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

including disaster aid and federal insurance program and federal property and land. the rising number of disasters are a key source of federal fiscal exposure since 2005 federal funding for disaster assistance is at least $450 billion according to the global change research program the cost are projected to increase as certain extreme weather events become more frequent and intense due to climate change. in addition the national flood insurance program and federal crop insurance program are sources of federal exposure in part to the vulnerability of the insured property and crops due to climate change 2013 through 2017 bosses paid under these programs told us 51.$3 billion as of april of this year, the national flood insurance program was $21 billion in debt to the treasury. with regard to federal property that government owns hundreds of thousands of facilities such as defense installations and manages millions of acres of land that could be affected by climate change. for example in september 2018 hurricane florence damaged camp lejeune and other marine corps facil

of importantot components to federal privacy legislation. bill you mentioned certainly delve into and we know other legislation will be introduced. our hope is that it will be bipartisan because this is a bipartisan issue. needs tomer focus here be on empowering consumers to know what their rights are, focus onbe a transparency, needs to be a focus on control and so our hope the eventual passage of federal privacy law will have those components. steve: do you think releasing this bill which only has democratic support, does that hasten or hamper the prospect of getting to bipartisan legislation? jason: our understanding is that fore is bipartisan support this, in the senate. in the house we've certainly from discussions with members from both sides of the aisle that this is incredibly a broadt and there's understanding. we know there's understanding of this legislation because members theyintroduced it, that understand the value of federal privacy legislation but bipartisan support is necessary move everything through isgress and our expecta

i think president trump intends to rollback federal spending and deal with the federal debt in the second term, and he should put out a concrete plan that the nation can have a referendum on and that he is promising to do. and he should challenge democrats and republicans to be with him on the plan or not. host: do deficits matter? dick cheney famously said they don't. guest: well, they do. you look at federal spending, and you mentioned that trump was worried about not having enough defense spending, the number one thing spent on is the department of health and human services, which includes health care spending. the second thing is social security, which you have the baby boomers retiring. the third thing is the department of defense, which last year spent more than $615 billion. a lot of money. not like we're spending a little money, we are spending a lot of money on defense. does the federal government have a great many things they can cut? without question. host: the issue is, is this sustainable? the issue came up in november with jerome powell, the fed chair. you will hear from ohi

is it exxon or the federal government? >> i will turn that over to sam scanner. >> (laughs) >> as you know as the president indicated, one of the major objectives was to off-load a tanker that had 40 million gallons of fuel, that has now been done, as a result of that off-loading operation and conversations that we've had in the last two days, the coast guard has taken a greater role and the overall cleanup, obviously as a result of the president's made today will have a more significant role, admiral roast will be going to alaskan the not too near future again to make sure that that effort is coordinated but to answer your question is the coast guard the overall coordinator, there is one that designates attacks on, the state of alaska, the other military organizations who will be supporting him within there in command structures. >> sure the federal government take over part, of a use had federalize a sham beyond prince williams town, house right now the president's decisions on that. >> i'm satisfied that the president h

federal efforts. we made a total of 62 recommendations and as a december of last year, 25 of these recommendations remain open. some of these identify key governmentwide efforts needed to help plan for and manage climate risk and direct federal effort to a common goal, such as improving resilience him and this completes my opening statement. much -- thank. >> i'm dave jones and i served as the senior director for conservancy. i had the privilege of serving california's insurance commissioner. scientist concluded global temperature rises contributing to catastrophic weather events, sea level rise, hurricanes, coastal river flooding, wildfires are made more severe and more frequent but global temperature rise. these events are resulting in loss-of-life and destruction. these events produce economic and insurance losses. these losses arising over time. from 19 -- damages associating with extreme weather events causing $1 billion or more in damages across u.s. economy. in 2017, global economic losses from

we appreciate the movement forward at the federal level. there are a lot of important components to federal privacy legislation that the bill will delve into. we know of the legislation will be introduced. our hope is it will be bipartisan because this is a bipartisan issue. the consumer focus needs to be on empowering consumers to know what their rights are, needs to be a focus on transparency, needs to be a focus on control. our hope is the passage of federal privacy law will have all of those components. >> do you think releasing this bill with only democratic support, does that hasten or hamper the prospect of getting to bipartisan legislation? >> guest: there is bipartisan support for this in the senate, in the house. we had seen and your coverage has shown from discussions with members from both sides of the out this is an incredibly important issue, there is a broad understanding. there's understanding from this legislation because members have introduced it. they understand the value. bipartisan support is necessary to move everythi

