birth control laws, abortion laws, family laws. inheritance. what is interesting is in many of the states that reformed or repealed their laws, this legislation was often initiated by women legislators. it was just as likely to be a republican as it was a democratic woman. there were a lot of feminist identified pro-choice republican legislators. many of you did your oral history projects found these republican women. can you raise your hand if you were one of them? i know there were a few of you. jordan, what is it that you found? you studied the oral history records of one of these republican women, what was she like? student: at one point she lost her seat in her house legislature. the gop representative for north carolina called her to ask her to run again. she told him she refused to run if they tried to muzzle her on women's issues. if they tried to fight her when she was talking about women's issues in general, she would not run. they let her run and the gop didn't contradict whatever she said. prof. haugeberg: jordan found the example o

law struck down was a law in washington, d.c. it was a ban on handguns, but also a ban on the use of long guns for anything but recreational purposes. you could own a rifle or shotgun , but it had to be locked or disassembled and you could only unlock it or assemble it for authorized recreational purposes like hunting or target shooting. a d.c. court held specifically that if a burglar is breaking into your home, you are not allowed to assemble your gun for self-defense, and use it for self-defense because that was not a recreational purpose. you could take your gun and bang someone over the head with it, but you can't shoot someone with if if they threaten their life, so the supreme court stepped in and ruled on this case. one of the remarkable things about the case was that the lawyers who pursued it, although they were trying to invigorate and provide judicial protection for the nra's view of the second amendment, the nra was opposed from the lawyers and lawsuit in the get-go and did everything they could to stop the case from

this law might be a good law, it would lead ultimately to civilian disarmament. i think the other side has been unreasonable as well. gun-control supporters have often s to take control ght toe often sou take all guns away, make handguns and other guns not useful for self-defense. and even when that became obvious as an unrealistic agenda , they would often support ineffective and frankly sometimes silly laws but could not hope to reduce gun crime. i am hopeful, and i argue in the book that i am hopeful that this hell her case we mentioned mightr on -- heller case be an opening towards a new feature in the gun debate, one where people's rights to have firearms for self-defense is projected by the supreme -- is protected by the supreme court, and at the same time creating room for lawmakers to pass effective gun control laws that don't go too far. i am hoping that this case can be the opening that helps to break that political stalemate over guns. host: ok. we want to hear from the audience, so anyone who is here and has a question, please go to the microphone her

you can have more pay and your check as it is now the tax law, the new tax law. with this withholding at a higher rate, you can also have a substantial amount of money coming back to you at the end of the year. for those people like the gentleman who was on retirement anh a pension, that is earned income additional to your social security. if he had taken a lump sum at retirement, he would not have been involved in that because he would have had maybe some sort account where they would send in a certain account, his checking which are not be counted as an income. i have a phd in accounting. i know what i'm talking about. i know.pect thanks, thomas. up thethey springs interesting issue up withholding and refunds. i think probably the worst journalism we saw about the tax-cut law and this year has trackinghysteria over the weekly average amount of tax refunds and saying that has got to be because of the tax-cut law. is simplyn your taxes an overpayment made to the irs route the year without getting any interest for it. it turns out that the refunds are pretty much

it was a merciless law. it denied to the fugitive the most basic right enshrined in the anglo-american legal tradition, the right of habeas corpus. that is the right in open court to contest the legality of one's detention. the fugitive had no such rights. it forbade them to testify in their own defense. it ruled out trial by jury. it wasn't interested in the reasons a person might have fled from slavery. and might have been from repeated rape and beatings. none of that was admissible in court and it wasn't happening in court. one of the things allotted was to enlarge a new category called federal commissioners who had the authority to return fugitives to slavery without anything even close to resembling due process. and it also made it a federal crime for the first time for any citizen to aid or harbor a fugitive slave. it is very hard to imagine anybody arguing that this was a morally defensible law. ralph waldo emerson arguably the leading intellectual of the north put it rather systemically. he said none

