again to studying this statute and looking and that subsection e which we are all looking and at subparagraph 2 under that and i can see that it will be argued both ways. but the logical inference, the more logical and more fairway to interpret the statute is the way we are asking that it be interpreted that simply the change of location within the district, not increasing the number of businesses, not opening another shop but the change of an existing location does not trigger the requirement sections that are argued by the za. the language of the statute isn't very clear about that. but i think it's clear referring to what was just the referred to. there is not a break in continuous operation. it's been operating continuously. >> but it says provided that location. >> i'm trying to make a substance over form argument is that a block 1/2 change because of the requirements of landlord where the character of the neighborhood is exactly the same. it's simply less than two blocks away, is that fair to interpret that as a change of location in the sense that what the city was trying to accomplish

subparagraph b here, capital b, waiver. subparagraph, little i. in general, the secretary may waive the application of sub partial a, little i, 3, or any provision of section 212-a that is not listed in clause 2-i on behalf of an alien for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if such vaifer is otherwise in the public interest, any discretionary authority to waive grounds of inadmissibility under section 212-a conferred under any other provision of this act shall apply equally to aliens seeking registered provisional status under this section. subparagraph 2-i, exceptions, exceptions to that. the discretionary authority under clause one i may not be used to waive, one, subparagraph b, c, d, little i, e, g, h or i of section 212-a-2. then subparagraph roman numeral two, section 212-a-3, paragraph roman numeral subsection 3, subparagraph a, c, d or e of section 212-a-10. so if i'm a united states senator and i'm trying to protect the interests of the people of the united states to understand what a piece of legislation means, i've got to

anything referred to in subparagraph a shall coordinate such activity with an entity of the department of homeland security designated under paragraph 1 and share all significant information resulting from such activity with such entity and all other appropriate departments and agencies of the federal government. c, sharing by designated entity. consistent with the policies and procedures established under paragraph 5, the entity of the department of homeland security designated under paragraph 1 shall share all appropriate departments and agencies of the federal government all significant information resulting from, one, formal or informal technical discussions between such entity of the department of homeland security and a cybersecurity provider or self-protected entity about cyberthreat information or, two, any technical assistance such entity of the department of homeland security provides to such cybersecurity provider or such self-protected entity to address vulnerabilities or mitigate threats. c, reports on information sharing. one, inspector general of the department of homela

mccaul, add the following new subparagraphs, h, the number of americans who have, one, been required by employers, prospective employers or the federal government to rae release confidential pass boards were -- passwords for social networking remember scythe -- websites and two, had personal information released to the federal government under this section or obtained in connection with a cybersecurity breach and i, the impact of the information that has been released or obtained as refer referred to in subparagraph h on privacy, electronic commerce, internet usage and nline content. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order. the gentleman from colorado is recognize for five minutes. mr. perlmutter: thank you, mr. speaker. i have a prlmentry inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state the inquiry. mr. perlmutter: is it not the case that if my amendment if this motion to recommit is adopted, the house would immediately vote on final passage of the bill with the motion to recommit, this amendment included. the speaker pro tempore: if

charter, article ii, subparagraph four, the use of force will. state a. may not use force against state b. a very separable. the problem was we had to determine whether or not, or when cyber was a use of force. clearly if state a. bonds state b. and that's a use of force. if the warships of the united states navy shelf acreage and that's a use of force. but what about cyber? with some issued electronic that you? well, the problem was we couldn't simply adopt an approach that said well, you have to break things or her people. it has to be the same effect as kinetic operations. and the reason is because the national court of justice in a very famous case called nicaragua, forum and its paramilitary activities, in nicaragua they had looked at this very issue and international court of justice had decided that the army and training of guerrillas was, in fact, the use of force but the army and training, not send training, not think about your position of merely arming and training guerrillas was a use of force by one country against another country. which told