of cooperative federalism. since the clean air act was comprehensively amended in 1970, emissions of the nation's most common air pollutants have fallen by an average of 70% even as our economy grew by 246%. by 2020, the economic benefits will total $2 trillion. the act spurred the use of clean technologies that drive business opportunity, new refinery equipment reduces waste and improves worker safety and also improves the health of people in nearby ninds. reduction and electric vehicle technology for cars, trucks and school buses have cut fuel costs, engine wear and greenhouse gas emissions. cooperative federal and state efforts have built this record of achievement. the federal government provides minimum standards and resources to states and states tailor solutions for their individual communities. unfortunately today this relationship has been put in jeopardy u.s. epa, through a series of recent hasty and ill-conceived actions is attempting to weaken landmark safeguards and states have been forced to spend

from federal decisions.cluding the commonwealth of kentucky is leaked meeting at statutory applications and the clean air act by reducing our emissions and providing aggressive--with the manufacturing goods or products necessary to improve the quality of life for all. to accommodate cooperative federalism and the strong working relationships we request epa apply state implementation approach rather than an aggressive outreach. again thank you for the opportunity to testify today and i look forward to any questions or comments you may have regarding my testimony. >> thank you. commissioner baker. >> thank you members of the environment and public works committee. my name is toby baker and i'm the commissioner of the texas environmental quality. we are the third largest realtor agency in the united states behind the epa and california. we have close to 3000 employees across 16 regional offices with our largest office. we regulate water quality air quality and waste in texas would like to highlight a few facts

federal positions.n closing, the commonwealth of kentucky is making its obligations under the clean air act >> thank you members of the environment and public works committee. my name is toby baker and i'm the commissioner of the texas environmental quality. we are the third largest realtor agency in the united states behind the epa and california. we have close to 3000 employees across 16 regional offices with our largest office. we regulate water quality air quality and waste in texas would like to highlight a few facts that i believe are made possible through the tradition of cooperative federalism that as you know is built into the federal clean air act in a number of federal regulatory statutes. starting with the amendment to the clean air act of the early 90s texas is one of the largest coastal states to turn the corner on environmental regulations and has become one of leading states in environmental success relative to our environmental challenges we currently produce one third of the nation's c

female federal employees earned women a place not only in federal employment but also in the nation's capital. they joined in social, philanthropic, and intellectual activities with their male coworkers. d.c. was a tough place for anyone to live during the civil war, especially for women. single women in any city, especially. they were automatically assumed to be prostitutes. for a womany hard to find a place to live and navigate this difficult scene. as the number of female federal employees grew, shops and boarding houses started to cater to them. here is a border announcement for the statey department. here, there is an extra compensation that came through. investor extra pay in a sewing machine. this is hard to read, but it is a trinket shop. they are calling on women in the treasury department to shop at their store. this was, women were constantly in fear of losing their jobs. were laidnt, 53 women off from their job at the printing office. maybe come learn business at our school and become more employable. women become a more marketable -- women made much less money than their

is to deny federal funds. two sanctuary cities. in section 9a it directly attorney general and secretary of homeland security to deny federal grants to century cities except if they deem necessary for law enforcement purposes. it is true there is a proviso for that they should exercise their power to be consistent with law. but what are we to make with that when the entire premise of the order is that it is the president who has the power to impose conditions on grants and federal funds and not congress? moreover, in the ordinary courts when you see boilerplate language like to the extent consistent with law or notwithstanding any other provision of law or language like that, you do not expect to find the best majority of operative applications to be covered by this savings was and by the operative language of the executive order to cover a very small share of the cases. it is just not how we ordinarily read in order. and taken with an order like this it is quite understandable that cities across the country v

federal law. it is noncontroversial proposition, many comments not directed specifically to section 9 a, one statute, 1373, makes it very clear, the preamble in section 9, two agencies enforcing the statute to enforcement actions. and the actual language in the order that was enjoined, the circuit decision which was in our brief, pages 26 to 29 is on point and is a similar executive order. a non-self-executing executive order so this order itself is a direction to other agency officials to study the law and take the actions they deemed appropriate. that executive order, implemented the extent permitted by law and the court accepted the community agency taking legal proper action. the executive order - the court said and actual bid was denied, a time a plan would be right. the order obstructs the challenge, and does that action harm a potential plaintiff. and how you would read the order and the government disowned them, one potential reading of the order and the court accepted that. how enforcing

