mr. hawley, i appreciate you being here. i want to touch on something about lowering energy costs and what has happened with hydraulic tracking and how it brought down the cost of natural gas. it lowers costs of heating and cooling. it should make it more economically feasible for low income houses to keep their homes cooler. there are studies out that says there are 17 times more people die from cold than from heat. i also found that because of the lower natural gas costs it is estimated it saves 11,000 americans from dying each winter. i have brought this up many times, pembroke township in illinois, 85% african-american, they do not have a natural gas pipeline. they heat with propane and wood-burning stoves because they cannot afford the utility bills. would you agree that it would be good to get a natural gas pipeline into that township? that is what jesse jackson is trying to do. >> yes. if there are more pipelines running under a city or state, it's not going to hurt anyone. >> i just want to point out that even though

josh hawley: and mr.could you just clarify when you use the term optics, and maybe your recollection is you didn't, so maybe you could speak to that. did you talk about being concerned about the optics of the national guard? and then could you just elaborate on what you meant by that? again, this is monday, january the 4th now. sergeant at arms paul irving: yeah. monday, january the fourth, senator, safety was always the deciding factor when making security plans and the issue on the table was whether the intelligence warranted troops at the capitol and the conversation with mr. sund was not, i did not take it as a request. he was merely informing me that he had received an offer from the national guard. and then when we included mr. stenger, the three of us discussed the specific issue as to whether the intelligence warranted the troops and the answer was no. it was a collective answer, no. and then mr. stenger put forth his recommendation to have them on standby. and my recollection was mr. sund was ver

josh hawley: and mr.fy when you use the term optics, and maybe your recollection is you didn't, so maybe you could speak to that. did you talk about being concerned about the optics of the national guard? and then could you just elaborate on what you meant by that? again, this is monday, january the 4th now. sergeant at arms paul irving: yeah. monday, january the fourth, senator, safety was always the deciding factor when making security plans and the issue on the table was whether the intelligence warranted troops at the capitol and the conversation with mr. sund was not, i did not take it as a request. he was merely informing me that he had received an offer from the national guard. and then when we included mr. stenger, the three of us discussed the specific issue as to whether the intelligence warranted the troops and the answer was no. it was a collective answer, no. and then mr. stenger put forth his recommendation to have them on standby. and my recollection was mr. sund was very satisfied with tha

hawley: mr. salesses, let me ask you about your response to this. you said something earlier to senator portman when he was asking about the same issue, you said, and i am quoting "several things happened in the spring" that may have led to these changes. what are you referring to? mr. salesses: we had a number of incidents in the spring where we had helicopters flying over private citizens, spy planes flying over folks who were protesting. we also had law-enforcement officers wearing military uniforms which sometimes confuse people. so when the new secretary came in, he wanted to make sure he had guidance on making decisions. i will point out, senator, the secretary of defense is the only authority of ordering military personnel into civil disturbance operations. that is the secretary of defense. this is more clarifying operation because it talks about not just civil disturbance, it talks about using helicopters, planes, types of equipment. that is why the memo was published, for that reason, because of the events in the spring. the secretary of de

mr. chairman. >> that is, if i may say, also false. your questions are not an inconvenience for me. all it as is the opportunity to answer them. >> i look forward to your answers. >> thank you, senator hawley. senator hassan your record if a question. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for joining us, mr. secretary. the goods produced with forced labor is a core primary for u.s. congress and the u.s. government, and the department of homeland security has significant responsibilities for that effort. and october 2020 gl report reported, , however, forced labr division expenditures account for less than 1% of the total budget of the office of trade at cbp. and in october 20, 2020, homeland security investigations report from dhs ig found that hsi then that have a cohesive approach to carrying out its responsibility and combating human trafficking and that quote hsi may have missed opportunity to assist and say victims and support u.s. attorneys in the prosecution efforts. how, mr. secretary, does your budget request this year fulfilled dhs responsibilities to investigate and combat forced labor and supply chains for goods entering the united states and to prevent human trafficking? >> se

mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hawley. want to follow up on mr. pilon's comments on the 23rd amendment. this question's for you, mayor bowser. in -- in your written testimony, you state that it is, quote, it's particularly contradictory that the 23rd amendment is being held up as the main barrier to further expanding constitutional rights in the district. could you elaborate on this point for the committee, please? >> well, yes, mr. chairman. and let -- let me be clear, what the 23rd amendment does. the 23rd amendment allow d.c. residents a vote for president. and that was in the 1960s. so, let -- just let that marinate, for a second. before the 1960s, this is just, you know, just about ten years before i was born. we couldn't even vote for president. we couldn't even vote for president. so, that's what the 23rd amendment does. its intent was to expand democracy to d.c. residents. and now, it's being held up as a barrier. i just ask you to -- to look at the comments that were submitted by 39 legal scholars. where professor primus -- primus has tes

