and another example on workforce if you look at the subsection we have that subsection says if they hire 40 per year for so many years they've met their obliteration obligation >> (calling names) >> looks like age before beauty. can we have the overhead you've all received copies of our hand out. notwithstanding the program like st. luke's there's two substantial flaws like sequa

but this is one of the subsections of the espionage charge that basically says if you take classified material and you either bring it, give it, or even expose it to foreign powers in a way that could injure intelligence collection, you're guilty of a crime that could get you up to ten years. so it's not one of those life sentence charges, but it's a significant charge that the prosecutors feel fit the case, but also -- and this is important -- fits within the context of the charges that are included our extradition treaty with hong kong. >> it would seem then this is a precedent-setting case. does the government have some sense of we have to send the right message? >> you know, vinita, you would think that that message was transmitted clearly when you had bradley manning, who was an army private first class who downloaded the entire classified database onto a thumb drive and put it on wikileaks and was put on trial for a case where he could receive life and that trial was actually starting to unfold in the newspapers every day at the very time snowden did this. so i think they may ne

two to six eight reads quote an application made under the subsection must demonstrate probable cause for the issuance of the warrant and must be supported by the oath or affirmation of the authorized peace officer a search warrant may not be issued under this section unless the sworn affidavit required by article ten point eight one be sets forth sufficient and substantial facts to establish probable cause but the bill does not and cannot prevent the federal government from snooping on online communications for more i'm joined by the man who actually author of the bill's an email amendment texas state representative jonathan stickler and mr stickler thank you so much for joining us so first of all let's start off by asking why is this amendment so important to you what does it realistically do for the people. well we actually filed a bill a separate bill that don't just directly was h.b. thirty one sixty four after that building and get anywhere through the process we found another vehicle which ended up being twenty two sixty eight and we tacked our bill onto it we were we know is t

page 35 line 24 and it says nothing in the subsection shall require the secretary, meaning janet napolitano, to install fencing in a particular location in the southern border. if the secretary determines that the use or placement of those resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border doesn't have to do it. so what's the point? there is no security, am i wrong? >> you're exactly right. this bill has roughly 1,000 waivers written into it, hands it all over to janet napolitano and says use your discretion to decide what to waive. it's designed to never to happen. there's a sharp contrast between this bill and the amendment i introduced that would have put really teeth into border security and would have secured the border first. this bill weakens and i'm talking about the amendment we voted on today, weakens current law regarding a border fence. it weakens current law regarding biometric security. what it says you got to show a photo i.d. sean, if anyone has ever known a teenager, it ain't hard to go a flea market and get a fake

>> commissioners, ray hartz, director of san francisco government. 67.30 the sunshine ordinance subsection c. the task force shall advise the board of supervisors and provide information on other city departments on appropriate ways in which to implement this chapter. that is the authority that the sunshine task force has. does the city attorney have the ability to over or to review and override those? yes he does, but he needs to give a legal justification he can't just say which he did in the case of 150-word summaries i say my opinion is different. he did not site any law or any statue or any justification, i will go back to mr. hur's argument i will now send all of my idr and my information requests and anything that i have directly to the department head and specifically with the department head because that is the person who receives annual sunshine training and annual sunshine declaration and has the responsibility as the department head to insure everyone in the department follows the law. if someone does not follow the law, it is his or her responsibility. i was in the navy, in th

how does the problems of one subsection of the internal revenue code equal revising all of the sectionssands? i get it. you're mad and you don't like the tax cut. yes, we shoull simply by answering the irs down to a much smaller government agency, but let's beealistic. let's start with just fixing the section that seems to be open for questions. start more clearly define what it is if you really want to me the irs prick up, aggressively prosecute the individuals who did the targeting since some people to jail. that wl get their attention for what. dennis: thanks. be se to watch theom sulliv sw ts weekend. you can get to that seven and 10:00 p.m. onaturday, sunday at 70 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern. happy friday, everyone.eeeeeeeet you think they could have broken earlier, tomorrow. john: we're at war against terror. >> this warlike all wars must end. john: so that american is we war on app? apple keeping massive profits overseas, a war on hate crime. >> what tur a normal fat little 8-year-old boy into a vicious hate crime committing rapi? john: to continue the war on drugs. >> this is you

