mr. mcdonnell: we are on 6 now. so, tenderloin. >> we look at district consultants now? where are we? mr. mcdonnell: we are on district 6. this is the consultants lists list association. all of those will come off. we will now refer to ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- rec

mr. mcdonnell: ok. >> have population deviations between 1% and 5% of the statistical mean. these deviations were necessary to keep recognize neighborhoods intact in those districts and surrounding areas. >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> i can believe -- delete. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. alonso: we did miss one thing for section 4. on district 9, we did put it north of the park in district 9. mr. mcdonnell: that is a point of fact. >> you're talking about district considerations. >> it is in the 11 write-up. are we putting them in twice? >> across all of them, we had -- >> my point is there is a bunch of redundancy. everything should show up in five. if it is stated once, the point is captured. are you satisfied -- >> it even says mclaren park south. it would make sense for the reader that mclaren park north would be included in the section. mr. mcdonnell: ok. sure. >> the web would resolve that is to put the text in the district where it ended up. that is just the way i would do it. mr. mcdonne

mr. ross. mr. ross votes no. mr. ginta. mr. kelly. >> no mr. kelly votes no. mr. comings. >> yes. >> mr. cummings votes aye. mr. towns. miss la loney votes aye. mr. kucinich. mr. teareny. >> aye. mr. clay. mr. lynch? >> aye. >> mr. lynch votes aye. mr. connelly. >> aye. >> mr. quigley votes aye. mr. davis votes aye. >> mr. welsh. >> aye. >> mr. murphy? miss spear. >> miss spaer votes aye. >> mr. kucinich. >> you're not recorded. >> i vote aye. >> mr. kucinich votes aye. you are not, sir. >> mr. burton votes no. >> mr. mckenry. >> votes no. >> mr. mchenry votes no. >> anyone else seek recognition. >> votes aye. >> mr. murphy votes aye. >> the clerk will report. on that vote, mr. chairman, there are 14 ayes, 23 nos. >> the amendment is not agreed to. we now call the roll on the lynch amendment. mr. i. no. >> mr. mica votes no. mr. plats votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. mr. mchenry votes no. mr. jordan votes no. mr. chaffetz. >> no. mr. chaffetz votes no. mr. mack votes no. mr. wahlberg. mr. wahlberg votes no. mr. langford votes no. mr. move votes no. mr. g

mr. upton: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass s. 3187 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 3187, an act to amend the food, drug and cosmetic act to extend the user fee frams for prescription drugs and medical devices, to establish user fee programs for generic drugs and biosimilars and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i want to thank mr. waxman, chairman harkin, senator ens eand

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: i am going to say yes, and real quick, it was a pleasure working with all of you, and hopefully i never have to work with you in this capacity again. [laughter] mr. alonso: but in the end, we pretty much brought the best out of the city as we could. thank you. >> i vote in support of the map. i also really want to thank everybody for working together on this, and it has been a pleasure to work with everybody. i personally feel like i learned a great deal about the city, which is what i will take the most value from a personal level forever, really. i want to thank, in that regard, the staff, the consultants, the district attorneys that have worked with us. they have been a tremendous resource to us. i also think everybody in the community. i am amazed summon people have spent so much time, whether in our meetings or submitting it public comment or facebook, or what have you, it has been a very rich and critical source of information for all of us. i admire the dedication of ev

mr. pastor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, the world sometimes leads us down strange and troubling paths. and the fact that we are gathered today swearing in a new member of congress into the most deliberative body in the world is a tribute to our former colleague, gabby giffords. a tribute to the people of arizona. a tribute to our strong and fruitful democracy that has continually endured high,ard and challenging times. and a tribute to our new colleague, ron barber. so it is with great pride and renewed zeal for the strength of the american people and our system of governing that i introduce our newest colleague, congressman ron barber. i have gotten to know ron over the last months and there is no one that will work harder to make sure that the people of the eighth district are treated fairly, with dignity and with honor. ron and his wife, nancy, have dedicated their lives to southern arizona. they run