>> i think it is the newness of the law. we do a study of complexity and administration in the tax system. one of our questions was of the 15 million or 20 million folks who normally use the 1040 long form, and the like to take itemized deductions, will those people shift into the newer form and opt to fill out for you are scheduled and take the standard deduction instead? it seems like that trend is being confirmed. that is important. and i mean few simplification gains from this law was that more people would take the standard duction. that could mean a reduction in paperwork burdens of about 250 million hours. host: more people taking the standard deduction means fewer people are itemized. someoks like that is where of the bite might be for some taxpayers. they are not able to deduct what they used to. the one piece i think was decent was the increase in the standard deduction for simple fixation. is hard to imagine too many people being made worse off. haveally, if you did not $24,000 and the directions before, than the

enforcement the problem is that when you don't report it to law enforcement law enforcement doesn't know what's going on it and it doesn't aid in any type of ongoing investigations of the guy going on at the time so it's important it's really important that individuals reports law enforcement that companies report law enforcement that way this database that law enforcement keeps with all these breaches all these crimes that are going on they get more information more data and it will ultimately result in a group like in fraud being shut down or a group like i used to roam a shadow crew being shut down and people going to prison because that's that's really what it's going to take is more investigations more legislation companies actually reporting and security as a whole being increased not only with companies but individuals do you feel less responsibility for committing a crime in cyberspace and so do victims still as hurt by them as well i mean in essence a cyber crime phil unreal because it's in a virtual world. i think it feels unreal in a virtual world for both of the criminal

law, a in turn created a red flag law, florida specific, to give law enforcement community a chance next time to intervene before it is too late. and the evidence about how these laws work is pretty impressive. we have some information here about florida specifically. in florida, broward county, 100 eight people were impacted including 28 cases where the person was accused of domestic violence, 45 from people suffering from mental illness and 34 people were committing suicide. there are multiple millions of people in florida and several hundred have been affected by this law and that is true pretty much all over the country. when you look at the people that have been affected, it is probably the best thing that could've happened to them and may have saved their lives and idr say it may have saved other people's lives. we are trying to balance the right to own a gun under the second amendment with mental health issues. that are far too prevalent in society and we do not have enough capability to deal with the problem and there are times like in the parkland case where the law enforcement

the law. it's amazing that we find the president pushing policies that are more cruel and that require the violation of the law. he's getting in touch with his inner banana republicanism. . >> yeah. i'm just thinking, david, the full geography of this country, but i can imagine trying to flood the zone and a tender loin. the homeless people in san francisco, let's get a couple hundred thousand more homeless out there and see how nancy likes that. that's the kind of threat he's posing now. thanks for coming on. your thoughts? >> i think it's important first of all to emphasize that we're seeing the symptoms of crisis in the sense that the real origin of this crisis are in the northern triangle of el salvador, guatemala, and honduras. we're an international humanitarian aid agency. so we're in el salvador. i can testify for myself some of the conditions that people are fleeing from. but we're also working in the southern border. we have teams today in phoenix, as well as in california, and what

comma behind the tax law.uest: this brings up the interesting issue of withholding and refunds. probably the worst journalism that we saw about the tax cut law in the year has been the hysteria over tracking the weekly average amount of tax refunds and saying -- that has got to be because of the tax cut law. a refund on your taxes is simply an over aim at you made to the irs throughout the year about getting interest for it. turns out that the refunds are pretty much about the same this year as they were last year, on average. different people are going to have different experiences, they always do. the point i think that needs to be made here is that the system remains to confusing to to many to too-- too confusing many people and it's scary where people might come out even at the end of the year. many people are nervous about running afoul of irs penalties for under withholding and they go the opposite way and that's a mistake. host: so the idea that caller talked about, going to his hr office and changing h