if the federal government doesn't take action. states will move in the absence of federal momentum. i totally understand states wanting to move forward. it's very important to have federal legislation. we have something moving quickly. >> why do you think the washington state bill didn't pass this year? do you know what happened there? >> the state sessions are shorter. they brought up the issue and had conversations about coming to an agreement. they have more knowledge and awareness around the issue. there will be more clarity in what they are dealing with. they go on the federal side and we have a few different bills. it was a strong bipartisan peace of legislation. we have to get beyond the concept and principal and move forward on specific legislation. i'm hopeful we'll do that this coming year. >> representative, you spoke about competing bills. they are working on a bill and one thing that's a result from that is a separate agency to take a look. would you go that far as something you would endose. >> my legislation has th -- the authority to be responsible. it's opposed the

it is important that we have federal legislation. and we have something moving quickly. >> why do you think the washington state building not pass? the state session it's a little bit shorter. this will come up again. more knowledgeot and awareness around the issue. there will be a little bit more clarity. it is the same process we are going through on the federal side. we need to sit down and hammer out the differences. come up with a strong bipartisan piece of legislation. we need to move forward on specific legislation. >> you talked about competing bills. of the things that would result out of that would be a separate agency to take a look at issues of privacy. would you go that far? rep. delbene: my legislation has the ftc as the authority. i think we can do that. we need to realize that these are ongoing issues. we have issues that expand beyond data privacy. how data is portable. things like facial recognition and artificial intelligence. we need to set up the basic structure. make sure this expands going forward. that we have

we were the first association to say on behalf of an industry we need federal privacy legislation and this is an currently important for the industry and important for consumers and the components of that privacy legislation that we think are important as one, we can needs to be federal that we need a unified national privacy law that allows both innovators and consumers to aid, know what their rights are and be, how that they are an effective balance of both knowing those rights and still having access to innovative services that consumers demand. >> we appreciate the movement forward at the federal level. there are a lot of important components to federal privacy legislation but the bill you mentioned certainly will delve into and we know other legislation will be introduced. our hope is we will be bipartisan because, of course, this is a bipartisan issue. the consumer focus here needs to be on empowering consumers to know what their rights are and a focus on transparency. needs to be a focus on control. our hope is the eventual passage of federal privacy law will have all those com

something federal?ep. delbene: i think it makes total sense that the states are moving. they are trying to protect their constituents. that makes sense. even in my state of washington, there was an effort in the last election to move statewide data privacy legislation. i'm sure that will come back again in the next session if the federal government doesn't take action. so, states will move in the absence of federal momentum. i think we need a federal law but i totally understand the states moving forward if they don't think the federal government is moving. another reason it's important that we have federal legislation and we have something moving quickly. ashley: why do you think the washington state bill did not pass this year? the state session is a little bit shorter. this will come up again. people have a lot more knowledge and awareness around the issue. there will be a little bit more clarity in terms of what they are dealing with. same process we're going through on the federal side. we have a f

so if you have been reporting that he asked for federalization, he has not asked for federalization. yes, sir, and then you. >> what is your position on the liability? is exxon liable for returning the environment to a near pristine condition, and will exxon be asked to foot part of the bill? >> yes. exxon has been spending millions of dollars a day. we are talking about additional support from exxon, and administrator riley has been discussing with them, the need to be stored for the environment, and number one, they are liability, and they have acknowledged liability, and working with us in putting the funds available to restore, and recover and to repair and all of that is going on a concerted basis with the coast guard. >> let me follow up. when you were here last week, mr. riley said that he had mentioned to exxon the added request of cleaning up the beaches, and doing the extra work to get it to a more natural state and as i recall their response to you was that it was an interesting idea. can you tell us -- >> no, what you are referring to is that they considered establishing

so they've now become more organized by their interaction in the federal government and the federal government is literally organizing groups of farmers into committees so that they can kind of plan how much tobacco they will produce an a subsequent years. so these elite to tobacco farmers are coming together in various places across north carolina saying what are we going to do about the postwar readjustment? we can't let what happened after the first happen again after the second world war. so what do they have now but they didn't have after world war i, but they have now is proximity to government, proximity to power, they have a whole bureaucracy. they have a whole bureaucracy that is interested in their well-being that there hadn't been before. the new deal did inaugurate a way of giving government that gave power and benefits to privileged groups and in this case it was producers, tobacco farmers and you can see this in a lesser extent als but also to organized labor there was a theory of how the economy should work if you could get producers to essentially form organizations to get thei

