. >> commissioner more >> i like to ask mr. welch one more time. mr. welch,would you will one more time if this commission would clearly listen to you adding more specificity to what's in front of us of how it would be different relative to talking about [inaudible] >> right. it's an amazing situation that the mayors and supervisor tang, the authors of the original affordable housing density bonus program chose to modify their program to include a 100% affordable version first did this is not a retreat. this is-we've reached an agreement on a way to proceed immediately on a density bonus program. in large measure, it came out of the hearings held by the commission, which unfortunately, commissioner johnson, you were not present at. you were especially not present at the long commission hearing that discussed neighborhood ami's that came from this commission. it did not come from this side. it came from this commission. to try to deal with staff's recommendation for a amendment to produce and ami, a special ami program only for bayview-hunters point. whi

mr. welch: i have no further speakers, yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. pitts: i urge support for this bipartisan bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 5210 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the payable -- is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? >> at this point i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4854 as amended to amend the investigation. company act of 1940, to expand the venture capital funds. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. clip h.r. 4854, a bill to amend the investment company act of 1940 to expand investor for qualified venture capital funds from exemption from the definition of

mr. welch: thank you, mr. speaker. vermont's g.m.o. labeling law, act 120, was signed into law in 2014 after years of hearing testimony and debate. it was the first in the nation g.m.o. labeling law, but americans should understand, 64 nations around the world have g.m.o. labeling. that law was passed by a vote of 28-2 in the vermont senate, and 114-30 in the house. it garnered support from republicans and democrats. the reason it did is labeling is simply giving consumers information that they can use in deciding whether they want to buy the particular product or not. g.m.o. labeling tells consumers whether the product contains g.m.o.'s. some of the opponents oppose this largely because they think consumers aren't entitled to that information. even though they believe that g.m.o.'s are tremendous. but if they want to brag about g.m.o.'s, why don't they want to label g.m.o. products so consumers can make their own decisions? now what we have is a situation where the legislation we're going to be considering says that we will put a labe

. >> so the issue i have mr. welchhat is like saying an apartment returning for $4 is 15 what value you'll get from the same square footage. >> you convinced me on the bag of potato chips i don't believe that any of the units if they would we wouldn't have this argument, huh? none of the affordable units will be at affordable prices there all be market-rate housing no one is saying we don't need the inclusionary zoning those units will be so small they'll go for $3.09 and square feet unit they're all masters and your analogy of a president 3 ounce of potato chips being a buck 25 is the case they would make a lot of money if you guys want to look at it for closely fine i say that is as a policy should be consistent with what your staff proposed citywide which was if we increase the section 4 one 5 inclusionary we don't reduce the total 0 amount we add that and still have the additional bonus that we're ging for the density on top of why not the same policy applied to this part of world you've increased real density >> t

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, is recognized for two minutes. mr. h: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, little background on this bill. this started in vermont where there was a strong citizen movement to have the right to know what was in their food. it was not a battle about the science of g.m.o.'s or about whether it was healthy or not. it was really based on the proposition that for a consumer who wishes to know what is in their food, whether it's a number of calories or whether it's g.m.o. produced, they had a right to know. it's as simple as that. the irony here is that the pushback has been from folks who are advocating the benefits of g.m.o.'s and if they're so great -- and i'm not disputing what some of their benefits may be -- why not brag about it by putting it on the label? why hide it? . it doesn't make sense. in vermont we had a bipartisan vote in the senate 28-2, and strong bipartisan vote in the house that was based upon the right of vermonters who wanted to know whether there were

recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. you, director comey. the prosecutor has really awesome power, the power to prosecute is the power to destroy and it has to be used with restraint. you obviously know that. you're being asked to, you have had to exercise that responsibility in the context of a very contested presidential campaign, enormous political pressure. you had to do it once before and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004 when the question was, whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. that's a tough call. because america was insecure. the president was asserting his authority as commander-in-chief, to take an action that was intended to protect the american people. but you and others in the justice department felt that, whatever that justification was, the constitution came first, and you were going to defend it. as

mr. welch: i thank the speaker. we have common ground on the republican and democratic side of the aisle. there is a problem of gun violence, innocent people, children in newtown, workers in san bernardino, worshipers in charleston, and five very brave police officers in dallas protecting the right of citizens to protest all have been killed. we got to do something. we know that. we have a disagreement about what, but should we have a disagreement that we not even debate what's the right response as a policy to protect innocent lives from future gun violence? that's the question. we can debate the second amendment. we can protect gun owner rights, but we can't hide from the responsibility that we chose to accept when we ran for office and asked people to entrust us with their vote in this congress that we won't even discuss, we couldn't debate, we won't have a committee hearing, we won't have a bill on the floor. that's what's really unacceptable. you know what, we have a disagreement, put the bills on the floor, we

chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. the power to prosecute is the power to destroy. and it has to be used with restraint. you obviously flow that. you're being asked to -- you had to exercise that responsibility in the context of the very contested presidential campaign, enormous political pressure. you had to do it once before. and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004, when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. that's a tough call, because america was insecure. the president was asserting his authority as commander in chief to take an action that was intended to protect the american people, but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was, the constitution came first and you were going to defend it. as i understand it, you were on your way home and had to divert yo

chair will recognize his friend from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. a prosecutor has really awesome power. the power to prosecute is the power to destroy and it has to be used with restraint. you obviously know that ch. you have had to exercise that responsibility in a political campaign with enormous pressure. you had to do that once before. i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004, when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated constitutional rights. that's a tough call because america was insecure, the president was asserting his authority as commander-in-chief to taken a action that was intended to protect the american people but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was the constitution came first and you were going to defend it. and as i understand it, you were on your way home and had to divert

