first mr. olson spoke of the loving case at great length. but we know if mr. loving had desired to marry mr. jeter that the case would not have come out the same way. we know that with certainty because baker against nelson rejected that very claim and it rejected that claim on the heels of loving where the gay couple who brought that 14th amendment loving claim relied on loving very heavily. we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he says the baker case did not involve a claimed classification based on just gender. here's what the plaintiffs in baker said. "there is no justification --" and this is throughout their jurisdictional statement, your honor, "there is no justification in law for the discrimination against ho homosexuals. appellants are being deprived of a basic right, the right to marry. as a result of this deprivation, they have denied numerous benefits awarded by law to others similarly situated -- for example childless heterosexual couples." this is clearly a case where they challenged the classification as one based upon sexual orient

so, mr. olson, would you like to start with some introductory remarks?planning department going to be -- >> he was year earlier. supervisor wiener: a kick, when he comes, we will give him the opportunity. supervisor mar: update, before we go, supervisor wiener, maybe we can ask if supervisor cohen has any comments. i appreciate the work that has gone into this. i had an interest in a statement about not putting the low-income housing against the immediate income housing. something shown to me shows that the highest rent burden still falls on the lower incomes, who have to pay a huge percentage of their income on rent, as much as 7%, and for me, housing for the lowest income residents also includes much lower living conditions and habitability, as well, so in some ways, the lack of heat or rodents and roaches to lots of other issues are really key, and sometimes when we look at middle-income housing, it depends on how we define it, so i am looking forward to see the data today as we try to balance the needs of the lowest income residents against the middl

. >> mr. olson, you do think there's a difference between taking the right-of-way, and not affording it in the first place? >> yes, we do, judge reinhardt. that is what the united states supreme court said in a case going back to wrightman versus malke, in 1964, where the california citizens acted through this process and took away rights with respect to discrimination in housing, and that is what the supreme court said in roehmer versus colorado, that it does make a difference. now i don't think as an original matter that it would be constitutional if congress had enacted proposition 8 five years ago, before the in re marriage cases but i think it makes it worse and that's what the united states supreme court has said, the taking away of the rights in that context enhances the effect of the constitution of the purported constitutional change. >> what's your answer to the case that mr. cooper referred to several times? it's the one about the the bussing and the methods of bringing diverseit to the s

mr. olson from texas. mr. olson: i thank my good friend from colorado, fighting for u.s. domestic production of energy. i'm going to start my comments tonight by focusing on gas prices. we all know that gas prices have risen dramatically under the current administration. this chart here shows exactly what has happened in america. our president took office in february of 2009. just over $1.90. spiked up to $2.70 a gallon and last summer, almost $4.00 a gallon. almost doubled in price since president obama took office. these gas prices are a hardship on american families and american small businesses. families that have to take their kids to school. families that have to drive their kids to practice. families who have to go to the grocery store. families who have to go to church. no one is immune from these price increases. i represent part of the energy capital of the world, suburb of houston, texas and we aren't immune to these price increases. these are articles from a local newspaper in the p

first off, we will have the mayor's office of housing and mr. olson lee. >> i appreciate the opportunity to come before the board of supervisors about rebuilding the potrero property. at the conclusion of the presentation, the staff of both the mayor's office on housing as well as the development team and my colleague, henry alvarez, we are all here to enter questions that the supervisors may have about this particular effort. i would like to turn it over to amy. >> thank you, olson. thank you, supervisors, for giving us the opportunity today to talk about hope sf and specifically the potrero property. this is a good time because we will have more properties come on line in the next 1.5 years. we started this way back in 2007, so we are in our fifth year with a rope -- with hope sf, and we are very excited about being able to offer new places. we will put the presentation into context. in the presentation, we're going to give you an master plan overview and go over the community engagement process, and then we're going to talk to you about the wonderf

we also they mr. olsonsimply wrong when he suggests that the baker case did not involve a classification based on sexual orientation. it was just gender. here is what the plaintiffs in baker said. there is no justification in law for the discrimination against homosexuals. apellants are being denied basic right to marry. they have been denied numerous benefits awarded to others similarly situated, for example, childless heterosexual couples. this was clearly a case where they challenged the classification as one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. the loving case would have been on all fours and would have -- would have come out -- excuse me, could have come out -- baker case would have been on all fours with loving if it were a fact that same sex sexual relations produced the children same as opposite sex sexual relations do. then mr. olson would have a lay-down case. there would be no basis on which to draw a distinction to identify a distinguishing characteristic with respect to a