so these farmers get caught completely off guard. >> so, because of federal policy. it has encouraged the organization of some easily tobacco farmers. the industry season-opening to make an alliance with tobacco farmers during the 1950s through arguably, the present day. and so, at that cinematic meeting in the new york plaza hotel in 1953, it's not just the tobacco corporate executives. not just of the executive of philip morris, there are representatives of tobacco and are agricultural groups as well. as part of the organization - - they organized an agricultural offshoot of the big tobacco conspiracy. organized a group called the tobacco growers information committee in the early 1950s. that's intended to basically translate industry propaganda for an agricultural audience with the idea that farmers who are this constituency be loved by politicians. important to politicians, because they are more numerous than people that work for big corporations. that farmers may be in fact, a very down-home ally for the big tobacco companies as they try to make arguments agains

casualties are reported after a shooting in central moscow me the federal security service building. the news u.s. tech giants are being sued for allegedly abetting in the deaths of children in cobalt mines in the democratic republic of congo parents of those killed said the companies had all the means to prevent the deaths. and from the possibility of amending the russian constitution to the doping scandal for me you sanctions through impeachment proceedings stateside the russian president's annual q. and a session as wrapped up in moscow spanning more than 4 hours. of intense joining us here on r.t. to nashville where we start with breaking news from central moscow because numerous shots have been fired in the immediate vicinity of the federal security service building or thought he's the shooter has been neutralized his identity that has yet to be confirmed here is video of the moment of the shooting. ok let's get an update from our correspondents who are on location in central moscow now remind. for us not far from where the shooting occurred 1st. no i like where you are. hello t

the charges of federations the status of the federation of always lives on the i.o.c. charter announces a proclaims the independence of all federations it provides all the conditions to review matches in cassis so if the i.o.c. charges like a bible for us the right now the code seems to become more important in the i.o.c. charter. which is a fundamental. piece of legislation that's all sports federations use we need to bring sports back give sports back to the sports organizations there have been a lot of negative events. you know there's been a lot of violations doping rules around the world spain the u.s. germany you know the sort. all of the leagues in the u.s. have their own enter dopping rules what does that mean your us are they cannot. introduce the full called of barter so a lot of. are not covered by water right now they're discussing the russian cover law what does that mean in effect this runs counter to the i.o.c. charter there's a blow to independence of sports federations and its american cause there will look into it and not chaos including on this ports

states relinquishing much of their reserved powers into the federal government and also to federal funding. this is has allowed the federal government to become more involved in issues traditionally left to the states and local communities and is highly centralized government is a poor fit or a country as large and as diverse as america . federalism should allow for 50 different models of governance suited to the particular needs of the nations individual states. and within the confines of the constitution, states should be free to enact policies that best serve the needs of their citizens and in this respect federalism fosters competition among the states and competition betweenstates encourages innovation and helps create a more efficient government . as a general principle the government closest to a problem should be the one addressing it in our humble opinion and for that reason we believe that congress should leave to the state any program that does not carry out the constitutional function of the federal government. governor dunleavy will speak with us this morning about the success

it's a crime to be a federal official who lies on your federal financial disclosure.hich is why the president had to humiliatingly revise his last financial disclosure to reflect the fact that, yes, he did make the illegal hush money payments that his lawyer went to prison for. i mean, he's going to have to make that kind of revision with this giuliani stuff, too. but, again, it's not optional. this is a legal thing. and the line between the political scandal and the sort of public humiliation and the crime in this presidency, and specifically around this impeachment scandal, is getting very, very woolly. i mean, mr. giuliani himself is reportedly the target of a federal criminal investigation, which has resulted thus far in subpoenas to lots of entities and individuals who have done business with mr. giuliani and his consulting firm. one of the two handsome prom dates who accompanied mr. giuliani on his adventures in ukraine tomorrow is due back in federal court in new york where prosecutors are asking for lev parnas' bail conditions to be revoked. currently out on h