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification. district 8. >> i would combine diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: you would combine? >> just diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing. >> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8. >> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving the

mr. price: mr. chairman, i'm privileged to yield two minutes to the outstanding ranking member of the authorizing committee, mr. thompson. the chair: the gentleman from mississippi is recognized for two minutes. mr. thompson: thank you very much, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from north carolina for allowing me the time. i have a number of thoughts on the underlying bill before us today that i'd like to talk about the twicc program. the authorizing committee on a to tisan basis improved help the twicc holders from being forced by t.s.a. to pay for new identification cards beginning in october of this year given the program is not fully implemented and the department has not even issued a rule for biometric readers. the twicc program is focused on protecting the maritime transportation facilities and vessels by requiring maritime workers and other workers who need unescorted access to secure port facilities to obtain a biometric identityification card. after initial delays, -- identification

mr. price: mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this amendment which would negate the recent rule that would prevent certain immediate relatives of u.s. citizens to apply for a provential unlawful presence waiver while still in the u.s. applications for the unlawful presence waiver could take months or even years to adjudicate. this change in processing, this new rule would permit u.s. citizens to remain ue -- united with their loved one and ensure that the u.s. citizen is not subjected to the harm, that is prolonged separation, that the waiver was meant to prevent. and to be clear, a pending or approved provential waiver will not provide interim benefits such as employment authorization. it will not provide lawful status. it will not stop the accrual of unlawful presence. it will not provide protection from removal. what it would do is eliminate the catch 22 faced by many american fami

mr. king: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 5843. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 5843, a bill to amend the homeland security act of 2002 to permit use of certain grant funds for training conducted in conjunction with a national laboratory or research facility . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from new york, mr. king, and the gentleman from mississippi, mr. thompson, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. king: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include any extraneous material on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, it is ordered. mr. king: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: mr. speaker, this bill, introduced by mr. lungren, is a sim

mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman and i would say to the gentleman the conferees continue to work in a bicameral nature. the discussions are proceeding between chairman mica, chairman boxer, and as the gentleman knows, i have said before we are desirous of seeing a bill done as the gentleman said to afford more certainty to the folks who are relying on the funding of our nation's transportation program, and we would certainly think this would be a huge benefit to producing a bill prior to the expiration of the program next week, but knowing full well none of us, most of us don't want to see any kind of shutdown in the funding that we would be prepared in any way to make sure that does not happen. but the intention is to allow these conferees to continue to do their work and hopefully we'll have a bill to vote on next week. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information. i hope the gentleman's correct. my concern and the concern on this side continues to be the positi

mr. poe: mr. i rise to celebrate the life of a friend and someone who changed the lives of victims throughout the nation. suzanne appeared in my court years ago as one of the first prosecutor-based victim she went on to start the texas crime victims clearing-house, the first of its kind anywhere anywhere in the united states. in recognition for her incredible work, she was tapped as the crime victims education officer, influencing the state organizations and her leadership on the board of the national organization of victim assistance. suzanne's-[ñ?ñ? accomplishments far reaching, touching lives in texas and throughout our nation. our crime victim wrote, suzanne feels everyone is important and needed in the fight to improve the assistance for crime victims. i have never heard her say it's not my job. in fact, she has never been shy about poking her nose into things and offering assistance. her enthusiasm and dedication is boundless. because of suzanne mcdaniel and her life. i yield back the balanc

mr. mcdonnell: that is. ms. lam: will -- mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations' currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes. >> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report. maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's? everyone take a moment to read this suggestion. >> the question you're going to call is all or nothing? mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. mr. pilpel: -- mr. schreiber: no. ms. mondejar: the question is to include it all or not? um -- yes. ms. lam: no. ms. melara: no, because most of it is already included in the report and some of the things that were not, i think we did not vote on them. mr. leigh: i am going to say yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell

mr. reid: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding lack of receipt of the papers with respect to the conference report to accompany h.r. 4348, at 12:55 p.m. today the senate proceed to a series of stacked votes, the time until then be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees and any points of order in order to the conference be budget points of order, that points of order relative to rule 28 or rule 28, paragraph 9, availability. if a rule 28 scope of conference point of order, rule 28 availability point of order is made against the conference report, an applicable motion to waive is made, the senate proceed to vote on the motion to waive in the order they were raised. if the motions to waive are successful, the senate proceed to vote on the adoption of the conference report. the adoption of the conference report be subject to a 60-affirmative vote threshold, there be two minutes equally divided prior to each vote, all after the first vote be ten minutes vot