>> federal level.we have a balanced budget amendment as a constitutional measure in colorado that's also link to our constitutional tabor amendment and that is the most effective company give a constitutional provision requiring a balanced budget and an expenditure limit like tabor or swiss debt brake, that is proven to be the most effective set of fiscal rules you can design. now, the problem at the federal level of course is we don't have initiative and referendum. what we do is article v, and my expectation is to congress is not going to suddenly this your past the swiss debt brake. i think the best prospect is for us to go to the states, have our state legislators take the initiative and begin enacting a balanced budget amendment to the article v amendment convention. the balanced budget and meant task force has taken an active role in this. david biddle is your inner audience, and we are 28 states have passed a resolution calling for balanced budget amendment. we working on six more states. we thi

of federal regulation in higher education. thank you. [applause] >> stand up so i can see the hands. if i may take the first question. there is a word that i did not hear in your presentation. -- in either presentation. what difference has it made when there was the opportunity to use appropriations for legislators good it will to be established -- goodwill to be established in his constituency? -- and in the absence of that. it seems to me from the ground, patricia and i both have indiana university connections. i don't think that is right. i don't think there was a federal program that ever existed that indiana university didn't get some money from. i don't know. if you want to comment on that. either of you. >> i grew up in an academic family. my mother's father was a professor of greek and latin. at a baptist college in southern indiana. sorry. i grew up on the campus of purdue. if you think indiana was good at snacking money from -- snagging money from appropriations, let me tell you. purdue can approach the federal gover

readler if an executive order that barred the federal government from selling excess federal property to african-americans, quote, to the extent consistent with law, would be constitutional? mr. readler wisely agreed that would be a hard executive order to defend. but the department of justice's position in this case amounts to the idea that you could defend that executive order if there might be coincidentally be some african-american or handful of african-americans who were otherwise debarred from purchasing excess federal property. that just can't be right. now, i should be clear, we do not believe that there is any circumstance where section 9-a could lawfully be implemented. but even if you believed that that was not true, to the extent consistent with law simply can't mean what the department of justice needs it to mean here in order to prevail. the supreme court has made that clear repeat lid. that you can't use -- repeatedly. that you can't use a phrase that doesn't have specificity or substance to override or render unrecognizable the rule or the substance of a text. now, i t

the federal budget and federal tax reform impact and then policy changes in public health and human services agency, and we'll also speak about related state funding issues. we're kind of rolling some of those state issues, as well, into is this topic. so you're probably reading right now that the house just passed a spending bill for the current federal fiscal year, which ends on september 30th. in february, they approved sort of a larger two-year budget package with listed spending caps overall. and there's various provisions in that february legislation which allocate funding for different programs, which will go to states at varying levels, notably for fire relief in california. also, to extend authorization for children's health insurance program funding, which dph folks will talk about in a moment. tomorrow at midnight is the deadline to pass the budget for the current federal fiscal year. should it not pass, we would have another federal government shutdown potentially. so the goal is to avoid that. but what they are doing right now is allocating spending for a variety of programs. so

the federal government felt it was needed in these places to federal troops and federal authority on the ground. is, they up happening essentially hijacked the democratic and judicial systems in the south leading up to what is going to be the restoration of home rule in 1877. the south winds. s. it doesn't take very long. it takes them 12 years to get back control of all of the southern states. the klan is ridiculously popular in the carolinas. 100% of the citizens of george county were part of the kkk. that is how it was in the mountain south. it is enormously popular. the klan is as popular as it ever was in american history. they were trying to restore white supremacy, which is another word for home rule. whites back in charge of the political, economic and social policies. they believe they were state, thetheir community from outside influence that was going to mess things up. that is the basis of any fear that we have as domestic citizenry. does, like the issue of black voters is used liquor tax to get more white people enthusiastic about taking out republicans. and is how the k