how does the problems of one subsection of the internal revenue code equal revising all of the sections get it. you're mad and you don't like the tax cut. yes, we shoull simply by answering the irs down to a much smaller government agency, but let's be realistic. let's start with just fixing the section that seems to be open for questions. start more clearly define what it is. if you really want to make the irs prick up, aggressively prosecute the individuals who did the targeting. since some people to jail. that will get their attention for what. dennis: thanks. be sure to watch the tom sullivan show this weekend. you can get to that seven and 10:00 p.m. on saturday, sunday at 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. eastern. happy friday, everyone. "the willis report" is next. ♪ gerri: hello, everybody. i'm gerri willis. tonight on "the willis report" new questions about safety at construction sites all over the country. as the fallout mouse from the deadly building collapse in philadelphia. also, it is the biggest dragnet of consumer information and our nation's history. the uproar grows. >> you can'

section shall be construed to authorize the secretary to mandate or control a state college or career academic content or student academic achievement standards for subsection 8. that is the answer to the school board idea. state submit the plan and they want to change it , if ther the standards state makes significant changes to the plan such as adopting new academic standards, new achievement standards, a new academic assessments or improve performance targets, the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. the secretary shall review the information and may, notwithstanding paragraph 4, approve or disapprove changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or process described in such paragraph. isically, what we're saying states you can do this. if you want to upgrade, that is fine. the secretary will not tell you what you have to do. that is the idea of leaving maximum of flexibility but setting certain performance standards that you have to meet. states have already stepped forward to do this. --mr. chairman, >> that is the difference between the construction language in the language senator alexander read. one says the secretary

subsection five the united states should continue to support syrian opposition forces with nonlethal aid. i don't remember authorizing any aid to begin with, much less continuing. subsection eight, should the president decide to deploy military assets in syria, the president should provide a supplemental budget request to congress, yes on the supplemental budget question but should the president decide to deploy military assets, that's for us to decide, not the president. so mr. chairman, i have concerns, i understand the initial intent, it is my strongest recommendation that we strike this language that we work together on language that's more suitable for an ndaa and then if desired to have broader discussion with a separate resolution if smn somebody wants to move forward with regard to action in syria. i would say that i oppose a military action in syria but i certainly think there should be voices. we should have representatives speaking for their people. and i hope that we learn. in 2011 i came here very concerned about libya, i spoke out against military action, we ended up tak

e1 for the preceding year, minus the number of register evidence positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year, and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year. i'm sure we all got that. i'm sure you know exactly what that means. and it goes on. subparagraph iii. three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1. the numerator of which is a number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year, minus the number of unemployed united states workers to the current area, and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed in the united states workers for the preceding year, and goes on, subparagraph 4, three-tenths of a fraction and goes on. so, somebody knows what that means. you had special interests on top of writing this big monstrosity. they were there. they want their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- i was in the gang of eight, and i know they want to do the right thing and worked hard, but they got off on the wrong track. they are --

e-1 for the preceding year minus ther number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the preceding year and subparagraph 2 the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the spreeing year. -- for the preceding year. i am a sure we all got that. i'm sure you all know exactly what that means. and it goes on. subparagraph iii -- three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1 -- the numerator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year min minue number of unemployment united states workers for the current year. and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the spreeing year, sub-- and it goes ton subparagraph 4, three-tenth thrf a fraction. it goes on. somebody knows what that means. because you had special interests on top of writing this big monstrosity. they were there. they wanted their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- those in the gang of eight -- rched and i know they want to do the right thing and have w

e-1 for the preceding year minus ther number of registered positions approved under subsection for the preceding year and subparagraph 2 the denominator of which is the number of registered positions approved under subsection e for the spreeing year. -- for the preceding year. i am a sure we all got that. i'm sure you all know exactly what that means. and it goes on. subparagraph iii -- three-tenths of a fraction. subparagraph 1 -- the numerator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the preceding year min minue number of unemployment united states workers for the current year. and subparagraph 2, the denominator of which is the number of unemployed united states workers for the spreeing year, sub-- and it goes ton subparagraph 4, three-tenth thrf a fraction. it goes on. somebody knows what that means. because you had special interests on top of writing this big monstrosity. they were there. they wanted their deal. and i would say to my colleagues, when you say -- those in the gang of eight -- rched and i know they want to do the right thing and have wor

for the preceding year and subparagraph two the denominator of which is the number of positions approved under subsection e. for the preceding year. i'm sure we all got back. i'm sure you know what that means. and it goes on. roman numeral three. three tenths of a fraction. sub paragraph 1, the numerator of which is the number of london played united states workers for the preceding year minus the number of united states workers for the current year. subparagraph two, of which is the number of united states workers for the preceding year and goes onto subparagraph fourq-quebec pretense of 30 fraction echoes on. somebody knows that that is. with special interests on top of readiness that monstrosity. they were there. they want a fair deal. i would say to my colleagues, when you say for those in the gang of eight i know they want to do the right thing and have worked hard, but they got off on the wrong track. the papers reported for weeks. well, the unions here in the chamber of commerce is here and they had workers in that industry people and want more workers for this and this is demanding more workers f

