at this time, if i could ask mr. hines from the department of public works, if you could step outside of the chamber to engage in a conversation with the individuals who are here. let the clerk's office know and we will take up the matter. and for members of the public, if you could join him and step outside. thank you. and with that, why don't we go to our committee reports, item 53? >> item 53 through 55 were considered by the land use committee, and they were forwarded as committee reports. item 53 was recommended with a new title to authorize the master agreement between the city and the regents of the university of california. with the transactions related to third and 16th street, and mission fail. on item 53 -- elsbernd aye. farrel aye. kim aye. mar aye. olague aye -- olague abscent. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chiu, aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. there are 10 ayes. >> this ordinance is passed. >> item 54 was recommended as amended by the same title, for the vacation at the post market -- produce market -- -- at milton st

we had a member not helping here now, mr. hines from connecticut has legislation from us to try to reform it. you see at the same time, the previous panel, cfdc chair coming out with their proposed regulation, actually not regulations but guidance, coming up with various standards, security based swap dealers. a, is that the appropriate manner we should have? purely guidance rules coming out you don't do a cost benefit analysis before and should there be a closer relationship between the cftc promulgating rules? >> we should have one set of rules of derivatives and swaps and competing sets of rules that haven't been defined yet. thinking what makes sense and cost benefit is always the way to do it. hard for me to imagine to do something better than that. >> you would agree we haven't seen that since dodd-frank has been passed into law? >> there may have been places it was done. i'm unaware of it. >> just to close then, i thought your answer would be slightly different to the volcker rule when you said things may not have been diffe

mr. clement, it seems that the -- i would think the largest hurdle for you is hines, which said the registration congress enacted a complete registration scheme which the states cannot complement or impose even auxiliary regulations. so i don't see the alien registration as a question of obstacle preemption, but appeal preemption that alien -- we don't want competing registration schemes. we want the registration scheme to be wholly federal. >> well, justice ginsburg, i think that's part of the reason why i accepted justice kennedy's characterization of the relevant language in hines, because although there's some general discussion there of field preemption, when the court actually states what its holding is, it does state it in terms of obstacle preemption. and here's where i think there's a critical difference between what the court had before it in hines and what you have before you here. in hines, pennsylvania passed its statute before congress passed the alien registration statute. so not surprisingly, you know, they weren't -- they weren't soothsayers in pennsylvania. they couldn't predic