second, federal agencies -- building federal law enforcement entities. for instance, las vegas police kept a patrol car outside a field unit in nevada during a high-profile court case. agency officials noted factors that can affect their ability to protect employees such as those in remote locations. also, the number of field law enforcement officers at the four agencies has declined for fiscal years 2013 to '18 with forest service experiencing the largest decrease of 22%. third, the four land management agencies have not completed all facility security assessments required by federal standards developed by the interagency security committee or isc. agency officials cited various reasons for not doing so including a lack of resources, training and expertise. not complying with the requirements, to complete these assessments could leave agencies exposed to risk to protecting their employees and facilities. while the fish and wild life authority has the blm and the forest service and park service do not. the standard also requires that agencies conduct ass

requires federal agencies to cede most federal land to state control after 2014. a researchers at university of california san diego found that in the year after utah and other western state legislators made the demand for transfer they saw a decrease in violence directed the a public lands employees. in that context it's tis pointing to see my republican colleagues to invite a witness with little experience on the issues we're hear to discuss and written about giving away federal land to state and private control. former blm director bob abby said in 2014, the rhetoric today does lead to increased animosity and tension and there's a belief that it's okay to do certain things outside the law and some people believe they're going to get away with it. today, i hope we can examine this rhetoric and the danger that it creates. that we could consider how to protect public employees, promote collaboration and end the culture of threats and violence. with that i'd like to recognize ranking member cur sis-- curtis. >> thank you, madam chair. no one in this room condones v

federal employees were central to this history. ironically, the outside militants had no ideal that harney county was recognized nationally as something of a poster child for collaborative approaches, including building positive relationship with federal workers. militants believed by vilifying and harassing federal employees they would rally support for their cause. the militants leader later said that he never met the bureau of land management or by implication, any federal employee who is a quote, good person, unquote. by 2016, most people in hardy county just did not see it that way. through a collaboration, federal employees were contributing to better problem solving, in large part by making themselves more integral parts of the community and above all, by listening. no longer just uniforms and badges, federal employees were friends and members of the community, and harney county does not like members of the community being harassed. when the occupation ended, rodgers on the national wildlife refuge hala dinner to honor the u

what is federal deposit insurance federal insurance of deposits. in the late 20s in the early 20s, five or 6000 banks failed nor the country. mostly in the rural agriculture and wheat stays in the midwest and codices in the south and local banks are lending to farmers. we have been a big articles for depression. so those banks failed left and right and there's a public outcry for the federal government to ensure the deposits. the depositors got wiped out also from local communities, there's no source of money in these communities anymore. and also from small bakers. and they'll demand better depositaries. everybody in the country who has more than a high school degree at the time these federal deposit terms are the is the worst idea ever. president uber and governor franklin roosevelt from new york and glass and people in the federal reserve board, people of had to take banks, and if they thank that it is a crazy system to have all of the powerful well-run banks in the country pay premiums every year to shore up badly managed small makes it ought t

in addition to research and sharing by federal users with other federal users, study of the wristbands will contribute enormously to understanding how to create a win for all sector him -- spectrum uses. the development process balances the interests and concerns of multiple stakeholders and attracted early investment from licensed and unlicensed users while protecting federal interests. to meet our spectrum needs going forward we need to set aside old feuds and embrace systems that accommodate everyone and maximize spectrum uses. this process tells us we can do it and we should build on the success. importantly we should not think about the share act as a means of bringing a more federal spectrum for commercial use. the technologies developed should be seen as the first step in rethinking federal spectrum management to move from the current stale and status system of specific assignment to a dynamic sharing system that allows the federal government to leverage economies of scale and provide federal agencies with spectrum they need to meet their responsibilities. these are both good id

started under the auspices of the federal writers project. part of the wpa which most people are very familiar with. at the time it was created, it was consider the ugly duckling of the federal arts project. that's because the public regarded with a great deal of skepticism and suspicion this idea, this ill-defined category of unemployed writers getting put on the relief roles to do who knows what. they were called boondoggle or's and slackers and not seen as pulling their weight during the great depression. it started off as a project that was not well received by the american public, but because of its legacy, the ex-slave narrative, it has become the most important of the federal arts projects of the time. in terms of how did it develop, some federal directors received some ex-slave narratives from states that had undertaken it early, and that was the state of florida. it was under the direction of a southern white woman who is very interested in african-american culture. she was a fan of zora neal hurston, as i think many of us are today.