mr. barrett is eager to make a point. >> i think if this committee is interested in protecting localism and if you're interested in having your local station cover the wildfires in fort collins, the auto hopper and that technology would be damaging to local business model and you will lose local station's ability to provide the coverage that's important to you and your district. >> that's why i'm saying i think for the local broadcasters, i'm sympathetic to the business model, but we need to balance that, plus the consumers wanting the choice. it's not dish that wants to have that choice. it's the consumer. so i think we'll have to work that out. thank you very much, mr. chairman. gentle lady's time has expired and miss black burn is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, i have a couple of questions that i want to get to today, but i do thank all of you for your patience and for your diligence in continuing to work on this issue. since you're the only female on the panel to

mr. mr. leigh, mr. alonso. [reading names] who did i leave out? ok. ok, phase two, and i am not as supportive of this, but i am thinking about this on the west side, north of four. select certain blocks, so starting at 19th and lincoln /crossover. north of there. south of their headed west. yes? yes? keep going. and let's try that for a moment, and then we can talk about it. these are the areas just inside the park on the south, and it seems to me that this is in an interest, and this does not include the polo field. not even south lake. there you go. rock and roll. >> mr. pilpel, this would be moving from district 1 to four. >> correct. >> miss tidwell, ms. mondejar, and members? >> i do not think is splitting apart in three different districts -- >> i have less concern. this is more of an impact in connection. and the need for the involvement of the supervisor. >> i am not opposed to having its supervisors. i think it makes this very neighborly. >> ms. melara? >> no. after hearing public testimony, i am against it. >> mr. leigh? >> also know. what i

mr. hastings: mr. chairman, the legislation that we are debating and considering today is a clear all of the above plan to increst american energy production, to lower gasoline prices and reduce our dependence on unstable foreign energy. but more than anything else, mr. chairman, this is a bill about creating jobs. the domestic energy and jobs act creates good-paying permanent jobs that will put people back to work and help grow our economy. the only thing that the obama administration has been more hostile to than american job creation, mr. chairman, is american energy production. but frankly, that shouldn't surprise anyone because the two do go hand in hand. president obama talks -- likes to talk about an all of the above energy plan, but in reality it is a nothing from america energy plan. this administration has consistently said no to new american energy production while forcing hard-working american taxpayers to spend over $1 million a minute on foreign energy. president obama doesn't want to dri

slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, -- mr. speaker and my colleagues, with every decade that passes, the middle class has faced higher and higher prices at the pump. meanwhile the world's five biggest oil companies have recorded lot of -- have recorded record profits year after year. between 2001 and 2011, the five biggest oil companies made more than $1 trillion in profit. despite these rorled profits, the majority -- record profits, the majority continues to put the wishes of big oil before the needs of the middle class. instead of balancing our nation's budget by closing tax loopholes on big oil, they have repeatedly told the middle class that they should sacrifice the programs on which they rely to live. twice the majority has passed the ryan budget which would end medicare as america knows it. and in its place seniors, and picture this for your mother or your most elderly relative, each place they would be given a health care voucher and sent into the marketplace on their own to find health care on their own. >> mr. speak

mr. polis: mr. speaker, at a time when millions of americans are still out of work, here's yet another bill on the house floor that does nothing to create jobs or get our economy back on track. this house has already passed repeals of the affordable care act several times, and here we have another bill that takes three bills and run lumps them together with a controversial payment mechanism that's a huge tax increase on the middle class and drives congress further from consensus and sound governance. again we are spending another legislative day repealing various parts of the affordable care act that the president said he would veto with no opportunity for members of either party to offer amendments or substitute. instead of seeking a bipartisan agreement on reducing health care costs or doing anything to further the repeal of the medical device tax, instead the republicans have made it impossible for many to support this bill by combining a number of unrelated bills with a huge middle class tax inc

mr. clay: mr. speaker, as a member of the oversight committee, i know that the gunwalking operations conducted by the a.t.f. under both the previous and current administrations were absolutely wrong. but the leadership of this house is focused on shameful election-year political posturing instead of the real issue. the justice department long ago ended the practice of allowing these guns to walk across the border, putting communities in mexico at great risk, but the same people who have relentlessly pursued a baseless partisan attack on attorney general holder and the president have ignored the desperate pleas of the mexican government. to strengthen american gun laws and curb trafficking that gave rise to the strategy in the first place. but focusing in on the real issue would take time away from them playing politics with the oversight authority. those on the other side of the aisle claim to be concerned about powerful assault weapons crossing the border into mexico illegally. but how can they be