hawley. >> thank you. mr. mccrate, i'd like to start with you. before we get into smartphone devices, i want to follow up with you regarding the response that i received from a person named shannon kellogg at amazon. representative ken block and i received a letter, we sent a letter to jeff bezos with some fact-finding questions. related to some very serious concerns about amazon's involvement in the jedi procurement process of the is department of defense. and instead of the helpful reply or any kind of meaningful engagement from mr. basophils or anyone else at amazon -- from jeff bezos can we received a form letter from mr. kellogg rather cavalier dismissing our concerns entirely and refusing to answer our questions. first, i hope your level of engagement with us today will rise above that abysmal disappointing level. the more poorly on the promise to raise this issue with jeff bezos to ensure that we get some actual answers to our questions? to be honest, amazon initial refusal to answer our questions only makes it look like there's something

mr. kade: i'm going to say that is not an issue i am aware of. i don't think i can provide an answer that would be useful. sen. hawley: does anybody else have a view on this down the panel? mr. kade: if you could define the dir, i do not recognize that. sen. hawley: it is charged out of -- as part of medicare part d. independent pharmacist are concerned about this in my state and many of them looked to dirc's as a driver in their insolvency. as i talk to pharmacist around missouri, we have a long tradition of having a lot of independent pharmacist. pgm's they are not fans of the practice of dirc is particularly harmful in their view and i have to say i agree with them. the application of dir'c's retroactively is nontransparent and devastating to independent pharmacies. if anybody has a comment on that, i will take it. sen. klobuchar: we can ask if a few witnesses want to put it in writing. sen. hawley: that will be great. good suggestion. let me change suspects -- subjects and ask you about. >> pylon virtually. sen. hawl what is a reasonable timeey: --do you have a sense about what a reasonable time. it should look l

hawley. thank you. mr. mccrat i'd like to start with you before we get into smart home devices. i want to follow up with you regarding a resnse that i received from a personamed shannon kellogg at amazon. representative can book and i received a letter. we sent a letter to jeff baize those with some fact-finding questions relat to some very serious concerns about amazon's involvement in the procurement process at the u.s. department of defense and instead of a lpful reply or any kind of a meaningful engagement from mr. beziz or anyone at amazon, we instead received a letter from mr. kellogg. rather cavalierly smissing the concerns entirely. and refusing to answer questions. first, i hope your level of engagement with us today will rise abovehat abysmally disaointing level. more importantly, will you promise to raise this issue with mr. bezos to ensure that we get some actual answerso the questions? to be honest, the initial refusal to answer the questions only makes it look like there's something to hide. is there? >> senator, no i don't believe so. it is deeply concerning to me

mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes senator hawley for your questions. senator hawley: congratulations to the nominees, thank you for being here. i would like to start with the fundamental question i've asked other nominees who have appeared before this committee. do you believe that unauthorized entry at our borders should remain a crime? gonzalez: yes, sir. >> here's another fundament of question. putting aside any other resource constraints, do you think if an alien enters the country illegally, they should be subject to removal from the united states? gonzalez: yes. sen. hawley: do you believe that individuals who currently have an order of removal should be removed from the united states? gonzalez: yes. sen. hawley: if any legal alien enters the country and is then convicted of a crime, do you believe they ought to be subject to removal? gonzalez: yes. sen. hawley: what about illegal aliens convicted of things like assault, homicide, kidnapping, sex offenses, sexual assault, weapons offenses. these illegal aliens, should they be removed from the uni

mrs merkel also met the queen at windsor castle. more from our world affairs correspondent caroline hawley. angela, how are you?it, today was about celebrating and strengthening the german—british relationship in a new era. high on the agenda for borisjohnson, germany's insistence that british travellers quarantine for 14 days, even if they are fully vaccinated. but after a working lunch of english asparagus tart and 0xfordshire beef, angela merkel hinted at good news to come for british holiday—makers. translation: we are seeing a rise of the delta variant - in germany, a significant rise, and, of course, we are regularly reviewing these travel restrictions and i expect that, in the foreseeable future, double vaccinated people will be able to travel without having to quarantine upon arrival. after england's historic victory against germany on tuesday, angela merkel wished the uk well for the rest of the euros, but she's alarmed by the number of fans being allowed at wembley matches. translation: i see this with grave concern. - i said this to the prime minister. we in germany decided to have less people attend

hawley. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you for being here. the question senator lee asked you. he asked you about the geolocation and metadata related two-year investigation. you said you were not familiar with the specifics. can i clarify your responses to him? when you say you are not familiar, are you saying you don't know whether or not the bureau has scooped up geolocation data from cell phone records or towers, do you not know or the bureau maybe or maybe has not done it, tell me what you know about this. dir. wray: when it comes to geolocation data specifically, not a specific instance, but the use of data, i would not be surprised to learn, but do not know for a fact, that we were using geolocation data under any situation with connection with the investigation of the sixth. we do use that data under specific authorities in specific instances, because this is such a sprawling investigation, that would not surprise me. what comes to metadata, it is a little different. i feel confident that we are using various legal authorities to look