we also think that mr. olson is simply wrong when he suggests that the case did not involve the classification, claimed classification based on sexual orientation the was just gender. here is what the plaintiffs and baker said. there is no justification and this is true of the jurisdiction statement, your honor. there is no justification for this commission against homosexuals. of olives are being deprived of the basic right to marry as a result of this thing is been denied numerous benefits awarded by law to others similarly situated to a for example, childless heterosexual couples. this is clearly the case where they challenged the classification as one based on sexual orientation as well as one based on gender. a loving case would have been on all fours, and what have come out -- excuse me, the case would have been on all four with loving if it were a fact that same-sex sexual relations produced children the same as opposite sex sexual relations to. then mr. olson would have a lead down case. there would be no

i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely the language in this is powerful, so eloquent, it really is -- i remember we talked about this when judge walker's decision came down, rachel. it is a letter to justice kennedy at the court saying please, please, please this looks a lot leem r like your roner language from the colorado case. find that same right of dignity and self-determination for gay couples. it's really important to see what the ninth circuit did not do, which is glowingly uphold everything about judge walker's determination and hand what would have been really a smoking bomb to the supreme court and said, here. the most liberal circuit in the kun, the one that you overturn all the time wants you to have this gift. i think they were too kanne to do that, and i think in the long run that was probably a smart move. >> in terms of the next steps here, to be clear this does not mean that people can start getting married again in california. same sex couples are still not allowed to do that. that part of th

mr. olson: no, sir. mr. gardner: and, again, to the american people, we've heard it asked often by members of this body, where are the jobs? and i think we need to start asking why not these jobs? i thank the gentleman from texas and with that i'd yield to the gentleman from south carolina who has been a very active in the fight for jobs in his home state and across this country. >> well, i appreciate the gentleman from colorado allowing me to have a little bit of time to talk about this. you know, canada is our largest and best trading partner. a good friend of mine was an ambassador to canada, i had the opportunity to go up there and talk with him and talk with him about this issue and why it's important to the united states. why keystone pipeline? how about the refining capacity we've got in the gulf. how about the refining jobs that would be provided in a very hard hit, post-horizon gulf state economy? the gentleman from texas was very clear and they understand in texas as they do in north dakota that en

now, i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely, the language in this is so powerful, so eloquent, it really is and i remember we taubed about this when judge walker's decision came down, rachel, a letter to justice kennedy of the court saying please, please, please, this looks a lot like your roemer language from that coklorado case. please please please take this and find determination for dignity. i think it's important what the 9th circuit did not do, up hold everything about judge walker's determination and hand what would have been really a smoking bomb to the supreme court and said here, the most liberal circuit in the country, the one you overturn all the time wants you to have this gift. i think they were too canny to do that. in long run that was probably a smart move. >> in terms of the next steps, this does not mean people can get married again in california, same sex couples are still not allowed to do it, that is stayed. what we're expecting is a decision by the people who lost today about whether or not t

mr. olson: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the markey amendment. the gentleman from massachusetts has displayed a clear lack of understanding of our great nation's history in his amendment to restrict american exports of natural gas. exports have made america a world power. our country grew stronger economically by providing the products the world demands. no one, no one believes that if ford or g.m. could supply domestic markets and ship cars overseas. no one is proposing to limit exports from massachusetts. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for such time as me he may consume. mr. markey: the republican slogan was drill here, drill now, pay less. today their slogan is drill here, sell to china, pay more in the united states. if all these terminals get built, the energy department says the price is going to go up by 54% for american consumers rm let me tell you what boone pickens says, he says something that's very,

mr. olson, for five minutes. mr. olson: i thank the speaker. mr. speaker, i rise to give the american people an update on the keystone x.l. pipeline. monday, president obama took the first step to get out of the way in bringing tar sands oil from canada to my home, southeast texas. it's the yellow pipeline here on this chart. the administration agreed to build the first segment from curbing, -- cushing, oklahoma, right here to southeast texas, the port of houston and the port of port arthur. in announcing the administration's changed position, white house spokesman jay carney said, this is a quote, moving oil from the midwest to the world class state refineries on the gulf coast will modernize our infrastructure, create jobs, and encourage american energy production. amen. 430 miles down, 1,223 to go. but there is no new oil with this pipeline being built. none. so, houston, we still have a problem. that problem is exploding prices for gasoline. since the day president obama took office, he too