within our federal government, awarding 26 agencies federal grants, and all of them outdated, o rely on burdensome, document-based forms and track grant dollars. society has moved into a new age information and technology, and it's time that our suit.ment follows the great act represents bipartisan legislation to federal grant reporting process. mandating a o by standardized data structure for information that recipients agencies.federal unless the reporting grants ents for federal are searchable, the auditing yield will continue to waste and inefficiency at best fraud and abuse at worse. adopting a governmentwide open structure for all the information grantees report will compliance burdens, grantors nsights for and agencies in congress, and for analyticscess and program evaluation. the distinguished gentleman from and therefore -- igitiz ing would provide greater scrutiny how the money is spent. ensure allow grantees to it goes back into communities upporting local businesses, organizations, and education. lastly, the great act has a broad breath of support from an array of governm

and arise under federal law. there is no skelly oil problem here. i believe the federal government agrees with us on that. they have a footnote on the brief actually. i see i am just about out of time. i am happy to answer any additional questions. otherwise, we would ask the court to affirm the judgment below in its entirety. thank you, your honor. >> i am with the justice department here on behalf of the federal government defendants. i plan to go through three points. i'll go quickly through the ones the court has already addressed in detail. the first, why this court has jurisdiction to address the merits. the second is why the plaintiff's claims succeeds on the merits and third, why the district court's judgment should be limited to injuries the plaintiffs have standing to pursue your. first, in the court's supplemental briefing order, some of them are complicated, but there is a simple answer. i think all the parties agree, which is this case follows the windsor model. critically, to that, the united states

it was a federal case. federal rational basis case. we negated every possible conceivable rationale the government came up with. which is the job of the government, to come up with totally n if it's unrelated to the law. this is how bad these cases had become. it boiled down to the question whether protection itself for no state was a rational basis. that case was about whether you could win a rational basis challenge and we did. the district court said protectionism is not a legitimate interest. he state of tennessee appealed to the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. we won again. same logic. we negated every rational. protectionism is not a legitimate government interest. that was the first economic in half a sis win century. we brought another case in oklahoma, same law, same fact, same situation. negate every possible rationale. it boils down to whether protectionism is itself a legitimate interest under the constitution and we lose. we appeal. we lose again. the logic is so outrageous, i want to pull up the quote. i want

does that provide the basis for a federal claim?ing the if you put the fourth amendment aside butut the action was ide contrary to border patrol policy, would that provide the basis for a federal claim. he >> notac forti a djs suit of co. >> yes. e th >>e it is our position just too back to my colloquy with justice gorsuch, again, the reason why we believe this is in the justic heartland of bivins notwithstanding the concerns that the chief justice has referred to as justice kavanaug alluded to is because here we do not have a case where the claim is that a particular policy of the united states in the foreign relations or national security sphere was the source of the injury to the plaintiffs. here our argument is that the ea policy is actually coextensive y with the constitution and to s that if we are correct which wes have not yetive of course had chance to prove, but if we are c correct that respondent violated petitioner -- or sergio hernandez's constitutional rights then it would also be a violation of policy. so to us the qu

corridors on federal land. it is my understanding the bolts apartment of the interior and the forest service are now incrementing that important measure. now, we must turn our attention to what can be done to harden our energy input structure and improve the resiliency of our grid in high fire risk areas during these extreme weather conditions for this is a compex problem that will require collaboration at all levels and partnerships with the electric industry so i think those of you who have joined us this morning to provide important testimony and i think colleagues for being here and i will now turn to senator manchin for his comments before we begin the panel. >> thank you, chairman murkowski. i want to take a moment of personal time here if i can. today will be the last meeting of a person who's been with me for a long time in my committee and she has been with me in my state office, not the state office but my dc office and my chief counsel there and moved over when i became raking member as the director

my story also shows it doesn't have to be at the federal level to be meaningful. so, you know, activists can try to implement wall laws at the fl or state level and those have tremendous success in the history of the cigarettes of changing attitudes towards the presence of tobacco smoke and society at large. >> host: how did the cover come about? >> guest: it is the property of harvard university press. >> host: talk about in a moment or two that are left, tobacco as a model to taking on the big hard challenges societal issues, climate change. >> guest: i do see lessons in this but maybe i'm just an optimist. not that many people read about tobacco can feel optimistic. but i think that a key take away of this book is that the federal government for a lot of this entry has been organized around the interest of industries and producers. you can see that with climate change, tobacco, you might be able to see that with guns as well. but they are not just made by the federal government, and so one les lesson and anti-tobacco activists is the power of the local mall to

