commissioner fung: if it is found unsound, the entire building could be demolished. commissioner peterson: when you said administrative process, what did you mean by that? >> section 317. demolition generally requires a public hearing with either public use or discretionary review, and there are some exceptions. the primary exception is for unsound buildings that are proposed to be removed and for housing that is unaffordable, that exceeds a certain sales price. in those two cases, presented with evidence that backs that up, there is a staff level approval. it does not exempt it from other things, but there is no hearings at the planning commission. commissioner peterson: the way which to determine and calculate the demolition, is that public -- the way which you determine it? >> it is in the planning code. commissioner peterson: no, the way in which you did it for this case, this project. vice president garcia: the actual numbers. commissioner peterson: yes, and how you came to 49.4. >> the numbers were in part provided on the application, both leading what was writ

. -- unsound. there's another process for review, and i do not know if there is a process to take it to a further staff review, but i i think with the safety concerns raised by the appellant, it should be addressed under that mechanism is possible to regard -- if possible. >> if it turns out to be on sound -- unsound, but does not serve the appellants. what it means is it gives the permit holder a lot more latitude in terms of moving in different parts of of building. in terms of whether or not this particular permanent member came close to the threshold, i think that is a function of the process we have in place. if it had a certain amount of square feet, it would have required further review, so it is reasonable to try to avoid whatever process unless you are doing it illegally. i think it is reasonable to rely on two different departments in terms of whether or not this represents a demo. i'd think it is easily reasonable in terms of what else needs i worry about it. i do not want to force more

buildings and the city, under planning code section 317, demolition of structures of building that are unsound. that is separate from the emergency order, independent of a landmark issues. vice president garcia: is a greater than 50%? i am asking you to speculate. >> there are bearing threshold's that depend on the replacement of the structure compared with the upgrades. vice president garcia: speculating, would you state whether this building would normally be allowed to be demolished if it had no landmark status? >> i do not have enough information to speculate on that, unfortunately. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner hwang: is landmark status in question at all? >> no, it is clearly a landmark. commissioner hwang:. president goh: commissioners, any more questions? i think we are in deliberations now. vice president garcia: i guess i will go. i think my feelings are well known on this. the reason i asked that question, i know it has landmark status, but it seems as though landmark status is purely a function of the landmark status of the building in front. it has an unknown orig

they said it was structurally unsound. we're not allowed to go back in until they fix some of that. >> keith, we're thankful all of you are ok. your wife is ok. some bumps and bruises and she still has some aches and pains. >> she is lucky to be alive. she will be fine. thank you, keith. >> some things to note that a woman was taken into custody with alcohol influence and so she was arrested last night, spending the night in jail. speed was also a factor. >> thank you, surae chinn. an incredible story. thank goodness everyone in that family is doing well this morning. >>> well, hundreds of thousands of people saw fireworks light up the sky over the national mall. the annual fireworks display capped off july 4th celebration on our nation's 235th birthday. 14,000 pounds of explosives were used for the 17-minute show. the massive pyrotechnics capped off a day of activities and follow the annual a capital 4th concert. >> police are investigating serious july 4th incidents on water ways. the washington harbor patrol pulled a ma

that's as bizarre and unsound set of psychological reasoning as i've seen in years. so the public is fascinated by all these loose ends. the ambiguities, the why, the why. the lying. that's one of the central features. we're always interested in lying. >> what about that? is man accused of killing his daughter, would it be any different here? >> i don't think -- a little bit. we all believe there's a special bond mother to daughter. and it goes against our whole evolutionary past, our deep, deep instincts this whole thing. and i think that the trial really wrapped it up very well on either the defense or the prosecution side. >> what doo you make of this? as we watch the interest and obsession you're not very surprised about, there's iphone appst, there's a sentence calculator on the website of our orlando affiliate. you can basically check what you think the decision will be and it will tell you therefore the sentence. what do you think of all that? >> we live inside the media. it's a media saturated society today. i'm not surprised by any of that. by the way, i wan

