i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply. >> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the material that the committee is seeking and that

citizens advisory committee report. this is an information item. >> good morning mr. -- good morning, mr. chairman. i was appointed to the committee last year. i have been asked by our new chairman davis to make a report on four important items that are before your committee and that have been reviewed by the citizens of 53 committee. those items are items 5, 7 -- 5, 6, and 7. but i will make my comments quickly on five, six, and seven to say the cac voted 7-2 to recommend your committee approved a fiscal year 2011-2012 clean air program projects. we did set for our workers to reasons without approval of the tdm management public proprietorship, which is referred to under item eight as the shuttle program. primarily for procedural reasons. we wanted to consider the funding at the same time that we've reviewed the sar. it was discussed separately on our agenda, as it is yours. during our conversation, two members opposed. the item with regard to the shuttle, public-private partnership, was ultimately passed and is before

from be committees process -- from committee process. both were held in contempt of congress, but the attorney general ordered the united states attorney not to present the citation to a grand jury as is required by the congressional contempt statute. by resolution of this house, the committee filed a civil enforcement action. the department of justice contested the validity of the authorizing resolution and defended the notion of absolute immunity. the court upheld the validity of the authorizing resolution, finding that the longstanding supreme court recognition of implied power to investigate and to compel production of information including, included an implied cause of action to redress the institutional injury caused by the deprivation of the information that was being sought. it also rejected out of hand the absolute immunity claim of the president. the miers case, i believe, is a dog that hasn't barked. it is a two-edged sword. while it recognizes the house's right to seek judicial assistance of constitutional-based right to secu

want to thank the committee for its work. supervisor campos: thank you. i do not want to repeat a lot of what has been said. i do think that we had a lot more qualified candidates than we had spots for and perhaps any of us would have made the choices differently. certainly, there are people that i think -- that i would like to see on this task force. i think that in the end, the three people that came out of the committee as a whole are a good representation of san francisco, so i would be supporting that the choice today. i do hope, though, that the mayor does have the opportunity to fill the three spots that he has with a couple of members of the lgbt community, and i think there are many qualified candidates who already have gone through the process, and i would hope that he looks at them as he is considering his options. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this motion is approved and these of what's are made. congratulations. 47.

the committee will be in order. committee will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah, mr. bishop, rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: fellow members of the house, if you would turn your attention to the back rail there, you will see the pages who have served us this past semester. [applause] the chair: thank you. mr. bishop: you're supposed to applaud after i speak. the chair: the committee will be in order. the gentleman from utah deserves to be heard. mr. bishop: thank you. these are the kids who still get up in the middle of the night at times i thought was only a rumor so they could go to an accredited high school at the library of congress and complete a full day of studies before they're here at 10:00 to serve us. they have learned the process of government by watching us. which is a scary thought. [laughter] mr. bishop: but in the process of doing that, they've gained a healthy respect for our system and they have learned lessons that

one, my commitment to san francisco and the committee. two, the opportunity that has afforded folks to go through lsf, which is about leadership development and growing committee trusties, folks who not only live and work in this city but also take ownership and pride and ensuring that we have a great place to live, work, and drive. i have been on the board since 2003. supervisor kim: supervisor farrell capito supervisor farrell: -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: have to apply for any of the commission's report? >> i have not. supervisor farrell: any particular reason in this besides interest in san francisco? >> that is correct. 10 years ago, it was not a big deal to me at the time. supervisor elsbernd: one question -- sorry, you get to be the first person to be asked this. some others may be asked this. you have but a very good resume. it sells well in the public would like it. are you going to run for office in the next 10 years? [laughter] and the me be very blunt, i do not want to see people on this committee who are going t

i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply. >> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the material that the committee is seeking and that

