mr. mcdonnell: we are on 6 now. so, tenderloin. >> we look at district consultants now? where are we? mr. mcdonnell: we are on district 6. this is the consultants lists list association. all of those will come off. we will now refer to ms. tidwell's list. mission bay, south beach, rincon hill, treasure island, filipino community, and the tenderloin just added by ms. melara. >> are we keeping it together in district 6? >> we did not fully achieve that for the mission, either. mr. mcdonnell: we will not include the tenderloin. >> there is a planning department-recognized neighborhood. correct the spelling. replace "n" with "p." mr. pilpel: could i suggest combining those and saying south of market? that seems to be more of a neighborhood that we could recognize. >> they are separate, though. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- rec

mr. mcdonnell: that is. ms. lam: will -- mr. pilpel: will we edit this after the break? it is our findings as to what constitutes the neighborhood. mr. mcdonnell: you just agreed on something. i have no idea what you agreed upon. ms. tidwell: what the task force lists are the task force's findings. mr. mcdonnell: what is there to correct? mr. pilpel: in district 1, we might continue to use the reference to the outer richmond, in a richmond, as opposed to the -- the doe'[s richmond district. i don't know that we need to make specific reference to doe in this section. ms. tidwell: can i make a suggestion that we clarify that i write down the deviations' currently in these districts, and then we can work on incorporating the other comments that we decided to do? we will come back with a final draft before we get to this. i will e-mail it and then i can include it. give me some time to draft. >> as and give you time to make the draft? >> the rest of the needs 10 minutes to include and create

mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 6079. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. upton: mr. speaker, i would yield myself three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: mr. speaker, house republicans promised the american people that if granted the majority we would vote to repeal the patient protection and affordable care act, better known as obamacare. let's face it, obamacare is nothing like what was promised. former speaker pelosi said we would have to pass the bill to find out what was in it and she assured we found out. rather than reform health care, this law epitomizes washington at its very worst. intrusive mandates, higher costs, red tape, taxes on employers and families in control of personal health care decisions by boards, bureaus and agencies in washi

mr. mcdonnell: 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

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: did we add clinton heights -- clarington heights? not the whole thing? park merced? mr. mcdonnell: ok. we are not attempting to create an exhaustive list. this is one that does not need as a vacation. district 8. -- need justification. district 8. >> i would combine diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: you would combine? >> just diamond heights. mr. mcdonnell: ok. mr. leigh: i would strike open house and lgbt community center. mr. mcdonnell: removing them from this list. any additions? mr. pilpel: i am looking at it. it is changing. >> i withdraw the comment. mr. mcdonnell: ok. so, we have -- can -- >> can i suggest eureka valley? ms. tidwell: i just deleted eureka valley. some of those are encompassed with what the other neighborhoods are. mr. pilpel: i don't think i agree with that. i think eureka valley is in district 8. >> adding eureka valley. mr. mcdonnell: there is no need to create an exhaustive list. mr. pilpel: ok. all right. mr. mcdonnell: any other additions? moving the

mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize -- the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2. oh, -- mr. pilpel: oh, can we also have them not avoided -- voided -- mr. mcdonnell: please keep going. >> can we separate and jordan park from the village? mr. mcdonnell: the proposal is to keep -- i will refer to it as the consultant draft. >> i am sorry. no. mr. mcdonnell: hold on. the proposal is to use the consultant language of district 2. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mo

mr. sablan. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent to revise and stepped my remarks and i yield myself such time as i may consume. s. 271 transfers approximately one acre of land from the wallowa national forest to the city of wallowa, oregon. a local nonprofit organization would use the facility for local historical preservation, interpretation and education. we do not object to this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. lamborn: i now yield such time to my friend and colleague from oregon, mr. walden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. walden: i thank you for that and thank my colleagues who have brought this legislation forward as well. this, like the prior bill, the partnership between senator wyd emp n and myself to work together to resolve these lapped issues in oregon. in 1936, the city of wallowa donated this parcel of land to the u.s. forest

mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume and i would like to just remark to the distinguished speaker on the republican side that the -- another republican has a completely different point of view who is the former chairman of the house committee on science for over five years, and that is sherwood boller, many of us remember him fondly, and he says that it would be, and i quote, difficult to exaggerate the sweep and destructiveness of the house bill. be and that is referring to 4078. direction the agencies that were created to protect the public to close up shop. and then he goes on to say, quote, there's no indication that this bill would have job growth. indeed, by blocking rules needed to make the economy run more smoothly, the bill could harm our economic prospects for years to come. and so i present to you a point of view of the republican leader of the house of representatives and a distinguished republican former chairman of the committee of science from 2001 to 2006