because, they are taking federal grants and federal subsidies. they are unable to go forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. first of all, let me say thank you to the chairman and ranking member for holding this hearing. this is something many of us have asked for, this is such an important issue, as we can see. >> let me just say this. as a former attorney general, i think there were 38 ag's that signed a letter in support of the banking act saying this was an issue that was important for me. i agree with you, i think there are concerns about the concentrations, public safety health risks. but i also know the people of the state of nevada voted a majority to go down this path, and i respect that. as a former attorney and in conjunction with my colleagues, i do think there is a concern because we do not have a financial system. these businesses are forced to operate on a cash basis. the resulting market makes it more difficult to track revenue for taxation and regulatory compliance purposes, contributing to a public safety trend in cash intensive bu

, federal, federal. for an issue where there's a murder using a vehicle on, a gun or edged weapons, states will prosecute that. it's not domestic terrorists are running away -- >> there's no scenario that involves an act of violence that will not violate general purpose state laws. in our most most recent tragedy in el paso, here in texas, there is capital murder charges have been filed by the da in el paso. doesn't matter if we can't file a domestic terrorism charge in order to seek the death penalty in that case. might matter for other reasons. >> going back to previous cases of mass violence in the united states, there's been a lot of talk after almost every single one. lisa monaco, you wrote recently that -- regarding domestic terrorism. it's time to turn from talk to action and confront this threat. what specifically do you have in mind? what should be done to fill some of these gaps that bobby mentioned or address other elements of domestic terrorism. >> thanks for mentioning that piece i wrote wit

a federal appeals court heard oral arguments in a case that determines whether an accounting firm must comply with the manhattan district attorney subpoena for certain financial records including president trumps tax returns berkeley three-judge panel with us court of appeals for the second circuit engaged with attorneys on both sides on legal issues prickle this is 50 minutes. >> good morning you may be seated. what the panel will do is hear the case then we will take a brief recess then hear the rest of the calendar. i will call the calendar as to the first case right now that i will call the calendar after the recess for the remaining cases per code donald j. trump versus silas vance. before i do that let me just read and you can stand there as a matter of housekeeping for all concerned, just to read into the record or the agreement that we understand is now in place. i am quoting from the joint letter to forbear enforcement of the subpoena between the oral argument in this matter october 23, 2019 and ten calendar days after the court issues its opinion on the following conditions.

issues need to be resolved by federal judge? >> as i look at it i think everything has been briefedal ad aired on the district court certainly did not rule as a preliminary injunction or full merit based injection relief. this court upheld that decision that there may be a trip to the supreme court but i don't think the district court has to look at anything -- >> was it permanent or preliminary? >> he dismissed the complaint and i believe in turning america's decision -- they contemplated the thursday going to be any proceedings in the district court. subpoena?out the neck >> what subpoena. >> the wonder public ticket about real. [laughter] did they file another in 1983 faction questioning. >> not if this court ruled in favor of the district court that would be a binding president. and indeed just to be clear to inquire about this as well we a are hamstrung by the lack of the documents were seeking or but it is indeed proceeding and there are in fact other subpoenas outstanding and no one should be surprised by that. we just do

we did for federal employees. recognize the hardships that the shutdown caused these workers and their families and to add backpay to federal contractors, the bill that we're getting ready to vote on. this would be a step forward and a precedent. we haven't done this in the past. but just as the guarantee of backpay for federal employees i believe starts to build in a little bit of a fire wall against a schott-down, i actual -- against a shutdown, i actually think having a rule that we would provide backpay also starts to provide a little bit of a fire wall against a shutdown. i think we should all be anti-shutdown. having mechanisms that make it harder to shut the government down or less likely is something we should all support. without us doing right by these workers, many of them will take years to recover from a financial hole that the shutdown put them in. i would ask my colleagues to join together and support senator smith and her amendment. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding o

