mr. bosswell, yes. >> mr. bosswell, yes. >> mr. baca. >> yes. >> mr. baca, yes. mr. cardoza. >> yes. >> mr. cardoza, yes. >> mr. david scott, yes. >> mr. david scott, yes. mr. kwaar, yes. >> mr. costa? >> yes. >> mr. costa, yes. mr. wallace? >> yes. >> mr. wallace, yes. mr. schrader? >> no. >> mr. schrader no. >> mr. kissel? >> yes. >> mr. kissel, yes. >> mr. owens? >> mr. owens no. mrs. pingry? >> yes. >> mr. pingry, yes. >> mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. courtney, yes. >> miss fudge? >> yes. >> miss fudge, yes. >> mr. sublime. >> yes. >> mr. sublime, yes. >> miss sewell? >> yes. >> miss sewell, yes. >> mr. nagbower? >> no. >> mr. nagbower, no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. >> makes sense. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas to 31 nays. [ inaudible ] >> mr. chairman i have an amendment that i would offer to withdraw. that would be wonderful. the chair is recognized for both. mr. chairman, i've heard from many food pantries throughout the district that are concerned about the possibility of regulations both at the usda and the food and drug administration w

mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. on the second question, using the consultant descriptions as submitted by consultants. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. i have a question. should i ask my question? the question had to do with the description between neighborhoods and institutions. i think this refers to the lead. however the lead-in is phrased, as long as it is consistent with the content with what is indicated for each district. right now, it looks like it is a reference to neighborhoods. i think we need to reconcile that of it to include institutions. >> i encourage you to stick with the recognized neighborhoods language. the purpose of having the findings is to justify going above 1%, which you can only do for recognize neighborhoods. >> i understand that logic. i think there are a couple of important exceptions. i am fine with taking this general approach. with district 10 -- right now, it is listed in the consultants list as general hospital with a note.

>> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you. >> can i make a comment while at the look at the numbers? >> sure. i think the pop lore initially had either ben the four blocks between two and five as a way to clean the lines. so since those are not submitted as part of a neighborhood, i would suggest we look there to the extent we still have a population issue. >> ok. >> mr. chair, we have the deviation. it is negative 4.997%. >> are you comfortable? >> i'm comfortable. >> thank you. thanks for that exercise. let's visit now the less again attempting to move fairly swiftly through each of these considerations. let's go to the question of d-60 border, at the same time we will secondarly visit the maria manner. >> i don't know where they are continue may affect it. if you can tell us where they are. >> sure. give us the other two. so we will look out -- so the next -- the next one is between districts 10 and 9. bart line we would align to. this is an area t

>> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> further depopulating three, no. >> miss mondejar? >> yes. miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> please make this change. >> mr. leigh? >> then just the second part of it to move then the other two blocks into three. >> and -- >> i'm sorry, into six. >> question, the manors in both blocks? >> no, the northern block. we could just take that one, the northern block and that would be fine with me. as far as my proposal is concerned. >> ok. >> so desubmit the southern of those two blocks? exactly. >> miss tidwell? >> i would like to comment that i think if we are considering putting portions of the tenderloin, continuing to add to the tenderloin, it raises the question of moving the line i think, well, in my mind again sort of revisiting the mission market digs continuation -- distinction that's been raised because i think pot point you're going to -- we heard a number of testimony about the bristol hotel, and i could see a distinction in making that line, w

mr. bacca? yes. mr. car doze za. mr. david scott, yes. mr. quayar, yes. mr. costa? mr. costa, yes. mr. walls, mr. walls, yes. mr. schrader, mr. schrader, yes. mr. kissle, mr. kissle, yes. mr. owens, mr. owens, yes. miss pingree? miss pingree, yes. mr. courtney? >> yes. >> mr. courtney, yes. mr. welch? mr. welch, yes. miss fudge? mr. sublon? mr. sublon, yes. miss sewell? miss sewell, yes. mr. mcgovern? mr. mcgovern, yes. mr. goodlatte? mr. goodlatte, no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson, no. mr. naugabauer? mr. naugabauer, no. miss elmers? mr. peterson? mr. peterson, no. miss fudge? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number two is defeated. are there additional amendments to title two, the conservation title? seeing no additional amoment m to title number two. title number two the conservation title is now closed. title number three, a trade. now it's in order to consider title number three. i ask unanimous consent that the explanation of the title be waived. seeing no objection. seeing no objection. the title is open to amendment.

mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. gibson, yes. no. no. >> mr. schilling? >> yes. >> mr. schilling, yes. >> mr. ribble? >> no. >> mr. peterson? >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden, no. >> mr. mcintire, yes. >> yes. yes. mr. clayton? >> no. >> mr. costa? >> yes. >> mr. walls? >> yes. >> mr. straiter? >> yes. >> mr. kissle? >> yes. >> mr. owings? >> yes. >> mr. kingery, yes. yes. yes. yes. mr. johnson, no. mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. mr. kardosa? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. the vote is 18 ayes, 26 nays. >> amendment number 29 is not accepted. >> i have an amendment. >> what is the number? >> it's number 12 on broad band. >> the clerk will distribute amendment number 12. the gentleman may begin his explanation when he's prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the bipartisan leadership that's been brought to this bill here today. you know, the need is critically important to my area and upstate new york. i think we share that really across this committee. you look at the data. there are 55 congressional districts that have 10% or more where constituents don't have

>> yes. >> mr. league? >> yes. -- mr. leeg -- leigh. >> yes. >> no. >> i will look at the deviations. >> thank you.

mr. leigh: yes. mr. alonso: no. ms. tidwell: yes. >> i was going to make the same observation. parts of this are already there. it is augmenting it a little bit to get what is not there included. mr. pilpel: if we are not able to edit, i would not include it in this way. mr. mcdonnell: ok. thank you. ms. mondejar: included in the body of the report. maybe at the last sentence. -- edit the last sentence. mr. mcdonnell: your response but the break for editing. ok. thank you. on mr. pilpel's? everyone take a moment to read this suggestion. >> the question you're going to call is all or nothing? mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. mr. pilpel: -- mr. schreiber: no. ms. mondejar: the question is to include it all or not? um -- yes. ms. lam: no. ms. melara: no, because most of it is already included in the report and some of the things that were not, i think we did not vote on them. mr. leigh: i am going to say yes. on the whole, i think it is fine. i appreciate member pilpel's attempts to respond to the issues we had. ms. tidwell: no. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it will remain in the individual se

mr. alonso: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much.

mr. alonso: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. lam: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. pilpel: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you so much. >> i just wanted to thank tidwell, melara, and leigh, and really, thank you for taking the time to pull all lavar reports together -- pull all of our reports together. mr. mcdonnell: thank you very much. it moving again, item number six. a press conference. based on lots of discussion and exploration with the city attorney around options, they are fairly limited in that while we do want to find a suitable, formal moment of issuing of the report, the problem is if we do it collectively, that it constitutes a meeting. once it constitutes a meeting, we are back where we started again. so our options are, a, we hold a press conference with less than a quorum present, which therefore does not constitute a meeting and we issue it, or to report its issued and a less public, less formal, less visible way and just gets distributed to committee and habitants. discussion? >> i have a suggestion. i suggest we hold a press conference with share m

mr. powell? >> make that three. yes. >> mr. barrett? >> yes. >> mr. ergen? >> no, not yet. >> mr. o'leary. >> yes. >> so we have clearly, a split amongst the panelists here. mr. barrett and i appreciate the work that wdsu tv, the nbc affiliate in new orleans does and it's one of the first affiliates. do you currently have the legal rights to sub license always broadcast programming transmitted over your signals to companies like netflix and sky angel. who do not qualify for compulsory copyright licenses? is it something that you have the legal right? >> limited right with our networks with respect to how we may transmit their signal to other transmitters? >> limited rights? >> yes. >> is your company opposed to paying for access to content? no. we're not op -- no, we're not opposed to paying for content. >> mr. johnson? >> you say content you mean local programming or cable chan willel? >> any content -- >> we have been paying for it, the content, yes. >> mr. hymen? >> all we do is pay for content. >> this is something that already occurs. i want to ask mr. barrett, you all own a s