mr. pilpel? >> the printed version that we have, the top of page 5 and the third -- well, the second paragraph that begins on 5, the beginning and october 2011, it's redundant about the four community meetings. >> i'm sorry, what are you suggesting get stricken? >> one of the references. perhaps the second? well, it doesn't read well. that's my point. >> that's fine. is it factually incorrect? >> knost -- no, it's redoesn't ant and reperspective -- repit active. >> mr. alonso? >> no. >> mr. leigh? >> i'm fine with striking the second one. >> miss melara? >> yes. >> ms. lam? >> yes. >> mr. schreiber? >> yes. >> so what is stricken is the second reference to the four meetings. mr. pilpel? >> to be clear, the second reference being however the task force conducted and just delete the entire sentence? >> but we're not going to rewrite it. >> well, i can't answer that question. >> ok, leave it as it is. that's fine. next. >> i have grammatical changes here. what do you want me to do with them? >> we a

mr. ellison: mr. chairman, representative eshoo and i have submitted this very straightforward amendment for a very simple reason. we believe that it's simply fair and it's good for public disclosure to require defense contractors to publicly show and disclose their political contributions. money, secret money in particular, can breed corruption. sunlight will banish it away. when government contractors make political contributions there's no doubt that the office knows who gave them money. the only ones in the dark are the american public. this can lead to corruption where contracts donate to candidates they believe will benefit them. and this would misserve our democracy. we need full disclosure so that the public can ensure that contracts are awarded based on merit rather than money. now, some have expressed a concern that in the past, that disclosure, a precontract disclosure requirement could be a problem because they fear that agencies would choose contractors for partisan reasons. while i think

mrs. roby. >> aye. >> mr. heelsamp. >> aye. >> mr. desjarlait. >> aye. >> mrs. he will%. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> no. >> mr. hope green. >> aye. >> mrs. hartzler. >> aye. >> mr. shilg. >> aye. >> mr. ribble. >> aye. >> mrs. necessarily many. >> aye. >> mr. peterson. >> no. >> mr. holden. >> no. >> mr. mcintire. >> aye. >> mr. baca. >> no. >> mr. cardoza. >> no. >> mr. david scott. >> no. >> mr. quayle. >> aye. >> mr. costa. >> no. >> mr. walz. >> no. >> mr. schrader. >> no. >> mr. kissle. >> no. >> mr. owens. >> no. >> ms. pingree. >> no. >> mr. courtney. >> no. >> mr. walsh. >> no. >> ms. fudge. >> no. >> mr. saab lan. >> no. >> ms. sooul. >> no. >> mr. mcgovern. >> no. >> 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 distribu

mr. mcdonnell: thank you. mr. alonso: i am going to say yes, and real quick, it was a pleasure working with all of you, and hopefully i never have to work with you in this capacity again. [laughter] mr. alonso: but in the end, we pretty much brought the best out of the city as we could. thank you. >> i vote in support of the map. i also really want to thank everybody for working together on this, and it has been a pleasure to work with everybody. i personally feel like i learned a great deal about the city, which is what i will take the most value from a personal level forever, really. i want to thank, in that regard, the staff, the consultants, the district attorneys that have worked with us. they have been a tremendous resource to us. i also think everybody in the community. i am amazed summon people have spent so much time, whether in our meetings or submitting it public comment or facebook, or what have you, it has been a very rich and critical source of information for all of us. i admire the dedication of ev

mr. polis: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question iloffer an amendment to the rule to make in order an amendment which proposes that congress will not adjourn until the president signs middle class tax cuts into law. and with that i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, mr. speaker, and i thank the gentleman from colorado for yielding time. i would hope that the order of business on this floor is guided by priorities, the most essential priorities that are calling for this body to respond to the people of this great nation. and in these difficult economic times to do it with the degree of urgency. but what is our order of business here on the floor, fixing a typo, that's what we're doing here this morning. we're fixing a typo on an election year driven, politically motivated bill. but we're really wasting time in playing games. you see, our families

