ikao is the appropriate forum and all options are on the table. what the europeans did, while supportive of the goals, this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. and we want -- the europeans know that. we continue to work on that. >> wouldn't having a legislative solution give you additional leverage in confronting the europeans on this issue, in dealing with it? >> i think the europeans are well aware of the universal opposition that exists in this government to what it is that they're trying to do and we continue to communicate that to them. >> at the same time, you've got this thing already in effect, essentially, and lots of american air carriers covered by it. and in many cases having to pass those costs on. it seems to me, at least, that the legislation would at least provide temporary relief from this until such time as you can work through the appropriate forum. that's ikao, to get the right resolution in place. so it just seems to me, at least, that it gives you one more piece of ammunition, one more tool, if you will, in dealing with

the house may also consider two additional appropriations bills next week. h.r. 5855, the department of homeland security appropriations act, sponsored by representative robert aderholt, and h.r. 5882, the legislative branch appropriations act sponsored by representative andrew crenshaw. chairman al rogers and the entire appropriations committee on both sides of the aisle should be congratulated for helping to rtore the open process of allocating and prioritizing the nation's spending. finally, mr. speaker, the house will consider h.r. 436, the protect medical innovation act, a very important bill for jobs and innovation inhe medical device industry and that representative erik paulsen has sponsored. the paulsen bill will be combined with h.r. 5842, the restoring access to medication act sponsored by representative lynn jenkins, and h.r. 1004, the medical f.s.a. improvement act sponsored by representative charles boustany. and with that i thank the gentleman and yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for that information, and i want to make a comment th

that is the appropriations process. ith is all about putting the -- donald trump is not asked to pay one penny more. i urge a no vote on the rule and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the lance of his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, again, next week is 4th of july and we will be celebrating independence day and i would like to say i don't believe the job of the federal government is to provide things to citizens, but to preserve our liberty. and that's what next week should be reminding us of. house republicans are aware of the clear mandate the american people gave us. our charge is to reduce the crushing debt that our country is currently carrying. according to the senate budget committee, debt grew times four times fa faster than clinton or bush and amassed more debt than president bush did. today the national debt is over $15 trillion which amounts to nearly $48,000 for every man, woman and child in america. it's clear that without a change in leadership

up and down the corridor to market street. it is an appropriate place for the city to grow in terms of jobs and housing. secondarily -- the other major objective is to create complete communities. it means ensuring that the growth builds on the important factor south of market in a diverse mix of uses. supporting infrastructure to go along with growth. to orient you in terms of zoning for the plan area, at the northern end of the corridor is the downtown in yerba buena. there is some of the eastern neighborhoods ounce of mixed use residential in that southwest part and south of the freeway, those are the service light industrial areas as well as the area that overlaps with the western soma planning process where the proposal is to me modify the service light industrial parts and light industrial zone. that is the general lee of the land -- lay of the land. what we have heard today after represented in november and an ongoing dialogue with the committee, there is general support for increased developmental capacity southeast of the freeway. that ha

the appropriators have not seen fit to act on that. and we understand that how we look at the long-term financing questions of the faa is something that we need to do in talks with congress. >> we would be happy to engage with you on that, and i think the general aviation folks, we are happy to, in general, if there's a process and they know the value comes back to the users, in this case, they are always willing to sit down and work it out. i look forward to that. do you -- and i want to follow-up on what senator thune talked about on next-gen and that is quickly, you talked about the baselines and three more to go. if you were to say -- if you could give a percentage of where do you think you're at with full implementation, where would you say we are at? 10%, 20%, 30%, do you have a fair -- in all the pieces, i know there's multiple pieces, if you can take a 30,000 view looking down, where do you think we are at? >> i think it's important to look at it in the context of there having -- being both a geographic component to it as we mov

of the supplemental appropriation. we considered the approval of the fees to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. supervisor farrell: ok. i would like to open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public who wish to comment? please come on forward, two minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i would like to voice the same objection, like in item number one, for items 3 and 4. realistically, just look at who is sponsoring each item. you can kind of include in directly that is being heard in this committee. if we're gone to hold financial items in an audit and oversight committee, it is ignoring some pretty important matters in the city like why there are so many unsolved homicides in san francisco. i felt pretty safe yesterday at the police academy. but then i think most citizens have that same feeling i had yesterday standing there surrounded by officers. i think we should have that for a hearing that justifies this committee. if we're gong to have hearings like this in the future for aud