mr. scott: mr.aker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on h.r. 5882. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 679 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 5882. the chair appoints the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. bass, to preside over the committee of the whole. . the chair: the house is the in committee of the whole house on the constitution for consideration of h.r. 5882 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, and the gentleman from california, mr. honda, each will control 30 minutes. the c

mr. lt -- mr.ltmire: i would like to thank my friend, congressman poe, for his strong leadership on this issue and for working with me on the critical importance of expanded mobile communications along the southern border. i had the opportunity to visit the district of our former colleague, gabrielle giffords, in southwest arizona where i met with customs and border patrol agents, examined construction of the border fence and spoke with ranchers and residents who live and work in the remote areas along the u.s.-mexico border. in rural areas along that border, cell phone service is virtually nonexistent and where service does exist, it's often unreliable. some ranchers even have to resort to communicating through the use of two-way radios. the lack of cell phone service presents an obvious safety issue for ranchers, as my friend congressman poe outlined, and it's a safety issue for residents and the national guard troops who patrol that protected area. if a rancher feels threatened, he cannot curren

>> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three, no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line,

mr. boustany: mr. chairman, i want to thank the chairman of the subcommittee and the chairman of the full committee for working with me to try to rectify a problem that the harbor maintenance trust fund and the big-time short fall we've got in dredging funds going forward. our top 60 ports in the country are not being dredged to their authorized specifications and this is hurting commerce, it's inhibiting our ability to export, it's creating all kinds of problems. it's a jobs bill, a jobs bill, if we can get these ports and waterways dredged adequately. it's at a crisis level. for instance, the mississippi river, for every foot of draft we lose, it's $1 million per ship per day lost in economic activity. now, the harbor mant nance tax generates $1.3 billion to $1.6 billion a year, but a little over half of the being used for the appropriate purpose. the rest is being put into other accounts. this is not fair to those who pay this tax, which in effect is a user fee, it was designed as a user fee and so

mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 56, line 24, be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move the committee now do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. all in favor say aye. all those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 5325 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5325 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings toda

mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 2254. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from vermont, mr. sanders, proposes amendment numbered 2254. mr. sanders: i ask that further reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: mr. president, this is a noncontroversial amendment which, according to the c.b.o., has zero cost. it is supported by the national wildlife federation, the american forest foundation, the biomass thermal energy council and the trust for public land. this amendment would simply allow under the community wood energy program a new category of small grants to be created which would provide seed capital for biomass -- the presiding officer: order in the senate, please. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: a new category of small grants be created which would provide seed capital for biomass cooperatives through grants of up to

mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: mr. speaker, i know that what i am about to say may be seen as here see by -- hearsay by many. if we take a step back and look at the big picture, setting aside demagoguery and knee jerk reactions, we see engagement with the worldwide marketplace is a positive thing for our economy and our shared quest to create good american jobs. being globally engaged takes many forms. it includes exporting our goods overseas. it includes imports. it includes complex supply chains that allow us to maximize comparative advantage and productivity on a global scale. it demands innovation, creativity and adaptability. this is all part of the dynamic worldwide marketplace and it does not constitute a zero-some game. if u.s. manufacture can lower cost by importing some of their raw materials, increasing their competitiveness and hiring more u.s. workers as a result, our job market imp

mr. clay: mr. speaker, as a member of the oversight mmittee, i know that the gunwalking operations conducted by the a.t.f. under both the previous and current administrations were absolutely wrong. but the leadership of this house is focused on shameful election-year political posturing instead of the real issue. the justice department long ago ended the practice of allowing these guns to walk across the border, putting communities in mexico at great risk, but the same people who have relentlessly pursued a baseless partisan attack on attorney general holder and the president have ignored the desperate pleas of the mexican government. to strengthen american gun laws and curb trafficking that gave rise to the strategy in the first place. but focusg in on the real issue would take time away from them playing politics with the oversight authority. those on the other side of the aisle claim to be concerned about powerful assault weapons crossing the border into mexico illegally. but how can they be com