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. mcgovern. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mr. chai

mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 459 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 441, h.r. 459, a bill to require a full audit of the board of governors of the federal reserve system and the federal reserve banks by the comptroller general of the united states before the end of 2012, and for other purposes. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. once again, will members clear the aisles and the well? pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. issa, and the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consi

mr. kind: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i thank my good friend from michigan for yielding me this time, for his leadership on this issue. mr. speaker, just to address the previous speaker's comments, if you're a small business in america and with 50 or fewer employees, you don't have to do a god dang thing under the affordable care act other than receive tax credits for offering health care coverage to your employees. so let's stop this nonsense of trying to scare small businesses throughout america. it's been pointed out on the floor by numerous colleagues, it's the 3 isst attempt to repeal all or part of the affordable care act. even they pointed out earlier that baskin robins offers 30 flavors of ice cream. enough is enough. when i heard the supreme court upheld the constitutionality of the affordable care act, my first feelings was relief and happiness. not for me or anyone else who was involved in advancing the cause of health care reform, which was desperately needed, it's a system that failed too many americ

mr. issa: mr. speaker, it's now my honor to yield time to the author of this bill, the gentleman from texas, the man who understands that not knowing should never be an answer, mr. paul. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. issa: two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: for two minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise obviously in strong support of this legislation. i don't know how anybody could be against transparency and they want secrecy, especially when the secrecy is to protect individuals who deal in trillions of dollars, much bigger than what the congress does, and these trillions of dollars bail out all the wealthy , rich people, the banks and the big corporations, international, overseas banks, bailing out europe, dealing with central banks around europe, around europe, and different places. and so say that we should have secrecy and say that it's political to have transparency, well, it's very political when you have a federal reserve tha

mr. issa. mr. issa: mr. chairman, hopefully the gentleman would note that the language you just quoted is from the president's executive order and it's not some sort of pocket information, but in fact something the president of the united states felt was a reasonable set of language. with that i recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: thank you, chairman issa. most congressmen call their district and staff workers case workers. i call my district workers red tape cutters. that's what -- because that's what they do. unfortunately we have to have a job like that because government red tape is so thick. a lot of what our case workers do is for veterans and social security recipients but they also help our small businesses. when i'm back home i hear time and time again from businesses, how the government is getting in the way of creating jobs. and if we'd just tell them what to do and let them do it and quit changing the rules midst

mr. goodlack, no. mr. king? >> no. >> mr. king, no. mr. conway? >> no. >> mr. conway, no. mr. thorntonbury? >> no. >> no. big, no, no, no. mr. rooney, no. mr. gibbs, no. yes. mr. gibson, no. mr. sutherland, no. mr. crawford? >> no. >> mr. crawford, no. mrs. heelscamp, no.

mr. mcdonnell: hold on one second. we are being corrected. >> a want to make sure we're all on the same page. we will replace this list with what is prepared by the consultant and the task force will review those neighborhoods. mr. mcdonnell: that is correct. >> thank you. >> can i clarify something very quickly? mr. mcdonnell: there is no such thing as very quickly in this process. go ahead. >> west of twin peaks submission here, what we submitted was the planning neighborhood. it was not the council neighborhood boundaries. what is on here is actually correct. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. do you have an electronic document? ms. tidwell: it is a subset of what i included. maybe just for purposes of, we can move district by district. mr. mcdonnell: ok. we will get that information and insert that. can we move to section 6? anything else in section 5? we are going to insert -- we are going to insert the neighborhoods into this section of section 5 under each district with the deviation. comme

i first want to ask mr. bloom, mr. feldman and mr. wilson and twint tha i want to thank them for testifying. they're out there, aren't they? yep. i don't have my glasses. i can't see. i regret i was at a hearing in financial services. i didn't hear all of it. i read your testimony. i want to know what was your overall mission as members of the auto task force? delphi was just one piece of the situation that you were facing and delphi was a major parts supplier to gm that had been experiencing its own financial troubles for some time. if you save gm but delphi failed, all of your efforts would have been for nothing, is that correct? can you -- your answer? >> i think i would echo what mr. wilson said earlier. our mission was not to save general motors. our mission was to see if there were a way to facilitate the restructuring of the companies so that the american automobile industry in its entirety could continue to function at the least possible cost to taxpayer. it was general motors' decision -- judgment which we did not disagree wi

mr. ribble? mr. ribble, no. mrs. nome? mrs. nome, no. mr. peterson? mr. holden? mr. holden, no. mr. mcentire? >> no. >> mr. mcintyre, no. mr. boswell? 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 nu

