as a nonbinding executive agreement. i don't think that really means very much in practice. it's not a treaty. >> more symbolic? >> it's -- but, you know, i don't want to discount the fact this an important milestone on a long process that's been going on for a while. i think this says something big about president obama. he's an anti-war president, came in on that ticket. he tripled the number of troops in afghanistan. now he's saying they're staying for another dozen years. he quadrupled the number of drone attacks, he intervened in libya very quickly. some people thought of him as a negot

partnership we'll give you five good reasons why you should be concerned about this international trade agreement that's being planned in secret. while american families tighten their belts in a tough economy the pentagon is a large and in charge and politicians are doing just about anything they keep it that way it's the pentagon versus the pork and this is one battle that won't take any prisoners. and the whole world might be watching the one percent but the department of homeland security is keeping an unusually close eye on the so-called ninety nine percent we'll tell you why the d.h. and local authorities are spying on the occupy movement. it's wednesday may sixteenth five pm in washington d.c. i'm abby martin you're watching r.t. if you heard there was an international trade agreement between nine countries being drafted behind closed doors would you want to know the details well it's exactly what's happening it's called the trans-pacific partnership and it's a trade agreement between chile australia brunei new zealand peru singapore malaysia vietnam and the united states and what better wa

corporate rights well the whole agreement would be yeah. so. just in a nutshell it seems like a lot of different industries have a lot invested in this and we'll definitely be keeping an eye on this and keep the battle right here on mt and be following. progress thank you so much myra was myra sutton international intellectual property coordinator at e f f still ahead on r t to some they're heroes to others villains the computer hacking group anonymous has gotten a lot of attention lately and no one seems to know exactly who this group is and what it stands for we'll tell you what we know about the group and ask if this is the most powerful online organization in the world. r t is the state run english speaking russian channel it's kind of like. russia today has an extremely confrontational stance when it comes to us. we just put a picture of me when i was like nine years old only true. confession . and. he was kind of a yesterday. i'm very of the world with its place. that just burns your eyes right right i mean it's like a derivative of actua

what is your take on this agreement?s it something that in fact is going to help the president politically? >> well, let's separate those two things for a moment. this is a very important agreement. it's something that we sought in iraq and could not get. it's something we have done after every war. we still have military forces in japan, in europe in south korea, because after the war ends, there is still work to do. so this, you know, creates a path for the next 10 years. there will be military forces still in afghanistan, i think doing three things: continuing to help train afghanistan security forces. they will be in the lead. they will need to improve capability tease. they will attack the safe havens that still exist in the frontier borders of pakistan. third, if there is a successful political negotiation between the karzai government and the taliban, there will need to be an honest broker there to make sure all live up to the political agreement. it's very important long-term missions and long-term purposes in th

since then we negotiated a negotiated agreement with them. sounds a little awkward but we -- this lays out the terms of the parameter that's we will come -- be able to come forward hopefully sooner versus later with the development agreement like you just approved for the america's cup to go forward and do. this is fairly simple business terms. it's a nine-month agroment. there's $75,000 negotiation fee. there's two extension periods possible with a fee of $50,000 each. there's a set of benchmarks that would come forward and what this is a set of ground rules for how we work together. we hope to be before you this summer with the development concept and proposal so we can actually talk substance rather than negotiating agreement process. with that, i ask for your approval of this item and ability to move forward to make this happen. thank you. >> so moved. >> second. >> is there any public comment? comments or questions from the commissioners? i just want to know when we came up with the $75,000, how did you come up with that number? >> we lo