what he was saying was that even though there is a federal statute, that does not get you into federal court automatically just by invoking that statute. instead, what the court needs to ask is, under the inverse hypothetical courses, would that be long in state or federal court? if the answer is federal court, then there is no problem. then he says yes, there is federal jurisdiction. if the hypothetical course is in state court, you do not get into federal court just by virtue of the judgment act. i think that is what he is saying. the hypothetical to enforce the aca will be brought by the federal government if it arrives under federal law. there is no problem there. i believe the federal government agrees with us on that. they have a footnote on the brief to that effect. >> i am just about out of time. i am happy to answer any additional questions. otherwise, we would ask the court to upper and the judgment below in its entirety. mr. hawkins: thank you, your honor. >> i am with the justice department here on behalf of the federal government defendants. i plan to go through three poin

states of e repowers into federal funding. this is allowed federal government to become more involved in issues that would traditionally left to states and to local communities. and this highly centralized government is a poor fit for a country as large and as diverse with as america. federalism should allow for50 different model of governess suited to particular needs of thing nation individual states. and within the confines of the constitution, the state should be free to enact policy that best serve needs of their setses. and this respect federalism fosters competition among the states and competition between states encourages innovation and helps create a more -- efficient government . s general principle government closest to a problem should be one addressing in in our humble opinion for that reason we believe that congress should leave to states any program that does not carry out a constitutional function of the federal the government. governor delaney will speak with us this morning about the successes that alaska ha

what is new is the interest the federal government in shoring up government as well. in producing policy that ensures farmers have a standard of living that they had not been assured before. >> whose leading who? is it because the companies had interest? they stimulated interest? >> i think there's a political calculation on the part of southern democrat. these constituents that are important, there's many more constituents that are farmers and they had constituents that were tobacco farmers. in part, it's about both button part it's about an economic theory about how to empower different groups in modern economy. if you have an imbalance between agricultural sector and industrial sector in consumer sectors, it might lead to another depression. it's important for the federal government to shore up these different groups of americans and make sure there was economic harmony. >> let me give an assertion, tobacco really was never good for the farmers, it was good for the corporation. it's hard to wrap my mind about what i know. so because of federal policy that was direc

what we call federalism. the constitution created a limited federal government left much the power to the states and to the people of the united states. but of course what exists today is that we had created a highly centralized government. the state's relinquishing much of their reserved powers into the federal government and also to federal funding. this is to allow the federal government to become more involved in issues that were traditional left to the states and communities. and that's highly centralized government has been a poor fit for a country as large and as diverse as america. federalism should allow for 50 different models of governance suited to the particular needs of the nation's individual states. and within the confines of the constitution, essay should be free to enact policy that best serves the needs of their citizens. in this respect, federalism fosters competition among the states and competition between states encourages innovation and helps create a more efficient government. as a ge

if the answer is federal court, then he says yes, there is federal jurisdiction. if the hypothetical course is in state court, you do not get into federal court just by virtue of the judgment act. that is what he is saying. the hypothetical to enforce the aca will be brought by the federal government. there is no problem there. i believe the federal government agrees with us on that. they have a footnote on the brief actually. i am just about out of time. i am happy to answer any additional questions. otherwise, we would ask the court to upper and the judgment below in its entirety. -- >> i am just about out of time. i am happy to answer any additional questions. otherwise, we would ask the court to upper and the judgment below in its entirety. mr. hawkins: thank you, your honor. >> i am with the justice department on behalf of the federal government defendants. i plan to go through three points. i will go quickly through the ones the court has already addressed in detail. the first is why this court has jurisdiction to address the merits. the second is why the pl

host: jimmy carter and federal ford took federal matching dollars. now we have federal billing errors -- federal billionaires in the race. as someone who covers money in politics, it seems like those days are gone. ggie: some candidates' proposals include bringing back a public financing system. that was an astute point from ellen weintraub, that the biggest impact from citizens united is not the money in the campaign-finance system, it is the empowerment of the people funding the system. it is a completely different world. a lot of democrats running for president would like to bring back some kind of system where congress puts money into campaign coffers, something to overhaul the system. appetite for it in washington. michelle: technology and the behavior of donors are evolving so much quicker than agency is equipped to handle. now they don't even have enough people to move forward. host: we will follow your work at politico and the washington post. thanks for being on "newsmakers." q&a, a wallght, on street trader turned photojournalist on his boo