and be heard in federal court. they may not have a winning claim in federal court. it may be dismissed. but the court has been clear with two respects. one, there is no exhaustion requirement in the 1983. that is completely clear. and second, equally clear under mitcham, that the anti-injunction act do not require individuals to bring their 83 claim. so again -- >> what is the 1983 claim? >> it's the immunity claim. >> the president's rights are being violated by the district attorney's office? >> president's immunity -- the president's immunity is being breached. yes. >> well, immunity is usually asserted as a defense. i'm trying to understand what the cause of action is. what is the 1983 cause of action? >> 1983 by its text refers to immunities held by law. so it's a clear textual basis under the statute. moreover, supreme court has made clear these kinds of immunities are available under 1983. it's a right held under the constitution. the credit clause has been a basis. all of these are rights held under 1983. the supreme court and the dennis opinion, i think was

murrah federal building in downtown oklahoma city which housed 14 federal agencies, including the secreta, and the atf. >> mcveigh believed that his bombing would be the opening salvo in a conflict against an illegitimate tyrannical federal government that needed to be brought down to its knees. she wanted a roommate to help with the cooking. but she wanted someone who loves cats. so, we got griswalda. dinner's almost ready. but one thing we could both agree on was getting geico to help with our renters insurance. yeah, switching and saving was really easy! drink it all up. good! could have used a little salt. visit geico.com and see how easy saving on renters insurance can be. t-mobile's newest signal reaches farther than ever before. with more engineers. more towers. more coverage! it's a network that gives you ♪freedom from big cities, to small towns, we're with you. because life can take you almost anywhere, t-mobile is with you. no signal goes farther or is more reliable in keeping you connected. in the human brain, billions of nefor people with parkinson's, some neurons change thei

court keep the case, given the federal interest in both. that's not the case here. he brings this action as a private citizen, which is what the doj brief actually says. he's not bringing this in his official capacity on behalf of the u.s. government, which is why his private lawyers representing him in this. notwithstanding in his principal briefing, he maintains he is bringing this as a private person and as the sovereign, which i don't think you can do. i will point out, finally, that all this concern about staying in state court, not only is there a federal concern and the obligation of staying the course to hear constitutional claims, but also don't forget that at the end of the day if the opponent does not get the relief he seeks and what he sees itself, they can go to the supreme court. that is the backstop. >> the worst convicted, it doesn't imply that you can't bring criminal proceedings until after the impeachment process has played out. and there's a conviction. what is your response to that? >> i understand the language and the

, federal, federal but for an issue where a murder is using a vehicle oregon or an edged weapon states will prosecute that. >> it's not domestic terrorists are running away because -- >> there is no scenario that will violate state laws so in our own most recent tragedy in all paso here and takes us there is capital word or charges filed, it doesn't matter that we can't file federal domestic charge in order to receive the penalty for that case, going back to previous cases of this in the united states, there is been a lot of talk about what needs to be done and not much has happened because of it. lisa you wrote recently that -- regarding domestic terrorism and confront this threat, what do you think should be done to address these elements of domestic terrorism? >> so thanks for mentioning that and at the white house of homeland security and for george w. bush and that piece to put aside political pride -- the partisanship in really do our duty to focus on the most urgent threats we have a nation domestic terrorism, gun, violence attacks on our democracy, all of those are things where

we'll continue this whole question of federalism because western loud so we wanted the areas where federal government did extend a lot of power and authority western land illustrate the power of the law. why is crucial here. in fact you can see the law outwork in this whole issue of western law. western territory is made public through lost so first of all you have to turn this land out there into the property of the public. that is done through law. the law turnstile and it's a private property so wants to law makes it public it turns around and says we'll turn this into private property. we will hand this over two individuals. this process illustrates to legal power of the people. that obstruction that we have not defined yet. besides the context of the federal government, settlers who have legal standing within the good nation, they use "the people" to settle in and create a right to it. indians that did not have a standing to "the people" they cannot do that. this gives them a chance they can create land whereas indians who are blocked from using the law are not able to do that. this i

we will see, but it actually would be really nice if we get federal law.ut where patrick and i disagree, and i hate to beat a dead horse, but where patrick and i disagree, and this is the most important part of net neutrality, is the authority part, whether the fcc will be able to oversee the broadband market. it is the place where the court told the fcc that the argument that antitrust law and the ftc can protect consumers. and with the court said was, you kind of laid it out that those tools are available. but you do not actually talk specifically about how they will protect consumers from blocking , throttling, so on and so forth. i don't believe the antitrust laws or the ftc are adequate. you need to have an expert agency and that is where the fight will be in a federal bill. the fight will be does the fcc will get to oversee the market, or are they left out of it? because if they are left out of it, they will not get any of the consumer groups i work with support him, and they will not get any democrat supporting. they may not get the republicans. is