the life of the law has been experience, not logic. it's not that the law should be illogical. to the contrary, it should become here and, well reasoned, systematically put together in a way that makes sense that toward here needs toity have some resonance with contract liability over here. civil procedure and so forth. the experience under the special prosecutor provisions of the independent counsel caused, and i wish we knew more about the -- about what went on in those determine oh -- internal deliberations, we are no longer going to have reports to congress. the special counsel is not to report to congress at all. by the way, before i delve into the regulations briefly, regulations have the force of -- these are not admonitions. these are not guidelines. these are regulations that bind the attorney general of the united states until they are rescinded. bill barr, our able attorney general, is bound to follow these regulations. under the regulations, the special counsel is to provide the attorney general with a confidential report summarizing the special counsel's work. what

acquired a law professor to advisor. spent in norma's amount of time looking through brett kavanaugh's record. came to the conclusion that the accusations against him were unfounded and unjust. body of his work illustrated a keen and solid traditional conservative judge. i want to thank susan collins for saving the rule of law. [applause] what susan did is sustainable. if every senator did what she is, you may not vote yes fair to the nominee, consistent with the constitutional understanding with our role in the senate. it would make the country proud. it was logical, thorough, reasoned. the process that brett went through is unsustainable, i hope. let me tell you why. who in this room would want to failed?if he anybody that wanted the job after that, i would probably not vote for them. is if thisline worked, they destroyed this good man and he had to withdraw, i think that would be difficult for conservative judges in the future to step and say let me do this. what i told my democratic colleagues is if you can do it, we

>> no, this is the law. we didn't write this law. this is the law that's been on the books for almost 100 years. exercising our authority under the law, doing our job as members of the ways and means committee using the authority vested in the chairman to provide information that we need for legitimate policy inquiry is something that we have to do and it's certainly not an overreach simply living up to the oath we swore. >> as your committee, the ways and means committee coordinated with the leaders of other house committees who are going after the unredacted mueller report? >> no this, is not to do with the mueller report. this is a specific inquiry that we have been talking about for some time that falls directly under the authority of chairman neal and is really not in any way connected to any of the other inquiries under way. >> do you want all the democratic presidential candidates to release their tax returns as well? some of them already have -- bernie sanders told me if february he was going to be releasing his soon for ten

here, the law itself is on trial.is judged according to whether it violates our constitutional rights. the court is composed of nine justices who hold office for life. members are nominated by the president, but their appointments must be confirmed by the senate. now you should have a good idea of how the constitution sets up the three main branches of our government. the legislature, which is congress, the executive branch, which is the president, and the judiciary, which is the supreme court. the legislature is charged with making policies. that is, it passes the law. the executive is responsible for carrying out policies. and the judiciary is charged with reviewing and judging policies. but while each of these branches of government has its own clearly defined duties, they all work together as a team through a system of checks and balances. here are some examples of what i mean. the president appoints justices to the supreme court. executive balances judicial. congress determines the size of the supreme court. legi

under the law. this was established, and let us give thanks for it, and if you are a person of faith, you should prayerfully give thanks that his majesty had to accede to the proposition, and in those more homogeneous days of culture, john was willing to say i, john, am a christian king and i am under god, but he was not willing to say i am under the law of the realm. political power was the barons on that beautiful meadow near windsor castle on the banks of the thames river, he exceeded to the proposition that even the king is under the law. we have no king. as a matter of constitutional law, we can never have a king, but we do have a chief executive who is under the law. what do we do to assure that checks and balances holding presidents to account. let's have tragedies and disasters in the form of special counsel's and independent councils and special prosecutors , but what it ultimately boils down to is the integrity of the president himself and those who serve in the justice department, because

thomas aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. any law that uplifts human personality is just. any law that degrades human personality is unjust. all segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. it gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregateed a false sense of inferiority. segregation, to use the terminology of the jewish philosopher martin buber i-ittutes an relationship for an i-thou relationship, and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. hence, segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. paul tillich has said that sin is separation. is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful he -- awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? thus it is that i can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the supreme court for it is morally right, and i can urge them to disobey segregation ordinance -- ordinances for they are morally wrong. let us consid

