, the law, rule of law. please discuss this issue about maybe that was a couple congresses ago and maybe this president is not bound by the same set of laws. >> first of all, i disagree with walter's view that that was the 111th congress and you're a different congress. to be fair to walter, that wasn't a big part of his presentation, but this is the same congress as an institution. it's true that the makeup of this body changes. but the problem that i see actually is that members of this body increasingly are disconnected to their institutional interests, that they don't identify themselves with the legislative branch. you not only have a right but a deep obligation to protect what previous congresses have done even at times when you may disagree with the current policy, there was a time when this building was filled with people who fought for institutional interest even over their own party. that's what the framers actually anticipated. the framers believed that regardless of who was in the white house, th

these laws matter. i can point to several instances in which absent such laws, university or hospital policies would have forced the medical personnel to perform abortions, not withstanding, and against serious moral order religious objections. so ms. tobias, let me just ask, what role do freedom of conscience laws currently play in what effect would this bill have on those laws? and what concerned should we have, would you have with such an outcome of? >> a lot of people go into the medical field because you want to take care of people. they go into obstetrics and gynecology, they become diluted and nurses because they want to take care of pregnant women and babies. if they are told and they do not want to kill unborn children, if they are told that they have no choice, that they will have to perform or participate in the performance of an abortion procedure, they will either be doing something that is are strongly, deeply offensive to them, or they will leave the field which means would have a lot of

>> simply put, and you said it best, law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens. i've always said that i have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens. we have individuals who are bent on evil, but on breaking the laws, but, abusing women. they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. >> thank you very much. thank you all of you. >> thank you very much. what me and ask dr. campbell, somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons that can be used. why is it that guns in particular in create the added risk of violence that you have chronicled in your work? and in. >> well, for one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes a far more stab wounds, were carefully placed. >> morley to. >> much more lethal. secondly, i have examined the thousands of homicide records in the paris apartment, and many of those cases, it is clear that there may have been a domestic violence incident, maybe someone would have gotten hurt him but no one would die if th

that law will stand.if it's treating similar medical procedures similarly, if it actually advances a safety basis, then that law is going to stand. and i think that's important, and there are factors that courts would look at in that, but that's what's really critical, if it's a true safety law, if it's not about singling out abortion provision for the motive of shutting down clinics, then that law stands. >> in fact, a number of the supposed regulations that have been claimed to be struck down by this legislation, the act specifically says would not be affected. for example, funding or insurance or parental consent, other kinds of regulations that are now on the books. let me ask you, in terms of these regulations, many have been struck down by the courts. many have been found to be unconstitutional. why a federal act that prevents these laws from being passed as a matter of statute as opposed to simply having the jurisprudential work its way? >> well, we're here today because we've just said 200 of thes

but it's called privacy law, and it's called robotics law.other ones too, i just don write in those fields. think that that's what we is that from cyberlaw point where the law and let scholars imagine that actively grapple with new emerging problems between law and technology. this is the lag that kevin panel,about in the last the law falls behind, and it's what we call cyberlaw, and we to call it something else, but some of the same i thinkill that gap and that's what's going on in privacy and i think it's what suggesting should be going on and i think at this conference is going on in robotics. but that said, eastabrook was the long term. but in the long term we're all deand in the short term really things are happening much. >> neil, you're not suggesting that this conference should be called, instead of a conference about robotics and the law, privacy and the law? of those. one those andhundreds of there was privacy is obviously a core challenge in this makes the, it's what we had a conversation about places in thes of law. the challenge

the laws. and of course, the most powerful and most available means of solving the power at hand, in the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence. earlier this year, i joined with representative gowdy to introduce h.r. 4138, the enforce the law act, to put a procedure in place for congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for failure to faithfully execute the laws. but while that legislation passed the house with bipartisan support, the senate has failed to even consider it. so today we consider a resolution to authorize litigation by the house to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law. although the case law standing may be murky, one thing is absolutely clear. the supreme court has never closed the door to the standing of the house as an institution. as president lincoln said, let reverence for the laws be enforced in courts of justice. it is the court's duty to to uphold r