here's diversity and issue on federal courts. advocacy lawyers and the dean of howard university law school take on that question. the center for american progress posted this discussion on how diversity impacts litigants. legal decisions and the justice system. >> good morning everyone i'm the executive vice president of external affairs for the center of american progress. among thank each and every one of you for joining this very important if it. on to discuss fundamental issue strikes at the heart of our democratic values. if we truly believe that all americans deserve equal to men in the eyes of the law. must ensure that our legal decisions made by judges who backgrounds and perspectives that represent the experiences of all americans. study after study has shown that diverse groups solve problems in a more thoughtful and innovative way and arrived at more efficient and effective decisions. and solutions. so it comes as no surprise that diversity among our federal judges, in terms of their race and ethnic city in the gender

and that created a mechanism inside the federal government by which we can have a federal acquisition security council and really look at the security of the equipment that we're bringing into the federal space. there's a lot of work ongoing with that. but this really is a tool for federal agencies to be able to have a bit of a vetting of the equipment that's coming into their enterprise. and be able to leverage both classified and unclassified information for making determinations they don't want to bring something into their environment. when we talk about protecting information commensurate with the risk of potential compromise or risk management, it really is all about risk management. we can't protect everything. we have to understand what is is the most critical and in order to best understand what's most critical, we updated our high value asset policy at the beginning of this year. and in addition to updating the high value policy, the department of homeland security updated guidance on high value assets. so we really tried to partner with dhs to be able to provide a more tact

i was treated very differently by my federal supervising office, both of us were in the federal systemi of course was subject to drug testing and check-ins, but they did not treat me with a heavy hand like they did cindy and we have to look very hard at what drives disparity in this system. it's unacceptable, it's illegal. that brings me back to your question of policy and the fact that criminology experts all over the country will point out the fact that it's policy decisions that drive incarceration, incarceration rise in this country does not map to crime rates. we began to incarcerate at a very high rate as crime rates were beginning to decline and crime rates continue to go up and up and up even as we now enjoy historically low crime rates, some of the lowest crime rates ever recorded since we started -- >> thank you so much. my five minutes go very quickly. thank you so much. >> you're very welcome. >> i want to thank the witnesses for being here today. i want to talk a little bit about the need for bail reform. despite overall decreases in incarceration pretrial detention since

federal, then incorporated against the states. four that said no unanimous requirement anywhere, four that said unanimous requirements in both federal and states. justice powell in the middle said only in federal, but not incorporated against the states. the question that has been presented is do we revisit that, and does that federal right get incorporated? the threshold question you could see the court going a different way on is whether there is a unanimity requirement at all, in federal or state cases. ramesh: all right, thank you for that whirlwind tour of different cases before the court. i was wondering if any of you wanted to add anything onto the cases that the other panelists discussed. mike? michael: actually, no, i think they were fairly presented. i intuitively disagree with tom, but this time i will be -- [laughter] elbert: i have one thought on the title vii cases. i think that just from the 30,000-foot level, and it sort of tees off of what mike said when he first started, the suggestion that sex had a particular m

let alone for a federal court hearing. right? that somebody working for a pro-putin oligarch who was under indictment in this country and who prosecutors say is an upper-echelon associate of russian organized crime, a person in that position working for that guy could also be part of the president's legal team? at his defense of the russia investigation? what? i mean, lev parnas in court is saying there's going to be executive privilege issues involved in some of the evidence against him because it has to do with the president's legal representation because he was on that team. i mean, in the wildest fantasies about this insanity that we are living through in the trump presidency, nobody would have ever claimed that a guy linked to the kremlin and to russian organized crime would somehow get installed on the president's legal defense team in the russia scandal. but apparently, that's where we are. i mean, "the wall street journal" did just publish picture from lev parnas' private instagram account, and in fact, there he is at the