what is at stake is using this law, they're making -- they're interpreting the law to their own benefit and what is being presented is a purchase agreement that is mainly redacted and has no signature, no date, no letterhead. so it's a very weak -- weak argument and i'm not an attorney. but i have common sense and the education to know that the rent board has to go by the current laws and not by just an opinion or compassion. thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: thanks. next speaker. >> hello. my name is matthew cuza and i have lived for more than a decade under rent control at 2013, and last week our building had a rent board hearing with a significant rent increase to passthrough property tax and debt servicing. so my and my fellow tenants are directly affected at this representation at the rent board. why were the tenant groups not consulted as all san francisco mayors have done in previous appointments? why was misser miss marshall not informed about her sudden replacement? why was this seat given to an individual with no specific history of advocating for and protecting tenant

which means the law is not the law, it's what i decide. then to use migrants, some of whom are running from criminal behavior from threat, from all kinds of things done to them, to use them as political pawns to punish people that govern sanctuary cities or sanctuary areas, i'm going to punish them but then i'm going to use these as pawns, as chips i can use to make a political statement. a columnist in dallas tweeted something that resonates with me. he said, it reminds me of when the freedom writers were writing in the south during the '60s around segregation and people in the south were saying we're going to get black families to move north as a vengeance to those coming out of the north during the freedom riots. this smells of the same theory and practice but what is so damaging, ni nicole, it's comin from the president of the united states. there's nothing funny or joking about this. >> rev, i want to follow-up with you. we've been on the set together for days where he called african nations bleep hole countries, you've been on set af

thomas aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. any law that uplifts human personality is just. any law that degrades human personality is injust. all segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. it gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregateed a false sense of inferiority. segregation. to use the terminology of the jewish philosopher martin buber substitutes an i-it relationship for an i-thou relationship, and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. hence, segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. paul tillich has said that sin is separation. is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful he estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? thus it is that i can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the supreme court for it is morally right, and i can urge them to disobey segregation ordinance os for they are morally wrong. let us consider a more con

well, no, that's now how we change the law. >> right. >> you don't get to not comply with the law. it were litigated, h he lost by 3 million votes. he's lawfully entitled to be president but you can't, one saving grace of the electoral college is presidents aren't the voice of the people like some plebiscite dictator in a third-world country. but he has no -- he has shown no regard for the co-equal branches of government. not just disagreements with them but really unwillingness to provide congress with the information to which it is entitled, in which it needs. his attacking judges by name and is attacking the independence of his own department of justice and criminal matters. you know, i think, chris, and i'm interested in jonathan's view on this, too, the -- his willingness to call for an investigation of the father-in-law of mr. cohen who is going to be a witness in a manner in which the personal was personally involved seemed to me to be just the -- what i thought was the end of the line. i do want to note, there are a number of conservative scholars who have really come throu

so law enforcement has to follow the evidence.umber one issue is making certain that there are no other accomplices, nobody providing material support and no other planned attacks going forward. when they determine that, we expect a press conference. >> and we don't have too much information, but according to our affiliate who have spoken to neighbors and witnesses to the scene who heard the gunshots, within person telling her she heard six to seven gunshots followed by seven and thilence another six to seven gunshots. what does that tell you? >> it sounded like semi automatic fire. i'm not certain what the security situation is at the church. i just listened to the mayor talking and apparently they had something in place. but it doesn't guarantee anythi anything. so look, in the last 17 years, we've had 250 mass shootings. and the fbi looks that as three or more fatalities. and so again we hope that the casualty count doesn't climb any higher and that the police get to the bottom of this and we hope there was nobody else involved

