mr. lazarus? >> i believe that it is correct. >> okay. mr. miller, would you mind explaining that a little bit more for us? >> the timeline was -- first they requested the appropriation. then they also filed some information that -- basically confirmed that this would be subject to sequestration. they reversed direction on that, because it would be subject through sequestration because it is not a mandatory appropriation which is beyond just that single year. that would have reduced the cost sharing reduction payment. >> right. insurers was only getting 92.8 cents on the dollar? >> across the board haircut for those fund that are subject to sequestration. >> i think the position that we're trying to take timing on this can't be -- what is word i'm looking for here? it's, the timing on this seems a little odd for us -- >> coincidental. >> coincidental, thank you. oklahoma accent was not allowed to be spit out. but seems odd to us, and the justification that is coming out behind this, i have a hard time to believe, mr. lazarus i appreciate your

mr. lazarus was saying a little bit ago mr. miller? >> the arguments try to have it both ways, we have had this alternative in court. we have heard people are going to be suffering because they won't be getting any cost sharing subsidies, they'll still be required to do it but then try to have it both ways the insurance will raise the premiums and tax crepts even larger for the premiums so they'll all be covered any way it is one of these migrating arguments no matter what you do you end up in the same place. >> mr. rosenberg you're our constitutional over sight expert. literally wrote the bok on this. i know you have been asked what we can do, your response is pass legislation. we tried that. doesn't work. we have this guy that keeps holding us up. what else could we do here in congress to help hold this administration accountable to keep things that we feel like is completely outside their boundaries? everybody says we control the purse strings. so in your opinion as the expert, what's the next step? >> well, you have got to shore up

mr. lazarus, you said we can just pass a law. we can in the house pass a law with a majority vote but you cannot do that in the senate. they have botched up the entire process. doesn't matter if you are democrats or republican, when it takes 60 votes to pass legislation, it is wrong. the process doesn't work. it is weakening the legislative branch of the government. mr. rosenberg, you said to mr. mckinley, if the ruling is upheld and we have to flip things around where instead of voting for appropriations we have to vote against them and say you cannot spend money here the problem with just passing a law and having a new plan is the 60-vote rule in the sen ate. i think it is clear just like in the case where there was no authority to subgreat at the time of the initial loan but can come back later it is the same thing here. when we take the position as the legislative branch of government that we have to sit back and wait for the courts before we can take action we lose our authority and diminishes the legislative branch. mr. ros

mr. lazarus. yesterday the ways and means committee held a hearing on cost sharing reductions in front of the members of the hhs and a member of the committee declared this isn't about poor people but an insurance subsidy unquote. i think this is not genuine. the cost sharing reductions are a benefit to consumers that flee through the insurance company. the average consumer benefiting receives approximately $500 a year and suggesting that it is an insurance subsidy is cynical and distracts people from the reality that house republicans are trying to take hillary clinton -- health care benefits away. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> no. this tells us what we need to know about the republican's priorities. this isn't a good faith investigation to make sure constituents receive quality health care. ... >> >> this law was passed to make people not insurance companies but the affordable care act has provided 20 million americans with political health insurance and offered millions more protections agai

mr. lazarus, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i think the mike is now on. as senior counsel to the constitutional accountability center i helped draft an a peek can you say brief which cac filed in hauls of representatives v. burwell which you referenced. that brief was on behalf of democratic leader pelosi and other members of the house democratic caucus. it supports the administration's determination that it has authority to fund the affordable care act cost sharing provisions that are at issue in that case and in this hearing and my sole narrow mission here is to explain why. to begin with, as all of us here know, the cost sharing reductions program was designed and has in practice operated as an integral component of the affordable care act. however, house leadership and district court for the district of columbia judge contend that there is no appropriation for the cost sharing reductions even though, as they concede, 31 us c-section 1324 does provide a permanent appropriation for the law's complementary premium assistan