subject to the appropriations process and allows it to receive money from the federal reserve. it says the ag bill says -- offers $128 million less in funding the obama administration wanted with commodity futures. are there cuts within these bills that deal specifically with these financial services arms of the practical government? >> depends what you are comparing it to. comparing it to the president's request, yes, absolutely. president requested one number or appropriating a different number. that's part of the debate. the president's budget that he proposed to the house and the senate just continued the deficit and the debt and required taxes. higher taxes. in order to fund his budget. then we passed our budge net the house. the senate has yet to pass a budget, 1, 1, 00-plus days now. part of the appropriations process is we are -- i guess sort of an oversight of all these agencies and in asking them the question -- what is your role? are you accomplishing that role? and then can you do it for less? do you immediate more? those are the -- questions you go through. and you

>> first of all, i'd like to thank this committee and the appropriate tors for the support they have shown the faa, but you have given us a challenge. and that is the need to do things as effectively and efficiently as possible. we have within our organizational embarked on a major restructuring. how do we minimize and find greater efficients? we have found savings. i think that's an important step. the other thing -- >> give me a couple examples. >> a lot of that is in technology systems. in general and administrative systems for the agency. technology benefits are huge in a large complex agency such as ours where we can deal with ensuring that there are not dupe la cat systems and we're taking advantage of our size and leveraging that through these systems. that's one very important area where we've been successful but we can do more. the other thing is, as it relates to the delivery of next jen, this committee and the congress in general have made it a very high priority. but that means we have a responsibility to do it as efficient efficiently as possible. we have established in

i yield back the balance of my time. appropriationsive branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2013, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the union calendar and ordered printed. 1 of rule 21, points of order are reserved. . mr. frelinghuysen: i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and clue extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 5325, and that i may include tab by lar material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 66 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325. will the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, kindly take the care. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 5325 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for energy and water development and relate

at the time, it was transportation appropriations bill. and in construing the context of clause 2, rule 21, the chair at that time indicated that what she was attempting to do is, we have a -- out of the highway trust fund, 2.8 cents goes to transit that yields a certain amount of money. she was attempting to roll off $26 million -- to wall off $26 million to go to specific transit projects. the chair in that instance specifically and i think correctly found you cannot mandate or limit the discretion of the secretary or other federal official, nor condition a you mandate that money be used in a certain way that's not con tell played by the law. as a matter of fact, on -- in section 1057 of the housemanule that we all revere here very much, it cites the indications where this has been considered before and the common them -- theme with all of them is that the person offering the amendment or the appropriations committee attempting to implement the policy was attempting to mandate action on the part of a federal official or mandate that money

so our thought with the appropriations bill was can we -- can we take a step or two while we work out the comprehensive piece or legislation? which would then take over the whole process. do you think that's reasonable? >> yes, we do. we think that there are near-term actions that could be taken. i think as was mentioned earlier, before you could actually move to consolidate interim storage you'd have to amend the nuclear policy waste act to do that. there are a number of things leading up to that including beginning the transportation planning, identifying the roots f routes for moving this material. even if you aren't sure where it's going york pretty much know the routes going out of the sites. so, yes, we believe it's imminently feasible to get started on this. a law would have to be passed. so i would guess that the law that would be passed would be the comprehensive next step forward. from your company's point of view, how would such moving ahead with such a consolidation site affect your -- the yankee companies? >> well, i mean, as i indicated, there are any number of steps tha

the supervisors. that is an appropriate standard. moreover, we have the option when we get to the point of developing our recommendations of indicating if they meet a higher standard or level of certainty. if the facts warrant. for all those reasons, this seems appropriate to me. it is a fair question but i think our job is a little bit different. commissioner renne: i agree with you when you say we're only fact finders and if we were not required to make a recommendation, to the board of supervisors, i would be in complete agreement. if our recommendation is going to be predicated on a finding that the sheriff commit some act of official misconduct beyond that to which he pleaded guilty, then that is where i have my concerns. i reserve that as we go along. i just raise it. >> would either party like to address this issue? >> as the commissioners have gleaned from the filings we have submitted, thank you. i am sorry. i could hear myself. i thought i was transmitting. how is this? as the commissioners have gleaned from our findings, we

