in decision points 2-chapter 2, ii, section d for david, subsection 2. that and chapter 3, iii, section b, subsection 2 differ in setting the majority threshold. majority vote threshold to determine whether a respondent violated the sunshine ordinance. 2, ii d2 states three votes would be required to declare that the respondent did not violate the ordinance. 3, iii b declares three votes are required to declare that the respondent did violate the ordinance. consistency this language is really always the better option. in decision point 2, ii e, and 3 iii c they do not address what would happen if a respondent failed to comply with an order from the commission or if the respondent's employing entity refused to pay a commission-imposed fine and, by the way,, i will add that i do not believe in fining a respondent's employing entity a good idea. if there is a fine, it should go to the respondent. >> david pillpa, again. to the extent it makes sense i think chapters and 3 should have parallel language where there are differences in burdens and what not, and

i think they really only apply in subsection b. i mean it's difficult to read 16-18 and imports 19 and 20 in, that the "order to support" language. it just gets a little circular, but i do agree that support should include actions or statements whether public or non-public. that are trying to urge or encourage a particular outcome. i think that is the point of "support." and i'm also trying to think through if you have got a committee under state law that you have a primarily formed committee. i know. right. that this is creating a new animal only under scintilla, but is requiring that animal to file reports. all right, i will just keep thinking about it. if we haven't figured out the definitions we should try to get that right. it's dangerous to have a definition here that is complicated and interconnected and say that the commission may further adopt presto clarify this. i think we should get it right and not rely on having to go back later and define by regwhere we already have a definition that is intended to be comprehensive.

2d3 and make that subsection 2d2 and flip it with what currently exists as 2d? >> i'm lost. >> commission renne's suggestion and to add email language to subsection 2c2. other amendments that were proposed? is there a motion to adopt decision point subject to those changes? >> so moved? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. decision point 3 has do with chapter 3. any comments from the commissioners on decision point 3? >> i think we might want to make the same change that commissioner renne suggested earlier in 3b, reversing 2 and 3. >> agreed. >> b2 would become b3 and b3 would become b2. >> right. >> any other issues? i had a couple of questions. do we have any provision for the situation where something comes to us originally, we dismiss it, and then the same complaint goes to sunshine and comes through their process? >> we have not addressed that. >> okay. or visa versa, if it comes through sunshine and they don't like that and they come directly to us. it would be, i think, helpful to have language that would preve

if i could, for a moment, on your last comment on subsection i in section 4 chapter 4. in the event that there is a complaint that alleges both a sunshine violation and other improper activities of other sorts, i would hope that the staff-initiated complaint pursuant to the last section doesn't reveal any more or less than necessary for the processing of the sunshine-related complaint, because the regular complaint wouldn't be disclosed under current provisions in the event it's dismissed or doesn't get tie problem cause report, et cetera. i'm not sure that you want to reveal any more than you would otherwise, just because someone added a sunshine allegation to a complaint. >> where do we discuss disclosing the contents of the investigative? >> it doesn't, but where it says, "staff shall initiate a complaint of the alleged violations." then staff could be initiating the complaint, but they would have to import the allegation facts, whatever, from the complaint presumably filed by another. unless the original complaint was staff-initiated. if someone hypothetically compl

i would also just point out subsection 4 does allow the ethics commission to propose regulations and i think the reason that we put that in there, we know that to the extent there is any potential ambiguity or loophole, people will try to go there. that is just how things go. >> this whole issue came up because of a loophole, because someone found a leap hole. >> right. so i think to some extent the ethics commission has the ability to address leap hole lope holes. the only downside if we don't define "support" at all there will be the chance of zero gay and lesbian as of what "support means." >> if we had "support" i would define it as public action or statement or actions encouraging or urging -- i will concede that i'm hoping that my hypothetic is ridiculous and it would be interpreted in the way that we have all think it should be. >> you just built them their loophole. >> i was thinking that election makes it more restrictive. >> that was my reaction when you said that. >> the big problem we had last time, the committees kept saying we are not a campaign. we don't have a candida

because close very clearly, very early became my attraction -- clothes became nmy attraction, a subsection. as more attractive to addressing people than addressing myself. it was not my objective desire, my own person. so i think that if i looked, the market inspire me. people different in it the streets or inspiring me. not what was fashion. maybe i was a finding something to were very inspiring. laurant. i like the ones that are different and have their own style. i like the ones that are different. they have style. i love them. so everyone that was different, i'd love it. i was not inspired by the jet set. at that time in 1960's, it was like very -- [unintelligible] for example, when i started to work, i am not all in the quatorze address. that is where some young girl -- among the young, i find more creativity, more interesting fashion in paris than in london. the sense of humor makes them to play more with the clothes and everything. in paris, i could see what was chic in what was not. one time i was working and was arriving at an industry job, and i was wearing boots. they looked at