law enforcement now telling cnn that she was found dead when law enforcement came upon her. >> thank you so much for the new reporting. that's a new detail that we are getting in from authorities that she was found dead. so there appears to have been no engagement or interaction with law enforcement. very clearly authorities were looking for her and she was likely aware of that. >> i assume she had nowhere to go and took her own life. i have been around and studied the columbine killing for a long time. the suicide was viewed by the killers at columbine as sort of the last gesture. they thought about suicide and being killed by police often. i do want to say one thing that i suspect we will find out. we dealt with this challenge here just this week a couple years ago for the boston marathon. when you have a threat like that, can you close down a city? can you close the schools? i would suspect that what led to the closing of the schools and the lock downs was that the information was sort of specific enough even though it may not have been criminal to kind of spook law enforcement. i

they should pass laws requiring all law enforcement officers to get hate-crime training. we cannot advance this effectively on our own. on the federal level, i'm happy to be here in congress having this conversation because this is where it needs to start, we're sta statistics. the legal frame works to address, prevent, or respond to hate crimes and the policies they have implemented. congress could also require states and units of local government receiving federal grants to get sub recipients of those grants. more over, in the provision of a public report, the federal government would furnish state legislatures and investigation relevant to state reform. a public report of this nature would provide oversight of law enforcement to understand how they're greating hate and in they're communities. i opened up my comments from 1985,ly close by noting that words matter, and in addition to addressing policy changes that must happen, i would echo the notes of my colleges that leadership that is here in congress or on the executive level, must understand the crisis that our coun

so we have great faith in law enforcement, work closely with law enforcement to protect our institutionsdeal with situations very much like this. now, i will say very clearly more needs to be done to keep houses of worship, community centers, schools and other targeted, you know, institutions safe. it's critical at a time when we've seen anti-semitism on the rise. there's an rise in anti-semitic incidents in 2017 and we're about to release the 2018 numbers and they're equally alarming. so from my perspective, law enforcement is doing good work, but more needs to be done in order to make sure that people cannot be targeted, cannot be murdered in the pews where they pray. in america 2019, that is absolutely unacceptable. >> have you been able to speak, jonathan, with the rabbi there, the leadership there? what have you heard in your conversations with folks there on the ground there locally? and give us some of the information that you've been able to pull in. >> local people are on the ground right now working with the law enforcement officers who are trying to make sense of this tragedy.

and that's not bureaucracy all that the main intent is the rule of law. now would this law. possibly flatten normal trade is i don't know if i upload one of the photos taken of my cat. on to facebook and someone else uses it. and i haven't copyrighted in any way well that's fine it's fine by me i love also to be able to see my cat. right and and people post cut jokes and so on let that be but if someone wants to live off a website that posts. cat jokes for cat photos then have the register it's you know. colette york see i call it. organizing to enforce your rights which is being. with the bedrock of civil society since the eighteenth century. may i just ask. john to what degree the the way that this law is implemented is really already set in stone certainly members of the german government have been saying since passage of the directive. that it won't usher in changes drastic as what many people fear and the german justice minister for example said she doesn't like the idea of upload filters but she's absolutely determined to implement this law. in such a way that it quote

it can be done under this law. mr. speaker, i would yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from district of columbia, ms. norton. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from the district of columbia is recognized. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. i rise in strong support of re-authorization of the violence against women act. the world has changed, my friends, since our last re-authorization of vawa. this bill updates the bill to cover new victims of domestic violence that were not covered in our prior bill, and desperately need protection. in addition, the me, too movement has made women more determined concerning their rights than ever before. perhaps the most desperate need of victims -- for victims of domestic violence is for sanctuary. shelter, emergency housing, or affordable housing. all in short supply. victims who stay with an abuser risk everything. homelessness, loss of custody of children, more abuse, and even injury and death. victims who remain with an abuser in 40% to 50% of cases also see their chil

so we worked closely with law enforcement, the fbi, state law enforcement, the governor's office was involved, there were a lot of conversations and collectively we stood together and made the decision to close all of the schools in the metro area today because of the threat couldn't be determined. we did begin thinking about if there were to continue, then what? so what would we be doing tomorrow and the next day and how would we adapt as school leaders and as our school systems to meet this new challenge. that work was happening as of half an hour ago, we were still working on what that would look like in the face of this new threat. and i believe that this may not be the first time we see something like this. these things -- we see copy cat versions of threats and actions more commonly and and so we are developing systems and procedures on how we will react to situations like this in the future. [ inaudible question ] >> we don't know. we were working on what changes to what school looks like, would have to happen for us to be open. we did not wish to have one person hold all of t

