he never liked them, but after 2004-2005, he became an ally with us in fighting radical jihadist. so a great foreign policy when because we were building allies for what is now evolved into the great america which is radical islamists. and we were building a coalition and people that we didn't necessarily agree with that other issues, but at least on that issue, they agreed with us as a radical jihadist. maybe with gadhafi committee could sit there and the guy had fought with them and thought radical jihadist for years.

>> i met with him. i met with him and presume i got half of the boxes checked and then thinking what kind of job do i have where these are the kinds of people that i am meeting with. but in many of these cases where from human rights record and a lot of other things, they were not necessarily american allies. excuse me your they didn't represent american values. what they did it is a helped us fighting the enemies in helping keep america secure.

mubarak, egypt. before moving into iraq i remember going and meeting with a lot, the leaders in the middle east, an interesting perspective is they all advance, be careful about what you are thinking about doing. this will not be nearly as easy as what you think it is. it might be, and what we've learned with gadhafi and mubarak and saddam and the folks in afghanistan is getting rid of a two bit dictator is not that hard for the greatest military power in the united states, excuse me, the greatest part in the world. that's not hard to do. putting the pieces back together is really, really hard. but the other thing that these folks told us as we went around and met with them is we are sharing this information, this knowledge with you because we

want you to make your decision in a fully informed way. the second thing that they told us is regardless of the decision that you make we will be with you. so like mubarak, over 800 of time, overflights, suez canal, intelligence, everything, abdullah in jordan. they did everything asked of them to do for us to be successful. adopted got to the point where he was doing everything we asked him to do in terms of giving us insights into libyan fighters that might be in afghanistan, that might be in iraq, that might be plotting against the united states and those types of things. these folks all did what we asked them to do to help keep america safe and for us to be successful in the wars that we were fighting. in 2009 it all changed. and think about this. i laid out the strategy to get

gadhafi to switch. it was a bipartisan strategy that extended long-term. foreign policy is hard and you don't move, you don't move foreign policy very quickly or very, or if you do move it quickly you don't move it very effectively. and in 2008, 2007, the current president, if this is where you have to listen carefully to what candidates tell you. you actually have to delete them. everybody says politicians spent way too much lying to be reckoned people. listen to what they say. obama warned us. in 2007 he was on public radio in new hampshire, i believe, and he said the day after i'm elected the world will see us differently. the muslim world will see us differently. and that was a promise.

and you know what quite he has carried through on that promise. the world to see us differently. in 2016 than they did in 2008. because he fundamentally changed our approach against radical jihadism and the threats that we face. think about it. 2009 i'm in colorado, and this is when there's a green revolution in iran. this is when the people in the streets in iran that are protesting for freedom. and what is america's response? nothing. it is silence. and you are thinking, wow, if there's anybody we ought to be embracing come it's the people in the streets in iran who are clamoring for more democracy and freedom. but we are silent. we didn't go to -- we then go to

egypt and the president gives his famous speech. and i'm picking on this president right now, i'll tell you over the last 15 years there's plenty of blame to go around to find, to outline why we are in the position we're in today, by both parties. but in 200 2009 the president gs to cairo and he gives a speech. new jersey and fight in to sit in the front rows? the muslim brotherhood. and who is the muslim brotherhood? the muslim brotherhood is formed in the 1920s to reestablish the caliphate that had just been defeated in the 15 to 20 years before that. they want to reestablish the caliphate, rate impose sharia law, and they have had a long-term strategy to do that. they are very patient but that's

a the president invited to sit in the front row because he believes that, this is a data from 2007, the world will see us differently because i am president. that's a very arrogant statement. the world will see america differently because one person is now in the white house. and that everybody else, whether it's the state department or everybody that served before, they are now irrelevant, and that the world will look at us and they will change their self-interest. they will change their behavior all because we have one new person in the white house. so w he decided that he would engage with the muslim brotherhood. send a very clear signal to the muslim brotherhood, but also sent a very clear signal to our allies, people have stood by america that this is a new world, i'm nervous.

what happens with the muslim brotherhood quote-unquote, the arab spring which is not turned into an arab spring really turned into an arab disaster throughout the middle east. mubarak gets overthrown, almost dies in jail. thankfully the military comes back and throws the muslim brotherhood out. egypt is still trying to recover from that disaster because during those 12 to 14 months when the muslim brotherhood is in control than what happened? radical jihad element establish themselves in the sinai peninsula. they are still there. on the southern border of israel, and we are trying, and the egyptian government is still trying to root them out and bring stability back to their country. what happens in libya? you know, the freedom fighters in libya. sure, there are some freedom fighters that were in egypt.