now a federal judge is ruling that prioritizing federal money for those who participate in immigration enforcement would, quote, upset the constitutional balance. >> to make, for example, immigration a focus of a community-based policing grant, that alone was unconstitutional. and that will be no longer allowed. >> i think we're right. we're fundamentally right in this instance. >> reporter: 94-year-old u.s. federal judge manuel real issued this ruling. he served on this federal bunch since 1966 -- bench since 1966 appointed by president johnson. when president trump first announced the possibility of withholding federal money, the lapd chief said it would cost los angeles $50 million. in newsroom, jackie ward, kpix 5. >> what do we expect to happen next? >> a spokesman for the justice department suggested

statutory -- >> in colorado or federal level? >> i mean at the federal level. we have a balanced budget amendment as a constitutional measure in colorado that's also linked to our constitutional taber amendment. that's the most effective combination. i think if you have a constitutional provision requiring a balanced budget and an expenditure limit, that has proven to be the most effective set of fiscal rules you can design. now, the problem at the federal level, of course, is we don't have initiative and referendum. what we do have is article five, and my expectation is that congress is not going to suddenly this year pass a swiss debt break. that may surprise you. i think that the best prospect is for us to go to the states, have our state legislators take the initiative, and begin enacting a balanced budget amendment through the article five amendment convention. the balanced budget amendment task force has taken an active role. david who is head of that is in the audience. 28 states passed a resolution calling for balanced budget amendment. we're working on

the federal government through 280 interferes with federalism. they say, ok colorado you've got this but we had this massive punitive tax, and excise tax rather than a profit tax that makes it difficult. when you touch an audience about it, they may not have interest or care one way or another you can be hostile to marijuana but how would you feel if school choice faced at 35% excise tax because while your stay said where longtime to school choice, parental choice in education the teacher said no we don't like this and we will have a massive income tax on your scholarship. you would infect cripple, damage the ability to have 50 states try things. you want 50 states to do different things in some work in some don't. nobody's life is a complete failure. some states are bad examples. on a given issue, look at that coming down to that. or come over here, this is working. greg 70 states than marijuana -- >> have any states done marijuana wrong so far? >> one of my least favorite is the matter where they said, marijuana wants to be regulated like liquo

at the same time, we at the federal level have increased funding and federal efforts year after year to combat this crisis. is what areto you is what are we not doing right? you talk about the multipronged approach that i totally agree with, education, prevention, treatment and enforcement. committeeship of this has poured a lot of money into all four of those categories. what is it we are not doing right? hogan: we asked ourselves that same question nearly every day. i mentioned in my testimony at the beginning that we were sort of the end of the curve focusing on this issue, going back to 2014. we took every action anyone could think of, from every direction, and we put half $1 put half $1 billion into state funding. then we created the first state of emergency, where we asked our emergency operations center to coordinate every state, local, and federal agency to provide real-time assistance on these different directions. we made a slight improvements in prescription opioids and heroin, but because of these new synthetics, we still have more people died. we had nearly 2000 people d

. >> host: federal government. >> the federal and the state problem. need to keep the drugs off the streets. we need to hold drug dealers accountable, law enforcement needs additional resources to get these guys and -- these guys killing our kids and throw them in jail. >> what about the pharmaceutical industry, those that are producing this, and the companion problem there's an awful lot of money in this town that geoff to transome on capitol hill, both sides of the aisle. how do you fight that issue? >> what we have done in ohio is we have issued -- i'm not all for regulation, not a government regulation person but this is a public safety issue. we have issued regulations where you can only prescribe a pain pill for acute pain for seven days if you're an adult and five day is you're a child. you have to -- >> federal -- >> that's state. we did it in he state of ohio. >> why don't we have that federally? >> as conservatives we recognize that state government needs to make most policies in this country. every problem. every problem is not a federal pro

