Cspan your unfiltered view of politics. Up next to house panel looks at the trumpet ministrations actions towards genderbased protections in education, the workplace and healthcare. This labor subcommittee hearing is chaired by donna michi oregon. We are meeting to your testimony on the basis of sex , examining the administrations attacks on genderbased projections. This is a completely virtual hearing and i ask that all microphones for members participating remotely be kept muted as a general rule to avoid unnecessarily background noise. Witnesses will be responsible for muting themselves when theyare recognized to speak or when they wish recognition. Pursuant to House Resolution 1965 and its accompanying resolution members are required to leave their cameras on for the entire time they are in an official proceeding. Even if they step away from the camera. This is an entirely remote hearing and as such the committees hearing room is officiallyclosed. Members who choose to sit with the
Accompanying regulations, members are required to leave the camera on the entire time they are in an official proceeding. Even if a step away from the camera. While roll call is unnecessary to establish a quorum and official proceedings conducted remotely, whenever there is an official proceeding with remote participation, the clerk will call the roll to make clear who is present at the start of the preceding. At this time i ask the clerk to call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] chairwoman, this concludes the roll call. Thank you very much. Pursuant to Committee Role 7c, Opening Statements are limited to the chair and the Ranking Member. This allows us to hear from our witnesses sooner and provides all members with adequate time to ask questions. I recognize myself do for the purpose of making and opening statement. Today, as we know were examining how the covid19 pandemic is straining our Higher Education system and discussing what Cong
So it is important to keep that comparison in mind. Something more extensive on the National Security side than on the criminal side. I want to make that clear theres nothing special. You took a lot of my time. A brief question but a good question. Let me raise one last issue. The solicitor general, donald borrelia, assured the Supreme Court any criminal defendant who was being prosecuted losing evidence directly or indirectly through surveillance authorized by section 702 of the fisa amendment would receive notification of that fact. That kind of notice is essential, and the lawfulness of surveillance. And after mister borrelia made that representation. Is not informing, the defendants when surveillance was used to build a case against them. They have changed since then. Hope it is an easy one for you. The department of justice always in forms, the defendants in the case against them build on evidence gained through 702 surveillance. The standard in the statute is evident, obtained or
So what are the things i thought was interesting was to learn the rationale to address this in a fashion other than with your name attached to it. But that is an issue that why not attach your name to it . You are down at the white house every day what have you learned quex. To dispel some things that we already knew and one was his reaction there wasnt any major disclosures that surprised me because for much of the reporting of President Trumps style or to go into briefings for their talking points are put down to one bullet point that is known at this point. That doesnt make the book less important but thats not necessarily landing within a major impact because there is conventional wisdom. If you say no thats not true quex. I am not in a position but we get a lot of white house correspondence and certainly we are not in the room for everything. So im not in a position to judge. The book is written with the air or tone of a thorough one authority may be somebody who knows what the wh
Welcome everyone to todays hear ing. Evidence on current and ongoing voting discrimination, i recognize myself for opening statement. Todays hearing on evidence of current and on going voting discrimination is part of hearings on house judiciary subcommittee to assess the current need for a reinvigoration of section 5 of Voting Rights act 65 to consider other ways to strengthen the civil rights extension, im not sure why we rereinvigoration, that seems one of the words that we toss around, not really invigoration, degradation, section 4 was cut out, so we need to have a section 4 to activate section 5, section 5 has been made dormant by the Supreme Court so we need to find new test to awaken the dormant power of section 5. Voting rights act of 65 widely considered the most effective civil right statutes enacted by congress. The act was successful and in expanding federal authority to protect the fundamental right to vote, one of the central enforcement provisions section 5 preclearance