, committees and subcommittees. i don't see why giving it to a joint committee, committee or subcommittee can't be done voluntarily. >> anyone else might comment on that? >> yes. there are some nearly limited grounds in which the justice department can't on its own provide document. grand jury documents they have to have a court order for. income tax returns, there's some very narrow specifications about what can be provided. outside of those narrow grounds, the answer is they can provide voluntarily. >> okay. with that i would yield back. >> thank you. you know, earlier there was discussion about the u.s. attorneys? , the firing of the u.s. attorneys. i sat on judiciary here, so i remember it very well. i want to get into that for just a moment. the administration claimed that have absolute right to hire and fire u.s. attorneys, and that was, in fact, confirmed. and yet we went forward with investigation because we were trying to get to the bottom of whether or not one the more of those individuals was fired for re

because i was on the commerce committee, it's one of the four exclusive committees. a member can't serve on any other community serving congress or to henry said no problem, we'll do a trade with the democrats. two days later, gender 11, henry heise in the two-page letter, telling of the reasons he wants me to be on the committee. the speaker per se. i get the funk on january 20. you've been approved coming or going in the judiciary committee. the next morning as i was drinking a cup of coffee, and open up the "washington post" and there it is, the monica lewinsky story is all over the front page. and i was off to the races. and so, what happened after that, within hours they get back to my office and there were 20 tv cameras out there and i'm just surrounded. all these people are shoving microphones in my face and telling me, you've just been put on this committee to impeach the president. very former prosecutor and judge. i was standing there smiling fantasy or to to work on copyright trademarks. they say you're a liar. that's why iwaki to the timetable to show it

welcome to the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor kim, and supervisor chiu. our clerk is victor young. do we have announcements? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you present any documents to the committee, please provide a copy to the clerk for inclusion to the file. items acted upon today will be on the board of supervisors agenda on july 12, 2011, unless otherwise stated. supervisor chu: thank you very much. ed sfgtv, we have michael and bill, thank you for your coverage. mr. clerk, would you call items one through 11, please? >> item number one, consolidated budget an annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenditures for the city and county of san francisco for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012, and fiscal years ending -- june 30, 2012 and june 30, 2013 for the airport, port commission, and public utilities commission. item two. annual salary ordered its enumerated positions in the annual budget and appropriate ordinance for fisc

the chair: the committee will be in order. the committee will be in order. take your conversations off the floor, please. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> madam chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lance: the language of section 740 is in the energy and commerce committee, the committee which i serve, and we consider such language. the house should know and the food and drug administration should know that we agree with the spirit of the language and the goal of the members of the appropriations committee who supported its inclusion in the bill. after speaking with the sponsors of the language we know that together we share a concern about what is happening at the f.d.a. we believe that policy decisions at the f.d.a. should be based on science and not on any irrelevant consideration. as much as officials at the f.d.a. claim that their decisions are based on sound science, their recent actions give us pause. for example, two months ago chairman upton along with chair

oversight committee. please neat while the proposed budget necessary states necessary funds resources for these core service area, we have recognized the city's financial constraints and included cost savings where savings would not negatively impact the public these services. now to the details. thank you sfgtv. i've included a six-slide power point in the online packet. in february you approved the department's budget. at that time it was $10.78 million. what was before the committee submitted by the mayor was slightly more than approved in february based upon cost associated with final benefits and the true cost of work orders charged to us by other departments. the budget now totals $10.83 million. this chart provides an overview of the budget proposal by division. as shown the proposed budget does increase the general fund allocation by $300,000 or by 3%. it makes up the majority of this increase which is more clearly shown on the next slide which is our projected salary costs. the committee is aware

the board of supervisors committees do this on a regular basis when there is an eir appeal pending. supervisor mirkarimi: in a layman's terms, it would -- there would be a 10-day notification process? >> the process that the city has set up under chapter 31 -- it is up to any city or county to set up whatever process they choose. we provided for a 20-day time after the planning commission certifies and eir for anyone who was involved in the process to file an appeal with the board of supervisors. so until such an appeal is actually filed, the city and all its departments and commissions may proceed with the approval actions related to that project. however, once an appeal is filed, that is when eight freeze occurs on taking an action that would constitute an approval action or considering an approval, which would be in the board's case, for a committee, forward a recommendation of approval to the full board of supervisors. supervisor mar: this area of law is so fuzzy and subjective. i recall yesterday at the land use committee -- i know other members of the planning department were

we propose to work with the committee to determine if our committee needs further enhancements. i think the committee for your commitment to our nation's veterans and for the opportunity to testify today. we will be happy to work with your staff to provide assistance to any of these bills. i will be happy to respond to any questions. >> thank you very much. mr. mclean, let me begin the questions with you. i know says the administration proposed several provisions in the hiring heroes act, the goal is to make sure our men and women in uniform capitalize on their service. some people have invested a great deal of money in training for these men and women as they get to service and we want to make sure that we get a benefit from that and that they get a benefit from that. today we have an unemployment rate of 27% among our veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan. i think it is most telling to remind all of us that the army along, just the army, is paying out nearly $1 billion in unemployment benefits every year. that is $1 billion because these men and women are out of work.

