mr. duffy's office, but he was not there in the office, and i left the following note. i met with mr. duffy on his office on tuesday, july 11. he was very helpful. we went up to the fourth floor to look at the approved plans. ms. cheng and her architect said they do not have an elevator in the plan. mr. duffy saw the elevator on the master plan and he wrote and attached this correction notice and report after reviewing the plans that day. mr. duffy also informed me there are other permits and the pipeline. also, i did not refuse ms. cheng's rescheduling request. today is july 13, and at her request we are here now. i viewed the plan is not only on june 10 but again on july 11 with mr. dufty. they are open and on view until july 19, and they have not been in the possession of mr. cheng. thank you for letting me speak with you today. i'm here as a concerned and impacted neighbor. i have tried to get consistent answers from mrs. cheng. i am doing this. i'm here to make sure the quality of life at

. >> we need mr. duffy for the next case. >> you have to come to the microphone if you're going to speak. what she is a represented a party in the case that involves premises. i'm not sure if i am permitted to have direct communication with her on substantive matters. >> her council is not here? >> her council is not here. >> she can waive it. >> i still cannot. >> we can continue it for one week. >> it would be two weeks at a minimum. >> we have to bite the bullet somewhere. >> do you understand the discussion now? i don't mean to suggest that you're not capable. i am not a lawyer. i assume that you are not also. this thing is to be reconciled in terms of some reasonable accommodation. it has been suggested because he is going against you in another matter that he would be barred from speaking with you directly but you can wave that. then you can have this conversation not about your lawsuit or anything else but how you solve the problems before us and that is to get the work done that needs to be done to

mr. duffy that the department is to do something with the permit and can provoke it. i am satisfied with that. >> if you choose to overturn the department, the pilot would have -- >> my concern about this is that this would be the one-year statute that they cannot be applied. it seems cleaner since we have heard from mr. duffy then they need to do something with the apartment. i don't know if that is agreeable to the other commissioners? >> i will make a motion. >> might give the permit holder an opportunity to speak. >> certainly. >> my comment is that it is not our intention to do any more work than is permitted. there is a separate permit under this application for the heaters in unit 358. there is at least one other permit that has been pulled under this application. we have been working within the rules, even though the application itself might be broad. i'm committed to make sure the paperwork is right. it is our belief that the work itself has been done under the permit has been permitte

mr. duffy? >> i suppose the first question i was going to ask, is it ok to appeal the probably on the filed a permit? i was thought any should permit that we appeal to pummel the on. but we don't have a permit yet. we have an application that has gone through. i think they may have found out what the penalty is going to be, but the permit has not been issued. >> we have always allowed people on building permits to appeal prior to issuance for electrical and plumbing. for safety issues, you have to pay the penalty first, but historically, we have always allowed it pre-issuance. commissioner fung: i think before you issue the permit, the penalty has to be prepaid. >> yes, i was under the understanding that you appeal the public and then you pay it. maybe i read that on the back of the notice of violation. anyway, i think in this case, we are slightly different from the previous one. the notice of violation was given in april. april 5, 2011, and we issued the second notice on may 5, 2011. then with

vice president garcia: mr. duffye amount that is derived to assess the penalty, is that formulary? is that what it would cost for the permits for the two windows? >> well, the 1000 other value is the value of the permit. the penalty that was assessed was than nine times probably on the amount of work that the building inspector estimated, $1,000. that is a formula in the building formula. vice president garcia: i understand the nine times as formulary, but did dbi rely on -- to the appellate submit any papers that it showed that cost considerably less, would have cost, from their testimony, about what it would cost in order to replace those windows? their statement is it seems as though dbi was figuring this at a much higher price. >> whenever the permits are applied for, the applicant puts the estimated cost on. if the staff feels that is too low, they can raise it based on construction valuation. but that is usually a discussion between the plan checker and the person getting the permit. if there is a receipt for t

. >> on that permit, i agree with mr. duffy to address the borad -- broad and general things. the completion of the bathroom, i would absolutely past that we be permitted to complete that. i think he plumbing pipe is on there. >> i think you would be better to take that offline with mr. duffy. >> commissioners? >> i will start, but i am not sure i am going anywhere. it is difficult to see the position from both sides. on the one hand, i don't know why you appeal something that takes you three months alcohol stopping the work that you want. i am not quite sure what to do. commissioner garcia: i am concerned about dealing with things that have to do with code and the authority. i would think that the accommodations thing and all that would have been a rent board issue. someone could come in with -- your alternative would be, and even if weather was awful, walk to take a shower. the loo will be a port-a-potty in front of your house. i would hope that -- i don't want to say that. mr. eppstein would have said, i think it is clear -- what is being done as proposed to be done. it is