mr. mcdonnell: any objection? it ms. tidwell: yes. i was attempting to be helpful by adding neighborhoods. with 16th street, i don't think we have included potrero, and the ones we have highlighted with issues. mr. mcdonnell: okay, that is what objection. ok, list them off. one more time. >> silver terrace, a little hollywood, candlestick. ms. tidwell: isn't candlestick -- isn't that an institution? >> i think there is a candlestick neighborhood. ms. tidwell: you think, or there is? >> ok, we will exclude candlestick. bayview hunters point, potrero hill, and showplace square. ms. tidwell: i don't think -- sorry, what ever. ms. lam: i think there are concerns including potrero hill as an interactive neighborhood. could we show you the map? mr. pilpel: i suggest we just excluded. i will live with that. i have to go at about 45 minutes. >> i had to go about an hour and half ago. i will go another 45 minutes. mr. mcdonnell: ok. district 11. we have parker amazon, excelsior. any additions? >> mission terrace, there it is. mr. mcdonnell: any

mr. rooney. >> yes. >> mr. southerland. >> aye. >> mr. crawford. >> yes. >> mr. bosswell. >> no. >> mr. chairman. >> yes. >> mr. chairman, the vote is 27 yays to 19 nays. >> the number 89 carries. the gentle lady from maine seeks recognition. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am the co sponsor of amendment 3, it's at the desk and i would like to call it up. >> amendment number 3 will be distributed by the clerk and the gentle lady is recognized for five minutes for explanation when she is ready. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. this is a very simple co -- no-cost amendment that would give a little more control to state and local communities by authorizing their schools, those schools who have low annual commodity entitlement values, mostly small rural schools, to start making more of their own food purchases. the basic idea behind it is to allow for more local purchasing of food, more fresh food from the area to be included in school lunch programs. these would allow the usda to implement a small program that would implement some of their program dollars from the food distribution program

mr. alanso? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. leigh? >> yes. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, could you repeat the proposal? >> 64 reversinging it from d-3 back to d-2. sorry, other way. reversing it from -- thank you. >> yes. >> mr. mondejar? >> yes. >> mr. pilpel? >> i'm in favor of fewer so i think i'm no on the question. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> miss tidwell? >> yes. >> please make this change. as you're doing that can you give the new deviation or temporary deviation. >> for district 3 the temporary >> for district 3 the temporary deviation is negative 3.5%.

mr. johnson? >> yes. >> mr. johnson, yes. >> mr. thompson? mr. hold en? mr. cherraichairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 17 yeahs and 27 nays. >> are there any other amendments? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. and i have not had the opportunity mr. chairman, to thank you and ranking member peterson for finding come ground on the farm bill. mr. chairman, i have an amendment to file with the clerk, i'm sorry. and i think it's amendment number 95. >> clerk will distribute amendment number 95. >> mr. chairman, i move to strike the last word. >> you are recognized for five minutes. and gentleman from texas reserves the point of order. the gentleman may explain his -- is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the purpose of the amendment is to get feedback on whether the reimbursement rates, the second secretary of agriculture uses for u.s. territories -- the secretary has the authority to set differentiates for alaska and hawaii and the territories, but he has only done so for alaska and hawaii. my amendment asks the secreta

mr. schreiber? >> yes, i agree. >> you agree. ok. mr. mondejar? >> i agree. >> miss lam? >> yes. >> miss melara? mr. leigh? >> to make sure i understand, this is to not include any of our draft map? >> i agree. >> mr. alanso? >> yes. >> number one does not get included either. second point then, maps submitted by the public. >> mr. chair, just to let you know, a followup from the department of elections that the website will all be in psychiatristance for 10 years and it will be ssgrdtv and working maps are all available on the website also. we can reference. it will be there for anybody who wants to see it. sorry. >> that's ok, thank you. maps submitted by the public. mr. alanso, in or out? >> out. >> mr. leigh? >> out with the possibility -- i think this is the suggestion i would make just based on what madam clerk has said is that we have two sentences tend of this, one referring to the public file and one referring to the website and in the second sentence referring to the website, explicitly mention working map drafts as well as maps submitted by the public will be av

mr. gibbs, no. yes. mr. gibson, no. mr. sutherland, no. mr. crawford? >> no. >> mr. crawford, no. mrs. heelscamp, no.