there were some freedom fighters in libya, but by and large what happened in libya, what we did was we engage in radical jihad us to overthrow gadhafi. and the end result is what happened on 9/11 in 2012 in benghazi is individuals and groups that, maybe not the exact, but the groups that were trained and equipped by nato to overthrow gadhafi used the resources and the training to kill our ambassador and killed three other americans. because the objective was not to establish democracy in libya. they are object of was to take over the government, established the caliphate, establish sharia law. and as soon as they got rid of gadhafi they were going to get rid of the u.s. guess what. they succeeded. the u.s. left and we are not in

a position where we are bombing in libya because they have established a caliphate. there's 5000 jihadists estimate to be in libya are not exporting fighters come equipment and ideology into northern africa. and where did they send their ideology fighters and weapons first? come on, you know. syria. people have reported, you know, weapons, fighters. libya has a history of exporting fighters to the exported into syria through turkey. it was flush with weapons. nato whether libya with weapons. uae, qatar, they flooded libya with weapons after gadhafi was gone, of i'll his arms cachet, y were liberated. they went turkey into syria. i'm not sure what the connection

is between who and what we're watching of facilitating from the united states, but i'll tell you one thing. we were more encouraging of it than we were stopping it, because why? assad needed to go. and assad is an evil man. but recalled the book the destruction of libya at one point in time. we talked which is keeping the lid on the garbage can. one of the things that mubarak, gadhafi -- i stole that from steve at fox news -- i need to give them credit for that because i was, we are just talking before the show and i was talking to him about libya and talk about what gadhafi did. he was still an evil man but he will still keeping the radical jihad us down. kind of like keeping the lid on the garbage can. mubarak, gadhafi and assad, what

they were doing is they were in perfect but they kept the lid on the garbage can, and they were concerned and they were fighting radical jihadists. and as we weekend all three of those we created an environment for radical jihadism to grow come embracing the muslim brotherhood. it is not just over there. we are completing a report and will be putting a book out on this as well in the near future. we not only have embraced the muslim brotherhood, the people that want to destroy and undercut western democracy all around the world, but we've embraced them and we have allowed representatives of the muslim brotherhood to come into the united states. their front organization, and we organization, and we've allowed them access into our federal government agencies and into the white house, which is absolutely unconscionable. these people want to destroy the united states, and they have access now to the highest levels of our government to inform, to

quote-unquote inform our foreign policy. this is where we are today. the end result is we are going to the next week or so we'll have another report out from ipg. look at the evidence. from 2001-2006, radical jihadists attacks on a global basis, they were disbursed, killed about 3000 individuals per year. from 2011, or 2007-2011 that number increased to somewhere in the high 3000. 2012-2013 we went to 35, 3700 per year on average to over 9000. starting to concentrate.

2014, 2015 we've gone from 9000 to 28,000 per year victims are the radical jihadists attacks. me those attacks are now concentrated in two areas primarily, primarily in the middle east and in africa. they are concentrated because, as bob will remember when we were in congress we said coming this was a whole strategy about going into afghanistan. nobody knows where afghanistan is, right? but the strategy was we can't provide them a safe haven where they can plan, prepare, train to attack us. so we're going to go to the end of the world, go into afghanistan. the joke about afghanistan, afghanistan was formed with all the countries around it decided what territory they didn't want and they drew the boundaries and what was left was afghanistan.

we willing to go to afghanistan to make sure there was not a safe place for these people to plan and prepare and trained to attack america. we would go to afghanistan. guess what. and now have a relatively, sure, we are bombing. the problem is our planes fly over into many times they come back with the bombs still on but we've given them a big scare because we have flown over them. they've now got a safe haven, somewhat of a safe haven where they organize with the caliphate in syria and iraq, and they have a safe haven until more recently in libya. where they can export, in the middle east what's going to happen? what are our predictions that the investigative project on terrorism for 2016, 17 and 18? the number of fatalities and attacks are going to go up

because we don't have effective strategies. the second thing that we predict is about in the middle east, you know, with what's going on with syria, iraq, yemen, watch out what's going to happen with turkey. watch out what's going to happen with the jordan. watch out what's going to happen with the saudi. watch out what's going to happen in egypt, and watch out what's going to happen in israel. it is, it's just a rat's nest right now and we don't have effective strategies to confront it and contain it. so it's going to grow and get more dangerous in the middle east your the second thing is, take a look at africa. nine other countries now, back in 2001 it was 10 countries dispersed widely. now it's 18 countries that has a relatively high level of terrorist activity.