the first is the idea of a federal job security. i believe this is a really exciting area of policy, because what a federal job script he does is it acts as a shock absorber for our economy. what it means is that there are a lot of jobs that pose a value to society that come at a loss for companies here so, for example, keeping our unities clean. how is that a profitable activity for corporation? it's not, but it is a valuable activity for our community. there's a a whole lot of other examples of work like this and what a a federal jobs guarantee proposes is, is creating a class of employment that allows people, that has a guaranteed minimum. it essentially like a public option for jobs that guarantees a living wage, healthcare, and more. and then it forces companies to compete, to offer at least that much it establishes a base quality of work and then what happens is when the economy does poorly in people out of a job, then aco federal job skanky expands and as the economy improves, the lot of people on the federal job security mow

it takes out of production federal land. the lies need to stop about telling our navajo brothers and sisters that our allotees that this will hurt their access to those lands. that this will restrict access to those lands. as a matter of fact, mr. chairman, just to be thorough an amendment that i will offer later today will make it even more clear that this is only about taking b.l.m. land out of production. so, mr. chairman, with all the work that we have left to do with us, this is a piece of legislation supported by the new mexico delegation. something that based on the amendment that my colleague from arizona, mr. gosar, just offered, might understand. it's supported by myself, the representative from the district, congresswoman deb had a lapd. one of the first tuineiive american women elected to the congress. you heard the passion in her voice. she's carrying that weight of her ancestors on her shoulders as she debates the fight to protect this sacred land. u.s. senator martin heinrich, u.s. senator tom udall, the gover

only 30 minutes with the first federal chief security officer and our current federal chief informationurity officer doing great work. general, i'll start with you. it was a pleasure to work with you then. what was the highest impact areas you are working on? >> we take a look at the cybersecurity in the federal government, it's at learning continuum. we try to get better and build upon the lessons learned from the past. we certainly tried doing that when i was in office. some of the more impactful things that we did, and i think grant is continuing with is first is changing the narrative and looking at cybersecurity as a risk management issue. previously not only in the public sector but the prevent sector we saw emphasis solely on just compliance. not necessarily taking a look at cybersecurity as a holistic risk management issue that involves people process and technology. so that's the first thing we've talked to paige for me. that was the narrative that we were trying to move forward on. i'm pleased to see that continuing. secondly, we were trying to make sure that we were in fact t

at the federal reserve live now. reporter: federal reserve cut the benchmark rate by a quarter of a percentage point. it is 1 1/2 to 1.75%. the rate cuts come on a global slow down they say. they say muted inflation. the fed does signal in the statement a pause for future rate cuts. the federal reserve statement changes words from act as appropriate, to assess. now the changes make, part of that sentence that makes that big change, says this, quote, it assesses the appropriate path of target range for the federal funds rate. that is going forward. the statement says that the labor market remains strong. consumer spending is rising at a strong pace. the fed also sees business investment and exports remain weak. in the two statements two fed precedents dissented, kansas city president esther george and boston president rosengren dissented that is the third time they both dissented. jim bullard did not dissent on decision. he thinks this is where the fed needs to be with the 25 basis point cut. he believes this is enoug

my best source for law clerks are other judges, other federal judges.ors tend to write glowing letters of recommendation. everyone is the best and the brightest student that ever graduated from this law school. [laughter] jus. ginsberg: but, my colleagues in other federal courts will tell me the straight story. very often, i will get a call from another federal judge saying, i have a clerk this year who i think would be just right for you. those are my best recommendations. david: we have a few questions from people attending today. if you could change one thing about the constitution, what would it be and why? [laughter] david: i guess you probably, if you were a founding father, founding mother -- [laughter] david: what might you have put in the constitution that did not quite get in there? jus. ginsberg: i would add an equal rights amendment. [applause] jus. ginsberg: i explain it this way. when i take out my pocket constitution to show my granddaughters, i can show them the first amendment that guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. but i ca

a federal judge in california has held u.s.retary ofde education betss in contempt of court for violatingr an ordating to student loans. the ruling said divorce continue to collect loans from students whode att corinthian colleges, a now-defunct chain of for-profit colleges, despite being ordered to stop. the feder education departmen was fined $100,000. a new count the trump administrationcio the american l liberties union says more childrenere separated from their families at the u.s. mexico border than previously known. immigration authorities separated more additional children from their parents between july 2017-june 2018 won a federal judge offered to end -- judge ordered an end to the practice. that brings the overall number of chiren separated since july 2017 to more than 5400. overseas in iraq, 30 people were killed in clashes in baghdad and .her provinces tod thousands are protesting the corruption and struggling economy in the country. police fired live rounds, rubber bullets and tear gas towdisperse the we take a cl