i was wondering if the guest was aware the federal reserve has started quantitative easing 4. there has been a liquidity injection into the markets. the fed is about to become the biggest buyer of u.s. treasuries which means the federal reserve find iting money and i is quite remarkable considering we are supposed to be in the greatest economy ever that we are running trillion dollar deficits and that the fed is once again expanding its balance sheet, bailing out stocks, bonds, buying treasuries, allowing the government to keep things borrowed at a low interest rate through printed money, which could later lead to the depreciation -- the dollar has been depreciating forever, but a further devaluation of the dollar. i really hope you could address a couple of those points i made and talk about whether you think that is right or wrong. i think monetization of the debt is something banana republics do. understand this is happening and largely has to do with an issue calling repose that come at this time of the year as banks needed the liquidity and this is a process the federal r

it was a federal case, federal rational basis case. we negated every possible conceivable rationale that the government came up with, which is the job of the government to come up with stuff even if it was totally unrelated to the law. the case boiled down to -- this is how bad it was. the case boiled down to whether protections itself from no other state was a rational basis test. that case was about whether you could actually win a rational basis challenge. and we did. we won. the district court said the protectionism is not a legitimate test. everyone again, same logic. we negated every rationale, and protectionism is not a legitimate government interest. that was the first federal economic liberty rational basis win. another case in oklahoma, same law, same situation, negate every possible rationale. the case boils down to whether protectionism itself was a legitimate government interest under the u.s. constitution, and we lose in u.s. district court. so we appealed to the 10th circuit and we lose again. outrageous, that i want to

government for federal debt. in fact, let the -- we can go back and pull the records, but i'd like to enter the record of exactly that language that went in there, the vote on it and the comments about it, making our schools of higher education more accountable because, obviously, young people have been misled. i come across young people all the time and their first request is, could you please forgive my student loan debt. because they were ill advised. and frankly, this thing kind of ramped up in the last, you know -- well, i've been a member -- this is my third term. i think began hearing about this about ten years ago. of course, the idea then is every person should get a college degree so the idea is, okay, we're going to loan people the money and not tell them how in the world they're going to pay it back. and that's wrong. and the federal government -- i put the blame right here on this body. whoever came up with this idea in the beginning and did not put into place and provide for -- and to keep young peo

>> federal student aid has a chief operating officer responsible for the operations of federal student aid. general brown is responsible as the chief operating. >> when did he come on board. >> he assumed the coo role nine months ago and he was with the department for four months before that. -- >> so you respond him responsibility to ensure he complies. >> who did you put in charge? >> we continue to be intentional about complying with the court order. we have acknowledged -- >> answer my question, who is responsible for the court orde. >> the chief operating officer of federal student aid is responsible for the operation of federal student aid. >> you referring to mr. brown but he did not come in until nine months ago? >> there was an acting chief operating officer. >> who was at. >> that preexisted him, james manning as an acting and prior to that has continued to increase the staff in is this area to be able to really address them in a very timely manner. and has hired many additional attorneys to be able to look at each claim individually as it must and should be done. general, wo

do they have a counter to the federal county machine. know, president trump had a list of approved nominees. he went around and told people these are the people that he wants to put on courts. that's what he had done. but, for the life of me, i can't figure out what democrats are hoping. they're hoping ruth bader ginsburg survives and does not get reelected. >> ruth bader ginsburg as important as that seat is, is just one seat. those are lifetime appointments. >> the supreme court gets a lot of the noise and the big amendment cases. this is where we hear the big abortion cases. they only get there -- my concern and this is working out his appointees of younger than obama appointees. this is how you get to the supreme court, a circuit split. if we have a lot of conservatives in those appellate courts, maybe we'll not have a split. # 7,000 or so, actually -- the appellate court called the policymaking courts because they really decide what the law is. >> you are right. we don't cover as much. >> let's talk about the vacancies. as of decemb

