So we can debate the law and what is appropriate but we cant give criminals a free pass toig north law or the laws that reason pass to ignore the laws or the laws that are on the books. Im sorry, i must oppose the amendment and strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. The chair does the gentleman reserve . Mr. Calvert i reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman from california reserves his time. The gentleman from alabama is recognized. Thank you mr. Chairman. With all due respect to my colleague from california, no one is in favor of allowing criminals to commit crimes at any level of federal government. Palm palm or any part of the country mr. Palmer or any part of the country. I think it should be troubling to every member of this body that we have gone over the line in regard to becoming what could be viewed as a police state. In regard to the raid on the Wastewater Treatment facility, that is a city facility. That is the federal government sending armed agents and
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
Hackers started getting jobs doing security. Next well hear from federal and local officials on some of the technologies that can be used to reduce and prevent wildfires across the country. They testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Hearing this month. This is just under two hours. Good morning. The committee will come to order. Were here today to take a look at wildfire, to examine our wildFire Management program, the collaboration that is required to reduce risks firefighters, to communities, and resources and some of the emerging technologies that are changing the way that fires are managed. We now well into the 2017 fire season. Certainly a very active one. My friend from montana, i think, is going to share some of what is happening in his state this morning, and i think it is appropriate to recognize the heroic acts of the man and women who fight these fires throughout the season, and to recognize the loss of the firefighter in montana. Senator . Madam chair
Protect our watershed. Were also involved in a project with the Forest Service, bureau of reclamation city and national tore rest foundation to treat the 634,000 acre watershed that drains into the cc craigen reservoir. The projects were currently involved with highlight the need to improve federal policy to more efficiently make progress in restoring our forests and protecting our watersheds. Specifically there is a need to improve both Fire Suppression budgeting and the planning and compliance process for restoration proper skrektss. The cc craigen is a perfect example of why we need to address both issues at the same time. We appreciate the priority of the tore rest service and department of interior have praised on this project, however, despite the significance funding and staff dedicated, it is expected to take at least two if not three years before any thinning can be done on the ground. This is too long to simply hope that a fire doesnt destroy the craigen watershed. We must fi
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