mr. kopp? >> yes. again, heresay to the whole thing. but lines 18 through 20, the sentence -- sentences that begin i asked and the next sentence begins she said. relevance no foundation, it's speculation. prejudicial. >> mr. keith? >> i think that -- i think that -- i actually don't agree with most of the objection but it's probably -- it's probably not relevant within the stream of what's being conveyed. so i think that we wouldn't oppose that. >> ok. so that is -- the objection is sustained by stipulation as to the sentence that begins "i asked" online 18 and ends with the word "career" online 20. do i have that correct? >> yep. >> thank you. >> paragraph 14. >> heresay as to the whole thing. and then the very last line which is online seven, lines two to three, the very last sentence in that beginning with the word "my" finishing with the word "do," there's no foundation. i'm sorry. was i going too fast? chairperson hur: no. >> no foundation for that and speculation. chairperson hur: mr. keith? >> this is actually relevant to show ms.

mr. forthen bury. >> yes. >> mr. fortenbur ayes. mrs. schmidt, yes. mr. thompson, mr. thompson aye. mr. roony. >> aye. >> mr. rooney aye. >> mr. stutzman, no. mr. gibbs, mr. gibbs aye. mr. scott, austin scott. mr. austin scott no. mr. tipton. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland. >> aye. >> mr. sutherland aye. mr. crawford. mr. crawford no. mrs. roby. mrs. roby no. mr. healscamp, aye. mrs. elmers. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. gibson no. >> mr. holtgren aye. mr. hartzlel, no. mr. schilling. >> mr. schilling no. mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mr. ribble aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. peterson, no. mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. holden no. mr. mcentire. >> no. >> mr. mcentire now. >> mr. boswell. >> mr. boswell no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> david scott. >> aye. >> mr. david scott aye. mr. kwai ar no. mr. costa, no. mr. walls. >> no. >> mr. walls no. mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. schrader no. mr. kissell, no. >> mr. owens. >> mr. owens no. mrs. ping rey, no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. courtney no. mr. welch. >> no. >> mr. welch, no. mrs. budge. >> aye. >> mr. siblon. >> no. >> ms. sewell. >> no. >> mr. mcgo

mr. feldman? >> yes. >> mr. wilson? >> yes, i offered up this afternoon. i haven't gotten a response yet. i'd be happy to do that. >> excellent. well, mr. romero, the next time you don't have people willing to sit down for you with an interview, let me know. we'll be happy to have a hearing. >> i can't say how grateful i to the committee and to the chairman and ranking member of the full committee. this is all we want. all we wanted doctor we're also not -- we haven't reached any conclusions in our audit. how can we? i can't character the role they plays without giving them an opportunity to speak to that role. i'm very grateful for. that it also goes beyond just these three witnesses and this audit as i talked about in my opening statement. it will be a very, very dangerous precedent if former treasury officials or other government officials who worked on t.a.r.p. matters and then leave and refuse to be interviewed by sig-t.a.r.p.. i thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i thank you for your willingness to submit yourself to this. mr. ratner who received a

mr. johnson? >> yes. >> mr. johnson, yes? >> mr. chairman? i know the clerk will record no. >> no? >> no. mr. chairman, the vote is ten yeas to 36 nays. >> the amendment number 23 is not agreed to. the gentleman from iowa. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, number 69. the clerk will distribute amendment number 69. may i go ahead. >> the gentleman may proceed when he is prepared. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the efforts going forth here. it will be a long day so i'll try to be short. as you know, the underlying bill offers two commodity-payment programs for significant loss coverage. farmers may lose for a program that will address deep, multi-year price declines through a calculation in the index below the cost of production. it just happens the risk management is based on crisis. the revenue loss coverage allows farmers to choose a program that tackles revenue loss greater than 15% similar to the senate agricultural risk coverage, arc program through coverage based on country wide losses that uses the index below cost of prices. however, while both loss coverage pro

