mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4258, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the united states housing act of 1937 with public and private resources, to enable eligible families to achieve conomic independence and self-sufficiency, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, and the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gen

teague and/or mr. duffycann enlightn us, but i support a motion that essentially addresses the deck and not the rest of it. >> let's break that down a little bit further, in terms of detail. when they limited it -- the penthouse, the previous scheme had the roof of the third floor depressed so that the height of that penthouse was not as great -- it was 4 feet or something. >> i can't remember. >> it was prointruditruding up >> it was protruding some amount, but it had been dropped, and the curb framing is dropped straight across. i have no issue with that. if you get rid of penthouse. the question then is where the -- the height was picked up, and whether there's an issue. i'm sensing that a couple of the commissioners here have an issue with the increased height of the lower floors. i'm not sure i shared that so much. the question, also, then, is roof decks. i didn't want to say too much, but you recall that two of the commissioners killed the first motion, which deleted any roof decks and required that it

so i -- mr. duffy, you wanted to say something? >> just before you finish, joe duffy d.b.i. mr. butler referred to me on a building permit. i want to say it was temporary shoring of a building. those do not go to the planning department. we need to approve them, when it comes to someone on the third floor, we're doing the process and refer to engineers for approval. so the permit he's referencing that i was so wrong on, i was actually right on. a temporary shoring permit. i wanted to correct on that item. >> thank you mr. duffy. i do get it, there's a lot of permits out there. i think in the spirit of the conversation, it's hard to monitor and track, but thank you for clarifying that. >> and just one other thing -- the misrepresentation on plans is as big of a problem as demolition. i don't know if you're getting all that, that's one of the issues that we deal with a lot. someone shows something in a building as existing that's not there. that's a huge issue for us and that's something that -- i'm a senior building inspector, what do you do with -- like if the city attorney want

. >> thank you mr. duffy. in regard to, i would close out the comments here but -- first of all thank you for the speakers coming out and discussing the conversation that was badly needed and it's been an ongoing blackmark for our department we have been trying to deal with for many years and i concur with all commissioner comments on the next steps. i want to also point out, as a department we issue thousands of permits a year. and i don't want to minimize this, but i really think what we're dealing with here is a small fraction of a group of people who seem to be continuously coming across and doing the bad apple -- the bad projects here. i see -- as i breakdown today, i think one thing to start with -- i kind of direct my comments the the director and as a commission i think this is something going forward this year is going to be one of the top issues, is -- and mr. duffy touched on it there, representations on the professional plans submitted to the department. and i think that is something we need to rea

. >> mr. duffy, the appellant representative brings fourth the they'll need to brace the retain ing wall. that is the subject of a separate permit, isn't it? two permits? >> the permit holder. >> the appellants. >> i assume the drawings -- i believe the permit talks about bracing. >> no, no. the people arguing against this permit -- >> yes. >> if they're bracing their retaining wall, which is leaning , that would require a permit for each of those three properties. >> correct, yes, that's right. to be honest with you, i was at the counter when the appellant came to speak to us about it. i encouraged them to work with the other property owners to resolve this. we have this situation throughout the city with these retaining walls, they crack, they stretch across property lines, sometimes they go over property lines but the key here is they've got to work together to get this resolved and it's disappointing that we're out on appellant. i don't encourage that from the work go. as you heard tonight, they

allowing that to happen beyond that is not clear and we've been allowed to get the permission that mr duffy is this going describing and he did in his statement say that he was waiting and and for his nomination to go forward pending the approval of the military he acknowledged the regulations he didn't say that they were unjust or unfair he was waiting for the military to give him the permission as as the law does prescribe ok i think given that sammy and i would have known the risks of breaking the rules of running for president say without ticking all the boxes why does he even data do say. well we have to be clear that technically speaking our known did not break any rules he did not nominate himself in fact the time for the official nominations is not even open yet what he did was that he declared his intention to run once he got all the necessary permissions from the military so saying that he broke the rules technically and legally speaking this is incorrect he did not break any rules of course he was aware of the of the of the risks and this leads me to another problem and it's real

mr. duffy: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4258, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: a bill to promote the development of local strategies to coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the united states housing act of 1937 with public and private resources, to le

and the shrine as you might ask inspector duffy, is stable. mr. franklin's counsel said that there's a nexus issue. you need to look at the nolar and dolan cases, she's talking about eminent domain, and the explanation that that applies to these cases is, all due respect is pretty silly. this is an issue of the conditions requested applying very closely to the harms of this permit. the color of this facade of this house is drawing these fans. change this color. there's no gate here so the fans come up on the steps. we're asking for a locking gate. it's one of the most important features here. the this, however, is a change of use without the correct permit, and commissioners moore and melgar recognized that at the planning commission. in fact, the one vote against the conditions that were placed on this permit came from commissioner moore because she wanted to revoke it as a change of use illegally. this permit here completes the transformation of the house into a replica of the film set, into this quote, unquote, shrine for the fans. this plan is

