Terrorists came from the Turkish Borders, all the terrorists inside syria. End of quote. But the examples we just heard, zadan al loush, who was killed inside syria, covered extensively by governmentowned media, he was described as a big terrorist leader by your own media. He was inside a syrian prison and he was let go in 2011 by the Syrian Government. Did you not know about his past . And why was he in prison, then released, based on that . And of course, turkey that means they did not all come through the turkish thank you so much. Thank you. Try to make the question short to give more portion to everybody to answer. Dr. Shaaban i really dont know. You know, if you are insinuating that we could possibly know that somebody is going to turn such a terrorist and we let him out of prison. He was taken to court and then he was released just as any prisoner would be released after he spends the time that he had to spend in prison. But i meant all the terrorists who came from out of syria
Commemorating 30 years of the u. S. Senate on cspan 2. Now a conversation on urbanization around the world and what it means for geopolitics, the Global Economy, Climate Change, and other issues. Among those well hear from, chicago mayor rahm emanuel, former treasury secretary ankh paulson and the governor of bangkok. [ applause ] thank you very much, indeed for that lovely welcome and on behalf of the Financial Times, as the u. S. Managing editor, i should say we are absolutely delighted to be partnering with the Chicago Global Council on this very, very important event. Thats not just because we love chicago here at the ft, although swernly do, particularly when the weather is like this. And its not just because we love smart conversation with intelligent people. And looking around at you at the audience, i know there are a lot of people who have a lot of ideas to offer on the future of cities and i look forward to hearing what you all have to say. But were particularly pleased to be
Costs of the new appliance . I would say that these standards have very different affects on different households based on some of the characteristics i mentioned and also some that i state as well in my written testimony. For instance, if you live in texas, maybe its more benefit for you to have an Efficient Air conditioner but do you care how efficient your furnace is . In that case you may not save money by getting an efficient furnace. So i would say that different situations geographical area would have an impact on it . Absolutely. And you indicated the use of the product, obviously, would have an impact on it. And you mentioned, i think, some elderly people who maybe use it less would have less benefit from it as well, is that correct . That is correct. And the Department Notes that in its analysis. So all of us make comments about, oh, this is going to save money and so forth, but it certainly is possible in many instances, i would assume, that lowincome people and elderly are
Winning documentaries at student cam. Org. Industry leaders testified about proposed Energy Efficiency rules for Household Appliances at a house energy and commerce subcommittee hearing. They talked about the possible effect of regulations on Consumer Prices and efficiency of large appliances, including dishwashers, re refrigerators and washing machines. This is two hours and 10 minutes. Like to call the hearing to order this morning. And im going to thank our panel of witnesses for being with us. Im going to introduce you right before we right before you give your Opening Statements and ill introduce you individually at that time. I would like to recognize myself for five minutes for an Opening Statement. Todays hearing is entitled Home Appliance energy firsefficiency standards. Since 1987 weve had energy efficience standards for certain appliances. It came about because back in 1975 there was a federal Energy Policy act that established that format. The Reagan Administration was sued
With great aplum and not even worry aplomb and not even worry about it this doesnt save us the 340 billion which is what we ought to do, what this amendment does is say, dont spend it on further constructing his useless well, not useless but totally expensive facility, dont waste the money on this boondoggle. And we can spend the money on maybe what the department of energy thinks we ought to do, to dilute and dispose. Or maybe build a fast reactor, which weve had in the past and which russia is using to dispose of their plutonium. Theyre Generating Energy and doing so while getting rid of their unused plutonium. So why dont we just accept this amendment and eliminate thE Construction clause, keep the 340 million in South Carolina so they can be happy, maybe they can spend it on something that might actually work. I reserve the balance of my time. The chair the gentleman eserves. For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition . Im in opposition and yield mysel