i do agree with mr. olson, absolutely. the language in this is so powerful. so eloquent. it really is, and i remember we talked about this when judge walker's decision came down, rachel, it is a letter to justice kennedy at the court saying, please, please, please, this looks like your romer language from that colorado case, please, please, please, take this and find that same right of dignity and self determination for gay couples. i think it is important to see what the ninth circuit did not do, which is glowingly uphold everything about judge walker's determination and hand what would have been really a smoking bomb to the supreme court and said, here, the most liberal circuit in the country the one you overturn all the time wants you to have this gift. i think they were too kanne to do that, and i think in the long run that was probably a smart move. >> in terms of the next steps here, to be clear this does not mean that people can start getting married again in california. same sex couples are still not allowed to do that. that part of that is stayed. what we expect

i cannot neglect mentioning mr. olson because his parents are from my home state and i know them well. we're very fortunate to have people of that quality and character serving. i would like to ask each of you in turn, since this is an annual meeting, what is your assessment of whether or not we have made progress in our ability to handle the terrorist threat in this country? have we made progress? if so, how? what is your assessment of how we have done compared to where we were a year ago? let's start with mr. goldberg and go right down the line. >> as it was said earlier, progress has made in various parts of the counterterrorism fight, especially against al qaeda senior leadership. but there are many other challenges out there and it remains a very, very dangerous part of our work. >> mrs. wagner? >> i think we have made a lot of progress, particularly in a couple of key areas. it was already mentioned, the extent to which many of the stove pipes have been broken down. i think we have made huge progress in that realm a

mr. olson: i thank the chairman of the natural resources committee for the currency of speaking in support of h.r. 3408. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of h.r. 3408. the pioneers act. and by doing so, i'm standing up for american inmoe vation, american jobs, and renewed american prosperity. shale oil is a game changer. and you don't have to look any further than my home state of texas to see the economic benefits of this stable american energy resource. this past sunday, when i went to the area, there were 171 oil rigs and 93 natural gas rigs drilling thousands of wells, more rigs are coming. and major pipeline projects are under way to support production that will go to 420,000 barrels per day. let me say that again. 420,000 barrels of oil per day. what my friends on the other side of the aisle said oil shale, no way. i've seen with my own eyes at the eagle shale and i say oil shale, yes way. eagle ford shale job creation is now in full swing with scores of new businesses opening up to

mr. olson: i thank the chairman of the natural resources committee for the currency of speaking in suppt of h.r. 3408. mr. chairman, i rise in strong pport of h.r. 3408. the pioneers act. and by doing so, i'm standing up for american inmoe vation, american jobs, and renewed american prosperity. shale oil is a game changer. and you don't have to look any further than my home state of texas to see the economic benefits of this stable american energy resource. this past sunday, when i went to the area, there were 171 oil rigs and 93 natural gas rigs drilling thousands of wells, more rigs are coming. and major pipeline projects are under way to support production that will go to 420,000 barrels per day. let me say that again. 420,000 barrels of oil per day. what my friends on the other side of the aisle said oil shale, no way. i've seen with my own eyes at the eagle shale and i say oil shale, yes way. eagle ford shale job creation is now in full swing with scores of new businesses opening up to sup

mr. olson: mr. speaker, february is heart month. i rise today to recognize save the life community heart training day. this is an encht by the american red cross that the texas institute and the methodist bebakey heart center in houston, texas, to raise awareness about the importance of adult c.p.r. and a.e.d. use. sudden cardiac arrest, also known as s.c.a., is the leading cause of death in the united states. with roughly 300,000 americans dying from s.c.a.'s every year. both of our grandfathers died of s.c.a. before i was born. i always dreamed of what it would be like to go fishing with grandpa. the best chance for survival is defibrillation, the delivering of electric pulse shock to the heart. an s.c.a. victim has a 50% to 35% chance of survival if the shock is administered to the heart within five minutes of collapse. training is critical to saving and enhancing lives. mr. speaker, as sponsor of legislation designed to encourage good samaritans to use a.e.d.'s to save lives, i'm proud to recognize save a life day. get trained.