but the law didn't. the law stuck back in 1986, so it reflects its time. so for example, because the aols of the world would not save your e-mail for you for six months, if an e-mail was that old, six months old and still on aol servers, it was their property. that's how it was looked at. you had basically abandoned it. it had become a business record of aol, and it was available to law enforcement with a subpoena. that's the way the statute is written. if it's newer, a warrant aplies to get that e-mail. and ecpa didn't account for things in common use at the time. these little guys, cell phones. there were cell phones. you know who had a cell phone in 1996, captain kirk had a cell phone. and so the statute doesn't reflect, didn't set a rule for law enforcement access to the location information that this little guy generates. every few seconds he pings off a tower. i'm here, if the call comes for greg, send it here. that's what this phone is doing every few seconds. and a record is made that the phone is registering on that tower. what does ecpa stay abou

law of the horse was one of those for cyber law, code is law, was another one for cyber law. they summarize and set the path. everybody knows and talks about them. i think you brought up a really interesting point. i teach media law. for a long time, i taught social media law. and now, the more i say that word, the less it makes sense. michael made this point very el kwently. it reminded me of a quote by weird al yankovich. someone asked do you ever feel you'll be unpopular. he said no. i teach pop culture. so i wondered. if -- >> no need to feel. >> right. right. so i wonder if there's a new framing that we've been missing in all of this. because it seems as though everyone is right here in a certain sense. so there are unique things about cyber law. inevitably, they will become assimilated. is it possible the new framing could be spg like law and the assimilation of technology? that's really what we're talking about. and that way, it goes on forever. so whatever we're grappling with, you know, pop culture and weird al yankovich, we can always be assimilating new technologie

are we a country of laws? that's what the law says. there are some that want to modify this law and u hear voices from this -- this administration, wants to modify the law. secretary johnson, i have no doubt you're a good and decent and honorable person and i think you do a great job but you want president flexibility. there's danger in flexibility. not just because of you but everybody that works under you, and the border patrol. a lot of these kids that come over there and they see someone in uniform, it's a flash back of what they just came from where the people in uniform may have been beating them up. and on the side of the drug lords. are they going to open up about who they are and what they are? that's why we have a law that says you got to transfer them in 72 hours to hhs. hhs is supposed to provide all of these things for these kids, shelter, clothing. meaningful council. people that stand alongside of them so that they can tell their story. so they can apply, meaningfully, for asylum. you can't do that with the border patrol

law. committed toon is enforcing that law and if we can employ additional resources to ensure this is being employed officially, there is an element of that the president can do on sending them to the border areas. it is also why we are seeking additional resources, to further supplement the resources a employed. >> the president still has no plans to visit the border during his trip later this week? >> correct. >> a statement from the u.s. about this, is what you just gave going to serve as a statement or should we expect an additional statement in the coming days? specifically addresses allegations? >> i am not in a position to comment further on this matter. you are welcome to ask in the days ahead. if there is additional information to share, i will. >> on the announcement tomorrow, will that be the supplemental announced? howll these deals about much money and which subcommittees, those will be addressed then? >> yes. it is a detailed compilation. we will endeavor to make officials av

is the bill we are discussing today were to become law pennsylvania law would be invalidated abortion providers would not be allowed to counsel patients were given 24 hours to consider what they were about to do and more importantly lead to inhumane and sanitary and unsafe abortions the lot of help to convict him would be wiped away. this proposed legislation is the attempt to override president by severely restricting the of states to regulate abortion and those such as planning regulations and privileges and requirements with regulations on abortion with the abortion did inducing drugs ultrasound requirements and selection bands and limitations on the use of state funding and facilities. my home state of iowa has laws on the books to protect the women and for example, an iowa law states when inducing an abortion by providing the drug a physician must be physically present with the woman at the time the drug is provided that was enacted to make sure women were not taking abortion inducing drugs via web cam then be far away from a medical provider. we also have a lot of the books and

