mr. sullivan the intents of the changes i made were to strengthen rent-controlled for the attendants. if you could summarize for everyone, what those protections are that are laid out currently in the development agreement that would insure in force -- enforcability. i want you to give an idea of how strong you think the enforcement is and what protections exist in case this happens. >> thank you, president chiu. i spoke this morning. i am going to summarize some of my words. i will first talk about what is in the development agreements. we will have to answer additional questions about any specifics. he generally does not allow cities to impose rent control. there are three exceptions to that rule. one of them is when rent control is included in a contract with a public agency. that language has banned in the development agreement for a long time. we have cited all of the reasons we believe we fall within that exemption. we have the developer a greeting in a separate letter that they are providing. it would not be possible to develop this project. it would not be financially feasible

mr. sullivan makes a good argument that the density bonus exception is something slightly less than that based on the language. it is not a bad argument. the problem is there's an argument to the contrary based on the legislative history, which is equally strong, if not stronger. one final point to those of you here today. it seems pretty clear that this board of supervisors, one way or another, is going to approve this development. i would just say that you really need to clean up the process at this point. twice, the development agreement in recent history has been amended by a web master at 5:00 p.m. on friday afternoon and we find ourselves in the position of not being able to give you the kind of input you have come to rely upon. to this this morning, i tried to get a copy of one of the exhibits and i did succeed in finally getting it finally from mr. yarne. i do not think it says what they think it says. i was in the position of talking to your aid, supervisor chiu, on a cell phone during the meeting, trying to figure out what it said. i do not want to be disingenuous with you. we

mr. sullivan, could you please start to summarize more succinctly so we can get to public comment? >> ok. the remedies introduced today include termination rights for against reneging owners and developers. if it happens at all, there would be a termination of the development agreement. if it happens after substantial construction, so we're in the middle of construction, developers have an option of either continuing to abide by rent control or pay the liquidation amount. like i said, we also have the right of first resultrefusal. i'm happy to answer further questions on that. supervisor mar: we have the 14 page document and a summary. we also have mr. yarne's summary of the different amendments. thank you for that. my understanding is there's a puc recommendation, as well, which i think is on our desks, too. my aide has distributed copies. if anybody wants them, please raise your hand. there are two documents you should be able to receive. one is a summary document that summarizes all the amendments i am proposing. the others are the 14 pages of the actual language of the amendmen

mr. sullivan asking the boeing be withdrawn.ents -- it is against the ability of our states to recruit jobs. your actions seriously undermines our citizens' right to work as well as their ability to compete globally. therefore, as attorneys general we will protect our citizens from union boeing and federal coercion. we call upon you to cease this attack on our right to work, our state's economies and our jobs. editorials from across -- from newspapers across the country have criticized the boeing complaint. even the seattle times wrote in an april 22 editorial -- quote -- "this page regretted boeing decisions but never thought of it as something that could be or should be reversed by the federal government." the article continues saying that the -- quote -- "national labor relations board labeled boeing's decision an unfair label practice and is asking the federal government to move the line. we would celebrate the day boeing decides to do that but it is boeing's decision." the same editorial concluded "the company has a right t

mr. sullivan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. sullivan: thank you. you see jobs leaving the gulf of mexico and they're going to the mediterranean sea, egypt, australia, sierra leon. as we know our favorite pick of late is brazil, is brazil. what we have to do in this body today is we have to put our lives in the lives of the american families and we have to make sure that it is time today, it is time today to do what this body should have done many, many years ago and we have to make sure that we take care of them and we tap into our natural resources that we have in this country. i stand today and rise in support of this rule as well as the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i yield myself five seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, let's be clear, this bill does nothing, nothing at all t

mr. sullivan comment on it, if you would, please.ntioned savings from the affordable care act earlier. the conversation going on now is rationing versus choices. i read the obamacare act and i i read the obamacare act and i see a lot of rationing, although it is not put that way. i see paul ryan's plan, although not exactly palatable to me and other folks in the 45- to 50- year-old age group. my second question is the congressional game playing going on. it seems odd to me that we as a country are still calling it -- are rare still talking about cuts for seniors and survival services as a country. our leaders -- obama just talking about aid for egypt, at age for afghanistan and the wars there and in iraq, and aid for libya. enough is enough. the time has come for us to take care of ourselves a little bit, to look at what are we getting for our investment in these countries. i really look forward to hearing your comments on that. host: you'll hear from democrats and republicans that that is a small percentage of the overall budget, bu

mr. sullivan, vice president biden has talks opening today. where are both parties? >> good morning, susan. two parties remain pretty far board at this point. -- remain prettyz -- far apart. republicans like to talk about reductions to popular benefit programs like medicare and medicaid. democrats generally say they should not be changed and instead we should look at things like cutting defense spending and revamping the tax code in a way that would bring more revenue. republicans alike that. host: are you beginning to hear signs of concession that this may not be possible with the election so closed by? skepticismere is groupther the by tiden will be able to reach a deal. a group last year could not reach a deal, so how could this group reached a deal in a month and a half or so that obama has given them to find a solution? and people say look at the members of this panel, they are not real budget experts. these are folks on the panel who are best known for enforcing party discipline. eric cantor used to be his and jon kyl,f -- besides had that position in the senat