in the sense that the senator -- senior senator from the state of new mexico served on both the appropriating and authorizing committees. and that gave some assurance that adequate funding would be available to operate the facility safely after it had been built. we can't really rely on that good luck happening again because the statistical probability as you might guess is rather low. so this is a key reason why the commission has recommended that we need to change at a minimum the way that we classify the fee receipts in such a way that when they're appropriated, they don't have to compete against other discretionary spending priorities. and spending those moneys looks more how we fund a nuclear regulatory commission where the fees offset appropriations and congress is not faced with the dilemma of needing to cut other programs in order to fund something that's being paid for by fees. this is really critical because i think that the community really wants to have confidence that the facility will receihav funding. in other words, there was a lack of continuity of leadership. and them knowin

at the appropriate time, probably after the election, we'll have a full senate classified briefing because there is classified material that needs to be digested by members of the senate, but i think the appropriate time would be sometime after the election. as the world's most foremost maritime power, our national security interests are intrinsically linked to freedom of navigation. there's a reason that every living chief of naval operations has supported the u.s. secession to the law of the sea during the time they were serving as chief of naval operations. they know that the united states needs the treaty's navigational bill of rights for worldwide access to get our troops to the fight, to sustain them during the fight, to get back home. without the permission of other countries are without the diversion of having to force one's way into those passages and have a secondary struggle apart from the primary conflict that one might be engaged in. now, critics say that these navigational provisions are nothing new because they're already protected under customary international law. but most

those neighborhoods received the appropriate education program. this would include used development programming in the art that we have yet to define what that looks like. our planning process will align how we're going to work as to agencies in that arena. supervisor chu: i think that the needle more -- i think that may need a little more fleshing out. i would like to better understand what the connection is, especially since we know our water rates will be exponentially growing. i want to make sure it's the correct connection to what they are funding. >> i certainly understand. these dollars are the art in richmond dollars that are mandated. just to clarify, -- are to enrichment dollars there mandated. this does not influence those rates. >> thank you very much. in terms of the arts complexes, we have had a lot of questions around the city's maintenance of these locations. we have arts facilities centers in various parts of our neighborhoods and i imagine there is programming that goes on there. at some point, i would like us to understand what k

supervisor chu: back to waste water -- the appropriation is a large number. t's about half a billion dollars. can you break down how much of that is eight digest verses other work? >> it will be approximately $168 million. that's for the planning of the digesters project. that could be upwards of $2 billion. it matters of a lot that we do it well because our sister agency across the eight -- east bay mud, has done an incredible job and we plan to do it well as far as creating capacity to be able to provide renewable electricity as well. but there may be the potential to do even more. supervisor chu: what is the remaining? >> an increase toward 15 miles -- that is $114 million over the next two years, including the doubling of spot repairs in the city. the other portion are maintenance and repair and replacement at the waste water treatment facilities and a potential for long-term as well as short-term needs at treasure island. >> thank you. >> we are subject to the rate fairness board, another strength of san francisco's oversight process. this translates into

the financing structure and the appropriateness of that investment. so, that is out there. 878, as i indicated, is alive. was in position when he gutted and amended it. 879 is formally dead by virtue of not having passed the june 1 deadline. which does not mean that i do not think he would at some point, but he would not have the parliamentary ability. i think he is not going to do that in an occasion other than what he has done with 878. >> any other questions or comments? any public comments? supervisor wiener: seeing no one, public comment is closed. this was an information item. please call item no. 4. >> item #4. recommend affirming the executive director's prior authorization to substitute the existing credit facility for the $200,000,000 commercial paper program, and approving and authorizing the execution of a new credit facility agreement with wells fargo bank, national association, the amendments to the associated legal documents, and all actions necessary in connection with such amendments . this is an action item. >> good morning, commissio