it will not become law. we need to insist and the american people will continue to insist that this congress and this white house do their duty to make sure we have good, sound and ensure they are faithfully and fairly the nationalerve interest of the united states. i thank the chair and yield the floor. >> mr. president, i know that the senate is now considering whether we should vote on the motion to proceed to the urgent supplemental bill. that means under the rules of another century, we don't actually get to a bill. or even have a filibuster. designed to cool the passions of the time. world. however, these procedures now have been distorted that we are no longer the greatest deliberative body in the world. we're the greatest delaying body in the world. delay has become not only a tactic to come up with better ideas, delay has become an outcome into itself. we are facing a really serious problem in our country, and i would hope we would vote on the motion to proceed so we could actually get on the legisl

international law. many of these rules are codified in treaties that are finding on -- binding on nations throughout the world, including israelis, and even rules not applicable to treaty law apply to all parties of a conflict as a matter of what we call customary internation law, and there is almost universal agreement these rules apply to all sides of a conflict. israeli and hamas collectively. >> woodruff: you agree these are laws this discussion is based on? >> yes, entirely. >> woodruff: what about his points? he made two points, that they hamas is deliberately firing into civilian areas and, two, they are commingling military assets, weapons, rocket launchers wh their own civilians. >> i think geoff is entirely correct and we see the same thing going on in israel. >> woodruff: but the two of you are in agreement on what hamas is doing? >> we are. i think hamas is in violation of law of conflict, international humanitarian law for reasons geoff mentioned. >> woodruff: no ifs, ands or buts. >> no i.

lots of times local law enforcement has said they didn't know those laws existed. if they did exist they didn't have criminal sanctions attached to them so they didn't feel like they could take action. >> thank you. >> ms. littrell, in your school systems, have you had cases of the rehoming that you are aware of? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> i know in many instances grandmothers end up taking over custody, not custody, but raising their grandchildren because the daughters have drug abuse or whatever situation might occur. in that case, it's my understanding that the school systems need to have power of attorney in that case. i was curious, in your situation, i would think you would have grandmothers responsible for their grandchildren. can you elaborate on that? do you know what the school requires of a grand parent. >> sure. we have a variety of different family members raising family members for the whole range of reasons. what we require is proof that that parent or guardian has the legal right to register that student. >> which is what piece of paper? >> an

or cyber law or technology law or whatever. just get on with it. you know, all this angels on a pin nonsense, get rid of that and get on to the issue. but i'm actually very much with ryan on this. i think the questions he's asking really are important. this stuff actually matters, and it might even matter a lot. the law is going to confront the new challenges posed by robotics technology one way or the other and it will matter which communities with which set of tools and knowledge and pre preconceptions and understandings step up to try to meet those challenges and answer those questions, and thinking about it now makes a difference. there's a path dependence to all this. at the early stages of the development of a domain, it could well set the direction for many years to come and as a sin nektky, one of my favorite words, >> that reproduces the whole. very useful word in a fratful universe, like the one that we live in. as a senecty for this problem, the one that illustrates the whole, the question is whether ryan, or others,

congress passes law. the president must execute the law. the president is not entitled to make law, to conduct actions contrary to plain law. the president simply cannot say well, congress didn't act so i have to act. but congress decided not to act in a way he wanted. they considered legislation, rejected it, and now he is going to, it appears from article after article go forward and carry out an action anyway. it would be fundamentally wrong. this cannot stand. this will not stand. my opposition has been and remains that congress should not pass border legislation that does not foreclose the possibility of these unlawful executive orders. as an institution, this congress has a duty to protect this institution and our constituents. currently, the president has issued approximately half a million work permits to individuals unlawfully present in the country up to 30 years of age. now the president wants to issue another five million to six million work permits to illegal immigrants of any age despite clear prohibition in the immigration an

