Go nats. Were here today talking about good things, reclation. And im going to keep my comments bereave because i know colleagues have been very engaged in this and a couple of you want to make some opening comments as well. But we have three pieces this morning that were kring, s 1665 which is sim pli fooigs access act. Senator hien lak calls it the sore act. I like the acronym. S1723, the ski area fee retention. We all love skiing. Already. Extraordinary. Cant wait. S1967, the reclation not red tape act from senator widen. This hearing is building off one that we held in march where we focused on improsk access ichb structure and permitting to meet the demand on our federal lands. The proposals that were looking at today i think are a good start in addressing those issues. Senator hien wick and widen have put forward legislation to streamline the systems in place to process permits for our outfitters, guides and nonprofits. Senator gardners bill would help facilitate the private inve
Same way they have in the past decade. And will talk more about why this is. Make sure we discuss what our response is going to be to this evolving problem. Weekrchers just last published a major scientific report. The report made it clear if we are ever going to get ahead of the problem the Forest Service needs to respond to wildfires in a fundamentally different way. A self reinforcing cycle of counter effective actions. The same keep using tired approaches we have for the last 100 years. We need to make sure we are focused on getting different results. Common sense tells us our response these to be modified now that the problem is different. The Service Report does a great job tell great job summing up what the report needs to do. Altering the current trajectory will require a total system transformation. States thebluntly status quo increases losses we suffer from wildfires and significantly affects the ability to meet the core mission. We need new solutions. My chairg to work with
Study on black america with the moynihan report. We will show you the report on reducing crime in the wake of violence in baltimore. The former Maryland Governor is on the panel and covers drug legalization and broken families. This is an hour and ten minutes. Morning. We can get started. Again, good morning, everyone. My name is jason riley. I am single fellow at the Manhattan Institute for policy research and i would like to welcome everyone to the symposium entitled prosspects for black america and moynihan report turns 50. If you are looking for a White America symposium you are in the wrong room. That would be any of the other rooms in the building. I will be brief with my remarks because we have excellent panelist lined up and i want to give them as much time as possible. I will get a chance to speak later on this man. I started working at the Manhattan Institute for policy research in february of this year. But the idea for this conference on race first occurred to me many years
America. And there are still barriers like in my state tragically and it gets back to the earlier question cynthia, about jobs. In new york state, we have the same shale gas resource that they do in pennsylvania. In pennsylvania, they have 60 to 80,000 jobs good paying jobs developing that domestic source of clean gas. In new york state, we have a moratorium we have nothing. And we need to develop resources like that. The second thing i do on energy is create an integrated north american concept of energy independence. Canada developed massive resources. That was why the Keystone Pipeline was going to bring canadian oil to our gulf coast refineries, replacing oil from venezuela. I think that would have been a very good thing. Mexico is just changed its rules so they can bring in American Investment and technology to develop their oil and gas resources. So we can create a north American Energy powerhouse that makes us not reliant at all on the middle east or unstable overseas sources of
Misleading by omission. I point the court to page 295 of that decision where it said cloak of office phrase is not inherently novel or objectional way of describing the action. In this setting to consider criminal conduct both and describes conduct that was not potentially criminal. Did the trial court there cite the statute explain the statute to the jury or not. No your honor. First Circuit Decision wasnt turning on instruction, it was turning on whether the conduct alleged was illegal. The instruction could encompass lawful action it didnt. Here if you instruct the jury as your honor was saying that official action potentially includes everything under the sun, when it in fact does not potentially include everything under the sun. Thats not what it did. You have to tell them what it doesnt include. This is an area thats some black official action some white not official and some gray. The District Court only instructed on black, didnt instruct on any of the gray. Gave the good faith