. >> this subsection is described by a 40 year-old victim. this subject -- by our 14 year-old victim. blond hair, shoulder length. wearing a baseball hat. >> the victim struggled after the press and ran away. they have yet to release a police sketch of the driver but he is described as late 20s, tall, thin, caucasian, 130 lbs., with a goatee and a short, brown, spiked hair. >> the suspect was last seen getting into a red pickup truck with an extended cab and two doors. >> the crime stoppers are offering $2,500 reward for information leading to an arrest. phillipe djegal, kron 4 news. >> police and walnut creek are looking for two suspects that these carjacked and kidnapped a woman last night at 7:30. the victim left the shade lens business district where she works. then she was walking to her work area. >> they forced her into her own vehicle. put a blindfold on her and tied her feet and her hands and tried her for a run for several hours is. and attempted to obtain money from our bank account. police believe the suspects stopped at eight dif

title 50, subsection 413 (a) we reported on your show yesterday, that stipulates the investigating bodieshall inform the intelligence committees of ongoing operations. now, you can talk about the word whether this tries to an intelligence operation but it is clear the spirit of the section 413 is that there is disclosure to the intelligence committees. there was not notification to the chair and ranking member of the house of representatives and senate senate intelligence committees. that is important because fox was first to report on september 14, the c.i.a. director, david petraeus, briefed lawmakers that benghazi was very much a flash mob. it was linked to the anti-islam video and he seemed wedded to the administration's explanation about the attack and an hour ago i spoke with congressman peter king and he said he now has serious questions over whether those statements were made at a time that c.i.a. director understood that he was under investigation by the f.b.i. and whether there was any compromising of his statements or his professional activists. we don't know the answer to that

these liberals who pays attention to these little rules can you imagine there is a rule called subsection14 bea 11, c they are trying to rewrite the order of the conjunction. host but that isn't going to play well. >> guest: they get these rules to underfunded these things and rate them. i have a pension that has been rated and probably will die before i do, so the 401k was by the financial services to allow executives to save extra money and it blew up into this big huge system. we need to have a rational policy that recognizes that people need to have money put away for their age and have a reliable income stream and not run out of money that when the average worker in america doesn't have mayor enough money what you are going to see is more and more people in the 70's and 80's working. i don't plan to retire but what about my brother was a ditchdigger and the reason people get to work each day is he was down in the call for getting the triet of there's of the road didn't flood? now he is busted up and can't work and we have to bet you could think about the system and not our indiv

these little rules and who pays attention in the news media you mentioned a little rule called subsection 1411 and they are trying to rewrite the order of the presumptions. >> host: that isn't going to play well. >> guest: day under fund of these and to rate them i have a pension that has been thoroughly rated, so the 401k is an effort by one industry, financial services to allow execs to save extra money and it blew up into this big huge system. we need to have a rational policy that recognizes that people need to have money put away from their old age and have a dependable reliable income stream and not one out of money but the average worker in america if it doesn't have nearly enough money to go on so what you will see is more and more people in the 70's and 80's the that is a good thing for those that can work i don't plan to retire but what about my brother who is a ditch digger in the reason people get to work on a rainy days he was getting the tree out of there so the road didn't flood come he is disabled now, he can't work. we have to think about the system, not our individual si

can you imagine going to "usa today" figures they were called subsection 14 b. 11 paragraphs either trainedto rework the order of conjunction senate. >> host: that's not going to play too well. >> guest: so they get rules written to underfund these and break them. i have a pension that has rated it will probably die before i do. so the 201 k., 401(k)s were an effort by one industry of financial services to allow executives to save extra money and it blew up into this big huge system. we need a rational policy that recognizes people need to have money put a way for old-age and have a dependable, income stream not run out of money. the average worker doesn't have the earnest money to go on. so what you see as more and more people in 70s and 80s working. maybe that's a good thing for those who want to work. i don't plan to ever retire. but if my brother who's a ditch digger, the reason people could get to work on a rainy day. he's disabled now, busted up here he can't work. we have to think of other system from another individual situation. >> host: is there an issue i didn't touch on? just go

under u, s code 50 subsection 413 and 1413a deal with notification and it reads in part, quote, to keepntelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by or are carried out for or on behalf of any department, agency or entity of the united states government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity, and any significant intelligence failures. in layman's terms this fbi investigation on its face would have come under 413, and 413a which would have required congressional notification to at least the chair and ranking members of the house and senate intelligence committee. late friday when the story broke a hill source said to me that this was extremely important, given the gravity of the investigation and that it could not be mine miced as simply a potential criminal or personal matter, gregg. gregg: it's strange when the head of the senate intelligence committee finds out from the media of all people. but, look, petraeus is under fire for a lot of things, not the least of which is not --