that's the remedy under our law. i think your point is well taken as we move forward on epka there has to be some other remedy besides exclusion as to what we do with that information. certainly, i think we ought to eliminate that information if it's unlawfully obtained. we need to have that debate and that discussion. i don't know the exact answer on what it should be. but it should be something else besides if the evidence is excluded. that doesn't help the individual who is the innocent person out there. it may help bobby oglethorpe and ollie oglethorpe but it doesn't help the innocent person whose information is seized and still stored by government. good point. we need to add that into legislation before it gets out of our committee. one more question? or are we done? >> one more quick one. and then we'll move on. >> quick question. >> you have social media and things like secure portals that companies use to exchange information with each other and things like that that are all out in the cloud so what's your n

from harvard law school. she is the sister-in-law of jim sokul, who many of you know, whose office was right down the hall for several years and served as chief of staff for chairman frank. >> mr. chairman, if i might? >> the chairman is recognized. >> i shortchanged my united states attorney, and i never want to do that, by leaving out his credentials. he's a graduate of the university of virginia and the university of virginia school of law, and upon grad yagsuation from law school, he served with judge tierney and served two years at morery morrison & forester in san francisco. he has also lectured frequent the at the justice of north carolina. he served 12 years as assistant district attorney in both the districts of columbia. >> thank you. >> we have at least two virginia grads. our last one is david patton. he's been defender and chief of the federal defenders of new york since july 2011. mr. patton, from 2002 to 2008, worked at the federal defenders as a trial attorney in the manhattan office. during t

why are laws so and pier? laws should be as clear and simple as they possibly can be. if we stuck to a simple rules and abided by the constitution as well, which is very long even though it is such a great document, we would have a much more free society. john: yes, sir. >> this is for norman. earlier we talked about hillary clinton getting a child rapist acquitted. couldn't she have -- for any defense lawyer -- look at the evidence and say, this guy is guilty. i will not defend him. instead they choose to get this person off on a technicality, and a rapist is free. >> well, i don't know what the facts of that case work, the what i know is this, every person when they are confronted with the full force of the government are entitled to have somebody stand up for them and make sure that if the evidence is there and it is legal that that is what is required in order to convict somebody. is there anybody here who has not done something wrong in their life? can anybody raise their hand and say, i have never done a

that the implementation the law was essential. e start backing off from a position then it's incumbent upon leadership and the white to make that clear. ubliminal messages about stemming the tide and expediting don't work. progressive th the caucus and the hispanic caucus positions.similar children first as you indicated and the other position is when re you going to move on with your executive order since doing nothing in the house. part of this that we're seeing border with the kids is what we created around this congress, nothing. and so with nothing the blanks filled for us. this r we like it or not is part of the root cause of not fixing the system which is shot fede4rally finding yourself 'eminent deal with one another.fter the president has been going in congress.cans by all accounts they'll still together ears to work if the republicans keep control of the house. is anything going to change in terms of the relationship speaker and the president in getting things through the house of representatives? >> i think the only way

created by law. and the other one is the complaint commission that they both are responsible in the formal process. the dr. ion is, that abdullah has judged that he does not -- have confidence in their work. and as disengaged from that process and there is a need for steps and there are issues under consideration and discussions going on. there was some progress made with the help of the united ations that i see a former distinguished u.n. representative in afghanistan. there was a lot of experience and somewhat similar circumstances. strengthen with the help -- to the extent that's needed by these two commissions. and the steps that would be ken that would satisfy particularly in dr. abdullah to re-engage and come back and work with the two commissions. as i said before, there has been a lot of work going on. there was a lot of progress with regard to the steps that needed to be taken. i think that dr. abdullah had some six requests of that -- that needed to be done to make it acceptable. this is as