>> if you had a federal program? >> yes. >> they would have to choose whether or not to keep the existing program, which would be a nightmare for businesses to figure out which one they're going through, but, yes, when you have a federal program, the tax rate would start out relatively low and grow over time. i talked to some insurers in new york, they go through a private insurance market. they said we're in the business now but we can't stay in the business unless they increase the tax rates. it won't be affordable to us. you also mentioned in your opening statement about the impact of the tax cuts and job act and how that the boom in the economy, record low unemployment. all this that is out there. i know i have several businesses, many businesses in my district and hundreds of them across the state of georgia that are voluntarily offering multiple benefits from higher wages to benefits with leave and all sorts of things because they're more profitable. can you talk about how the tax cut affected private industry

the federal government should not be putting up barriers to owning a home. we need to get rid of the salt cap and stop punishing homeowners. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. . the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 748 resolved, that any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 729, to amend the coastal zone management act of 1972 to authorize grants to indian tribes to further achievement of tribal coastal zone objectives, nd for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resou

we filed it in federal court in louisiana. let me play you the video, it is going to be the last video i play. i love the videos. we have a great team of people who are video production people. is the video we released before we filed the lawsuit. >> the monks feel we have a right to an honest living through the building and the state. >> but louisiana does not respect that right so they have taken the pelican state to federal court. as monks have done for centuries, the brothers put food on their table through the labor of their own hands. abbeyks of st. joseph's have been making caskets for over 100 years. >> people who ask for them want to share in that noble simplicity our coffins express. >> my husband wanted to have a simple aerial. he wanted to have a simple wooden coffin and the monks were able to provide that. >> it is a crime to sell a casket unless you are a licensed funeral director. they have launched proceedings to punish them. monks face crippling fines and even jail. they also lost an important way of supportin

these amendments would forward a federal state-partnership -- federal-state partnership, a community partnership to address another armful consequence, which is killing our oceans. -- harmful consequence, which is killing our oceans. these amendments would address coastal resiliency. how do we prevent our ?oastlines from eroding moo my own home state of hawaii -- in my own home state of hawaii, we have seen significant erosion. significant increases in sea level over a very, very recent period of time, that has caused major erosion. how can we adopt better overall programs that adapt to a changing ocean and do not worsen the problem of coastal erosion? how do we do that? these amendments get at these issues. these are good, solid, positive additions that our colleagues have come up with to strengthen a good, solid and positive bipartisan bill. i support these amendments and i yield my time. the chair: the gentleman from hawaii yields his time. the gentleman from utah is recognized. mr. bishop: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate, especially the availability of putting all of these a

land for prevention and response and authorizing federal agencies to share satellite data. we know that addressing this risk must start with us and our own operations and that is why we are focused on the safety and riskio based approach to the ris facing the company and industry and let me conclude by saying that we remain committed to doing everything in our power to build a better and safer future for all, that is what our customers deserve and thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you. welcome. thank you very much for having me before the committee to discussh this issue. there are present threats presented by wildfire in at least in the california context they raise significant questions regarding how a bishop be obligated during increasingly common and a dangerous drive highway and events. as bill johnson just discussed, pg and e. has faced enormous threats to its system and has for the first time this year used widespread safety shutoffs as a tool to create safety and as you mentioned in your opening remarks, this isn't just an issue for the role or remote parts of

muro federal building where 168 people perished. many of them federal workers. as we honor those killed that day, we must come together across the aisle and reject the idea of politically motivated violence. we must do it every day and not just on the anniversary of that tragedy. mr. president, we can do this. we can do this. i have confidence we can do it because we've done something like it before. i mentioned -- at the outset of my remarks our universal respect for our fellow citizens and aspiring citizens who serve in the military, but it wasn't always universally so. during the war in vietnam many of us remember how polarized and divided our country was and how in some cases disagreement over the war morphed for some into directing anger at our troops, but this country learned from that mistake. we turned the tide. we came together and now we have near universal agreement that it's wrong to blame service members for carrying out decisions to go to war that they had no part in making themselves. that you can disagree with the war but still embrace the warrio

and i think the federal government ought to add to that.money that comes down for kids with learning disabilities, those parents are deserving to be in the front of the line. [applause] for a democrat, i have pretty good credentials on this issue. issue. there was one charter school in america when i became president. we found that about 2,000 at the time i left office and left money for a thousand more and now there are 66,000 in the country. so, -- >> i took your money and started the first charter school in miami. [laughter] here is the deal. it's like everything else once every institution tends to become institutionalized what we found is when we set up the charter school, the deal was supposed to be you can keep the charter as well as you do as well or better and there's a demand for your service. you also have a lot of rules and regulations school districts might otherwise have. the benefits of what you have learned in the school and you share it with others. that's where the breakdown in the charter system has been mac once you've b