. >> ok, mr. ye, what is up with 10.2e? >> good afternoon. you may remember back in january director lee asked for a report from lots on all of the tolls zones in the city and which ones we feel are necessary. we took a pretty detailed evaluation and we came out with a report to you and identified a list of locations where we feel they may no longer be justified, either because of traffic conditions have changed or there is no apparent reason why the report in to begin with, including a transit on it. and you do not gain an extra lane and so forth. battery was one of the streets that we identified, especially in the afternoon peaks. we recommend that they be rescinded to restore the parking. but in the morning, we are recommending that it be -- it be maintained because a good amount of traffic goes by on the west side and they have over 80 buses and how are going through that corridor. the recommendation is only for the bnp. >> thank you. mr. toronto? >> thank you for allowing me to hear the staff report on this. the only thing is that it is

mr. gibson? >> yes. >> mr. holgrin? >> no. >> -- is this. >> this agriculture markup started at 10:00 eastern this morning and could go until 9:00 tonight. the legislation reduces spending by $1.6 million our live coverage of a markup is using to the companion network, c-span 2. in a few moments, a discussion of the tax provisions of the 2010 health care law. and in an hour and a half, a hearing on state and federal cooperation on border security. >> when you realized they were trying to escape really into the west, that's when he collapsed, when he felt he realized finally it had come to an end. his main priority is not to be captured by the russians. he was afraid of being ridiculed. so he was determined to die. >> now a discussion of the tax provisions of the 2010 health care law. this is an hour and a half. >> for the next hour and a half or so, we're going to look at the specific tax provisions that are located within the affordable care act. we asked two gentlemen to join us to talk about the things. not only expl

mr. mayor? >> yes, clearly. >> do you believe that part of leading by example is showing the power of redemption? >> that is certainly something i have learned. >> couldn't you model redemption by dropping the official misconduct charges against sheriff mirkarimi and giving him a second chance? >> i came to the conclusion of official misconduct because i believe that the actions that were admitted to and the crime that was perpetrated has to have direct consequences. i believe strongly that a direct consequence is that you cannot be sheriff of this city if you are guilty of domestic violence. >> a do you think he is ready for a second chance from u.s. the decision maker? >> -- from you as the decision maker? >> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> does the sheriff have any duty to work together with the mayor? >> yes. >> in light of the events that have transpired since you brought the official misconduct charges and the discourse that has been -- let me back up. are you aware of any statements that have been

mr. kelly? >> yes. >> gregoire? [ inaudible ] >> mr. bunton? >> needs improvement. >> okay. now, another question, yes or no. should congress consider a complete overhaul of appraisal regulations and improve it for consumers and businesses alike. mr. berenbaum? >> i think there's a serious need to look at -- >> yes or no. >> yes or no? there's a need to look at it. >> mr. bunton? [ inaudible ] >> mr. gregoire? [ inaudible ] >> mr. kelly. >> we should continue to look at it, yes. >> okay, ms. mann? >> improve the existing system. >> ms. stevens? >> yes. >> thank you. all right. my time has expired. mr. sherman from california is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. in greg mr. gregory, the gses have created this new uniform appraisal database, the uad, which is used on all gse appraisals and also for fha. how is it all working out? >> form -- thank you for the question -- because of the >> fortunately because of the work that i do, i've not had to complete one of those reports. however, i have heard from dozens if not hundreds of appraisers. >> could you be

>> yes. >> mr. kopp? >> can i just voice a concern that i had because i had the same concern that mr. renne just voice which is i did not want to have the sentences read out. my concern is that when mr. keith responds to my objections he's probably, i would think he would want to explain to you why they are relevant and that would necessitate that recitation of these facts. i'm not so sure this is going work. i'm throg give it a try. i'm going to make my objections in the most legal and general terms without addressing this specifics. chairperson hur: ok. let's try it. >> so we don't object to paragraphs one, two, three, four and that's as far as i got. we object to paragraph five on relevance grounds. chairperson hur: any other basis? >> the first sentence is probably more prejudicial under 352. when i say relevance grounds i don't know if you want me to spell out the parts specifically that i think are more prejudicial than probative. >> i can actually short circuit this. well, let me say specifically,

mr. powell? yes, mr. chairman, what you are having is the continued of lagz of the convergence in which technologies increasingly bring sameness to the way the things are provided and distributed. i wouldn't make the hallmark of suggesting that things are situated just because they can produce the same content, the same show. there are different business models and different terms, different technologies underlying it. the cable industry spends $186 billion to build an infrastructure that's optimized for premium, high quality content. that's very different than the same content being sold on i tunes in a model designed to sell ipods. as long as we're cognizant of the different business models and they're pursuing different objectives just because they have the same content doesn't necessarily make them identical and i do think there should be more sameness than there is today. >> all right. my time has expired and getting to the heart of the issue here is everybody wants a little different deal, the other