the different parts of a complicated law like this and integrate the laws with existing laws using this kind of reasonable judgment is exactly what the take-care clause of the constitution contemplates that the president should do. >> thank you, mr. lazarus. there are tones and n non-attorneys on our committee. there's scientists. our ranking member. there are diverse backgrounds. i'm not an attorney. i focus on results. what i see here, and i don't like it, is republicans are trying to raise taxes on businesses and i don't think that's a good thing to do. if this lawsuit succeeds, american job creators and companies will be penalized. that's just very clearly cutting through it all. that's what republicans are seeking to do, penalize american companies, raise taxes on american businesses. i don't like that. i'm against that. i think that's a bad outcome. i wish the republicans would reconsider that. the legal stuff is interesting. it's fascinating, but i'm focused on what the impact is and i sure hope this lawsuit doesn't succeed because it will create unemployment and it will set back

lots of times local law enforcement has said they didn't know those laws existed. if they did exist they didn't have criminal sanctions attached to them so they didn't feel like they could take action. >> thank you. >> ms. littrell, in your school systems, have you had cases of the rehoming that you are aware of? >> not that i'm aware of, no. >> i know in many instances grandmothers end up taking over custody, not custody, but raising their grandchildren because the daughters have drug abuse or whatever situation might occur. in that case, it's my understanding that the school systems need to have power of attorney in that case. i was curious, in your situation, i would think you would have grandmothers responsible for their grandchildren. can you elaborate on that? do you know what the school requires of a grand parent. >> sure. we have a variety of different family members raising family members for the whole range of reasons. what we require is proof that that parent or guardian has the legal right to register that student. >> which is what piece of paper? >> an

, the law, rule of law. please discuss this issue about maybe that was a couple congresses ago and maybe this president is not bound by the same set of laws. >> first of all, i disagree with walter's view that that was the 111th congress and you're a different congress. to be fair to walter, that wasn't a big part of his presentation, but this is the same congress as an institution. it's true that the makeup of this body changes. but the problem that i see actually is that members of this body increasingly are disconnected to their institutional interests, that they don't identify themselves with the legislative branch. you not only have a right but a deep obligation to protect what previous congresses have done even at times when you may disagree with the current policy, there was a time when this building was filled with people who fought for institutional interest even over their own party. that's what the framers actually anticipated. the framers believed that regardless of who was in the white house, th

but in terms of enforcing the law and insuring the efficient enforcement of the law, it does require some authorization from congress so that the secretary of homeland security can exercise some additional discretion. april? >> josh, i want to ask you two quick questions. in light of the current political climate and your request for supplemental as well as for this greater discretion for the homeland secretary, what realistically are you expecting to happen with your request to congress? >> >> sure. well, april, you've seen comments from both democrats and republicans urging the administration to take steps to deal with this urgent humanitarian situation. this -- in some cases, ed called it a crisis. i would expect those individuals who are talking about this issue to back up that talk with action x. what we'd like congress to do is to act promptly, maybe even with some, maybe even expeditiously to consider this proposal and hopefully move on it in bipartisan fashion. again, members of both parties have acknowledged that this is an urgent situation, and we hope that members of both

rule of law. there also has to be muscular deterrence going after criminals and gangs who so exploit these children and their families, who mislead them, misinform them, and even abuse them as they make this perilous and treacherous journey from central america. i know there are many like myself who support comprehensive immigration reform and there are many views on that, but i caution my colleagues today's not the top -- today's topic is not about immigration reform. it is about meeting this refugee crisis. the best way to make sure the surge of children is temporary is to pass the emergency supplemental making sure we have a deterrent strategy against the smugglers and traffickers and a real effort on the host country -- or where the central american countries to also be a source of deterrence. right now 57,000 unaccompanied children have arrived. we can expect as many as 90,000 by the year. last week i toured the border with three of the witnesses at this table, secretary burrell, secretary jo