mr. young: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: all throughout this last year, we have heard from the administration and we have heard from the navy that it is important to be able to have a large presence in the pacific area. this is something that we're going to do. we are going to have an increased presence in the pacific. that is the administration's statement. and all of the hearings we have done in the central command area, the middle east, persian gulf, the straits of hormuz and threats from iran, we were told by the military leadership who fight those wars there that they needed a larger naval presence in order to counter any threat from iran and similar threats and to keep open the persian gulf and especially the straits of hormuz. today, we don't really have as much naval capability as they suggest that we need. and so the committee added this 51 for this year. the navy actually asked for advanced procureme

i want to thank mr. feldman, mr. wilson and mr. bloom for being here as private citizens today and for recognizing that there is a responsibility as private citizens to support ones country. professor, you referenced shenanigans which i thought was an interesting term. i could think of a lot of shenanigans that went on with wall street in particular goldman sachs without others, would you call those shenanigans? >> i -- i don't know those in detail. but i certainly -- if i looked at it, i'd be willing to call them shenanigans. it would be possible. i've not looked as those in much detail as i have with respect to these auto bankruptcies. >> well, with goldman sachs, they actually created a product for a specific individual who wanted to short them and then sold those products as if they were good out standing products. those, to me, that kind of conduct is shenanigans. i think a company going bankrupt is not actually shenanigans or trying to keep it alive is not necessarily shenanigans. let me ask you mr. wilson as you noted in you

mr. mcdonnell: ok. let me suggest this as a weekend fully utilize the break for all the editing we need to do. there is another question that memberpilpel is raising. we will need to visit that. we have two sets of information. we have what is in the draft, and we have what is on the one- page that the consultants provided. member pilel is suggesting -- pilpel is suggesting we go district by district. mr. pilpel: in general, i like the language that was proposed. outer richmond, in a richmond -- inener richmond. >> to preserve? mr. mcdonnell: in addition to or replacing -- mr. pilpel: i am generally not with the language they provided. i think it is less hopeful. i think this language is better. mr. mcdonnell: we will go district by district. the proposal is to utilize -- the district is described on the bottom of page 8. mr. alonso: yes. mr. leigh: yes. ms. melara: yes. ms. mondejar: yes. mr. schreiber: yes. ms. tidwell: yes. ms. lam: yes. mr. mcdonnell: thank you. all right. district 2.

mr. kissel, no. mr. owens no. >> mrs. embrey, no. >> mr. courtney? >> no. >> mr. courtney, no. >> mr. welch? >> no. >> mr. welch, no. >> miss fudge, aye. >> mr. sublime. no. mrs. sewell, no. mr. mcgovern? mr. mcgovern, no. mr. chairman? >> no. >> oh, excuse me. 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

mr. cummings? >> mr. chairman, out of curiosity are you planning to end the hearing now are you going go on and on and on? >> no, i'm going next to mr. bloom for him to answer questions for him to answer questions for the questions he refused to answer in writing because he invited those questions and i will entertain, with your concurrence, the dismissal of the other panel members if there are no other questions from the rest of the panel members so mr. bloom can stand before us and answer the questions he's refused to answer. >> well, that's fine with me. and i hate to waste people's time, so i think that's very generous of the chairman. and -- one of the things, mr. chairman, that's come to my attentions that your questions of mr. bloom have been answered by the secretary of the treasury and mr. bloom forwarded your questions after the hearing. >> actually, no, they haven't. i have the secretary's answers and his answer was this is a matter of litigation. i cannot answer. >> i see. but if the chairman

>> no. >> mr. mcgovern, no. mr. johnson? mrs. fudge? mr. sewell? mr. chairman? >> no. >> mr. chairman, no. mr. chairman, the vote is 15 yeas, 28 nays. >> since we have most -- i would suggest that we've made tremendous progress working through the schedule. let's stand in recess until 4:30. >>> after starting work at 10:00 eastern this morning, the agriculture markup is in a break. some members can go to the house floor for votes. including a vote on repealing the 2010 health care law. the members spent much of the day yesterday debating the bill and completed debate a short time ago. you can see that vote on the repeal on our companion network, c-span, expected at about 3:30 eastern. and we'll be back here live when members of the committee return for more work on the farm bill. expected back at 4:30 eastern and continuing late into the evening. until then, a hearing held earlier today on capitol hill. the house judiciary subcommittee looked into recent national security and intelligence leaks revealing the obama administration's role and clandestine operation against al qae

>> no. >> mr. mcgovern, no. >> 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.

mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just started to launch into this because there is such an important subject that is looming over the country right now, and the congress can do something about it, and that is the possibility of cyber attack. we have had this discussed by a number of people in very high, responsible positions, and the threat is real, and what the threat means to all of us in our everyday lives is the fact that electrical systems could be shut down, water systems could be shut down, the banking system could be shut down, sewer systems could go awry, and you can go on and on, mr. president, as to the possibility of what is happening. and here for months we have been stymied from passing anything here because of a disagreement in the business community which is going to be one of the main recipients of the potential cyber attack. now, i will choose my words very carefully as a member of the senate intelligence committee and say this potential attack is real. and it's real not only from rogue

mr. mcdonnell: hold on. we have heard one proposal. i will confirm the spelling. >> no. that is not right. >> no what? >> we are not voting. >> could you repeat the question? mr. mcdonnell: silma -- recognized neighborhood? >> that was a public submission boundary. mr. mcdonnell: what is the first letter? >> p. mr. mcdonnell: ok. it is a p. >> excuse my spelling error. >> that is why we are editing. mr. mcdonnell: ok. again, we have selma, treasure island, mission bay -- >> i combined the list. i hate -- -- i have -- mr. mcdonnell: i thought we agreed, no institutions? >> yes. ok. mr. mcdonnell: south beach, rincon hill. any additions? >> there was a public submission about this was the reason for the line. >> there is no publicly- submitted neighborhood boundaries for yerba buena. there is not a boundary from planned neighborhoods. mr. pilpel: i think this is referring to treasure island and yerba buena island, not yerba buena center. >> they are recommending it as a neighborhood based o

mrs. nixon reacting in the car with this going on? >> i was just going to tell you, with this chaos going on -- i've never had anything like it because my experience with war was, i didn't see the people i was shooting at or they were shooting at me. but here they were right there and the hate on their faces was just unbelievable. they were out to kill us. and all of that going on, and mrs. nixon finally had the minister's wife, who was by now hysterical, so pat had her arm around her, and she and i were talking kind of quietly. she kept asking me to keep checking on the car ahead to make sure the vice president was all right, which i was doing. but finally we managed -- the secret service managed to break us out of that roadblock and we just forgot about the stop we were going to make and went -- we limped all the way up to the residence of the ambassador up on the hill where it was secure. but all through it, pat never, ever raised her voice. she never showed any anxiety. she was busy wi

mr. sablan: mr.ker, h.r. 1237 provides for the exchange of land between the trinity public utility district in california and the united states forest service and the bureau of land management. we do not object to this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield five minutes to the author of this legislation and somebody that this body will miss as he is retiring at the end of this session, five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. herger. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. herger: i thank my good friend. mr. speaker, i rise to urge support for h.r. 1237, a noncontroversial land exchange bill i introduced to provide for greater economic opportunities in trinity county, located in the northern california congressional district i represent. with a 19% unemployment rate thi

>> 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

mr. griffin: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on s. 1959, as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. griffin: mr. speaker, yumeds. -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. griffin: i thank my senate colleague, mr. burr and mr. rogers of michigan for their work on this issue. this directs the secretary of state to submit a report to congress dealing if the haqqani network meets the criteria for terrorist organization under current law. if the secretary determines that the haqqani network does not meet the criteria, the secretary shall provide a detailed justification as to which criteria have not been met. the bill also provides a sense of congress that the secretary of state should designate the network as a foreign terrorist organization. the haqqani network is an insurgent

mr. berg: mr. speaker, senate bill 2039 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by senators from north dakota conrad and hoeven which passed the senate by unanimous consent in january of this year. this bill will provide a great deal of help to the citizens of our state. the text of 2039 allows for a process of building permanent levees on federal land in north dakota. with the approval of fema and the army corps of engineers. i want to highlight the unique situation we have in north dakota. and this legislation tends to address just that. first of all, fargo, north dakota, it's faced repeated flooding along the red river which runs through the heart of the city. the city is constructed to permanent -- has constructed a permanent levee. however, over the years some properties have been bought out along the river bank with federal funds. as a result, we have a patchwork of properties that exist along this levee system with gaps in the system. recurring flooding along the red river requires temporary levees t

mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i come to the floor once again to reiterate federal law. a law that was passed in 1982 called the nuclear waste policy act, and the amendments offered in 1987 which said that yucca mountain would be the long-term geological repository for our nuclear waste in this country. and it's unfortunate i have to keep coming down on the floor to address this issue because of the administration's position to defund, derail, and stop and actually break federal law. so to do that not only do i just talk about the legal aspects of the federal law, but i have been going around the country in identifying locations where we currently have high level nuclear waste. and asking the basic question, would you rather have it at location a or location b? and so today we return to pennsylvania to a power plant called limerick. limerick has 1,143 metric united states uranium of spent fuel on site. at limerick the waste is stored above the ground in pools and casks. it is 20 feet above the ground water

