Do what they need to do or whether or not it would push them away from the ne gauche yating table. At this point, we think it would push them away from the negotiating table. So although i have Great Respect for the chairman and for senator corker and all the members of the u. S. Senate, and i believe the intentions here are all absolutely right on, k4 is to keep the pressure on iran to do what is necessary here to give the give the International Security were looking for and to cut off all the path wayings. They believe quiet strongly at this moment in this negotiation, additional action would potentially derail the negotiation. And that iran is quiet clear that the congress will pass legislation at any moment that it is deemed absolutely necessary to do so. Can you quantify how much going from 20 to 5 delays, the break out time . Is that quantifiable . Does it make it six months, the breakout time . Does it add five months . Is it quantifiable . What id prefer, senator, if i could, i
The law that is in the legislative language that is in this supplemental. Because i agree with our distinguished whip, mr. Hoyer, and others who have said there are two things happening here. One is we need to address the challenge, the humanitarian challenge. We need resources to do that for particular purposes, and we should do that in the supplemental. Another is to change the law which we shouldnt do in a supplemental. It is legislative legislating on an appropriations bill in a manner in which all kind of statements can be made which may be anecdotally significant but not significant in terms of the difference that they make a difference enough to change the law. And so when people talk about witnesses in one context or another, just saying something on the floor of the house, its interesting. But there should be hearings, if were going to change the law, there should be hearings where testimony can come forth, challenged, confirmed, whatever it may be. But a serious discussion wo
Those he spoke out very strongly against the ultranationalist. He saw them taking russia in the wrong direction. Clearly this is going to be one of the key things that i and my staff are going to have to watch in russia as the battle between the ultranationalists if you will, and the modernizers, those who want to have russia part of the Global Economy and Global Political system, push ahead. Its going to be a key part of any analysis of russia. Well, thank you for your insights. Clearly having a russia thats part of the International Order both in terms of security as well as Economic Issues is the preferable course of events. How we get there still a road map to be determined. Yes, sir. Test. Ladies and gentlemen, id like to call to order the second panel of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations considering 3 ambassadorial nominees im pleased to consider this hearing for the nominees. All three of our nominees have impressive records of accomplishment. I look forwar
It so requires. Dont be fooled, she said. Only the Supreme Court so required. The federal arbitration act was never meant to produce this outcome. In the hands of todays majority, arbitration threatens to become more nearly the opposite, a mechanism easily made to block the vindication of meritorious federal claims and insulate wrongdoers from liability. The court thus undermines the federal arbitration act no less than it does the sherman act and other federal statutes providing rights of action. So, commissioner wright, in your written testimony you argue that the courts should set the rules of the road for internet openness through antitrust law. But how could a complaint of anticompetitive behavior even reach the courts if its lawful to force every consumer, Small Business and employee to arbitrate their claims in a foreign venue that is secret, thats for profit. Youre familiar with the arbitration process . No jury trial, no right to appe appeal. How does your opinion about how th
Meritorious federal claims and insulate wrongdoers from liability. The court thus undermines the federal arbitration act no less than it does the sherman act and other federal statutes providing rights of action. So, commissioner wright, in your written testimony you argue that the courts should set the rules of the road for internet openness through antitrust law. But how could a complaint of anticompetitive behavior even reach the courts if its lawful to force every consumer, Small Business and employee to arbitrate their claims in a foreign venue that is secret, thats for profit. Youre familiar with the arbitration process . No jury trial, no right to appe appeal. How does your opinion about how the internet should be regulated fare in comparison to, or in light of that Supreme Court ruling . I appreciate the question. Im going to give you two quick answers. One is there is nothing in that decision that would preclude the ftc or the doj from bringing in a case. We are not in arbitra