. >> mr. duffy. >> grieving, commissioners. it is basically battery model, as you can see. it is usually an over-the- counter permit. >> can you put that on the overhead? the actual permit? >> if you look in the file we provided, it would not be there. how you would have to have brought it yourself. >> this is just a print out of the permit details report. we don't have the actual building permits. i have not got it with me. this gives the information pretty much similar to the permit. missing signatures and stuff. the permit would have required a separate employment typical of any other permit. the work would have had to comply with the practices for lead based paint because it is a remodeled. and having got through the phase of demolition, it would require that of the tenants. they would be given three days' notice of the work. there will have to of been containment and clean-up. and if they had any problem with that, they could call and we would have sent someone from the program to make sure that that happens. i saw that in the brief period i would be available for any

vice president garcia: mr. duffy, can you go to the illegal demolition? >> myself and a building inspector went there, and we met with mr. cassidy, in we reviewed the plans for the main permits, the 2009 permit, the permit that was under suspension -- and we reviewed the plans for the main permits. -- the main permit. every wall is still there that were shown to remain. vice president garcia: and one of the walls to remain is one that was damaged, and a prepared to that would not be considered demolition? >> -- and a repair to that would not be considered demolition? >> advised that that wall be braced again. i am not so sure that that wall is permanently damaged. there may be damage to the exterior siding on the wall, which we see a lot of, because on the plans, they show walls to remain, but those walls are probably 100 years old. there are always problems with the siding on those. keeping walls that are 100 years old versus taking the whole building down, it is always tough on builders. how do you get proper waterproofing on a wall that has been there f

mr. duffy? >> it sounds complicated, and in this case, i would say we would not be here if we did not have the roof collapse. it triggered seven complaints to dbi right up until pretty much now, and it appeared that the project, with earlier permits issued, though they may not have been the right permits, the work was going ahead, and the work was progressing. we had a permit which was still in dbi, but our involvement really was for the foundation work. we did inspections on that, and then on march 12, we got called out by the fire department on the emergency response for the roof, which was to be demolished, actually collapsed. i am not sure how it collapsed, but it collapsed. i believe there were people working there, but no one got injured. that would have been demo-ed anyway, though that was maybe not the way for it to come down. there was a report and correction notice issued to clear up the damaged lumber that had fallen in to secure the property walls -- had fallen and to secure the prop

vice president garcia: thank you, sir. >> mr. duffy? >> could i say one thing? i did speak with mr. dufty yesterday. i went down and saw mr. dufty yesterday. it was my understanding that he had called ms. harris and explain to her there is no way that sperm that -- that this permit, that the elevators or deaths were incorporated into this permit. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, dbi. i met with both sides and i am hoping to clear up issues. there are no decks or an elevator approved on this. that is under appeal. there is a drawing that shows the master plan, as described. it is on there for the pre application purposes. definitely, it would not be permitted to be allowed to build the deck or install the elevator under this permit. i issued a correction notice to clarify that. there are no? approved on the -- there are no decks approve. it is on there for application purposes. it would not be permitted to build a deck or install under this permit and i issued a correction notice and i gave that to both sides. i thought that might be the sensible thing to do even though the

mr. duffy's office, but he was not there in the office, and i left the following note. i met with mr. duffy on his office on tuesday, july 11. he was very helpful. we went up to the fourth floor to look at the approved plans. ms. chengnd h architect id th do tav evator in the plan. mr. duffsath evator on the master plan and he wre and attached th coecon notice and report afreviewing the plans that day.mr. duffyals iorh are other peits and the pipeline also, i did notrefuse ms. heng's schedulingeq. today is july 13, and her ret we are here now. i vd plan is not only on june 1 but again on july 11 th mr. dty. theyar open aoviewntil july 19,d ey h in the posioof mr. cheng. ank youor letting me speak wh day. i'm he ncerned and imctedei triedo get constent answers om mrs.chg. i dothis. i'm hereo ma sure the qualy of life my omis t pacted. i understandette what is gointo hpen now thathe has made e gean correcons. 've undstand that each permit haceain sce and must be followed and ovseenbyt builng deptmt. is allows properne windows. i brought ou existi photos of property line ndows that looke