mr. bloom, mr. feldman, mr. wilson, on the happy train of silence and refusing to answer questions ends today. you have been summoned before congress because of your refusal to answer sig-t.a.r.p.'s questions because they didn't have the ability to compel you. you are here today because you know we do. you didn't come here because you believed you wanted to share information with congress. you were brought here because of your refusal to share the information that the american public is entitled to hear as a result of taxpayers' dollars that were used in the auto bailout of general motors and thousands of people that lost their pensions. there's an accountability here. now, you're going to take an oath when you testify today. this is not a political proceeding. this is a legal proceeding. you will be testifying. you will not be giving speeches. that's why you're sworn in. it's called testifying before congress. in that, i want you to rise to the level of understanding what that obligation is. it means that if yo

mr. hastings: mr. chairman, i claim time on the -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the gentleman has an amendment? mr. hastings: yes. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6, printed in house report number 112-590, offered by mr. hastings of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 726, the gentleman from florida, mr. hastings, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. chairman. this bill is an irresponsible giveaway to the mining industry that has taken enormous profit at american taxpayer expense. one section in particular is extremely disturbing. section 205 of the bill eliminates awarding of attorneys fees to litigants bringing successful legal challenges against certain agencies' actions like the issuing -- issuance of a mining permit. eliminating the possibility of fee shifting mation litigation prohibitively expensive for groups a

always wanted to stand next to mrs. nixon. mrs. nixon would smile and i'd grab her arm. and mrs. nixon would chastise me later. >> i don't think we'd let you loose in the press office. >> in the end, i just took barbara walters by the arm and said this is not the barbara walters show. >> that's why you weren't on ten most interesting people with barbara walters that year. [ laughter ] >> but what else did you see when you were over there? >> well, of course, we -- of course, with the president, with the president, we took him along on a couple of the trips. we went to the great wall and the ming tombs. and the dinners. listen to this -- well, she was nice enough. we were so tired -- i was so tired, mrs. nixon wasn't usually. one night we had on a schedule, thursday night, free night. couldn't wait -- all of us, couldn't wait to sleep that night. instead of, you know, doing something, going here and there. we left the great hall of the people. i get in the limo with the president, the interpreter, myself and secret service, president nixon just for something to say, oh, mrs. premi

>> 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,

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 available 10 years on the website with the url. >> is it accurate then to infur that maybe you or others would like to see almost a table of contents-ish. why call the entirety of our proceedings will be on the website. is there a particular reason why you want to call out either the maps submitted by the public or draft maps as opposed to anything else, minutes, the agendas, the -- everything else that will be available. >> well, i think -- i guess where i would like to include reference to the public maps is just out of respect for the time that people spent in developing those maps and acknowledging that. >> ok. miss melara?

mr. wilson: mr. speaker in a recent opinion piece, jeffrey december, the acting director for the office of management and budget wrote, quote, as president barack obama has said many times, the see quester -- sequester wasn't meant to be implemented, it was designed to cut so deep just threatening them would force congress to meet and agree on big balance package of deficit reduction, end of quote. if the president actually believed the budget control act would destroy jobs and threaten our national security, why did he sign the legislation into law? additionally, if he believed the proposed cuts would frighten members of congress, why has he remained silent on this issue? house republicans have acted and passed bipartisan legislation several times replacing the see quester -- sequester with responsible reforms as well as calling for more government transparency, to stop the destruction of 200,000 jobs in virginia alone. i urge the president to support this bill to promote peace through strength. in

mr. young: mr. chairman, this is another amendment that slashes large amounts from our eaverl national defense appropriations bill. i would say that this subcommittee is not adverse -- is not averse to reducing defense spending when we can do so without having an adverse effect on readiness or without having an adverse effect on our troops, their medical care, their family. i understand the gentlelady does protect some of those issues in her amendment. but this committee is already -- has already proved that we are willing to cut defense. in the last two fiscal years, this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis new york a bipartisan way, was able to reduce by $39 billion, and we did so very carefully, by looking at every account, every project, every place that we could find weakness in the spending, in the contracting. in programs about to be terminated. we can do that. but just an across-the-board cut is not smart. here's what could happen. we could actually, with this amendment, and this reduction,