Changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor that congress didnt want them
Decreasing the number of ineligible ones, and this congressional compromise is evident in the statutes conflicting mandates. Evident in the mandates. It requires states to undertake programs to remove ineligible individuals but place limits on those federally mandated removal programs, including the states not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our
Not removing individuals who changed residence unless they failed to respond to change notice. I know you have the exceptions clause. Would your case have been stronger without the enactment of section be . In other words, can you rely just on a and d. . If there were no b at all. Certainly, if there was no clause, thats one of the main prohibitions on which they are lying. But you have to interpret in light of the, d clearly indicates, so long as we send notice and so long as we went to federal elections, that is acceptable. So why bother . Because of the except clause. Because you have to interpret the provision in a way that reconciles with the use of failure to vote and only our position interprets b in a way that allows the back and use of nonvoting and d. The act itself is a safe harbor position. That triggers confirmation. That Safe Harbor Provision doesnt rely on at all on failure to vote. It relies on post office change of address form. So isnt that some clue that safe harbor
Today about the nuclear deal with iran with the u. S. And five other world powers and tie ran a few weeks ago and go straight to libby casey on capitol hill what is the atmosphere leading to this hearing . A build up not just in the past week as we watched news of the nuclear deal come up but for months because congress knew this day was likely to come and this is the first public opportunity for members of the Obama Administration to talk directly to Congress Members who they really want to win over to their perspective and so there is a lot of build up to this very moment. Now the administration has been Briefing Members behind closed doors and also tried to make some public pushes and saw president obama himself come out last week and talk about the deal but this is where the rubber meets the road stephanie and members of Congress Want the opportunity to ask genuine questions and also to show constituents back home they are pushing the administration to get details, to make sure tha
With him. Our two reporters will be asking questions. Rachael of politico. And daniel. Daniel your first. Daniel as we mentioned, the process seemed stalled. It has been widely reported that an amendment was brought up i democrats, three amendments in fact. Can you just take us inside what happened on tuesday night through the end of that week, when the interior appropriations bill was pulled from the floor . Rep. Rogers the amendments that the democrats offered caused a number of our members to declare that they did not support the bill on fast passage. The bill was removed from the floor. It is too bad because it is a great bill. The interior appropriations bill did so many great things. It held back the epa us wild rampage towards regulating everything, among other things. Its a good bill. Its too bad we had to remove it from the floor, but i hope we can force it back. The provisions that bill will be able to be incorporated sometime this fall. Daniel im sorry. It sounds to me like