we can't neglect mentioning mr. olson because his parents are from my home state and know them well, couldn't have finer people. we are very fortunate people of that quality and character serving. i would like to ask each of you interim since this is an annual meeting, what is your assessment of whether or not we have made progress in our ability to handle the threat to this country? have we made progress? if so, how are we slipping? what is your assessment of how we have done compared to where we were a year ago and i would start with mr. goldberg and go right on the line. >> i think as it was said earlier, senator conrad, progress has been made in of various parts of the counterterrorism fight especially against al qaeda senior leadership but there are many other challenges out there and they're remains a very, very dangerous part of our work. >> ms. wagner? >> in a couple of key areas i think it was already mentioned the extent to which many of the stove pipes have been broken down in terms of information sharing is th

be made, that the sharing of information between all of our agencies is at a superior level and mr. olson i had the privilege, as you know, of visitting with your folks at nctc recently. it was very impressive to not only see the improvement from a technology standpoint but just to see every member of the intelligence community sitting around a table virtually and discussing in real time the issues that face the community from a ct standpoint is very impressive. and i commend all of you for the great work you have done. it's not been easy. and sometimes it's i know very difficult to put aside some of the previous relationships that might have existed. but boy, have you all ever done a good job breaking down those fire walls and really engaging with every member of the intelligence community to ensure that we disrupt and interrupt terrorist activity around the world that is directed at america, americans, as well as other countries and allies around the world. so i commend you from that respect. i thank you for being here today. and i look forward to your testimony. thank you,. >> thank yo

mr. olson: this program was implemented in houston and across texas to combat rising rates of childhood obesity. it's no secret that childhood obesity is a growing problem in our country. 18% of elementary schoolchildren are overweight and the number is growing every year. the university of texas school of public health created catch to help elementary schools children, and families adopt healthy eating and physical activity behaviors. catch is a huge success. it's been adopted by more than 2,500 elementary schools in texas. impacting 800,000 schoolchildren, that's 50% of texas elementary schools. catch has received national recognition for being one of the most comprehensive and cost effective approaches in fighting childhood obesity. madam speaker, i commend all schools in texas that have adopted this program. they recognize that every child needs to be taught and every child needs to be taught to grow up healthy. i thank the speaker and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose

his place olson be taken here -- place will soon be taken here by mr. fred goodwin. >> you have been watching at newsday from bbc. >> a reminder, in the latest dates to find a republican party presidential candidate, mitt romney has won the florida primary by a wide margin. after strong performances in debates, he beat newt gingrich, reversing the results in a previous primary in south carolina. you have been watching newsday here on bbc. >> make sense of international news at bbc.com/news. >> funding was made possible by -- the freeman foundation of new york, stowe, vermont, and honolulu newman's own foundation and union bank. >> at union bank, our relationship managers work hard to understand the industry you operate in, working to nurture new ventures and provide capital for key strategic decisions. we offer expertise and tailored solutions in a wide range of industries. what can we do for you? >> "bbc world news" was presented by kcet los angeles. presented by kcet los angeles.

olson. >> without objection. >> thank you. you know, i understand that mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. he called this hearing. he asked for witnesses to come. but the incredible political nature of it became really parent when he had his chance to ask questions. he had five minutes. i watched the clock. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. so he drawed two folks out from the united states government, brought them here this morning us asentencebly because he was keenly interested, he thought it was critical that the committee hear from them. they got between two and two 1/2 questions, 29 seconds. it didn't appear to me that there was anything but blatant politics, a chance for him to speak more about folks that are constituents of mine. he's implied this new standard. mr. waxman has the benefits standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> mr. chairman, i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. members motivations or

olson. i understand mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. but the incredible political nature became apparent when he had his chance to ask questions. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. he brought to folks out from the united states government, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that we hear from them. 29 seconds. it did not appear to me that there is anything but blatant politics. mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is that you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. a member's motivations or actions, i am happy to answer it when i get my turn, but if i don't have enough time for questions of these witnesses, you will say i did not ask them enough questions. i think it is inappropriate and i make a point of order that the words be stricken. >> with the gentleman hold for one minute? >> certa

olson. i understand mr. waxman doesn't like this pipeline. but the incredible political nature became apparent when he had his chance to ask questions. he spent four minutes and 31 seconds testifying. he brought to folks out from the united states government, ostensibly because he was keenly interested. he thought it was absolutely critical that we hear from them. 29 seconds. it did not appear to me that there is anything but blatant politics. mr. waxman has the benefit standard. his notion of legislation, apparently, is that you decide a piece of legislation depending on who benefits. >> i want to make a point of order. i know the rules on the house floor would not permit the gentleman to make such a personal attack. a member's motivations or actions, i am happy to answer it when i get my turn, but if i don't have enough time for questions of these witnesses, you will say i did not ask them enough questions. i think it is inappropriate and i make a point of order that the words be stricken. >> with the gentleman hold for one minute? >> certa