and this is, for the record in item 37 section 1396 subsection g. so, i would put that out there. if there is another form, that that would be acceptable. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i just wanted to clarify some things to supervisor campos through the chair. i understand that the issue that we're talking about here is about tic and condo conversion. my point is that what we're talking about in the context of housing period, that we do need to give voice and consider it and move it forward. wasn't specifically targeting it that. but also there are amendments that are offered that would allow 75% of what is -- could be monies that are brought in through the bypass fee that is directly allocated for the housing authority. so, that is the reason why i brought in the discussion of the housing authority. thank you. >> thank you, colleagues. are there any other comments on the amendments or the ordinance? supervisor avalanche owes. ~ supervisor avalos. >> thank you, i'll be short. just wanted to appreciate president chiu and supervisor yee and supervisor kim for your wo

construed to allow the secretary or other officers, etc., to mandate, direct or control a state's college and career-ready academic content or student academic achievement standards under subsection a. ok. that's the answer to, i think, the school board idea. no, we can't -- [inaudible] but if a state submits that plan and they want to change it and say, lower their standards, if a state makes significant changes to its plans such as adopting new state academic standards, new state achievement standards, new academic assessments, for improved performance targets, the state shall submit a revised plan to the secretary. the secretary shall review the information and may, notwithstanding paragraph four, approve or disapprove changes to the state plan without undertaking the peer review or hearing process described in such paragraph. so basically, we're saying, a state, you can do this, if you want to upgrade, that's fine. the secretary's not going to tell you what you got to do. again, that's just the idea of leaving maximum flexibility but setting certain performance standards that you have to meet . states have already stepped forward to do this. >> mr. chairman -- >> common cours

b, for purposes of this section, the document december scribed in this subsection are the following. one, policy number 1000 2.1 -- mr. king: i ask that the amendment be considered as read. madam chair, i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: is there objection? >> madam chair, i object. i think we want to hear this entire amendment. the chair: the clerk will report. the clerk: 10072.1 published on march 2, 2011, two, policy number 100075.1 publish opped june 17, 2011. three, policy number 100076.1 published on june 17, 2011. four, the memorandum of november 17, 2011 from the principal legal advisor of the united states immigration and customs enforcement pertaining to case-by-case review of incoming and certain pending cases. five, the memorandum of june 15, 2012, from the secretary of homeland security pertaining to exercising prosecutorial discretion with respect to individuals who came to the united states as children. six, the memorandum of december 21, 2012, from the director of united states immigration and customs enforcement pertaining to

which is an important tool but nsa is the only agency excluded from the freedom of information act a little thing called public law subsections six which i know by heart. congress shall make no law requiring nsa to the bill to information about its organization function structure policy personnel or any other information. i had to find loopholes and 636. i was successful over a number of documents i requested. i ended up getting more than 5000 pages worth. the history is a lot of hard work and trying to get anything out of this agency. when i wrote this new book i approach the agency and i got the same response. we are not going to help you. we are not going to give you any interviews but then a new director came along and the logic in allowing the book to be written about it. i had written the "puzzle palace" and the world did not come to an end after that and as a matter of fact the government ended up using the book as a textbook in the defense and intelligence college. it was really the nsa that was going crazy. the state department invited me over to give an address to the senior officials at the state department, then c

person shall not receive the exemption provided in subsection d if the commissions determine such personas, one, been the subject of a civil or criminal proceeding for violating the iran sanctions act of 1996, the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and divestment act of 2010, the iran threat reduction and syria human rights act of 2012, or the international emergency economic powers act. or, two, been the subject of a civil or criminal proceeding related to cyberattacks on the government of the united states or u.s. companies. page , line 22, strike g and nsert h. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from missouri rise? >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of the motion. >> i rise today to offer the final amendment to the bill. it will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. mr. maloney: the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. i rise to offer this motion to recommit because this bill in its current form misses an opportunity to do more and we should not let that opportunity pass. the underlying legislation has the goal of

his amendment removes all the existing restrictions and on page 4, subsection d, says specifically, no funds shall be used there to detain people after december 31, 2014. we've got to get the plan first before it closes. i think this amendment should be rejected. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mckeon: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 1/4 minutes remaining. mr. mckeon: i yield myself the balance of the time. i strongly oppose this amendment. 2 1/2 years ago i sent the president a letter about these important issues. i said in that letter, and i quote, i fully recognize the importance of crafting a careful and comprehensive framework for the detention of terrorist who is wish to harm the united states. i also recognize the challenges and legal complexities related to such an endeavor. this appreciation is why this issue is simply too important for the administration to address on its own, end quote. the president did not take up my offer at that time. nearly a year later in ano