so we're doing a seminar for our federal partners, so anybody in the federal government that has a mission on this topic has been attending these seminars that fema has been hosting. again, think of it as us doing this in historical context for the new threat, for cyber though -- >> you know you can't escape -- >> i know. >> i would say to emerging threats nationstate is 31, cyber is another. cyber working very close with a dhs partners on this. we are looking for innovative ways we can leverage our grant programs to meet some of those objectives that dhs has. i think if there was someone from dhs or they would talk about the need to secure election infrastructure would be a priority i know for the secretary and for the administration. we are looking at ways that we, the fema, can support that mission. >> just a thought, ultimately the need to articulate and implement deterrent strategies writ large is so critical and it's a little allusive in the cyber domain because i think we think of nuclear, but a critical part of any strategies to minimize impact of the adversaries intent. so resilie

my concern is that local state governments look to the federal government to come in and the federal government has to when they have massive disasters. if state and local governments rely on fema time after time, and addicted to them. they arele they are less inclined to produce that culture of emergency preparedness. i would like you to address the moral hazard in fema doing a better and better job. what we want is state and governments to be completely prepared so it can be state-managed, locally-executed and federally-supported. and with that i'll turn it over to the ranking member, senator mccaskill. >> thank you for being here today. i want to start with the positive and recognize the progress that's been made since katrina. we have all witnessed a much more efficient and a much more effective fema from the lessons-learned in katrina and other catastrophes. however, i can't get through without talking some of the problems we continue to see. especially on contracting. we are -- i'm sure you're familiar with the report that we issued this week or last week on the emergency tarps

every problem is not a federal problem. every probably is not a federal problem. every problem the federal government need set some sort of response to making sure we show leadership as a nation. let me finish this. states right now are being smart and innovative and passing new good legislation that bans prescriptions or limits prescriptions in certain amount and that's great. the worst thing we could have happened is for the federal government to intervene and pass laws the uniform across the country that try to solve this problem because we seen this happen and health care, we seems happen across the state the time of the gentleman has expired again with good intentions thatf the government passes some law. the unintended consequences of that law trickle down through use and take it ago to never come back and fix those problems. governors and legislators pass these laws every year. we should encourage our state leaders to pass these laws to take these issues on. >> which brings us back is the power of the white house come up out of oval office with a buddy into

in relation to federal dollars. i think it's important to recognize the prior financial commitments that states have already made. many state legislatures including in nebraska raise the state gas tax in the past few years to invest in infrastructure. asking states to enact additional revenue is not feasible in those states that have taken similar action. i would encourage any legislation to have look back provisions that give states and local governments who made those decisions full credit for doing so. public-private partnerships are being discussed as possible options to leverage federal dollars behind the president's plan. rural states like nebraska may have challenges attracting investors, we have -- we believe that creating opportunities for instance gives us another tool in the tool box to be innovative. i would like to harken back on the need to further stream line on the permitting process. nebraska has taken steps to reduce the burden by taking on the assignment it doesn't prevent us from getting tied up

the ending federal marijuana prohibition act seeks to reform outdated and problematic laws by federally decriminalize marijuana. she's also been calling on the fda which is classified marijuana as a schedule one drug along with heroine and lsd, to remove it from the list. being on the list means valuable and critical research and health benefits which range from reducing anxiety to holding the cancer cells will not happen at the pace that should be required. the reforms seeking our common sense, reduce the strain on the criminal justice system, create certainty and reduce contradiction and confusion between state and federal law. [applause] thank you to the national cannabis festival for hosting this weekend's policy summit at events and for your work to organize and advocate for long-overdue reform. i hope to be there with you this weekend but my district has just gone through record-breaking rain falls and landslides that have displaced hundreds of people and wiped out businesses and homes and roads, so i'm going to be back there by the time you see this message where many of my const