code 50 subsection 413, and 413a deal with the notification issue. told that the notification chain typically would be from the fbi agents to their immediate boss director robert mueller and his immediate boss attorney general eric holder. intelligence officials say this case falls outside of the norm. >> there is no rule book or history as to how you handle these kinds of events. these folks may have been making it up as they went along doing the best they could balancing all of these important interests, you know, from some sper specht teufs they may have go perspectives they may have got even it right and others wrong. >> one capitol hill source told fox knowing that the general was in the scope of an fbi investigation even if the matter seemed largely a personal matter would have changed the optics here, which petraeus' action and statements were viewed. this is key, because three days after the benghazi attack the general in what is now a controversial briefing told lawmakers that the attack was akin to a flash mob, he seemed very much wedded to

shall not be counted for purposes of computing any percentage of the worldwide level under this subsection. ii, the number specified in this clause is 55,000. iii, immigrant visa numbers made available under this subparagraph for fiscal year 2014 but not used for the classes specified in paragraphs 6 and 7 of section 203-b in such year may be made available in subsequent years as if they were included in the numbers specified in clause ii only to the extent of the cumulative number of petitions under section 204-a-1-f and applications for a labor certification -- mr. issa: we ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes in support of the motion. ms. lofgren: mr. speaker, over the last few days in the rules committee during debate on the rule, today's debate, we had a common refringe from our friends on the other side of the aisle over and over, they say there's agreement on stem visas and we shouldn't let politics get in the w

we had eight the subsections to target some of our constituencies, democrats, youth, women, minorities. we spent a lot of time messaging to them. you talk about a barbershop campaign, we had a nail salon campaign to get people to register. we registered 1.8 million people. 1.1 million people online. you do not do that if you are not where people are. we build a campaign that was about meeting people on the doors. >> tell us about targeted sharing. >> that was a hard and long effort to build software that had a simple concept -- in 2008 we had two campaigns. a door knocking campaign that with sophisticated and an online thing that in many ways we did not control. will.i.am happened outside of us. those things did not come together. we spent a year trying to build pieces of software that allowed all of our different pieces to talk to each other through this thing called-board. -- dashboard. it said, very simply, we will build software that allows you to organize wherever you are. if you want to organize at 3:00 in the morning, you can do that. if you want to put your data into a database

now, there are some subsections of that budget that rose faster, but if we are looking and asking ourselves, well, who were the debt and deficit leaders during this period when we moved from a balanced budget to a terribly unbalanced one, dod is among the culprits. that's evident on this chart. what you see on this chart is really a 60-year -- or it's more than that, it is a 72-year history of defense spending. the period i'm talking about is the first part of it starts right about here, and this is the high point of spending, um, and it's during that period that we accumulated a greet deal of the debt that -- a great deal of the debt that we're dealing with today. now, i'm going to return to this in a minute, but what i would like for you to do, faye, is move to the other slide. it's there somewhere. >> [inaudible] >> this might be it right here. it's just a free-standing gift. okay, we don't need it. we don't need it. >> sorry. >> that's okay. the point i want to make is regardless of what you hear, it's indisputable that since 2010 there's been very little reduction in defense spending.

we had eight the subsections to target some of constituencies, democrats, youth, women, minorities. we spent a lot of time messaging to them. you talk about a barbershop campaign, we had a nail salon campaign to get people to register. we registered 1.8 million people. 1.1 million people online. you do not do that if you are not where people are. we build a campaign that was about meeting people on the doors. >> tell us about targeted sharing. >> that was a hard and long effort to build software that had a simple concept -- in 2008 we had two campaigns. a door knocking campaign that with sophisticated and an online thing that in many ways we did not control. will.i.am happened outside of us. those things did not come together. we spent a year trying to build pieces of software that allowed all of our different pieces to talk to each other through this thing called dashboard. it said, very simply, we will build software that allows you to organize wherever you are. if you want to organize at 3:00 in the morning, you can do that. if you want to put your data into a database, you can d

it had eight subsections to target directly some of our key constituencies -- democrats, youth, women, minorities -- we spent a bunch of time messaging specifically to them. talk about the barbershop campaign, which we were excited about. we had the nail salon campaign -- all to me people were the work, to register. we registered 1 20 million people on the doors. 1.1 million people on line. a little under 3 million people total registered. you do not do that if you are not1.1 million people online. you do not do that if you are not where people are. we build a campaign that was about meeting people on the doors. >> tell us about targeted sharing. >> that was a hard and long effort to build software that had a simple concept -- in 2008 we had two campaigns. a door knocking campaign that with sophisticated and an online thing that in many ways we did not control. will.i.am happened outside of us. those things did not come together. we spent a year trying to build pieces of software that allowed all of our different pieces to talk to each other through this thing called-board. -- dashboa