in our effort to placate conservatives what we're forgetting this is economically unsound to pull backe rate that they're try this. to if you want to balance the budget, i got no philosophical objection to that. got to do it with raising taxes. >> republicans say don't raise taxes, raise taxpayers. >> reporter: it's a great way to say it. reagan raised taxes in a recession. clinton raised taxes in a recession. neither one of them put us into a second recession as a result. it's just false hood out there that raising taxes in an unfair tax system which is what we have in the united states would send us back into a recession. they just keep saying it and it doesn't become real because you keep saying it. >> ali, appreciate it. kate bolduan, jessica yellin, gloria borger as well. more breaking news on capitol hill. also ahead, crime and punishment. fascinating day in this trial, polygamist prophet, so-called prophet i should say warren jeffs had a courtroom tirade. he fired his own defense team yesterday. plus tropical storm dawn making downfall tonight. forecast on the amount of rain it

i have made it clear that they should move on unsound. we expect it is in the house to move forward, separate bills, and i would hope that they would heed our advice. >> would you combine them after a fast track in the senate? >> no decisions. >> if there is no deal, how about moving forward with the plan being your own plan? >> very wise of you, alan. [laughter] it is an option. we appreciate your advice. would like to come up here? >> you have to take some big whacks at social security. what would you offer them they would allow them to vote for something that would be very difficult for them? >> any ideas, you can pass them on. we have a serious challenge facing the country. in addition to the three challenges i outlined, we are up against the debt limit. while some think that we could go past august the second, i frankly think it puts us in an awful lot of jeopardy and put our economy in jeopardy, risking even more jobs. i believe it is important we come to an agreement, but it has to be agreement there really does fundamentally chang

these decisions constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices. to address them, the occ and other federal banking agencies issued a cease-and-desist orders. the forclosures a concluded was adequate to expos serious flaws in the bank's foreclosure process. but as a sample, it could not of course the individual are words that might have suffered financial harmid due to the defect. that's why the orders issued by the agencies requires a comprehensive and independent review of the foreclosure actions during a two year look back period. the independent review will seek to identify financially harmed farmers who had a pending work completed for closure in 2009 or 2010 through two distinct means. one, notice an outreach to those borrowers of their right to file a complaint and to have that complaint reviewed by an independent consultant and targeted review of the loans of borrowers who are in identifiable high-risk segments which will provide an additional opportunity to detect the war borrowers who suffered harm. they require the servicers submit detai

sure that we never again had a meltdown because certain types of credit instruments were unsafe, unsound, poorly documented and ultimately worth less than they were intended to. but it is clear today that we will be dealing with an agency that will be far larger. the budget for next year is estimated to be larger than the two largest consumer protection agencies presently in existence combined. it's a lot of money. additionally, the authority of this agency is extremely broad. today we also will ask some important questions and this committee has been dedicated to along with the financial services committee for some time. the federal reserve is not transparent. the federal reserve does resist any kind of congressional oversight and considers it unreasonable interference. there have been limited, and i repeat very limited, ability to get transparency in some cases related to the financial bailout from the federal reserve. it is likely that without specific and documented ability to have guaranteed transparency and legitimate oversight, that this subagency independent as it might either fu

come a day our debt is so large people will stop buying our treasury notes because they think we are unsoundnation and there will come a day where medicare runs out of money and you get a chance to look at the future, because the debt crisis should educate every american, if you don't have fundamental change, all of the things we worry about happening next tuesday are going to come true, one day. and, speaker boehner is a good man, but, his plan doesn't fundamentally change the reason we got debt... bill: let me get to the -- i think what you said is what kent conrad said, you don't think we'll default, is that right. >> i don't believe we will, but eventually we are, yes. bill: well, what about a downgrade, next wednesday, august 2nd. >> absolutely. i mean, what do they say, you need to cut $4 trillion over the next decade to avoid a downgrade and speaker boehner's proposal was 3, i feel for him, he has been working with the president for weeks be a every time they come to a big deal, they throw more revenue on the table and move the goal post and we are a few days away, because the white h