but the federal government, through 280-e, interferes with federalism. ok colorado, you've got this, but we have this massive punitive tax, an excise tax rather than a profit tax that makes it difficult. when you talk to an audience about it, who may not have an interest in or not care one way or another or be hostile toward marijuana, how would you feel if school choice, a scholarship or faced faced -- or voucher a 35% excise tax? we don'ters union said like that and we will have this massive income tax. income, scholarship. you would in fact cripple, damage the ability to have 50 states. you want 50 states to do different things. some work and some don't. nobody's life is a complete failure. some states serve as bad examples. on a given issue, don't do that. over here, this is really working. there are a number of ways to do anything wrong. one of my least favorite is in nevada. marijuana to want be regulated like liquor, wine,'s, spirits. that is the worst way to regulate anything. maximize thew to number of people who extract monopoly from the system

but the federal government through 280 e, interferes with federalism. they say colorado, you have this, but we have this massive punitive tax that makes it difficult when you talk to an audience about it may not have an interest or care one way or the other. so how would you feel if school choice -- a scholarship or tax?er, faced a 35% excise deral governments it would have the income tax on income scholarship. you would in fact cripple and damage the ability to have 50 states try things. you want 50 states to try different things, and some work and some don't. some states serve as examples, but on a given issue, it may be good for them, or this is really working. >> have any states that marijuana wrong so far? >> there's lots of ways to do something wrong. one of my least favorite is in nevada, where they said we want marijuana regulated like liquor, wine, spirits, beer. this is one of the stupidest way to suggest how to maximize the number of people who extract monopoly rents out of the system. >> unpack that a little for the audience. prohibition ond

the federal courts will. it is not going to happen that way, because americans -- it is a long story -- american jurisprudence was not prepared for that kind of fundamental shift in federalism. it is too bad, but it is true. reconstruction is a huge tug-of-war between -- it is as old as our original constitution. the struggle. what exactly are the powers of the federal government and the states? and those powers got vastly changed by the civil war. the question was -- will they stay changed? or would the power of state sovereignty, especially when used now by resurgent democratic party in the south and its vision -- let's just be honest, its vision was a virulent white supremacist vision, which was not going to tolerate black civil rights, or for that matter, even black land ownership. in the 1870's, beginning in 1871 1875-76, all of the ex-confederate states except three had been taken back -- control of those states had been taken back by the southern democrats, and they were, in effect, defeating the recon

in our federal system.couldn't force the states to expand medicaid. >>chris: when arizona went further than president obama did, they said they had overstepped their bounds under the supremacy clause. aren't you violating that? >> the federal government establishes immigration policy but whether california employees are going to spend california money and resources to help enforce that policy is a california decision. we will win that in court. if the federal, can't compel state to participate in medicaid, it can't compel states to become law enforcement authorities on immigration. >>chris: of course the constitution didn't say anything about medicaid which didn't happen until the 1960s. it says something specifically about immigration. mr. nelson, 30 seconds for a final thought. >> unfortunately, that is completely misleading. don't want our people doing the federal government's job nor do they have the time. what california law is requiring is our service not cooperating which is resulting in people that

we're waiting to see this federal courtroom, this federal procedure get underway.he president's long-time personal attorney michael cohen. i saw him earlier walking toward the federal courthouse. there he is going past all the cameras, all the reporters, all the crews there waiting to catch a glimpse of him. we're also standing by for stormy daniels, the former porn star. she is going to be showing up in that courtroom as well. quite a spectacle anticipated. we have reporters, producers, cameras on the scene. we'll have full coverage of that. let's get back to the new comey back right now. comey, the former fbi director, talks about hillary clinton in the book as well and the reasons for his decision to reveal the existence of the investigation entered more of her e-mails a few days before the presidential election. >> i was operating in a world where hillary clinton was going to beat donald trump. so i'm sure that it was a factor. like i said, i don't remember spelling it out, but it had to have been, that she's going to be elected president, and if i hide this fr

one is a federal judge, former federal judge, mike burridge and his law partner, reggie whitten. both are victims of epidemic. judge burridge lost his niece to overdose. mr. whitton's son, great football player, god injured, prescribed opioids, lost his life due to that addiction n our state we are not just getting two great lawyers, but we have two oklahomans who want their loved ones death to mean something. that is data point i want to share with you. we focused in oklahoma on two other areas, not just litigation. we had a commission we stood up this past summer and fall. we made recommendations to the legislature to make sure we had all the tools on policy side of things we need to get handle on the epidemic, get people well. give law enforcement more tools. i'm happy to report, looks like everything we recommended on the legislative side will be passed by our legislature and sent on to the governor. we're also getting tough on prescribers being reckless with their responsibilities to their patient. this past summer we actually charged a doctor with five counts of second-degr