he never made a recommendation as to what he thought the appropriate recommendations should be. the jumg said there was not an order that he could appoint to to find contempt. that's the difference between the reports. the state of mind of the person who did not turn over the information, or people that did not turn over the information. >> in your opinion do you believe the recommendations for punishment by the office of professional responsibility those recommendations in line with the unintentional withholding or perhaps could have been stronger. what do you think? >> well i think it's appropriate for the attorney general not to comment on these determinations because it is something that is not my responsibility to do. we put that in the hands of the career people. we have a great opr, great office of professional responsibility. we have a structure in place so people outside of opr look at the findings and make a determination as to what the appropriate sanction should be and the people who are political in nature are insulated from that process. >> so i suppose what we can

chairman, i thank the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for yielding. let me at the very outset thank you for his leadership and cooperation in working through such a difficult bill at a biff time in our history. we are faced with a severe terrorist threat and restraints. reluctantly voted against the homeland security appropriations bill, but i want to commend chairman rogers and chairman aderholt for working to resolve the good faith differences we had and also, for instance, in areas such as state and local grants, increase them by $350 million, to increase by 50% the amount allocated to the highest risk areas in our country. programs such as the urban area security initiative, state homeland security program, port security, transportation security all was addressed in this bill. nothing as much as we want, but considering the realities we face as a nation, chairman rogers and chairman aderholt have done an outstanding job. come interesting a district which lost so many people on september 11 and still faces threats and where we every day quite frankl

for the next item, item number six, which is the appropriation for the $141 million -- on page 7, line 10, at the end of that line, we would add under rating agency disclosure cost, we would add the words "$29,912 for the revenue bond oversight committee cost. " this amendment identified specifically the amount the are appropriated for the revenue bond oversight committee. those would be the two amendments. >> great. i believe these are not rigid these would not require a continuance. do we have a motion to that effect? we have a motion to amend items 5 and 6. we will take that without objection. finally, with regard to amendments on items number 11, we talked about amending the document to take away the additional pass through. that was something that was already articulated by the department. do we have a motion? we had a motion to that effect. we will do that without objection. colleagues, if we could, on items #3-11, i would like to send this forward to the full board of supervisors. we do have the reserves, amendments for the bond issuances, and the existing prop j's. do we have a

funds must be paired with rigorous financial, technical, and regulatory oversight by congress and the appropriate government agencies. our third recommendation is that access to the funds nuclear utility rate payers are providing for the purpose of nuclear waste management. nuclear facilities are assessed a fee on every kilowatt hour of generated electricity in exchange for the federal government's contractual commitment to begin accepting commercially spent fuel beginning by january 31st, 1998. fee revenues go to the government's nuclear waste fund which was established for the sole purpose of covering the cost of disposing of civilian nuclear waste and ensuring that the waste program would not have to compete with other funding priorities. the fund does not work as intended. a series of executive branch and congressional actions has made annual fee revenues approximately $750 million a year and the unspent $27 billion balance in the fund effectively inaccessible to the waste program. instead, the waste program is subject to exactly the budget constraints and uncertainties that the fund was crea

the board would still be required to appropriate the funds and you would do that whether it is the appropriation of pay as you go. >> much like we had, we would appropriate a certain level from the city? >> that is correct. that remains a discretionary act by the city. president chiu: 01 to follow up on a couple of points. part of what has been curious to many of us was the 50-50 split suggested by the port. i certainly appreciate the port has significant capital needs but i suggest every department in the city and frankly every district has significant capital needs. as our budget analysts point out, are capital planning committee had adopted guidelines that stated the port can obtain proceeds but if the project area included bonn court properties -- only the port properties should be retained to fund part capital projects. on this project, the court announced 27,960 square feet, 20% of this overall site. pat seems to be what the split ought to be. i think this is something we will have to think about. whether it is fixing capital projects or that great highway or other issues, we have to think