change the law. but that's the law.here he supposedly told other workers there to ignore the law and tell judges the country is full just before it was reported that the president wanted to separate families more than ever after signing an executive order outlawing the practice of separation. and he said this after a court adjoined the practice. then came a plan of closing the border and getting sideways with the former dhs secretary when she told him it was illegal. legal experts and counsel warned him off the idea as being ripe for legal challenges. the white house then said the plan would not happen. today, just hours after that the president said he is considering the plan anyway. the only more obvious sign of contempt for the law is how the president disrespects individual judges, ascribing animos on the basis of their ethnicity, even when the name he's attacking doesn't belong to the judge. the flores settlement. the president wrote off the deal by saying judge flores was a mexican. flores was the plaintiff, the p

that's the law. whether or not people like the law, that is the law. president trump told them not to carry out that law. he said, "and if a judge says you have to do it, say, sorry, judge, we don't have anymore room." now, subsequently, president trump left the room and the leaders of these border agents had to tell them, don't do that, that's not the law, you have to follow the law. if you do what the president said, that will be personal liability on you, so do not do it. >> and another pretty shocking development, you're learning the president not only wants to reinstate what's called the child separation policy, separating kids from their mothers and fathers, but actually wants to expand it? >> he wants to expand it. yeah. so the original policy put forward by jeff sessions, the attorney general, even though secretary nielsen became the face of it, is that if you come into the country through the illegal ports of entry, if you cross the border illegally and they catch you, to prosecute you as a criminal, and that would mean that your children get

and that is an accredited law school at this point. director wray: last time i checked. mr. cartwright: let's work together and maybe you can give context on whether it ought to be opposing those bills. i also wanted to talk about f.b.i. morale. and the reputation of the f.b.i. the f.b.i. has seen its more than fair share of negative press coverage over the several years. the administration has gone to unprecedented lengths to criticize the f.b.i. and the institution and several of its employees. and i am concerned about potential political polarization of the f.b.i. and we don't want to see that. the f.b.i. works for all americans and i know you understand that. and i know that the men and women of the f.b.i. are resilient, professional, hardworking and largely able to focus on their mission even while subjected to unfair criticism. here's my question, what is your sense of the morale right now of the f.b.i. and its employees? in light of what i think are unfair attacks? director wray: the men and women of the f.b.i. are resilient and

we have said we will comply with the law. >> but what law then are you referring to?hat's -- this is the law. u.s. code 56103. so can you tell me what other law talks about tax returns? >> that is the law, and as i've said, we are consulting with our lawyers -- >> but you say you will comply with the law. >> that is correct. >> well, we'll see about tomorrow. >> "the new york times" is reporting that secretary mnuchin, "told reporters after the hearing that it would be a good guess that his department would respond to the request by the wednesday deadline." joining our discussion now is george yen, he's the former chief of staff on the joint committee on taxation, congress' high authority on tax law. george yen is now a professor law and taxation at the university of virginia. george, thank you very much for joining us again tonight. we just heard the treasury secretary say he will comply with the law. this is one of the simplest possible laws anywhere in the tax code, and it simply says that the secretary shall furnish the tax returns. is there any way that you can s

well that was the leader of the southeast asian nation of brunei the laws change there today laws that are now based on a strict interpretation of islam brunei is a tiny country on the island of borneo and it has well as a track to lots of global attention not the good for the new laws in the punishments for offenders the punishments include amputating limbs of convicted thieves and it gets worse game in called having sex could face the death penalty death by stoning lesbians called having sex or face one hundred lashes with a whip the united nations has called these laws direct tony and but the sultan is defending and as you can imagine there has been global shock and outrage the actor and activist george clooney he is leveraging his fame and he's calling for a boycott of luxury hotels from the dorchester in london to the beverly hills hotel i mean these are all owned by. royal family it's sultan is one of the richest men on earth a multi billionaire who gets his money from the country's gas and oil reserves. and on social media there is outrage along with the new hash tag boycott bru