mr. alonso? >> i second that thought, yes. chairman mcdonnell: ok. that's it. for both the reasons that mrs. melara indicated, which is we made decisions with forethought in mind and with all considerations and the unfortunate reality as we have discussed throughout almost every one of our meetings is that no matter what decision we make, someone will disagree, and they will present a compelling case for changing it. unless we want to meet past april 14, i would suggest that unless there is a compelling case, a new compelling case with new information, then i would not be in favor of making these changes, to shift decisions we just made. it would be different if we hadn't just made these decisions with full task force deliberation. on 6-3, we will not do that. ms. tidwell, let's go to the st. luke. >> i need an upgrade. chairman mcdonnell: by that clock, we will take a break for ms. tidwell, and we will res chairman mcdonnell: we will resume now our mapping discussion. ms. tidwell, are you prepar

mr. -- mr. johnson: m.l. 4018 appropriately expands the scope of this act to better assist our public safety officers and their families. the psob program has been an important means of supporting our public safety officers since 1976, when the authorizing legislation was enacted. initially, the program provided death benefits for certain officers but it has been expanded, it has since been expanded to apply to a wide range of those who protect us to now include federal, state and local police officers, firefighters, public rescue squads, ambulance crews and chaplains of those agencies. the psob program currently provides death benefits in the norm of a one-time financial payment to eligible survivors of public safety officers whose deaths are the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty. the program also provides assistance financially to help pay higher education costs for the spouses and children of public safety officers from whom hsob death or disabilit

mr. pierce? >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. alvarez, if we'll look at derivative trading and we're going to prioritize the risk that these major firms face, would that particular activity be in the middle or at the top? is that a scary, risky thing or kind of not very risky? what priority should we be looking at when we consider derivative trades? >> i'm not sure what priority congress wants to -- >> i'm saying you. you're in charge. we simply oversee. you are in charge of risk. that's what you say. >> i think from our perspective we're taking two high priority approaches. we think it's important for firms to have good risk management -- >> my question is not that. my question is derivative trading itself, is it high risk? >> it can be. >> so it can be high risk item. that's all i'm trying to establish. >> mr. pierce, allow the witness to answer the question. you are stepping on his answer. >> i have five minutes and if he's going to skew off to the side -- >> he's trying to answer your question. >> my question isn't what they'

mr. chairman, is this is a program that was supposed to create jobs right away. and it looks like it hasn't done a single -- hasn't created a single job in your particular circumstance. mr. crane, i understand there's 5,000 folks that work for your company, nrg, and i think that the report that i read said that the total amount of loan guarantees that y'all and your partners have on those three projects are roughly $5.2 billion. i congratulate you on employing 5,000 people, but i hearken back to ms. de rugy's comment about the ratio to the jobs and the amount in the equation, you know, i'm a simple country lawyer, but i can handle the math. i do 5,000 into $5 billion and i get $1 million a job. am i doing the math right on that one? >> well, first of all, i should clarify, maybe it was a flight of rhetoric. that was 5,000 people that work at nrg, full-time employees. the three projects you're talking about, and maybe you'll like this number more, is that it roughly employs 4,000 people di

both mr. melson and mr. hoover told committee staff that gun walking violated agency doctrine, that they did not approve of it and that they were not aware that atf agents in phoenix were using the tactic in fast and furious. because they did not know about the use of gun walking in operation fast and furious, they never raised it up the chain of command to senior justice officials. after reviewing over 12,000 pages of documents, and interviewing two dozen witnesses, and holding three hearings on this matter, the committee has obtained no evidence that the attorney general or any other high level justice department political appointees authorize, condoned or approved in any way, shape or form gun walking. we can all agree that the tactics employed in fast and furious and the three prior gun walking operations in prior administrations that occurred under the former administration were absolutely deplorable. both the investigation and this investigation i am very sorry to say, has degenerated into a purely pol

mr. mr. visclosky:: this would make a cut of $9.6 million to the weapons program but would point out to my colleagues while i support the weapons complex and its modernization, this is a very slight change in funding. an account that has a $7.5 billion allocation and sees a $275 million increase for 2013 under the bill and therefore the gentleman has taken a reasonable approach and strongly support his amendment. i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. matheson: mr. chairman, on that i request for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from utah will be postponed. the clerk will continue to read. the clerk: page 25, line 6, uranium enrichment. decommissioning fund. $425,493,000. science, $4,824,931,000. advanced research pro