the appropriations will go towards 36 new berths for smaller boats. enhances the west harbor renovation park that is currently underway. the second piece of legislation does a number of things. it codifies the existing fees previously approved by the board of supervisors in 2008. improvises a few other xisting fees,clarifies the department's policy regarding the transfers. clarifies the time periods of the license that is now part of the legislatio we engage in a relatively extensive public process led by rec and park. i attended a number of community meetings, as did my staff. this is a situation where no one got exactly what they wanted, but it is something we all can ve with. i want to thank everyone from the community, from the yacht harbor, as well athe rec and park department. >> thank you, supervisor. good afternoon. i uswaed to add cplef things to what the supervisor said and thank him for his leadership on oth helpi us identify the funds rthe 36 adition slips and working closelwith e voters. -- boaters. t harbois currently uergoing a renovatio

as you mentioned, this is a correction to the supplemental appropriation that the board of supervisors approved for the department of public health. there was an error in the delineation of the source. this just correct the source. it does not change the total amount of the appropriation. >> thank you -- chairperson chu: thank you very much. is there anything you would add to this appropriation? rex and no, madam chair. there is not. chairperson chu: what we open this up to the public? are there members of the public who wish to speak on item 1? >> good morning, supervisors. i would like to thank this committee for hearing items one, two, three, and four. i think having these items on the agenda at least gives a little bit of transparency as to what is happening inside the department of public health. i would like to thank this committee for sponsoring item number one, because i think all items need to be corrected when necessary and since the big man is in town for lunch today i will not be able to stick around for items two, three, and four. >> -- chairperson chu: are there other mem

to find the appropriate compromise so we can get on to the next problem. >> would you like to bring us up-to-date on california? maybe give us a sneak preview of the may revise briefly. >> where selling bonds and we're not disclosing materials between now and then. we just have to wait. it will be interesting. that i promise you. the basic fact is california increased its production of wealth, the state of 38 million people and all businesses. the economy is somewhat under $2 trillion. there is dynamic wealth creation in many respects. since the time i was last governor, a lot of people and businesses have moved elsewhere or the have died, gone out of business. also, a lot of people have moved here by the millions. we have 38 million people. people thought the green was here a and we have -- and we have all kinds of businesses. twitter, google, zynga, it is pretty incredible. what has happened. a lot of things going on. our budget, we have a mess, i inherited a budget deficit of $26 billion. we have cut that substantially. from the mortgage meltdown that occurred because of the bad dec

the first is an approval of the appropriation for the marina harbor yacht fund. the appropriations will go towards 36 new berths for

annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014, continuing, creating or establishing these positions; enumerating and including therein all positions created by charter or state law for which compensations are paid from city and county funds and appropriated in the annual appropriation ordinance; authorizing appointments or continuation of appointments thereto; specifying and fixing the compensations and work schedules thereof; and authorizing appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations therefore. item 3. proposed budget and annual appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for selected departments of the city and county of san francisco as of may 1, 2012, for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and june 30, 2014. item 4. proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for selected departments of the city and county of san francisco for the fys ending june 30, 2013, and jun

the planning commission recommended the heights are appropriate because they queue off and implement a sloping front of height. i want to reiterate the heights proposed are consistent. those are consistent with the recommendations of the northeast embarcadero study. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you might have. i would like to continue the presentation by introducing jonathan stern. president chiu: i understand the challenge of the planning department and to think about height being killed off the areaqx÷ or the height limits tht are the 40-foot height limits that are to the north in the residential areas. your department shows -- chose to justify the increase by looking to a commercial district. the question i have been asked is how do we think about this as a general policy for the department? i have read from residents and -- in supervisor mar's district that this could allow for decisions around height that key off of the commercial street corner which has more height and bulk and i could be used as a way to justify increasing heights in the richm

the table? >> that's appropriate. >> is the frustration boiled up to an executive order that said do it and do it now. do you believe this will be the key to fix this? this executive order as it's implemented? >> i think it will go a long way in some areas but it still doesn't do as much in oversight. the fact that i'm only seeing half of the institutions in training facilities that i saw last year says things could be going on in that other half that need to be addressed and won't even be discovered. >> i think you're hitting on something right there. my fear is that we've got a lot of partners, i think, could help us and listening to this last panel, they feel like they were isolated away from being part of the solution and now they're being deemed as part of the problem. and i would hope the case wouldn't be there would be resistance put up. but you could see it where there's more requirements coming down without looking at the data and there's a sense of institutional pride that will come with a lot of the place that is we're doing a pretty good job, showing the numbers but it's not making an