lujan, and mr. welch that will make it easier for the american people to figure out who is trying to influence their votes through campaign ads. in today's political reality of nonstop campaigning, our system continues to fail the american people by allowing special interests and shah go -- and shadow groups to flood our airwaves with anonymous ads with no true disclosure whatsoever. section 317 of the communications act of 1934 requires broadcasters to disclose the true identity of political ad sponsors on air during the ad. the f.c.c. currently relies on an outdated, 1979 staff interpretation of this law that does not account for the dramatic changes in our campaign system that have taken place other the last six years. this has resulted in a major loophole in which special interests and wealthy donors can anonymously spend limitless sums of money to influence the outcomes of our elections. and to be honest, when an ad disclaimer says paid for americans for kittens and puppies or paid for by americans f

chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. the prosecutor has really awesome power. the power to prosecute is the power to destroy. and it has to be used with restraint. you obviously flow that. you're being asked to -- you had to exercise that responsibility in the context of the very contested presidential campaign, enormous political pressure. you had to do it once before. and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004, when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. that's a tough call, because america was insecure. the president was asserting his authority as commander in chief to take an action that was intended to protect the american people, but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was, the constitution came first and you were going to defend it

mr. welch. >> thank you very much, chairman, thank you, director comey.he prosecutor has really awesome power. the power to prosecute is the prosecute to destroy, and it has views with restraint. you obviously know that. you're being asked to -- you have had to exercise that responsibility in the context of a very contested presidential campaign, enormous political pressure. you've had to do it once before. and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004 when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue, despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. that's a tough call because america was insecure, the president was asserting his authority as commander-in-chief to take an action that was intended to protect the american people. but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was, the constitution came first, and you were going to defend it. as i understand it, yo

>> thank you, mr. welch. yes. as you know, we have the programs that we have for addressing that issue in rural america are extensive, and we should not be coming out with a rule that unfairly targets. there is the reality that there needs to be a competitive environment and you have to be dealing with how do you incentivize that competition? >> okay. thank you. and mr. pai, i'll ask you, too, on 5g, again, it's similar to what i was talking to chairman wheeler about. it's a different information. you're not going to have as many of the pipes and wires. there continues to be challenges in rural america. at the very beginning of establishing rules that are going to be absolutely essential to the build-out of 5g, there has to be integrated into it the challenges in rural, hilly america, whether it's appalachia with mr. mckinley or rural vermont for me. and can you comment on what steps can be taken in order to treat rural america as a first-class citizen? >> thanks for the question, congressman. i take this seriousl

mr. welch: so we've got this situation where in the senate bill that we're now considering there's an acknowledgement that there should be a label. but it contains a label that's impossible to read. so if there is an acknowledgement about the right of a consumer to have access to the information, why not give them the information in plain and simple english? we don't have to do dumb end arounds in order to give consumers the information they are seeking. and that's the essence of the opposition to this bill. make it simple, keep it simple. let people know what it is they are buying so they can make the decision. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota reserves. gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. speaker. my good friend just spoke, he is my friend, not the common my good friend nonsense we typically say. his arguments would be a bit more forceful if the wisdom of the vermont legis

chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you, director comey. the prosecutor has really awesome power. the power to prosecute is the power to destroy. and it has to be used with restraint. you obviously know that. you're being asked to -- you have had to exercise that responsibility in the context of a very contested presidential campaign. enormous political pressure. you had to do it once before. and i go back to that evening of march 10, 2004, when the question was whether a surveillance program authorized after 9/11 by president bush was going to continue despite the fact that the justice department had come to an independent legal conclusion that it actually violated our constitutional rights. that's a tough call. because america was insecure. the president was asserting his authority as commander in chief to take an action that was intended to protect the american people, but you and others in the justice department felt that whatever that justification was, the constitution came first and you were going to defend

that wonderful patriot joseph welch who got up in mccarthy's grill and said have you no decency at long last have you no decency and this mr. khan who came out and attacked trump and trump's indecent response to that is amazing. we've seen conservative commentators and called donald trump a moral pigomy. >> this may have far-reaching feblts effects. that said, you mentioned details. i want to get to the unemployment rate in your state. it's been rising steadily. it's higher than the national average. this is under a democratic president. a democratic governor so how do you and clinton convince voters voting democrat is the better choice? who can you tell them? >> independent studies have come out and i'm sure you've seen them that contrast the number of new jobs. what will happen with employment depending if trump and clinton get elected and something like 10.5 million new jobs will come into the economy during a clinton presidency according to independent economists where trump could cost 3 million jobs almost immediately for his lack of economic policies and forsight. >> all right. i'll let that be the last word. good to

mr. khan didn't go that far as to embrace here. >> no i do think this is a moment that will be remembered. it is almost a moment like using your word decency. when joe welch said to joe mccarthy have you no decency? >> you have a powerful story told by a man and the candidate is able to somehow look at the wife and why didn't she say anything? i had a soldier in combat at the same time. and i don't know what if i would be able to do. how you can assume that that kind of temperamental quality is going to be able to understand other people's points of view, i think he stood as the symbol of pride for muslim americans. maybe everything's topsy-turvy this year but i agree with david. this is going make a difference. >> trump talked about temperament just last week. let me play a clip. >> i think i have the best temperament, or certainly one of the best temperaments of anybody that's ever run for the office of president. ever. because i have a winning temperament. i know how to win. because my whole life i've been winning. >> you wanted to respond. >> one final point. this wasn't just a comment about mr. khan. his campaign took off after san bernardino when he