>> i'm pleased to appear today before the committee to discuss legislation pending in this committee aimed at helping our transitioning service members and returning service members transitioning back to civilian life. i would like to comment on two bills. s 951, the hero's act of 2011, section 11 would require mandatory participation in the transition of social assistance programs. we believe all transitioning service members who plan to enter civilian employment would benefit from attending the deal will implement workshop but the fer to the department of defense on whether the program should be mandatory for all transitioning service members. dol supports the concept of the cap follow-up contained in section seven that believes the metrics of the redesigned employment workshop will meet the requirement unnecessary. as part of the redesign, a comprehensive follow-up program would be implemented to track purchase and success in entering the workforce. we believe this program may provide the information the committee desires and we would like to work with the committee to provide add

we structure our organization with committees. we have the executive /organization committee that provides oversight of all staff and contracts. they provide basic overview. -- a basic overview of the organization. the public rights of way committee provides oversight of our service contract with san francisco clean city. they provide all of the cleaning services for the district. this committee also works on the safety and training projects. -- and greening projects. and we work on promoting the identity of the neighborhood and the organization. the way our budget is structured, we received assessments from 605 properties. it is actually more property than that now, but the fiscal years we are reporting on, this is the number of properties that were assessed. our annual budget is around $1 million. we received that revenue in two installments. the property owners are build with their property tax bills -- are billed with their property tax bills. the funds we receive are applied to that fiscal year. we received another installmen

night the chairman of the rules committee admonished the chairman the judiciary committee committee, mr. smith of texas, that he should not be reporting out legislation that violates house rules. now, rather than giving the judiciary committee a get-out-of-jail-free card with the $717 million technical waiver, we should send this bill back to the judiciary committee so that they can fix up their own mess rather than having the house or the rules committee to do it. now, making a motion to send the bill back to the judiciary committee is not in order because i looked into that. the only way we can get this legislation fixed up without a $717 million technical waiver of cut-go rules is to support the motion that the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is making and i go across the aisle by agreeing that he is on the right track on this, and i hope that he is supported. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california res

the committee is not in order. will all members please take their conversations outside the chamber? the gentleman may continue. mr. upton: as the -- again, i want to commend mr. gardner from colorado and mr. whitfield from kentucky for moving this legislation along. the purpose of this bill is real simple. it is to streamline the permit process, to allow for more domestic production for oil and gas. in this country we consume about 19 million barrels a day of oil and we produce about seven million. and the exploration on the outer continental shelf has been delayed for years because of a broken bureaucracy. the regional e.p.a., they're going to approve exploration air permits only to have them challenged again by e.p.a.'s environmental appeals board. it has been a never-ending circuit of appeals, reapplications and it has stalled the exploration for nearly five years. so what does that mean? it means that these resources, which perhaps contained as much as 28 billion -- yep, that's billion barrels of oil and 122 t

i would like you to differentiate for this committee. >> first of all, we're not saying this committee should not investigate. to the contrary. we recognize the legitimate oversight interests and we are cooperating with the committee as it pursues this. we're not in any way saying don't do this. >> but if i could interrupt for a minute, there's a de facto, if you don't provide what's being asked, or you provide what we see here, all those redacted sheets, whether or not you agree we have legitimate oversight, the fact that you're not complying with our requests is a de facto well, you're not going to comply. >> we have provided almost 2,000 documents in different forms. the redacted documents that the chairman showed, it's a little bit of a red herring, i say with respect, because those were multi-subject documents, i'm informed, and where the subject wasn't subject, that portion of the memo wasn't responsive to the subpoena, it was blacked out because we're obviously not producing nonresponsive material. we are not redacting heavily the material that the committee is seeking and that

once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the rules committee. unfortunately the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill. i want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our front line federal homeland security operations. but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. the inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill. but i and other members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, the subcommittee chairman, rise? mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like