mr. lazarus talks about the rezoning of san francisco in the 19 san jose and people involved in politicst want to say the progressive board of supervisors 2000 i like to counter and remind them we've skoend and like it or not in the eastern neighborhoods and rincon hill the bloifrpt shipyard were the result of that expensive meeting progress that resulted in up zoning of the city in exchange for more affordability for more density that is not new i also agree with the contention that there are cities throughout the state counties throughout the state including in this region not doing what they can and should do and one of the speakers spoke to a wide range of rebates that could be i will add to that in in cases it is racism and other cases it is legitimate issues of impacts on neighborhoods and quality of life by the way, let me say this not a loss on anyone in the room we will live in the descend it city on the seaboard and don't need a doctor as the mayor says the city bird is the crane we're building thousands and thousands of units we have tens of thousands of units in the pipeline

mr. lazarus talks about the rezoning of san francisco in the 19 san jose and people involved in politicst want to say the progressive board of supervisors 2000 i like to counter and remind them we've skoend and like it or not in the eastern neighborhoods and rincon hill the bloifrpt shipyard were the result of that expensive meeting progress that resulted in up zoning of the city in exchange for more affordability for more density that is not new i also agree with the contention that there are cities throughout the state counties throughout the state including in this region not doing what they can and should do and one of the speakers spoke to a wide range of rebates that could be i will add to that in in cases it is racism and other cases it is legitimate issues of impacts on neighborhoods and quality of life by the way, let me say this not a loss on anyone in the room we will live in the descend it city on the seaboard and don't need a doctor as the mayor says the city bird is the crane we're building thousands and thousands of units we have tens of thousands of units in the pipeline

mr. lazarus (sounds like). >> good morning supervisors, jim lazarus san francisco chamber of commerce. have a robust process of outreach working with a variety of businesses. the chamber did its best to reach out throughout the business community where we thought we were identifying the attention of businesses that would be impacted. we think back to your legislation, working very hard with the restaurant industry and retail grocers using the product in their food service areas and really as you said got almost 100% compliance. --- we are a special location with water on three sides. we all have that cloth bag with us at the office or back of the car. we look forward to the amendment that supervisor reed included, and looking for a way that businesses can comply in a timely way and ways where exceptions are required. we appreciate that. our businesses will be working with you to see that this is implement it. thank you very much. >> chair peskin: and i may add that the real success of the program a decade ago is that we achieved that compliance without ever issuing a fine. we issued a

mr. lazarus. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is charlie gosh and work on governmental affairs for the association. i would like to echo the comments of the speaker before me and i came to speak on a housing tax, a mansion tax for city college and it's neither. this is a tax on commercial buildings which also include multi-family buildings which are residential buildings which have rents that are high enough and the way the taxes work they get pass by law and whether residential or commercial it will be passed and increase for the residents future or present. we are supportive of the concept city college in general but we don't believe this tax is appropriate and we feel if this debate is going to happen here we at least speak it on the way the ordinance was written and again it's a tax on multi-family buildings and rent controlled buildings and commercial buildings and the businesses that occupy those spaces and we would like to discuss the tax in those terms. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you mr. gosh and i

mrs. lazarus, who is not here but who is the chair, they complement one another. i monitor this issue because i have to report to the chapter what is really happening to san francisco on many levels and as i have said, the thread is that this candidates have to have the ability to adjudicate and preferablely adjudicate with compassion. but there are also issues that come before them that are tricky because they are linked with latest technology or they are linked with high-powered attorneys who can create scenarios that are very, very complicated. and the board which we have the privilege of going before is a board that exposes sometimes the corruption on many levels that's going on in this city, which we pay attention to. and you know the board of supervisors in the course of this meeting later on we will be addressing what happens at our board of supervisors. but it's all connected. but i would like the board of appeals and the candidates that came up today, all of which i support, that they serve this city and county of san francisco and more the constituents a

mr. lazarus. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is charlie gosh and work on governmental affairs for the association. i would like to echo the comments of the speaker before me and i came to speak on a housing tax, a mansion tax for city college and it's neither. this is a tax on commercial buildings which also include multi-family buildings which are residential buildings which have rents that are high enough and the way the taxes work they get pass by law and whether residential or commercial it will be passed and increase for the residents future or present. we are supportive of the concept city college in general but we don't believe this tax is appropriate and we feel if this debate is going to happen here we at least speak it on the way the ordinance was written and again it's a tax on multi-family buildings and rent controlled buildings and commercial buildings and the businesses that occupy those spaces and we would like to discuss the tax in those terms. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you mr. gosh and i