the federal reserve lowered the target for its benchmark rate by 0.25%.rd cut injust four months. rate by 0.25%. this is the third cut in just four months. wall street welcomed the move, with the three main stock index is closing higher. the federal reserve chair indicated the new official interest rate of between 1.5 and 1.75% was an appropriate rate, suggesting he is downplaying expectations of any future rate cuts. he said if economic indicators remain the same, resilient household spending supported by strong jobs growth and inflation rate near the 2% target, the bank expects moderate growth. he was also a devout develop once in global trade. as with exit, it's still quite uncertain what will be the result of the election what the ultimate result will be but the tail risk of a non— negotiated no—deal brexit seems to have decreased, just asi brexit seems to have decreased, just as i would say that the situation in the trade negotiation seems to have taken a step closer to resolution. trade developments aside, the bank will be monitoring risk factors in

for example, in 2014 federal 14 federal court ruled that louisiana had intentionally disseminated when it maintained at-large elections in louisiana . unfortunately, voting rights act litigation even when successful is slow it could cost dollars on average it cost to have in five years for the voting rights act to be completed . for example, in 2016 in texas the fifth circuit court of appeals found texas photo id law violated section two during the three years of litigation with hundreds of elected officials were voted in office and for the 500,000 voters who lacked id that when came too late . lds try to work to address the discount rate changes before they happen but often we have been stymied by the cost and time it takes to litigate these matters . given the myriad of issues congress must act first to build the investment act or amendment act progress should restore preclearance . progress should make it easier for plaintiffs to block this ministry voting before an election. as you prepare for the 2020 elections we need to fix our democracy and should not be up for debate . it's go

there is no federal history the history of one state reglet in the region of a country. the states will have to establish what they are doing is in their state wheelhouse. we are talking about things like disclosure requirements, unfair business practice relations. even the restoring internet freedom order said, states can continue to use their general consumer protection authority. that has never been an issue. under the title to order or the restoring internet freedom order. the issue is, when a state like california attempt to impose common carrier regulation, on what is now an intrastate information service, as upheld by this court, i think that's going to be a difficult task for them to convince a federal district court that what they're doing, regular leading and intrastate information service, is not in conflict with the federal policy. patrick can keep calling broadband access and intrastate service. the fact of the matter is largely interest intrastate. the last mile is in-state. i could just as easily keep saying it is and intrastate service that states do have

chair, the 2020 federal elections are fast approaching. public confidence and trust in our elections is of the utmost importance. we know that federal adversaries are working to undermine that trust today. to quote former special counsel mueller in july, quote, they are doing it as we sit here. our adversaries have a variety of tools to infear in our democrat. these tools sew disinformation to provoke discord. their goal is to divide us and attack our values of equality and freedom. their tactics undermine confidence in our democratic institutions so they will collapse under the pressure of the division and distrust. the need to act is urgent. we have been warned repeatedly about this. the former director of national intelligence dan coats wrote earlier this year in his worldwide threat assessment as the 2020 elections advance, quote our adversaries and strategy competitors will most certainly use online influence operations to try to weaken democratic institutions, undermine u.s. alliances and partnerships, and shape policy outcomes in th

the federal jobs guarantee, i believe that this is a really exciting area of policy, the federal jobs guarantee acts as a shock exorbitant for our economy. what it means, there are a lot of jobs that pose a value to society that come at a loss for companies. for example, keeping our communities clean. how is that a profitable activity for corporation? it is not. but it is a valuable activity for our community. there is a whole lot of other examples that work like this and guaranteeeral jobs proposes is creating a class of employment that allows people to have a guaranteed minimum it's essentially like a public option for jobs they guarantees a living wage, healthcare and more. and then it forces companies to compete to offer at least that much and it establishes a base quality of work and then what happens, when the economy does poorly and people are out of a job, the federal job guarantee expands and as the economy improves the amount of people lower. so it acts as a shock absorber for our economy and it's really fascinating proposal so we don't just have to rely on social welfare pr