mr. duncan: mr. speaker, at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. suggester left-hand side, a very active -- mr. southerland, a very active member of our committee. mr. southerland: i thank the gentleman from tennessee for yielding time. you know, as a new member of this body, it was quite aner to be appointed a conferee -- to be -- quite an honor to be appointed a conferee to go to conference. it's usually something that obviously senior members are appointed to. it was a great honor and it still is. even though we have yet to have a product that we can vote upon. you can imagine my disappointment when after attending five working group meetings i did not have a single individual to look at on the other side of the table representing the other body. you see, when the american people sent us here, i believe they sent us here to change the way we do business. and i'm pleased that we were sent to be involved in those five meetings. you know, i keep hearing oftentimes in the

mr. wilson: mr. speaker, yesterday's decision by the supreme court to uphold obamacare is discouraging for america's small businesses by destroying jobs and threatening families with the loss of their insurance policies. when the lobbied for the passage of the 2,700-page health care takeover, he promised americans that the individual mandate was not a tax increase. chief justice roberts based his opinion on his view that it is a tax increase which contradicts the president as being incorrect. chief justice roberts and the four liberals now confirm the president has been inaccurate. not only will this tax place more hardship on small businesses to follow the law but already 12,000 pages of regulations have been issued with 150 new boards and agencies and programs destroying jobs. on june 11, the house of representatives, under the leadership of john boehner and eric cantor, will vote to repeal the obama taxes. on november 6, american citizens will have the opportunity to vote for repeal and reform. in

i have the same question as mr. st. croix. >> mr. kopp, am i correct that your witness list is defensive, and we have addressed all the witnesses you think need to be called? >> i do not think we need to go to our witness list at this time. >> i just want to clarify, because of how to prepare for the hearing, whether the sheriff is essentially dropping all of their back witnesses. i do not understand it right now. >> they have said they are going to craft a declaration of for mr. hennessy, who is also acting as the expert. there was also ms. lopez. >> we hope to offer her testimony live or remotely. we hope to get a declaration from her. >> ms. -- >> we hope to at least submit a declaration. ideally, we will have her testify live. >> does that answer your question? is there anybody else, mr. kopp, you intend to offer? >> we are not going to foreclose getting declarations from the other witnesses on our list. it is going to depend on the declarations from the mayor. >> my understanding is you are not offering testimony. many of those

madison and mr. burton the fact that they supported the sheriff in the campaign and that bias somehow motivated their reporting of this incident. chairperson hur: i tend to agree that and that it ised a miss missable to combat bias. -- that it is admissible to combat bias. any objection to that? ok. paragraph six? >> we object on relevance grounds as to its entirety. in addition we don't believe there is foundation or the last sentence and we believe that the last -- or -- excuse me -- the third sentence, we don't think there is foundation -- strike that. we also think that the last three, four, five, mr. kopp can you just say the line number? >> yes. >> is that easier? >> yes. >> we think that line 17 through 23 are speculative. again, more prejudicial than probative. >> mr. keith? >> we think that this does not offer -- well, this is offered to show the relationship between ms. lopez and ms. madison that is really relevant to why ms. madison chose to make the report and the kind of advice that she

mr. mancini and mr. rakowich, your companies have both been the subject of chocolate request from this committee. and, of course, you were both requested to testify, and thank you for being here. to your knowledge, is to mancini, what shall parent company goldman sachs ever given a document request or an invitation to testify, to your knowledge? do you have any of you? >> to my personal knowledge i do not speak how about you, mr. rakowich, west bank america ever send document request, do you know if? >> not to my knowledge. document request? i don't have. >> mr. chairman, i just want to say that i think that this committee could be ever more effective in its work if we were to have goldman sachs and bank of america here to answer questions about their involvement, since they stand behind. these are come in the scheme of things, these are small companies in the schema thing. in terms of goldman sachs and bank of america, that the highest level, and i think if we were able to bring them forward to kind of

mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, with respect to the notion that i can suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case. because there are laws on the books that congress has passed. mr. speaker, that was president obama a year ago. but that was then and this is now. and on friday, the 5d mcmorris rodgers -- the administration issued an imperial decree acting to unilaterally ignore portions of the immigration law of the land. mr. speaker, the last time i checked it was congress who makes law not the president. and it is the job of the executive to enforce lasters -- laws, not ignore the ones he doesn't like. the president has no interest in fixing the broken immigration system of the instead he has decreed this temporary amnesty in hopes of winning vose in november. doesn't like -- votes in in a moment he doesn't like the constitutional process for lawmaking bec