mr. simon lazarus, we thank you for being here today, and thank all of the witnesses. quite an steesteemed panel with century or more of experience. >>> this committee is holding an investigative hearing, do any of you have an objection of taking testimony under oath? do any of you desire to be advised by council, rise and raise your right hand, i will swear you in. do you all swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you, you are all under oath and subject to the penalties of the united states code, ask you each for a 5:00 summary of the schedule. pay attention to the yellow and red lights there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to appear before you this morning. to discuss the affordable care acts cost sharing reduction program. it is part of the aca implementation. there's a serious miscalculation of demand for health insurance of young and healthy, people. my colleagues, brian of the center and heritage foundation and university of houston and i, have

mrs. lazarus, who is not here but who is the chair, they complement one another. i monitor this issue because i have to report to the chapter what is really happening to san francisco on many levels and as i have said, the thread is that this candidates have to have the ability to adjudicate and preferablely adjudicate with compassion. but there are also issues that come before them that are tricky because they are linked with latest technology or they are linked with high-powered attorneys who can create scenarios that are very, very complicated. and the board which we have the privilege of going before is a board that exposes sometimes the corruption on many levels that's going on in this city, which we pay attention to. and you know the board of supervisors in the course of this meeting later on we will be addressing what happens at our board of supervisors. but it's all connected. but i would like the board of appeals and the candidates that came up today, all of which i support, that they serve this city and county of san francisco and more the constituents a

mrs. lazarus, who is not here but who is the chair, they complement one another. i monitor this issue because i have to report to the chapter what is really happening to san francisco on many levels and as i have said, the thread is that this candidates have to have the ability to adjudicate and preferablely adjudicate with compassion. but there are also issues that come before them that are tricky because they are linked with latest technology or they are linked with high-powered attorneys who can create scenarios that are very, very complicated. and the board which we have the privilege of going before is a board that exposes sometimes the corruption on many levels that's going on in this city, which we pay attention to. and you know the board of supervisors in the course of this meeting later on we will be addressing what happens at our board of supervisors. but it's all connected. but i would like the board of appeals and the candidates that came up today, all of which i support, that they serve this city and county of san francisco and more the constituents a

lazarus. >> yes. a continuance with a request that mr.anchez has something to say and scott sanchez planning department. i would request a continuance we get specific guidance and what type of xhoomthsz if it is looking at the setting back the decks how far the defections go and reducing the deck spaces or trying to look at the light and air to the adjacent property to the north there is i think two different issues the appellant to the west the privacy and the light and air the property to the north seems more about the light and air. >> i personally was troubled by the light and air >> so the decks or just the space given. >> the all filed in but that's my - >> i'm fine with the decks myself it is to the south. >> so mr. sanchez i'm more - i'm in sync with my fellow commissioners but have a written wrinkle does that fulfill the variance i don't see a hardship are i don't see a problem with the building this has to be done to preserve the building in any way, shape, or form, etc., etc. according to the laundry list which is part of requi

mr. call the next item. >> to continue to the 27th of july for public utilities commission clarify their statements and i'm assuming no additional briefly. >> so on that motion commissioner fung commissioner lazarusommissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries 5 to zero and that item is continued to next week. >> take a break. >> yeah. a 5 minute break recess we'll take a 5 minute. >> the council said i might have misspoke i sai okay welco wednesday, july 20, 2016, meeting the self-board of appeals we're on item 7 excuse me - and the family trust versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on green street protesting the issuance of 2015 of an alteration from merge from a non-shared lightwell on one east side and horizon addition sitting room and a market-rate suit application this is on for further consideration today on october 14, 2015, the board voted with commissioner wilson to continue this matter to the call of the chair to allow the planning department to analyze the permit requirements i understand that schools reviewed the video for this item we're all already to go forward and start. >> prior to reuben, junius & rose representation a