the case. >> well, we don't report to ins. we're prohibited from reporting toins. >> it says use of city funds prohibited and it says in subsection c -- i'm going to quote this verbatim, "requesting information about or disseminating information about immigration of any individual." so each item in itself would constitute a violation. >> i don't want to get into a legal debate with a lawyer and we don't have a city attorney here, but reading one section of that ordinance, there might be other sections that say, you know, there might be exceptions around eligible for federal programs or state programs where the state, for example, in order to get under med-cal, families per federal law and state law have to provide proof of residence. so that's a federal law, which would trump the local law. >> did you get an opinion from the city attorney that requesting information about their immigration status in this case would not be in violation of the sanctuary ordinance? >> no. >> okay, continue please. >> i was talking about undocumented parents of children where the parents are receiving cash assistance on behalf of their children and t

this, -- quote -- "notwithstanding the requirement that the secretary come up with a southern border fencing strategy, nothing in this subsection shall require the secretary to install fencing or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing in a particular location along the border if the secretary determines that the use of placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the southern border at such location he quote. --" -- close quote. so i think that is a fatal flaw in the language. it it allows the senators to believe and advocate their bill guarantees we're going to have 700 miles of fencing when it's not there. it's not there. and senator leahy knew exactly what he was doing when he offered that amendment in committee, and the substitute, the 1,200-page swimsuit substitute includes this exact leahy amendment language. it's not changed by the senator's offer of legislation. so mr. president my time is -- i've spoken more than than i intended to. a number of other issues i would race if we had the time -- raise if we had the time but

used that relates to the expansion of the boundaries of the opinion canyon maneuver site in colorado. section 125, except as provided in subsection b, none of the funds may be used by the secretary to reallocate, to relocate a unit in the army that performs a testing mission. ection 126, $89 million, including a rescission of funds. section 127, $49,920,000. including rescission of funds. section 128, $358,400,000. including rescission of funds. section 129, $50 million. including rescission of funds. section 130, $16,470,000. including rescission of funds. . ction 131, $45,623,000 including rescission of funds. section 132, $50 million. section 133, $4,668,000. section 134, the secretary may obligate additional funds necessary to complete the explosive research and development loading facility pick anyoney arsenal, new jersey. ection 135, $75 million. title 2, department of veterans affairs, veterans benefits administration, compensation and pensions, including transfer of unds, $71,248,171,000. eadjustment benefits, $13,135, 898,000. veterans insurance and indemnities, $77,567,000. veterans housing and benefit program fund, for

his amendment in addition to asking for a plan, it removes the existing restrictions, and subsection shall be used there to detain people after december 31, 2014. we've got to get the plan first before it closes. i think this amendment should be rejected. >> the gentleman from california is recognized. >> how much time do i have? >> two and one quarter minutes remaining. >> i yield myself the balance of the time. >i strongly oppose this amendment. two and a half years ago i sent the president a letter about these important issues. , i fully that letter recognize the importance of crafting a careful and comprehensive remark for the detention -- framework for the detention of terrorists. i also recognize the legal complexities. this appreciation is why this issue is too important for the administration to address on its own. the president did not take my offer at that time. nearly one year later, and another unanswered letter, i wrote, while i remain open to working together, i'm disappointed that the administration has frequently shown a greater willingness to engage with the internati

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 me and said, [unintelligible] as a reproach. i thought, ha ha, very funny. [laughter] but it was beautiful, which can be true but it can be awful, too, a beige. it

the 3.4% student loan rate. we just forget to tell everybody it's for a subsection of everybody that's taking out student loans. so let me suggest to you that the other option today will be to put student loans on the financial firm footing, something that we can certify for the future as financially sustainable not just for the students and for the parents, but for the american taxpayer. they should have a voice in this. so what ranking member alexander and senator coburn and myself introduced is a comprehensive piece of legislation that ties this rate of student loan borrowing to the rate of the ten-year bond in may of that year. so this past month we would take the rate of the ten-year bond, which was about 1.79%. you would add 3% to it. and for the next year the rate for everybody taking out student loans would be 4.79%. some members of the senate can't add. and for the next 12 months anybody that took out a student loan would be at 4.79%. not some at 3.4% and the rest at 6.8%. and that 4.79% would be a fixed rate for the life of the loan. it wouldn't go away in 12 months and have to be renegotiated based up