is this committee ready to act on this item? supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am sympathetic to what director katz has said. i think animal welfare has been taking a number of hits over the past few years. i would be more than happy to be the dissenting voice on this recommendation. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. one question for the department -- is the department in agreement with the other cuts? >> madam chair, yes, we are. supervisor chu: yes, i would be supportive of supervisor mirkarimi's position. perhaps we can make a motion or take action on the $24,900 in budget closeouts and accept all the recommendations from the budget analyst except the $10,000 for the animal control section? can we do that without objection? ok, we can do that without objection. thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: the department of technology. >> good morning, supervisors. john walton, director of the department of technology. i am here to give you an update on our discussions with the budget analysts off

i meant to ask this in committee. is that practice going to be followed in terms of how the two are divided? supervisor chiu: is there any committee staff representing the office of contract administration? i think our clerk has the answer. >> actually -- >> i am with the office of contract administration. supervisor, it is designated every six months. the examiner would do it for six months, and the chronicle would do it for the other six months. >> so that is the practice that would be followed here >> i would add on to that we are keeping on with the examiner for a full calendar year. supervisor chiu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i wanted to get claire if iation on that. i was contacted by the examiner, and there were concerns that the chronicle would be getting it for this entire year, and the examiner would potentially get it the entire following year. the question was that if the board votes on this every june, we could technically change it back to the chronicle for the last six months. it is a technical que

my name is supervisor john avalos, the chair of the committee. joined to my right by supervisor eric mar, to my left, sean elsbernd. madam court, please share with us your announcements -- clerk, please share with us your announcements. >> if you wish to submit a copy of your presentation to the committee, please submit a copy. >> please call item one. >> item 1. resolution authorizing the office of treasurer-tax collector to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $240,000 from the earned assets resource network for kindergarten to college program participant incentive funds. supervisor avalos: great. >> good morning. i am with the treasurer-tax office. this is an accept and expend for the initial pilot years of the program. one of them is the dollar per dollar match funds up to $100, for a famine that saves up to $100. we will provide a dollar match for that. the second is the $100 saved steady incentive. when a family has direct posit, we are going to provide another $100 to that account to provide an incentive. this provides the funding in

i yield those to this committee. the only message i hope to convey is that through this process some resolve may be brought to the families of brian terry. that we may truly honor their service and mourn their sacrifice. i hope your inquiry and those of senator grassley's office and the inspector general will account for many others who have already been or will be affected by this operation. furthermore, i'm grateful to have the opportunity to appear here today, alongside the terry family so i may personally express to them my sorrow and my regret. simply put, during this operation referred to as fast and furious, we the atf, failed to fulfill one of our most fundamental obligation, to care take the public trust, to keep guns out of criminals. when i became involved in this operation, i was briefed the local phoenix firearms dealers provided them with a list of individuals who was purchasing guns for others. of these individuals several members have connections with mexican drug cartels. those identified straw purch

it is likely to move out of committee, so i wanted to share my thoughts. i think what happened tuesday afternoon is exactly what this charter amendment is necessary. three ballot measures were placed on the ballot at the very last minute, but four members of the board of supervisors. and i think in the last 48 hours, we have seen that those ballot measures were written rather hastily. there is all kinds of unintended consequences. this charter amendment fixes that problem. it frankly gives a bit of a lifeline to those four supervisors into a major, if they ever do something like this again. so i think what has happened in the last week is perfect evidence for the necessity of this charter amendment, and i would like to congratulate supervisor wiener with moving forward with this good government reform. supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> sue hester. i did not speak at the last meeting because i wanted to read the language. i think this is an amendment that is in search of a reason. with the four superv

on february 2, a hearing was held at the budget and finance committee. placed on committee reserves, funds in the amount of $51,054, pending additional details and the temporary relocation. based on a new quote and estimates for media services, the revised costs or between $34,515 for poorer meetings -- for four meetings. san francisco government tv slide, please. >> can we have the overhead display, please? thank you. >> the budget and finance committee directed the clerk of the board to temporarily relocate to room 416. if room 416 proves to be an adequate, then the north light south courts would be utilized and the cost of the relocation would be $34,515 that would be incurred. although the north and white south courts are not available on all of the meeting dates, and the event occurs on august 9, and for the regularly scheduled meetings of september 6 and october 4, room 416 we need to be used at no additional costs. therefore, the clerk of the board is requesting the committee to release the funds from reserve of $34,515. i am available to answer a