than even the current law although we agree that the current law on what fundraising activities lobbyists have to disclose is in need of clarification so i like to use this example why it's unworkable to expect lobbyists to disclose contributions which they have reason to know or made because of their fundraising efforts. i like all of you will get invitations from elected officials and candidates to go to events so for instance the supervisor in my district who i have given a contribution to before chances are i will do that again this year when they're running. because i have given before, because i have gotten to know him i might get a phone call from that supervisor asking for a supervisor and my neighbor might have a house party and they get invited to those but i get an invitation from a lobbyist to go to an event they're cohosting or in their office. when i go online and make a contribution to the supervisor because i got that invitation from the lobbyist they have to put my name, address on the report saying that's why i gave when that may not be the case. did i give because i gav

law? >> correct. >> okay. i'm -- see, i'm putting the pieces together. there's a change in the state law locally that will change how we deal with -- >> the sheriff wants to implement that state law locally and it has to be approved by the board of supervisors. >> since this is a state law are there other counties going through this process or others who have already granted this? >> they have the power to do that. i have not become aware of who does or doesn't. >> sure. when did this state law change occur? >> this is an advent of ab -- >> ab 109. >> good afternoon, sheriff, this is an ab event of 109 state prisoner realignment. there are many counties throughout the state of california and it's not just for overcrowded reasons whatsoever, but because of the immetous that's put on mu municipalities to begin to investigate em for pretrial population because most of our jail populations throughout all urban centers -- i appreciate the newness of this discussion to some of the supervisors he

they were not striking down any kind of law.it wasn't until the 1920s they struck down dealing in the first amendment and it wasn't until 1965 the congress was invalidated under the first amendment and the fact of the matter is that it wasn't even understood that the bill of rights could piece by piece apply to the states at all it took a lo little time to litigae those issues and the federal government wasn't understood to have the power to regulate anything else and we didn't really see i any whole lot of te federal gun laws. we see us take hold until a little bit before later on to the history, but that is not to say that they were not there and it was somehow dormant during that time. in 2001 the fifth circuit u.s. court of appeals in the case called u.s. versus emerson had for the first time really taken a serious look at the second amendment and studied its history, looked to these original sources and concluded in a very bad opinion it does secure an individual right and this caused a circuit conflict in the other courts

it's the law of the land. what the president is doing is following the law of the land. it's a good law. >> but the act was in acted in 2008 and in three years, 2008 to 2011, we processed about 15,000 unaccompanied minors. what happened do you think in 2012 that led to the spike that we're seeing now currently 52,000 unaccompanied minors expecting hundreds of thousands more? how do you explain that? >> here's how i explain it. number one, you have a broken immigration system. >> we have had that for quite some time. >> if you want me to explain it, i will. honduras is the murder capital of the world. we can gloss over it. it's more dangerous to be there than in kabul. >> it was more dangerous five years ago and six years ago and seven years ago. >> i'm going to finish my thought here. it's the murder capital of the world. they are only coming from three countries. so answer your own question. why aren't they coming from nicaragua, new mexico, costa rica, why aren't they coming from anywhere else? they didn't g

rule of law means that no man is above the law. it means that everyone, everyone, everyone, and especially the president, is bound by the law. president obama openly defies his constitutional obligation under article 2 of the constitution to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. i would note professor turley, whom the junior senator from alabama quoted, he is a liberal democrat who in 2008 voted for president obama. professor turley also testified before the house that president obama has become the embodiment of the imperial president. barack obama has become the president richard nixon always wished he could be. those are the words of a liberal democratic constitutional law professor who voted for barack obama. but my friend, the junior senator from alabama, is learned and experienced in the ways of the senate. you have seen lions of the senate walk this floor. it is unprecedented to have a president so brazenly defy the rule of law. but i'll tell you what is equally unprecedented. to have the senate lie down and meow l