also, my cousin is in federal prison. i want to thank you for the just society bill you just represented. my question to you, for all of us young millennials out there in our 20's and 30's, and just starting out from college, what can we do, not just on social media, which we can see a change from that. look at your platform and what you have accomplished. but what can we do in actions outside of social media that can help you? because we know it is a lot of work that you are doing in all areas of government. and all the things that we brought up today in the town hall meeting. but what can we do to help you and your platform to thrive and really help change this government? rep. ocasio-cortez: thank you so much. that is a really great question. one of the things i think is best to do is that, it is not just about helping me. because i am part of a larger grassroots movement. i'm here because people, critical mass of people have demanded justice in our criminal justice system, in environmental education, decarseration, et

the federal trade commission has been very much at the center of that debate. congress will move forward and as a people feel that the policy issues of privacy. the commission has been in the spotlight with major cases in the facebook cambridge analytical and that youtube settlement and a series of hearings on competition and consumer protection in the 21st century with with a lot of that focus with data and privacy. we are fortunate to have with us today to commissioners, rebecca slaughter and christine wilson, both of whom have long background in public policy and becca slaughter is on the hill and wilson previously as chief of staff at the commission and both experienced in private law practice and other capacities so i want to jump right into it. let's begin, if we could with an overview. you started in may of last year, christine in september so you both are about a year on and have experience in cases and hearings. how do you see the privacy we have today? what do you see as the key issues as we move forward? >> you are the senior commissioner on the pane

it arises under the premise, the supremacy clause holds where federal and state law conflicts federal law is the essence of the federal system. the court applied the doctrine there are two ways to have a conflict. one is where compliance with the federal law and state law is literally impossible, state law requires you to do something and federal law precludes you doing something and impossible to comply with those. the other exemption is where state law creates an obstacle to achieving the federal policy. that is going to be the principal kind of preemption debated here. state law says broadband should be treated as a telecom service subject to common carrier rules, subject to know blocking, throttling and other mandates and federal law says the opposite of those things but there is a strong basis that state law and federal law cannot coexist so judge williams dissented from that aspect. he thought there was authority to exempt expressly and he thought the majority analysis might implicate the ability to invoke this exemption so that is a pretty detailed summary. i'm sure we will hav

all federal judges identify as lgbtq. now, it's true that some presidents in recent history took action to address these trends, most notably president barack obama and his administration, but since entering the white house, president donald trump has worked tirelessly to undermine and overturn such efforts. the trump administration enabled by mitch mcconnell and senate republicans have managed to confirm 152 of trump's judicial nominees who are overwhelmingly white and male. in fact, 73% of trump's appointees have been male and more than 80% have been white. and if progressives want to fully advance the causes we care so deeply about from protecting the rights of immigrants and people with disabilities to expanding affordable health care and reforming our criminal justice system, then we must improve the diversity of our federal courts. that's why cap is so proud to host today's event and to welcome an esteemed panel of experts who are committed to achieving this very mission. with that, i have the great pleasure of turn

the federal education department s also fined $100,000.en were separated from their families at the u.s. mexico border than previously known. that's according to a new count the trump administration submitted to the american civil liberties union. immigration authorities separated more than 1,500 additional children from their parents between july 2017 and june 2018 when a federal judge ordered an end to the practice. that brings the overall number of children separated since july 17 to more than 5,400. in iraq, securi fces clashed with anti-govement protesters in baghdad and across several southern provinces today,ll kig at least 23 people. thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of the capital city to protest the country's corruption and struggling economy. l police firede rounds, rubber bullets, and tear gas to try to disperse the crowd. we'll take a closer look at antiovernment protests in tw other countries, lebanon and chile, later in the program. despite president trump's recent decision to pull u.s. troops ou of northria, th

based on your work what would be the most cost effective ways turning on the federal side to fill the gaps so samsung would be better than? >> unfortunately we haven't looked for me to say which is better, however clearly seeing how us and others are involved. >> what are the other gaps? >> the other gaps is that we really don't have an understanding and the states are hearing very little there's not one program, this is a grassroots level some don't want to have federal regulations because they're afraid that they would have loss of these recovery homes. >> what would be the two most serious gaps? >> in other words after this somewhere, and if you have a federal level reordering, and what are the two most serious gaps and if you don't deal with that more money will get ripped off? >> i wish i could answer that on. >> who would be able to answer, that who can tell us with all this money coming in what the biggest gaps are? >> i think that is an excellent question because when you look at the number of individuals that we have interviewed just to get an understanding of the oversight o