our staff on the rules committee and the homeland security committee have found more than 1,400. so we're in the embarrassing position of having to answer the question if somebody were to say here's this enormously important position of the senate, this constitutional duty to advise and consent, how many presidential appointments are subject to advise and consent? the answer would be we don't know. the congressional research service says 1,200. our staffs say 1,410. and another indication that we're not giving them the sufficient attention we should, at least the ones we should, is the number of roll call votes on presidential appointments requiring advise and consent. you would think that if a, that if a presidential appointment were important enough to require a full f.b.i. check, which is very expensive and very time-consuming, and takes several months, and then a nomination by the president and all the vetting that goes with that, and then the work of the white house personnel office and all the time that is spent with that, and then it comes to the senate and goes to our com

item number 23. >> this is from the land use and economic committee without recommendation. the one block portion of mason street between lombard and columbus for purposes of the north beach public library and joe dimaggio playground master plan. president chiu: can we take this item? without objection, this item is finally passed. item number 24. >> to bernadette loans from restricted sources and to modify the reporting requirements for elected officials receiving gifts of travel. president chiu: can take this item? this item is finally passed. item 25. >> item 25 is to restrictions -- restructure the parking in the south of market and mission bay districts. supervisor kim: this is legislation that establishes maximum parking limits in the south of market. the intent of this legislation is to have better consistency with adjacent districts and to require non-residential and non hotel parking in this south of market mixed used districts downtown and maintain a fee structure which discourages long-term parking. this ordinance will finally harmonize requirements across the sou

>> good morning, and welcome to the continuing meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am carmen chu, with chiu, mirkarimi, and supervisor kim is chairing the rules committee. victor young is the clerk. we have a substitute. do we hvave announcements? >> all people add -- attending this meeting are required to turn off telephones and pagers, and if you have a document for this meeting -- >> just a comment to members of the public, we have been making comments every day that we have had budget committee hearings, and a budget hearing will begin on friday, and those who are interested in the testing, public, will be on friday. we will finish with all public comment on friday. the public comment is on friday. can you call item, item one to 12. >> the annual salary ordnance for the fiscal year ending june 12, 2013 for the airports and ports commission, item number two, this is for the fiscal year ending june 2012. the airports and ports commission and public utilities commission, item three, and this can be done by private contractor, with the security services, item 4 fo

once in last week's appropriation committee markup and yesterday in the rules committee. unfortunately the majority refused and passed up the opportunity to get us to a point where both parties might be able to support this bill. i want to close by reiterating my appreciation for the chairman's efforts, for the staff's efforts to work with us on many, many issues in this bill, and for their valiant efforts to sustain our front line federal homeland security operations. but the bill does fall short of our obligations in critical aspects. the inadequate allocation makes it difficult to repair this bill. but i and other members will be offering amendments to move it in a positive direction. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama, the subcommittee chairman, rise? mr. aderholt: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like

committee, and the emergency preparedness committee. i have been asked to be vice chairman of that committee for the california building association. i've also been asked to be a board member for the county building officials for california. i'm asking for your permission or approval to do this under the charter requirements. most of the committee meetings are held via teleconference. there's a general meeting held once a year were all the committees meet in conference and that is a one day to two-day conference in business meeting. vice president mar: any other questions or comments from the commissioners? >> is this an annual request? >> the appointments are annual appointments, yes. commissioner lee: who requests these appointments for you? is it a state official that invites you to these committees? >> usually at the conference is you are asked by various members of the committee if you would be willing to serve on the committee. vice president mar: an action item. commissioner walker: i think we need public comment. vice president

i was not on the committee 10 years ago, but i served a member of the board to was on the committee 10 years ago, and that was shared by my -- shared by my then-employer. those three were in the same boat when they each have 3 folks that wanted. each server -- each supervisor put forward one named. collectively, those three names were submitted to the full board, and the full board approved. i recall supervisor sandoval had one name, the other two supervisors had to other names. we can move forward. of is that sound to my colleagues? -- how does that sound to my colleagues? supervisor kim: in terms of my personal vote, i am more than happy to send this out of committee that way, but i mean not be able to support all three that come out of this committee. i am not sure who each member will pick. i am willing to do this to get this out of the rules committee. >supervisor farrell: i spoken about mr. mcdonnell before, and both of you mentioned him. we played for the same grammar school baseball coach. i, too, would be very happy to support -- this would be a great non-political point of vi