similar law in new york called tenders law, 74% of individuals experience homelessness. 77% fewer individuals experience psychiatric hospitalization. 83% fewer individuals experience arrest and 87% fewer individuals experience incarceration. it has also become a cost saver for different cities and counties that implement laura's law and assistive outpatient treatment where these individuals are no longer burdening our public safety infrastructure and our emergency infrastructure, including ambulances and hospital rooms and emergency rooms. by no means is laura's law a panacea for mental health treatment here in san francisco or for some who are suggested homeless. i view it as a tool in the tool box or our city to help us suffering from a clinically severe mental illness. i do believe we need to do more as a city and we need to change how we help those who are clearly suffering and cannot help themselves. in order to make a difference at the local level we need to challenge ourselves and challenge the status quo. to me laura's law is about helping vulnerable individuals suffering from mental

our law. pretty much a state's rights. so i would say the federal government shouldn't be regulating that and the states should be able to do it, but it's still stupid. we're free to be stupid in this country. and it's really stupid in colorado right now. i was in breckinridge this weekend, that's a city that has pot. and boy, could you smell it. >> how about in maryland there has been some reason to deregulate it. >> first of all, i have reason to disagree with what he said about the medical aspects of marijuana. i believe in federalism. i do. let's see what the states are doing. let's see what comes out of the states. that's how we develop national policy by look a litting at the first. let's do some studies. >> we should either enforce the law or take it off? >> i was under the impression that in regards though these issues that itses a okay. >> it's not. it's illegal under federal law. >> a perfect example of the administration using very, very wide discretion to basically say to people, d

law is in court. the new election law makes it harder for young voters to register.ot impossible, just a little more complicated and allows fewer days of early voting. all to protect the process say supporters, and all to keep out poor and minority voters say opponents. they say it's really about politics, because of who young and minority voters vote for, analysis? >> i would like to take it out of the realm of partisan politics. i think this is a challenge that we face as democrats and republicans and independents. we have to face reality. our democracy is in trouble. you know that in an off-year, in non-presidential elections, the percentage of young people to go to the polls is under 25%. fewer than one in four young people vote in congressional and off-year election. we know that the generation of young people that we're educating today in colleges in north carolina and elsewhere are a generation that very much wants to participate in their communities, they're applying to america corp and applying to the peace corp in record numbers, but they're very turned off

from harvard law school. she is the sister-in-law of jim sokul, who many of you know, whose office was right down the hall for several years and served as chief of staff for chairman frank. >> mr. chairman, if i might? >> the chairman is recognized. >> i shortchanged my united states attorney, and i never want to do that, by leaving out his credentials. he's a graduate of the university of virginia and the university of virginia school of law, and upon grad yauation fro law school, he served with judge tierney and served two years at more morrison & forester in san francisco. he has also lectured frequent the at the justice of north carolina. he served 12 years as assistant district attorney in both the districts of columbia. >> thank you. >> we have at least two virginia grads. our last one is david patton. he's been defender and chief of the federal defenders of new york since july 2011. mr. patton, from 2002 to 2008, worked at the federal defenders as a trial attorney in the manhattan office. during that t

someone for breaking the law we should ensure the law is knowable. this is true where the conduct is not wrongful in itself and the offense requires no criminal intent. criminal laws must be accessible not tonal lay persons but also to the lawyers whose job it is to identify the laws and advise their clients. the problem, however, is the federal statutory crimes in the 10,000 to 300,000 federal regulations that can be enforced criminally are statered throughout 50 titles of the code. nacdl does not have a position on whether all criminal statutes should be organized into single title of the code. common sense would dictate that most should reside that single title unless clear evidence exists that a particular criminal division belongs elsewhere. it also includes clarity in drafting precise definition and specificity in scope. with rare exception the government should not be permitted to punish a person without having to prove that she acted with a wrongful intent. criminal law should be understandable. when the average citizen that is unfairness in