the federal reserve along with the other u.s. banking agencies has made substantial progress in building stronger regulatory and supervisory programs since the financial crisis. and the most important firms. these improvements have helped to build a more resilient financial system, one well-positioned to provide businesses, communities access to the credit they need even under challenging economic conditions. at the same time. we are mindful that just as there's a strong public interest in the safety and soundness of the financial system, there's a strong public interest in the efficiency. the financial sector is the critical mechanism for directing the flow of savings and investment in the economy in way that is support economic growth and economic growth in turn, is the fundamental pre-condition for rt continuing improvements for all citizens, as a result, the regulation of the system should support and promote the system's efficiency just tass promot -- as important as the safety. and transparent as possible and through majors

and federal government makes mistakes. have i realize that we secretary costa coming up next, he has not made any mistakes, just to be clear. but the federal government does and we've got some -- our representative from my home state of arkansas, u.s. senator tom cotton who has take an hardline approach, particularly with regard to fentanyl because we are seeing such an increase in fentanyl, synthetic fentanyl being mailed into the united states, how dangerous it is, such a small amount of fentanyl can wipe out an entire community. i'm not saying a small amount that's the size of this table. i'm talking about a small amount that's less than what is in this glass. can wipe out an entire community, the po tency of fentanyl and u.s. attorney attorney general jeff sessions has take an hard line approach. i think the federal government has finally woken up and certainly the administration has but it's woken up to the dangers of this problem and hopefully through some -- not litigation, that was a freudian slip, some legislation

they say keep the federal government out of our business. except this amendment declares if the decisions are not made to the liking of one federal official, he can step in and blow up that local decision making body. mr. chairman, i'm urging my colleagues, therefore, to oppose this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. lewis: i yield to the chairman for 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman yields. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. lewis. i thank the gentleman for offering this amendment. the metropolitan planning organizations were created to ensure local officials drive decisions about how federal highway and transit funds are spent. unfortunately for the gentleman's district, a loophole in the law undermines elected officials. the amendment ensures the structure of m.p.o.'s can be constructed by locally elected officials. i urge all members to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balan

we see federal funds rate. we expect it to go up 2.5% by the end of this year, by about 3.5% by the end of next year. we expect the fed will have to deal with these inflation ary pressures. you are right to focus on interest rates, because interest rates are one of the more uncertain parts of our forecast. we have such a high debt level that a little bit higher interest rate and a little bit lower interest rate the what we -- than what we are projecting makes a real difference in the interest cost that the federal government experiences. we obviously, what we have done is forecast -- because of the legislative changes, we expect interest rates to accelerate faster than we did before and get to a same sort of relatively high level that we expected all along. we think it is going to accelerate things faster. as we mentioned, if interest rates are higher or lower, that would make a pretty big impact on where we are with respect to debt in 10 years. things like tariffs, we have not had a chance to look at that much

today a federal judge rejected that request but ruled

now a federal judge is ruling that prioritizing federal money for those who participate in immigration enforcement would, quote, upset the constitutional balance. >> to make, for example, immigration a focus of a community-based policing grant, that alone was unconstitutional. and that will be no longer allowed. >> i think we're right. we're fundamentally right in this instance. >> reporter: 94-year-old u.s. federal judge manuel real issued this ruling. he served on this federal bunch since 1966 --bench since 1966 appointed by president johnson. a spokesman for the justice department said an appeal is likely. in a statement he said, the court chose to issue an injunction that's inconsistent with the law and that the federal government will continue to defend its position. in the newsroom, jackie ward, kpix 5. >>> on capitol hill amid ongoing protests, california representative says he has the support needed to force a vote in the house on four immigration bills to protect "dreamers." he would need support from 50 other gop members and most democrats to prompt house speaker paul ryan to

