the one difference, but it should have no impact, is the mou provides for depute physician -- deputization. that is important on a practical level because it gives those officers the authority to exercise federal powers. if what we are saying is they can do their jobs under local powers, under local standards, if what we're saying is they can and we want them and they can be effective, as we all want them to protect us from terrorism, by exercising san francisco powers, they don't need the deput ization. they said it is a huge win for combating terror giving the portland officers the same security clearance, the same level, the same access to information they need to do their job to keep us safe. the technical difference is they would not be deputized. i do not believe what you would be giving up, unless there are things going on that nobody knows about that they are not supposed to be doing. i am not suggesting that is the case. it seems it is the perfect win- win. the way to exercise it is notify them your during the transition period you have 60 days to talk about it and fix it. >> than

the technical difference is they would not be deputized. i do not believe what you would be giving up, unless there are things going on that nobody knows about that they are not supposed to be doing. i am not suggesting that is the case. it seems it is the perfect win- win. the way to exercise it is notify them your during the transition period you have 60 days to talk about it and fix it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> man, president? -- may i, president? >> thank you, commission president. i think i owe it to the community to first make a comment to say that it was public hysteria that caused all these jttf and surveillance in the community. i believe that we have all the good intentions in the world to solve the problem. it is actually regrettable that the special agents and fbi are not in the room today and we can ask them directly the questions. a lot of the answers seem to be how they will treat the mou's, or resolutions, or whatever we move forward with. i have a question for director sparks. on what the commission role has got to be

i am wondering if a resolution -- with that preclude deputization? >> the concept is something that the federal government provides to local entities. if you think about this, the police commission could pass a resolution saying we are going to notify that we are doing the transition, we are opting out of the mou in 60 days, here are the standards we want to apply, something like the 2002 mou, but the police commission does not have the authority to grant federal deputization. you can ask the federal government if they would be willing to do that outside of the mou context. typically, the federal government wants the mou for that. the practical effect i think would be nil because deputization is so they can exercise federal power. you don't need them to do that. you want them to exercise local power. does that answer your question? >> if i may, just keep in mind, the resolution in portland was a city council resolution. it was not a resolution of a civilian oversight body. it was a resolution of the city council of portland. obviously, different powe

the one difference, but it should have no impact, is the mou provides for depute physician -- deputization. that is important on a practical level because it gives those officers the authority to exercise federal powers. if what we are saying is they can do their jobs under local powers, under local standards,

what i have learned from my experience in virginia with the movement toward deputizing local law enforcement so they have the ability to enforce federal law is that there is a perforated profound loss of trust. people who need to call 911 will not pick up the phone if they are being abused, it very victim of a violent crime, whatever that crime may be. i would like to support the resolution put forth by the asian law caucus and aclu as a solution that is representing a sensible level of independence and collaboration between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement. thank you. >> good evening. my name is michael and i'm the president of the national lawyers guild in the san francisco bay area. we are a human rights legal organization made up of lawyers and other illegal workers with nearly 1000 members here in the bay and thousands of members across the country. our members know it is important to maintain constitutional protections in the bill of rights, the california right to privacy, and locally, the department general order 8.10. there's a reason we have these protections. ther

commission, the board of supervisors, and the police commission ensure that all officers, including those deputized, follow and comply with local and state privacy laws, including the sfpd's general order, which provides guidelines for officers to ensure the protection of first amendment rights in their investigation. soon afterwards, on march 1, supervisor mirkarimi introduced a resolution at the board of supervisors and encouraged relevant agencies to consider recommendations detailed in the report. the following month, the board of supervisors voted to endorse the report. about this time, the memorandums of understanding came to light and raised some additional concerns and questions, as identified by the chief and police commission chair mazzucco. questions were asked and the dialogue commenced. i look at tonight by no means as the end of a discussion. i think the dialogue has to continue. i think it will always continue, particularly in san francisco. the way a city like this can succeed and folks can work together to celebrity -- collaborative lee is a testament to the people who work here wh

it is sort of like they have deputized the banks. the banks have become sort of like police agency. banks are expected to know what is in the bank secrecy afnlgt they are spoac expected to know thousands of pageof regulations. if you don't report everybody, if you don't report these transactions, we'll fine you, put new jail or we'll put you out of business. that is a problem. it is a real problem. that's what's come of this. and i think we need to have procedural protections. if at this point there is a request from the senator from i will toil yield for a a question or for a comment, i would be happy to, if it is about the patriot act. okay. the amendments that i will -- the amendments that i will be proposing will be about two thirntion and we will have votes on them. we've been given the time to debate, which i'm glad we fought for. we'll basically be given a virtually insurmountable huddle. this will be maybe the first time in recent history i remember seeing this, but they will move to table my motions. in order for me to disweet the tabling motions to reconsider i will have t

it is sort of like they have deputized the banks. the banks have become sort of ike police agency. the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 250, the nays are 153, the motion is adopted and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to 2 u.s.c. 1928-a an thed orer of the house of january 5, 2011, the chair announces the speaker's appointment of the following member of the house to the nato parliament -- parliamentary assembly. the clerk: mr. larson -- mr. larson of connecticut. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: mr. owens of new york after 2:30 p.m. today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection the request is granted. the chair is -- the house will be in order. the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests, as soon as the well is clear. for what purpose does the gentleman from kohl seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous con sent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. the house will suspend.

it isav sort of like they have deputized the banks. that banks havef now become sort of like police agencies.ice that banks are expected to knowa what is in the bank secrecy acte they are expected to know thousands of pages ofecte regulations but do you know what they tell your bank? eve if you don't report everybody, if you don't report theseansacto transactions, we wnsill find you and put you in jail or we wills. put you out of business. that is a problem. it is a real problem that has what has become of this. i think we need to have procedural protections. is at this point there was a que request from the senator ofi w illinois to yield for a questiot over a comment, i would be happy to if it is about the patriot act. okay.e the amendments that i will -- the amendments that i will be proposing will be about two a things and we will have votes on them. tim we have been given the time to debate, which i am glad we fought for. we we will basicallyfo be given a virtually insurmountable hurdle. this will be the first time in i recent his

it is sort of like they have deputized the banks. the banks have become sort of like police agency. banks are expected to know what is in the bank secrecy afnlgt they are spoac expected to know thousands of pages of regulations. if you don't report everybody, if you don't report these transactions, we'll fine you, put new jail or we'll put you out of business. that is a problem. it is a real problem. that's what's come of this. and i think we need to have procedural protections. if at this point there is a request from the senator from i will toil yield for a a question or for a comment, i would be happy to, if it is about the patriot act. okay. the amendments that i will -- the amendments that i will be proposing will be about two thirntion and we will have votes on them. we've been given the time to debate, which i'm glad we fought for. we'll basically be given a virtually insurmountable huddle. this will be maybe the first time in recent history i remember seeing this, but they will move to table my motions. in order for me to disweet the tabling motions to reconsider i will have