Activity and turmoil going on around us. Many of us are back in washington today. Were holding this committee virtually in compliance with the regulations for Remote Committee proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 965. This authority has allowed us to continue to do our work on behalf of the American People, while keeping our staff, families, and the Broader Community safe. We have all started to become familiar with navigating this technology, i do want to remind members of a few procedures. First, consistent with the regulations, the committee will keep microphones muted to limit background noise. Members are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek recognition or when recognized for their five minutes. Members and witnesses must have their cameras on at all times. Weve got to keep track of you even if you step away from the proceedings. Please leave your camera on rather than logging out. Finally, as you know, we may have votes during todays hearing. It looks like theyr
House hearing on the lessons being learned from the coronavirus and how its affecting critical supply chains. Live coverage here on cspan3. Community safe, all started to become familiar with navigating this technology, i do want to remind members of a few procedures. First, consistent with the regulations, the committee will keep microphones muted to limit background noise. Members are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek recognition or when recognized for their five minutes. Members and witnesses must have their cameras on at all times. Weve got to keep track of you even if you step away from the proceedings. Please leave your camera on rather than logging out. Finally as you know, we may have votes during todays hearing. It looks like theyre going to be later. If we do have votes, it would be my intention not to recess. Members should vote when their group is up and come back immediately. If your turn for questioning comes up while youve stepped away, i will get back t
Recommendations for the next pandemic. Several members also pay tribute to representative john lewis who sat on the house ways and Means Committee. Appreciate everybody joining us today. This is a terrific turnout, considering all of the activity and turmoil going on around us. Many of us are back in washington today. We are holding this committee virtually in compliance with the regulations for Remote Committee proceedings pursuant to House Resolution 965. This authority allowed us to continue to do our work on behalf of the American People, while keeping our staff, families, and the Broader Community safe. We have all started to become familiar with navigating this technology, i do want to remind members of a few procedures. First, consistent with the regulations, the committee will keep microphones muted to limit background noise. Members are responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek recognition or when recognized for their five minutes. Members and witnesses must have thei
Versus regions of the university of california and related cases. General francisco, general francisco. In 2017, the fifth circuit held that dhaka and expansion were likely unlawful. Face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security determined that it no longer wish to retain the policy based on its belief that the policy was illegal, has doubt about its illegality, and its general opposition to broad, nonenforcement policies. That decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. Previousion ended a nonenforcement policy by which the department agreed to not enforce the ima against hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. The decision whether or not to enforce the law is committed to the unreviewable discretion, unless the statute restricts it. Nothing in the ina requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, do not enforce the law. Decision to and this nonenforcement policy was reasonable. Dr. Was a temporary measure that on
Daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the l