i want to keep them safe from unsound bridges, from fires that can't be effectively combated, from food that isn't adequately tested, from diseases -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. >> i yield to the gentleman. mr. frank: we are cutting back on health research. the notion that the only danger to the american people is a soviet union which collapsed 20 years ago or other bases such as that and ignores the need for better public safety here, better public health here, research on disease, protection against disasters, because it's one thing to go to the aid to people after the disaster, but let's rebuild infrastructure that will diminish it. are the members of the house going to say, that, no, we didn't really mean. no, the pentagon is not subject to fiscal discipline. the gentleman from oklahoma is saying there are cuts. this is a $17 billion increase. how can that be a cut? it may be a cut from a $30 billion increase and a $30 billion increase is a cut from a $200 billion increase, but

it resulted in unsafe and unsound practices, and violations of federal and state law requirements. there was concern that widespread risk may be presented to consumers, communities, market participants, and the overall market. it represents more than two- thirds of the servicing market. they consider problems cited within this report that there may be widespread consequences. professor warren, these are massive and systemic witnesses. what role will this play in addressing this? >> the best way to understand it is that we will be on the frontlines. the question is what kind of mortgages get fed into this system on the front end? is it possible to use mortgages to surprise and detrick people? so that consumers are not able to ask the questions, can i afford this? our job is to be there on the front end. we are taking enormous steps in that direction to make sure that mortgage is clear, people can't tell what they can afford and shop in the marketplace. it is our job to be there throughout the process, including in the end on mortgage servicing. we want to make sure that large financ

"the bill is so unsound it will force its own repeal." not one of these quotes is about the cfpb. each " is about the creation of the fdic from the 1930's when there were created response to the great depression. each quote sounds like what we are occurring with the cfpb. it was in response to the financial crunch -- a catastrophe of 2008. i cannot understand why it is that we have such an inversion -- this would be equivalent saying, we do not like what the epa does so we will not let it have a head. we do not believe in medicare the way that it is so we will not let it have a head of the agency. so we are destined at the end of the day not have a well performing agency, certainly as well as it could perform, without having leadership at the end of the day that can make sure that it is responsive to the congress and to the original intentions that we had for this consumer protection board. the same types of shrill and overblown rhetoric that has marked the current debate is what i see in the speeches that took place in the releases that were issued as it related to the fdic and t

of the poor this debt ceiling plan put forth by the republicans is morally wrong and it's fiscally unsound. and so we don't want to see the majority of american people on their own once again and so i'm glad we're here tonight discussing this. the republican default on our debt, this would devastate the retirement savings of millions of american seniors, just devastate. and we know that social security, medicare, medicaid, these government safety net programs have provided for millions of our seniors to live a decent life in their golden years. and to not fall into the ranks of poverty and now all of these programs are on the chopping block. it makes no sense. a republican default on our debt s would weaken our entire economy and weaken our national security and we heard earlier that hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost, even more jobs would be lost. we should be about creating jobs, not putting forth measures that would take us further down the road into a recession and for some a depression. in fact, it's very simple. america must play our -- pay our bills on time and we must do t

economists stated that a balanced budget requirement of very the constitution would be a vision and unsound policy the would adversely affect the adding economy. deily setting arbitrary caps on the federal federal expenditures would think the balanced budget amendment even more problematic. and the balanced budget would mean perverse actions in the face of recession. weake when the economy is the weakest the amendment would actually aggravate recessions. he in the years i've been already privileged to serve here we've already debated this several times and voted on at. the as i said in the past, the most against compelling argument against this doesn't come from me or anybody on the floor. the it actually comes from the real experts to meet the people who framed the constitution of the united states. if they were here on the senatehe floor today they would against this amendment.ecause because it violates thes basic constitution's basic tenet which is majority rule. and the notion that the mostt fundamental document of law can be set aside for a time is ludicrous and it's an atom at the ver