mr. mancini and mr. rakowich, your companies have both been the subject of document requests in this committee, and you're both requested to testify here. thank you for being here. now, to your knowledge, mr. mancini, was your parent company goldman sachs ever given a document request, or an invitation to testify, to your knowledge? do you have any idea? >> to my personal knowledge, i do not know. >> how much you, mr. rakowich? as the financer behind your project, did bank of america ever send document requests? >> document requests? i don't know. >> mr. chairman, i just want to say that, you know, i think that this committee could be ever more effective in its work if we were to have goldman sachs and bank of america here to answer questions about their involvement. since they stand behind it. i mean, these are, in the scheme of things, these are small companies, in the scheme of things. in terms of goldman sachs and bank of america, they're at the highest level. and i think if we were able to bring the

>> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure. i think the pop lore initially had either ben the four blocks between two and five as a way to clean the lines. so since those are not submitted as part of a neighborhood, i would suggest we look there to the extent we still have a population issue. >> ok. >> mr. chair, we have the deviation. it is negative 4.997%. >> are you comfortable? >> i'm comfortable. >> thank you. thanks for that exercise. let's visit now the less again attempting to move fairly swiftly through each of these considerations. let's go to the question of d-60 border, at the same time we will secondarly visit the maria manner. >> i don't know where they are continue may affect it. if you can tell us where they are. >> sure. give us the other two. so we will look out -- so the next -- the next one is between districts 10 and 9. bart line we would align to. this is an area

mr. cameron, mr. coulson, yourself may well have been involved in it as to how to win over "the sun." it'd be unthinkable that you didn't a approach this important issue without having a strategy. are we agreed? >> i don't think it was a particular strategy for "the sun" newspaper, it was a strategy for the newspapers. we wanted the full throttle support of conservative-leaning papers like "the telegraph" and "the mail." we wanted to win over some of those more neutral bureau chiefs like "the times". we didn't have much hope with "the guardian." but it was a general media strategy. and it mainly consisted of setting out our argument about why the labour government had forfeited the right to remain in office and why we thought a conservative government would be better for britain. so it was, we were making in private exactly the same arguments that we were making in public. >> for the papers in the news international stable, did you not have some sort of strategy as to how specifically to win them over

mr. murdoch, his wife, and others, on the evening of the sixth of october, 2007. >> there was a misunderstanding that people thought i had met mr. murdoch and it would have somehow improve relations with mr. marr. i was very careful to do it before i had any meetings. i spoke to him and did the interview the day before. when i went to dinner with mr. murdoch later on, he had no influence on that interview or any decision that i made. he was not consulted, nor should he be, nor should he have expected to be. >> there's also a correction. the dinner with president bush was the 15th of june, not 15 august, 2008. there were a couple of other meetings that you added to your schedule. we will publish the revised schedule in due course. mr. brown. >> ok. >> there is also a list of phone calls that we will come to in a short moment. in relation to mr rupert murdoch, we recall that relations were closer than was wise and he included you in that statement. do you agree? with him? >> i do not. actua

mr. price: mr. chairman, i believe with the offering of this amendment we are in great need of a reality check in this chamber. after all, it was president nixon, it was a strong bipartisan majority with republicans playing a leading role that first initiated the community development block grant programs, and i assume that this amendment will be rejected today by that same kind of bipartisan coalition. the whole idea of the cdbg program was to get away from inflexible, one-size-fits all approaches to urban development. the whole idea was to get away from top-down bureaucratic operations. cdbg was designed to empower communities, to give them flexibility, to maximize the possibility for leverage or private sector funds. to let the community determine its own projects and its own priorities. all of us have experience with this program, i dare say, and my experience has been that the bang for the buck from cdbg is virtually unmatched in any other federal program. housing rehabilitation, for example, o

mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, who is the sponsor of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. meehan: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in -- mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 3668, the counterfeit drug penalty enhancement act. i want to thank the distinguished gentleman from texas for his leadership on this issue, on the judiciary committee, and i also want to thank my colleagues from the other side of the aisle as we rise in a truly bipartisan, bicameral fashion, in working for the passage of this very important legislation so i appreciate the kind remarks from the gentlelady from california in support of this bill as well. like so many other health care costs, prescription drugs are expensive and the cost is rising. so what we are beginning to see increasingly is people going online to make the purchases for those drugs. it's an issue that i saw firsthand a