mr. duffy, can you give me a timeline when the error was discovered and when there was a correction in issuing these permits. what i'm trying to figure out in my brain is the intent here. we're all human, and we do make mistakes, but it seems according to the brief that he submitted, that he was trying to be compliant. >> i think he was trying to be compliant after he got stopped or after it got discovered that this permit shouldn't have been issued the way it was, and planning may have not been involved in some of the permits. i don't have much with me. >> president honda: just when was the permit issued and when did the dbi discovered that there was an issue in issuing the permit, and how was that brought to the dbi's attention. >> okay. so the permit 2012, raised lower level, split level to raise living floor and create additional living space, that looks like it was the permit that -- the main permit was $450,000. it was filed in november of 2012, issued in april of 2013, and suspended in n

developers, some contractors, they come in and they get their permits approved by ed sweeney or mr. duffy or, or quality control by ron thoum. how does that happen? why are these senior people taking in permit applications. oh, well, if some one else being too in the application it might be sent to planning. ah, ah, ok, we are talking months now. months that go by. i have a permit application in planning. it has been there for almost a year with everything in place but they have not looked at it yet. so, i understand the problems. i'm an architect i try to make a living in the town the way the others do. when these guys come in and they soft shoe the senior managers and end up with a permit that isn't legally binding until somebody goes down and finds a third floor or goes down and finds a basement that's now a story, how does this happen? and why does it continue? five years ago the whistleblower complaint told sweeney to stop taking in permits. they said it's not your job. so, now, now duffy and others do it. but it's the same old dodge. favoritism is rife in the department and the reas

. >> mr. duffy, was notice given to the adjacent neighbors because of the structural work? >> on the foundation perit? >> no, on this permit? >> i don't have that with me, actually, i didn't check that. >> can you take a look for is f? >> i can't do it unless i'm at d.b.i. and i believe that it would be and seismic retrofit at all levels. >> there's structural work there. >> i don't think that we would be required to do notification on that because it's not the foundation permit that would have been the one where we have done the notification on because it's not impacting the work on this permit and it's a seismic retrofit of all levels. that wouldn't have required excavation below adjacent the property line which is the only time that we do structural notification generally, but i think that we're okay on this with the notification. sorry i don't have that with me. thanks. >> okay, we'll take public comment. i would ask that if you have not already filled out a speaker card and you're willing to do that that you do that before -- or you come up to speak and after and that

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4749. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4279 a bill to direct the securities and exchange commission to enable closed companies and proxy rules that are available to other issuers of securities. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 418. the nays are two. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfin

the unfinished business the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4258, a bill to develop local strategies to coordinate use of assistance under sections 8 and 9 of the united states housing act, republican private resource is for families to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: the yeas are 412. the nays are 5. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to recons

mr. sanchez, but since he's home sick. >> that's okay. >> inspector duffy? >> commissioner, joe duffy. what you heard is mostly all plan related items. i did review the plans. look like they do meet code and they are code compliant. permit looks to have been properly reviewed through the proper city agencies. >> president honda: thank you. >> any public comment on this? board? >> president honda: welcome, sir. thank you for being patient. >> good evening. my name is david bancroft. i am a resident of the street where the subject properties are located. one comment i want to make right away, what's happened here is that with respect to the board of appeals first decision which is where the stairwell and the firewall were on the north side. what's happened now is with respect is that the stairwell has been moved to the south side. but not just moved. these were nonconforming decks. they should never have been put up to the extend they were. the planning department has so found. to those nonconforming deck, what is now an interior stairwell with respect to those decks has been moved to an

duffy isn't on the committee. >> it's just nonsense. i had this conversation with mr. schiff a few days ago. be clear about one thing when we talk about doj or fbi, we aren't talking about the body, they're dedicated public servants. we're talking about a few of the very senior officials within the fbi and doj. the fact you work for the fbi doesn't mean no one in that organization is above question. that one of them are beyond reproach. we have a responsibility to provide oversight. when they do something unethical and potentially illegal, violates the trust of the american people, for heaven sakes we have a responsibility to pursue that. you can't say, well you can't attack the fbi, you can't attack doj, that's silliness. when he refers to us protecting mr. trump, that's the thing that i react to most emotionally. it's just simply not true. it's just a diversion that we see things here, that trouble us. >> laura: congressman duffy before we let you go, i'll ask a simple question. rod rosenstein is the deputy attorney general, he was named deputy attorney general by jeff sessions, jeff sessi