mr. duffy: point of order reserved. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maine is recognized for five minutes. mr. michaud: i offer this final amendment today for two reasons. first, to improve the bill one last time before we vote on final passage. and second, to provide congress an opportunity to come together on an issue that all of us can agree on, protecting our seniors. in the last eight years that i have been a member of congress, i have had the opportunity to work with the republicans and democrats alike to ensure that older americans have the security and the quality of life that they deserve. and i'm hopeful my amendment today will present another chance for my friends on both sides of the aisle to vote for something -- >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the chair would be pleased if members would remove their conversations from the floor, clear the aisles or take your seats. the gentleman may proceed. mr. michaud: i'm hopeful my

mr. duffy, if you could explain it to the board please. >> commissioners, we got together and we're going to remove -- >> he gave me the wording, he would like the bellpull the permit, all work to be struck from the scope except for two things. remodel the term in unit 340 and comply with -- that is it. commissioner garcia: which deals with what? >> repair of the stairs to make them safe. and the departments will still need the permits to comply with the other, that we don't understand any way. if applicable. commissioner peterson: the unit number again for the bathroom? >> 340. president goh: striking everything that we are striking, does it prevent a problem -- the present a problem for a one-year statute? >> i was going to recommend that the board state in their motion that the permit holder would not be precluded from replying to do the work under the other nov's in one year. it would constitute a change of circumstances. president goh: ok. the somebody want to be the one to make this motio

mr. duffy: and i'd agree with the gentleman. it's interesting as a guy that's come here in central and northern wisconsin, wisconsin's seventh congressional district, this is a house that will continually talk about political spin and political positioning instead of actual policies that are going to work for american families and american businesses. and i think it's interesting the president likes to talk about corporate loopholes. and, you know, for me i think it's important that we're clear. the tax increases that the president and my friends across the aisle in the democrat party are talking about, these are tax increases on the small job creators in my district, the same ones that we are asking to expand and grow and create jobs and put our hardworking families of wisconsin back to work. it's those people that they're asking to raise taxes on and i think that's absolutely wrong. i always hear my friends across the aisle talk about the 1990's and how great things were in the 1990's. they were great. particularly the tax rat

mr. duffy, chairman baucus, and chairman capito, for their leadership on this important matter. madam speaker, i strong -- i rise in strong support of the rule and the underlying bill with which important measures of accountability to an agency that currently operates independent of any real oversight. the mission of the consumer financial protection bureau is indeed puzzling. how exactly a government bureau is going to determine what financial products are suitable for every american family has been explained -- has never been explained. i have great concern that consumer protection is merely a euphemism for consume -- consumer restriction and creal. equally concerning is that this agency currently operates outside the normal checks and balances that exist of the bedrock of our system of government. the director of the agency has enormous influence over family decisions regarding credit cards and mortgages and there currently exists an extremely high and nonsensical standard for overturning cf

mr. duffy: the american people -- will the gentleman yield? -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: the harry reid bill is full of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. duff: budget gimmicks which doesn't get the job done. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time? the house will be in order. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield 30 second to the gentleman from mississippi mr. pa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: the american people expect us to lead during times of cris. house republicans have led. house republicans have provided plans and solutions to america's debt crisis. house republicans have used their voice as representatives of their district to end the deficit crisis and to balance a budget. we've done our job. it's time a the senate does theirs. leader reid and president obama is what stands in the way of helping this debt crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. palazzo: vote no on the reid plan. thank y

you are satisfied that the property line windows are as described by the architect and verified by mr. duffy that they're not impinging on the privacy of this house? >> we are concerned about the windows, exactly where they're going to be looking. that we're not clear on. we have clarified a lot tonight, yes, but that we're not clear on. we appreciate your comment -- we do not know enough as to where those windows will be. >> do we have drawings with us tonight? as the architect have it? -- and does the architect have it? even though some people appear may be able to leave, i recommend we have a five minute recess and look at it and if you want to request a continuance if we do not have those plans, you might get one. if you are satisfied with what is presented to you as to whether or not that is going to impinge upon your privacy, maybe we can put this to bed tonight. >> i appreciate the effort to be efficacious. my concern and the desire to have this opportunity to review the plans is that i do not believe that given the discussions and presentations we have heard that the appellant has ef