well, the book is the law. so the training absolutely is necessarily but the training has to match the law. and so until we change the law, officers in other counties, officers in other municipalities are going to continue to be trained on reasonable versus necessary. so ab392 is important because we need to make sure that the law in the books changes today. i'm very aware of folks working towards a consensus bill, but the reality of it is, we have a bill in front of us that it does exactly what we need it to do and change the standard from reasonable to necessary and that's what we're here to support and focus on. if sacramento does get their act together and focuses on something that they can come together to save lives, sobeit. but right now in front of us, right here today, ab392 does exactly what we need it to do and we cannot change the training without changing the law. that will be the continued excuse for people who want to be compliecomplicit and the suppore have to continue to fight. >> is that a mot

for four years on first amendment rights and constitutional law. upon moving to san francisco 20 years ago, i have been a community activist full-time. in my spare time, i have had a variety of low-paying jobs with the state health department, state legislature, nonprofits and i have done everything from drafting legislation to handling difficult technical issues related to medicine, science, taxes, environmental law. i have had the experience of standing up to my landlord for my rights and winning, and i have had the experience of dealing with the lot not being on my side. i know what it's like to come home to a piece of paper under my doorway, giving me a notice from the landlord, and being terrified to open it. my husband moved in with me into a small studio because we couldn't afford anything else. we would love a one-bedroom, we have different sleep schedules, i have had to get used to wearing an eye mask to go to bed because he has the lights on our i have the lights on and he is sleeping. i don't have the same background as everyone else on

and it is our intent to follow the law. >> our intent to follow the law.is letter last night to chairman neal, secretary mnuchin said we have begun consultations with the diplomat of justice to insure that our response is fully consistent with the law and at constitution. so has anyone told steve mnuchin before this very moment right now on television that the law he has to worry about the most in this case is the one that could send him to prison for five years? joining our discussion now david kay johnston, the founder of dc report.org and author of "it's even worse than you think, what the trump administration is doing to america." and david, one of the many things that was so illuminating to me when i read your reporting to know tonight as i think the country knows the tax code is a monster. our most intimidating body of law for so many people. i've written some of it. i've read more of it. certainly than i've written. i've been studying it for decades. i don't know everything in there. and so i had no idea that there was this section governing all fed

this law works. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of the amendment number 13 which deals with some of the issues that we see in tribal communities. this is an important bill. i urge all colleagues to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. collins: reserve. mr. nadler: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentlewoman one -- the gentlewoman minute. ms. speier: today, i stand here in proud support of the bipartisan violence against women re-authorization act of 019 which includes my bill closing the law enforcement loophole act. a teenager in new york who was raped by two police officers while in their custody in the back of an unmarked police vehicle. when she reported the rape, a loophole in new york state law allowed the officers to claim she consented to having sex with them despite the fact she was handcuffed and under their control. i was appalled to learn about this and was concerned that that was a legitimate defense at that time in new york and remains a

we know this law change will have an impact on law-abiding firearms license holders. that's why we have confirmed details of the amnesty and are working on a fair and reasonable compensation through a buy-back scheme. there are good people in all of our communities who will find themselves in possession of banned firearms, parts, and magazines. this is because we are changing the law, not because these people have done anything wrong. given this, the government is putting an amnesty in place. this will allow people to let the police know if they are in possession of a newly banned firearm, part, or magazine. the amnesty also means that other firearms, parts, and magazines, and ammunition not affected by the ban can also be handed over. police are already working with the new zealand defense force around storage and transport and safe destruction of these weapons. the government recognizes that people have invested money in these firearms. running alongside the amnesty, the government will implement a buy-back scheme for the newly banned firearms which are surrendered.