law isn't driving this. there's an overall sent that the word deportation for both parties is a four-letter word. republicans don't want to talk about it for fear of offending the latino vote. the democrats don't want to do it because they think it's basically fair. i think it's smart for the coyotes to take advantage of this. 556 days for a hear is the average even if you are found at the border. even democrats have they had this most of these unaccompanied minor with an adult will not be showing up for the hearing. the republicans many want immigration reform, you the president has facilitated it, but the republicans are not off the hook. if john boehner had taken this comprehensive reform off the table early on, i don't think he probably would have had as many unaccompanied minors coming here now. >> you said the brick indications were lost on these people. >> no, because the general sense is deportation won't happen even if republicans are in charge. it's not whether section 3-b applies, but the sense yo

she studied law. became the first woman to actually be admitted to law practice, she felt a little embarrassed because she had studied law as an apprentice rather than going to law school. she decided she had better go to law school. she then applied to law school but within a few days she is told that women can't go to the law school she went to. at which point she works toward getting the law that would exclude her from law school eliminated. she is instrumental in getting a constitutional provision that says women can pursue any profession or avocation that they choose and so on and so on. so they're great stories here and they are stories about women going into law and deploying law on behalf of other women. so why didn't you call this washington's lady lawyer? my foot note the last point is you heard a few minutes ago from justice ruth gissburg and working on the thing that is she experienced in her young life as somebody who decided to go to law school and met obstacles had -- she had a full sch

that's the law today. >> that's correct. >> then there was a second law, there was a second law, when the department of homeland security was created, senator feinstein had a standalone law. does anybody want to comment about what that law is because it has a bearing here. it was incorporated in the -- you should all know this -- incorporated into the creation of the department of homeland security. is anybody familiar with that law? >> the homeland security act of 2002 -- >> correct. >> if i recall correctly hit to do with the expedited removal -- >> it divided the responsibilities for the procession and treatment of unaccompanied minors between the department of hhs and department of health and human service. and then in 2008, in the trafficking against trafficking law, in 2008 which was sponsored by biden and brownback, all of these are bipartisan, there were further -- there were further additions to this law which basically said children from contyingous countries, mexico and canada would qualify for immediate repatriation and children from. nonc noncontyingous states could be re

law? do we have -- so they -- >> this is not going beyond state law. >> for example, the state law required before that for someone who's convicted they had to be eligible for em, they had to be minimum security and low risk. that changed in terms of what allow eded counties to place people on em who are low risk. do we have to stick with that standard of state law or can we go beyond it and say we still want people participating in em who are convicted to be minimum security and low risk only? >> i would have to reread it. my understanding is to implement that it has to be approved by the board. the state law says you don't need that requirement, this legislation is just conforming to that. if you don't change the current legislation that won't change. >> so we can -- we don't have to make this amendment in terms of people who have been convicted. we could limit em for people in san francisco for people who have been convicted in low risk? >> i would have to discuss that with the city att

law-abiding citizens. law-abiding citizens. i've always said, and i've said this before this committee, that i have nothing to fear of law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves. i preserve the constitution, especially the second amendment. we have individuals who are bent on evil, bent on breaking the laws, bent on abusing women, they should be prevented from purchasing firearms. >> okay. thank you very much. thanks to all of you. >> thank you very much. let me ask dr. campbell first, as senator grassley just indicated, if somebody is bent on murder, there are all sorts of weapons that can be used to kill another human being. why is it that guns in particular create the added risk of violence that you have chronicled in your work? >> well, first one thing, the destruction of a gunshot to the human body is far greater than any of those other weapons. yes, you can kill with other weapons, but it takes far more stab wounds, more carefully placed, et cetera. >> so they're much more lethal. >> much more lethal. and secondly, i

we know their bill cannot become law. indeed, we know this for a fact because if the regulations they support were actually written in the law, obamacare itself would never have passed. it was slipped in after the fact by bureaucrats who are not subject to public accountability and never stand for election. this legislation is more than an insult to the people it would target. it is an embarrassment to the party leadership that has embraced it. i still hold fast to the principle and to the freedom it preserves and, thus, strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. thank you, mr. president. mr. lee: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. a senator: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. we are entering into a new era in which five men on the supreme court are going to get to make decisions