[gavel] >> is mr. duffy going to present the change for the architect? >> we are raising the meeting and we are on item 7. >> i think we have reached an agreement is to make one modification to the plan. there is a property line windows at the second floor. that would be taken off as part of the condition for moving on. we have agreed to look at that. in the future as part of the next permit, and arrange the window so there is no invasion of privacy. we're better doing that at the site. >> it confused me when you say you have arranged to look at it. either you are going to remove the window or not. >> we will under this permit. >> we're getting a nod from the appellant and that they are on board with that change. we're ready to make a motion to take a vote? >> i want to specify having not seen the plans that this is the only property line window at the second floor because we will need to have a revised plan submitted and i will need to know what window is being taken off. >> there is an existing wooden window that the city has gone out and ascertained i

mr. duffy: the american people -- will the gentleman yield? -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: the harry reid bill is full of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. duffy: budget gimmicks which doesn't get the job done. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time? the house will be in order. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield 30 second to the gentleman from mississippi mr. pa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: the american people expect us to lead during times of crisi house republicans have led. house republicans have provided plans and solutions to america's debt crisis. house republicans have used their voice as representatives of their district to end the deficit crisis and to balance a budget. we've done our job. it's time a the senate does theirs. leader reid and president obama is what stands in the way of helping this debt crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. palazzo: vote no on the reid plan. thank

mr. duffy: the american people -- will the gentleman yield? -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: the harry reid bill is full of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. duffy: budget gimmicks which doesn't get the job done. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time? the house will be in order. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield 30 second to the gentleman from mississippi mr. pa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: the american people expect us to lead during times of crisis. house republicans have led. house republicans have provided plans and solutions to america's debt crisis. house republicans have used their voice as representatives of their district to end the deficit crisis and to balance a budget. we've done our job. it's time a the senate does theirs. leader reid and president obama is what stands in the way of helping this debt crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. palazzo: vote no on the reid plan. than

. >> mr. duffy. >> grieving, commissioners.

mr. duffy? >> it sounds complicated, and in this case, i would say we would not be here if we did not have the roof collapse. it triggered seven complaints to dbi right up until pretty much now, and it appea

am going to cut you to two to three minutes, and there are compelling reasons why we want to get mr. duffy out of your tonight, so if you go ahead and please be brief. director goldstein: please give a card to the clerk if you are willing after you are done speaking. >> i would like to submit this to the record. if i could have the overhead, please? thank you. vice president garcia: ddo a 1. >> i have installed these. the dimension is 8 feet long and 8 feet wide. it is 7 feet to the bottom of the concrete. it is away from the adjacent property. with the structure report, it has compacted down in sand and barack, so it does not pose a threat. -- in sand and bedrock. you have got to remove the roof. downstairs and up. just to clarify for you guys. depending the work that was starting, there was a complaint issued. it opened onto a driveway. i want to point out to, and i am sure you guys have the plant there, this point right here, which is circles, -- i am sure you guys have the plan there, this point right here, which is sold -- circled. if you look at the top, that is about one eighth of 1

mr. duffy: the american people -- will the gentleman yield? -- >> will the gentleman yield? mr. duffy: the harry reid bill is full of -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. duffy: budget gimmicks which doesn't get the job done. the speaker pro tempore: who claims time? the house will be in order. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. at this time i'm happy to yield 30 second to the gentleman from mississippi mr. pa. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. palazzo: the american people expect us to lead during times of crisis. house republicans have led. house republicans have provided plans and solutions to america's debt crisis. house republicans have used their voice as representatives of tir district to end the deficit crisis and to balance a budget. we've done our job. it's time a the senate does theirs. leader reid and president obama is what stands in the way of helping this debt crisis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. palazzo: vote no on the reid plan. thank yo

mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to take a moment and thank chairman bachus and chairwoman capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their job to make sure thathis bill came to the floor today. you know, all of us in this house agree that we want consumer protections where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our constituents, when they deal with the financial institution, they're dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. our reform here to the cfpb does exactly that. i want to talk about a couple of components of this bill. one is, we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. i think it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they first crafted this bill, they included a bipartisan commission and the president when he talked about this bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. and now, all of a sudden, today, as we brought this back up, they are now opposed to a bipartisan commission. i think it's impor

mr. duffy for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and hello, mr. chairman. could you give me the exact number of what you mean by severe cuts? are we talking billions over 10 years? trillions over 10 years? >> oh, over 10 years. several numbers have been put out. spent quickly. what is your number. >> the so-called grand bargain that's been discussed, something into the city of 4 trillion over 10 years. >> is that too much? >> no, it's not too much. it has the advantage if they can be done, it has the advantage that it will stabilize our ratio and they'll be very encouraging. >> thank you for the because out to make sure we are all on the same page. >> we are talking about timing also. i'm talking to kenya when or a 12 year window. >> would you like to see him backloaded or cats up front? >> it can't be completely backloaded for reasons as i said. i need to be careful in the short term. >> as i'm talking to my job griscom i represent the next -- the northwest quarter of the scott spence talk about uncertainty in the marketplace. it comes from this health car

