Back i could only respond through that email. But what i meant to say is we couldnt find out who was sending it. It was obvious that they were english speaking, however, because, you know, of the commander language. Was there specifics about a ransom number or conditions . When they initially reached out to us, yes. It was ridiculous. Like they wanted 100 million euro or all muslim prisoners kind of thing. And you know, fbi, you know, of course we right away sent tight the fbi and they just said keep them talking, keep them talking. But within a few emails when they realized they were just talking to the family, they had absolutely no interest. And so they cut off discussions until the only other time, sir, was when the french came out in march of 2014, they came out with another very specific offer to negotiate for all americans and all of the british. And your primary source of contact in the United States was the fbi . We had no primary source. I did have one we had one fbi agent wh
To put forward, so, i commend the u. S. Senate proappropriatio committee providing some assistance in that regard. I want to just invite david to ask, to address whether the, whether we can wait another 30 or 40 or 50 years to take action and expect not to have consequences. Thank you for the question. Not acting increases the cost of action. The longer we delay in action will increase the cost of action. Because we will have infrastructure lock in and other dynamics that will make it increasingly difficult to in fact shift to low carbon xwhis. We have the opportunity and i think we in fact are on the trajectory as lisa and others have said, we are on the trajectory of moving very rapidly toward that low carbon economy. The price of solar panels for example has fallen 75 in the last five years. And we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs in doing so . And we are in fact creating, there are 100,000 jobs in texas alone. Thank you. I want to welcome sam adams, who works with the World
The Justice Department statistics show that nationally only 16 of state prisoners are in for drug crimes and less than 4 are there for drug possession. And yet, our very president is going around stating an untruth. That is because this is an administration i think that is ruled by an ideology that claims that Law Enforcement is somehow racist. And that, as you say, is a disservice to officers of all colors who are there to help the good people in the community. Mr. Mccarthy, you rightly observed that the title this hearing, the war on police, is directed more broadly than just the department of justice. But it is rather what i see as a pervasive, to use a term of art, pattern and practice across the federal government and this administration, and indeed, i think no one bears more direct responsibility than the president. As ms. Macdonald just noted, president obama has directly tried to attack his own fbi director for observing that Violent Crime and homicides are increasing. We saw a
It was also to include the priorities, on both sides of the aisle as well as in the committee. And outside the committee. We agreed to clear the bill to clear exports. It was written by senator barrasso and others, agreed to include major efficiency bill headed up by senators portman and shaheen and include mineral security that i met with senators about the use of hydro power, clean renewable resource favored by almost everyone in the chamber. We agreed to expedite Natural Gas Pipelines without sacrificing any environmental review, this was an effort led by senator cavanaugh. We agreed to a new oil and gas permitting pilot program, one of several ideas, we picked up a proposal from senator collins to boost the efficiency of schools, we agreed to approve our nations cybersecurity based on legislation for senators rich and we made innovation a key priority to promote development of new technology. As part of that we agreed to reauthorize many of the Energy Related portions thanks to lea
Issue. I commend the epa for working on this rule. Do you have a conference that this final rule is protective of health and the environment, are there gaps in the protections under this rule that would need to be filled by legislation . I believe the rule is very strong and very protective. And in terms of any gaps we dont believe there are any gaps. We believe all the risks are put in place. All the rigorous technical information. What about beneficial reuse . Will this rule restrict beneficial reuse in anyway to stigmatize coal ash . We dont believe it will. The real clarity is not subject to the rule. But still i expect were going to hear from the second panel that legislation is needed to remove epas authority to regulate cole ash under subtitle c in the future. What factors might lead epa to some day regulate coal ash under subtitle c. To be clear we had proposed an approach under d and c. We made a decision under d the seat proposal is no longer on the table. Like any other rule