whether you're at the federal government are other federal -- or other federal agencies, state government, local governments, nongovernmental organizations, as well as the private sector. the private sector plays a key role. i look forward to talking more about it now. thank you. mr. cilluffo: thank you, dan. [applause] mr. cilluffo: thank you, dan. thank you for telling us in a short amount of time with what you are facing. i thought i would start where you ended. that was a discussion of the private sector in particular and critical infrastructure and the role it plays in ensuring vital services. i recently met -- i will not name the company, but a very large oil and gas company planning to factor in many weeks in a worst-case scenario they need to be able to survive under those sorts of conditions. is that unique that this company is looking in that direction? are you hearing from others? is that realistic to think that far out? mr. kaneiwski: yes, the private sector plays a critical role. it plays a critical role in different ways. one is critical operators. oil and gas, fema does not

the federal money however it chooses. enumeration for the census is the allocation of house seats and seats in the electoral college, and the constitution is clear, you count all persons except indians are untaxed. those are the rules of the constitution. if people want the constitution, there's a process for doing that. but instead they seem to want to thwart the constitution to achieve their results without an amendment by deliberately undercounting all immigrants, legal and illegal. they've got a three step program for doing that. create massive fear, starting by calling immigrants rapists and murderers. deportations. the fear in latino and asian communities is palpable. then you add this question, the census itself under the administration it says will lead to an undercount. then you add insult to injury by saying that the reason you are doing it is to enforce the voting rights act, that it's part of the trump program for latino empowerment. that's absolutely absurd. >> chris: let me bring mr. nelson and if i can, bec

that is why i work to secure parity in federal policy for my people, the native hawaiians. the united states has recognized hundreds of alaska native and american indian communities. it is long past time for the native hawaiian people to have the same rights, same privilege, and same opportunities as every other federally recognized native people. for more than 12 years now i have worked with the native hawaiian community and many others to develop the native hawaiian government reorganization act, which has the strong support of hawaii's legislature and governor as the best path forward towards reconciliation. my bill has incurred many challenges but it is right, it is long overdue. although i will not be the bill's sponsor in the 113th congress, it will forever bear my highest aspirations and heartfelt commitment to the native hawaiian people, the state of hawaii, and the united states of america. i know i'm just one in a long line working to ensure that our language, our culture, and our people continue to thrive for generations to come. hawaii has so much, i believe, to

since the early 1990's, federal courts have found the federal dam operations at the federal columbia river power system endanger the existence of the pacific northwest salmon runs and violate our nation's laws, including the endangered species act. as a result, federal agencies have been ordered several times to develop a new dam operation plan to recover the region's dwindling salmon populations. instead of requiring federal dam operations to finally come into compliance with the law, and develop a salmon recovery plan that works, h.r. 3144 locks in an outdated illegal plan until at least 2022, that will cause great harm to wild salmon, and struggling fishing communities. furthermore, this bill blocks recent court orders requiring additional salmon protection measures and -- at federal dams. it also bans federal agencies from even studying the possible changes to dam operations that can improve salmon survival, such as increased spill. in short, this bill causes great harm to wild salmon and many businesses, tribes and communities that depend on them. for these reasons, i urge my co

that happened in federal court in lower manhattan today, federal district court judge hearing arguments in this criminal case involving the president's personal lawyer, michael cohen. it was not only a remarkable case because we got the disclosure that one of cohen's clients is a cable news host who talks about cohen all the time without disclosing it's his lawyer. it's also remarkable because in the room at the same time as moek w michael cohen was stormy daniels and her lawyer, all together at the same time since the hush money became such a gigantic legal headache for the president. michael avenatti will be joining "the last word with lawrence o'donnell." which starts right now. good evening, lawrence. >> good evening. i want to stipulate off the bat because i think we have to do this now. i have two lawyers who are going to join me in the show. neither one of them have ever respected me in any legal matter at any time, i have never called either one of them to talk about any legal matter or nonlegal matter or anything like that. >> i -- yeah. >> just want you to know that, rachel. >