mr. duffy: thank you, mr. chairman. and i want to take a moment and thank chairman bachus and chairwoman capito for their hard work on this legislation and for their job to make sure that this bill came to the floor today. you know, all of us in this house agree that we want consumer protections where any one of our friends or family members, our neighbors and our constituents, when they deal with the financial institution, they're dealt with in a fair way and in a transparent way. our reform here to the cfpb does exactly that. i want to talk about a couple of components of this bill. one is, we are moving this from a director to a bipartisan commission. i think it's important to note that my friends on the other side of the aisle, when they first crafted this bill, they included a bipartisan commission and the president when he talked about this bill, he was in favor of a bipartisan commission. and now, all of a sudden, today, as we brought this back up, they are now opposed to a bipartisan commission. i think it's imp

mr. duffy: and they did nothing to support that reform. and now they demagogue our plan again. we hear about sending jobs overseas, well, jobs a going overseas because we're taxing our businesses too much. when you tax them too ch, they go other places and when they go other places like china, india, mexico, vietnam, they take our jobs with them. i've heard a lot about medicare. the only party in this house who has cut medicare is the democrat party. $500 billion out of medicare in an ipab bill that is going to ration care for our seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members to heed the gavel. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van holn: mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to look at the congressional budget office analysis of the impact of the republican budget on senior citizens on medicare. essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what members of congress get themselves. anda raw deal in a big way. -- a raw deal in a big way. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time

mr. the feedback -- duffy that. >> thank you. >> it is really just a typical permit that we see. the drawings to less than 50% and we go out and inspected. it's this year to comply with the notice of violation. and there is a complaint that got investigated. the cases of them. there was an issue ready on the same day as the complaint, filed. what happened was, the permit for the property line whistling in expired system. -- that was showing an inspired as the = --r expired system. it had been completed. we corrected that. the property line was signed off in 2007 but not reflected in out system. for some reason, one of the inspectors -- we corrected that error. the department does not have any issues with the permit. president goh: just for clarification, the sperm that has nothing to comply with it kolkhoz there is no notice of violation, it should probably not say that. president goh: thanks. commissioner fung: did you look into the co conformance? >> i saw it in the brief, but i was mostly interested in the stair work. from my research, if you have an existing property line win

mr. duffy said that putting people back to work, will we be able to put people back to work by raising taxes? you said that it depends on how to do that. can we strengthen our economy in the long term with additional tax revenues, maybe through tax reform or some other way? >> these are congressional decisions. the structure of the tax code matters a lot. the incentives are most affected by the marginal tax rates. that is fortunate to look at. there may be tax exclusions which is the spending in disguise, maybe breaks that are not really achieving anything. you would be able to maintain or even lower marginal tax rates. most economists agree that broadening the base and maintaining marginal tax rates gives you a better tax system and promotes growth. >> do you think that additional revenue is part of the system? >> this is your decision. i am still talking about how it will be structured. >> we would like to end on a balanced if possible. these will be our last two questioners of the day. >> th

mr. duffy: and they did nothing to support that reform. and now they demagogue our plan again. we hear about sending jobs overseas, well, jobs are going overseas because we're taxing our businesses too much. when you tax them too much, they go other places and when they go other places like china, india, mexico, vietnam, they take our jobs with them. i've heard a lot about medicare. the only party in this house who has cut medicare is the democrat party. $500 billion out of medicare in an ipab bill that is going to ration care for our seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members to heed the gavel. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to look at the congressional budget office analysis of the impact of the republican budget on senior citizens on medicare. essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what members of congress get themselves. anda raw deal in a big way. -- a raw deal in a big way. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of hi

mr. duffy: and they did nothing to support that reform. and now they demagogue our plan again. we hear about sending jobs overseas, well, jobs are going overseas because we're taxing our businesses too much. when you tax them too much, they go other places and when they go other places like china, india, mexico, vietnam, they take our jobs with them. i've heard a lot about medicare. the only party in this house who has cut medicare is the democrat party. $500 billion out of medicare in an ipab bill that is going to ration care for our seniors. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would remind members to heed the gavel. the gentleman from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to look at the congressional budget office analysis of the impact of the republican budget on senior citizens on medicare. essentially what they do is give seniors a raw deal compared to what members of congress get themselves. anda raw deal in a big way. -- a raw deal in a big way. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of hi