markets but also interrupt the flow of credit and capital into business, and quote, the bill is so unsoundt will ultimately force its own repeal. now, not one of these quotes, mr. chairman, is about the cfpb. each quote is about the creation of the fdic, and the securities and, change commission from the 1930's when they were initially created in response to the great depression. each quote sounds like what we're currently hearing about the cfpb. and was created as a response to the financial catastrophy of 2008, and i just, for the life of me, cannot understand why it is that we have such an aversion -- this would be the equivalent of saying well, we don't like what the e.p.a. does so we won't let it have a head. we don't believe in medicare the way it is, so we won't let it have a head of the agency, so we are dress tined at the end of the day -- destined at the end of the day not to have a well performing agency certainly as well as it could perform without having leadership at end of the day that could make sure it is responsive to the congress and the original intentions that we had f

confirmation process in this unique situation, i also saw no reason to proceed in a constitutionally unsound manner. the formalities of the constitution may sometimes create obstacles to getting things done as quickly as some would like, but the constitution and its formalities exist for a very important reason, and that is our constitutional tradition of the adherence to the rule of law. we cannot circumvent those formalities in the interest of some expediency or because it is a convenient means to a desired end. words of the constitution have meaning. they are not suggestions that we are free to ignore if it's not inconvenient today. so i believe the process by which we are now proceeding, creating a separate two-year term and then calling on the president to make a new nomination. he didn't have to renominate director mueller but he indicated that was his desire and we have accorded him the opportunity to do that. he has then renominated director mueller, and i hope in a few moments we will confirm him to this important position. one of the discussions we had at that hearing was with prof

these deficiencies constitute unsafe and unsound banking practices. to address them, the occ issued a cease and desist orders. the sample foreclosures reviewed in the examination exposed serious flaws in the foreclosure processes. as a sample, it could not, of course, quantify the individual borrowers that may have suffered financial harm due to these defects. that is why the orders issued by the agency required a comprehensive and independent review of foreclosure actions during a two year time. the independent review will seek to identify borrowers who have a pending or completed for closure in 2009 or 2010 through two distinct means. one, notice and out reached a those are words of their right to file a complaint and have that complaint reviewed. two, a targeted review of the loans of borrowers who are in identifiable high-risk segments who will provide an additional opportunity to detect borrowers who suffered financial harm. the orders require that the servicers submit detailed action plans to revamp their mortgage servicing and operation. for ex

and these economists stated that a balanced budget requirement to the constitution would be a very unsoundpolicy that would adversely affect the economy. they believe adding arbitrary caps on federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic, and a balanced budget amendment would mandate per veers actions in the face of recessions. by requiring large budget cuts when the economy is weakest, the amendment would actually aggravate recessions. mr. president, -- madam president, in the 27 years that i have been privileged to serve here, we have already debated this several times. and we have voted on it. as i have said in the past, the most compelling argument against this amendment doesn't come from me or from anybody on the floor. it actually comes from the real experts, the people who frame the constitution of the united states. if they were here on the senate floor today, they would vote against this amendment because it violates the constitution's basic tenet, which is majority rule, and the motion that the most fundamental document of law can be set asid

and these economists stated that a balanced budget requirement to the constitution would be a very unsound policy that would adversely affect the economy. they believe adding arbitrary caps on federal expenditures would make the balanced budget amendment even more problematic, and a balanced budget amendment would mandate per veers actions in the face of recessions. by requiring large budget cuts when the economy is weakest, the amendment would actually aggravate recessions. mr. president, -- madam president, in the 27 years that i have been privileged to serve here, we have already debated this several times. and we have voted on it. as i have said in the past, the most compelling argument against this amendment doesn't come from me or from anybody on the floor. it actually comes from the real experts, the people who frame the constitution of the united states. if they were here on the senate floor today, they would vote against this amendment because it violates the constitution's basic tenet, which is majority rule, and the motion that the most fundamental document of law can be set asi