the middle east, concentrated in the middle east and africa, nine countries in africa. that number is going to grow because again they have a base where they can train, prepare and attack other places into africa. so you're going to see africa get to be a bigger hotspot. but what do you have if you have the middle east and if you've got libya and northern africa? you have entrée into europe. through turkey. last year diane and i were in budapest. we got on a train saturday morning. that's typical russian efficiency. you got in one line to go into another line to get into a line to buy your ticket, okay? big train station. there were 10 of us of there. we took the train from budapest

to prague. we got to prague. the next morning we turn on tv. the station that we were in the day before was now surrounded by five to 10,000 refugees and migrants. germany has let in over 8 million. so you've got this gateway now of people refugees, fight and all these folks going into europe. you've got the gateway from libya. why? because it's not that far across the mediterranean, and you can get to the soft underbelly of europe. europe is at risk. i think that the security services in europe are going to be absolutely stressed with the new folks coming in, with the folks that they've already had here. you are going to see an increase of terrorism and violence in europe in the next 18-24 months. there's no way that they can

stop it. and then what you are going to see is that are going to also expand into asia. they are on the move. to have the momentum right now, and we as americans and the west fail to realize it and admit it and confront it. isis is the jv team, we are winning. this doesn't look like winning to me, folks. i don't know what looks like to you, but when you see that you've got failed states in libya, syria, iraq, yemen. failed states are the havens where these groups migrate to get and what you take a look at it and go back to what we talked about when we started, which is that when it breaks, it's very, very hard to put together. it's going to take a long time. the middle east is broken. africa is broken. large portions of africa are broken.

more of it is going to get broken over the next 18-24 months. europe is on the verge of breaking. and for europe to give back to the europe that we knew 10 to 15 years ago, i'm not sure it's even possible. at the question is how far will it go and how far will deteriorate before they actually put in place? what you will see many of these countries, and we looked at this very, very closely, there is now a break between the populace and the governed. the people that are governing we see the same thing here. it's not necessarily, that doesn't necessarily mean he will end up doing the right thing but there's a disconnect. you've got governments in europe saying come on in, welcome in. you are welcome here. and you got the people in the community setting no. this isn't working for us or if we're going to do that, which we

questioned them but if we're going to do what we've got to do some kind of a assimilation process or whatever or we will lose our german as. you've got a break to think about into tiny. we face on the same kind of issues. how many of you have heard about legislation of other states are considering american law for american courts? heard about that? is this something we're working on in colorado? no. no. and people say why would you have to do that? because we are looking at what's going on in your. in many parts of europe that are a little enclaves are areas where they allow for sharia law. we don't talk, people are talking about american law are american courts don't make it any other kind of thing. they say we just want to reaffirm in america, think about it, in america we want to for me to go to court you will be judged by american law and nothing else.

that's all we are saying. [applause] okay? and for those that are espousing those kinds of ideas, you are a racist. that's hate speech. no, it's not. that's a speech that says i love america and i kind of like our system. it's imperfect but it's better than anything else that's out the. i just want to make sure that people who are here recognize that if you're an america come you live under american law. fairly simple. do we want to embrace some of the philosophy and ideology that's out there in some of the other places? take a look at what radical islam, how they treat religious minorities. i'm sorry, it's not the values that i embrace, the we in america embrace. their treatment of women, treatment of kids, human rights,

basic human rights and human values. no, we have to reinforce who we are and what we need to do. so the trend out there i think is relatively bleak. i'm thrilled that a group like this that's here today, i encourage you, the threat to america is real. and it's today. this is not something that we can lead to our kids and our grandkids. this is something, this is what talked a lot of my friends in europe. we wish that we had talked about this and a trusted us 15 years ago, because it's much harder for us to address it today. the second lesson they tell us is, learn from us until make the same mistakes that we may. america is strong. we are the greatest. we are exceptional. and the question that we now have is what are we going to do

to make sure that we keep that exceptionalism and we continue to be the bright hope for the world what does that mean everybody has to be like as? know. for everybody to get to where we want to be, we would not employ our ability to make that happen. we are going to set an example for who we are and what the benefits are so that people want to us by to what we are and who we are. and when they see who we are, they will want it and they will make that change for themselves. we will encourage get but they will do it because that is what they want, not because it is imposed on them. and so that is the challenge that we face. like i said i believe we are losing today and that we need a national dialogue to move this forward. we need to get rid of republican and democrat labels on this. we need to embrace, come together once again as americans and talk but what remains to be american and develop a long-term strategy. we can no longer have a foreign policy that shifts dramatically every time we put a new person

into the white house. we need a long-term policy that says this is who america is, at from one president to the next president, from republican to democrat, we may tweak our foreign policy but never again will we dramatically, so dramatically changed our foreign policy that, you know, we are in the mess that we are today. our enemies no longer fear us. our frenc friends no longer tru. people say why would not assad associate with a? this is not brain surgery, folks. assad has looked at mubarak and said this is a guy who did everything the americans asked them for to for 30 years and the americans threw him under the bus. they look at gadhafi and they said this is a guy that changed all of his strides to malign with the americans, killed jihadists, and the bus kept going from cairo to tripoli and it rolled over him next.

think about, gadhafi lived six months longer than bin laden before we killed him. what is the lesson to assad or anybody else out of there? that's a good idea, i think i will negotiate with the americans. if i really change my behavior, you know, if i improve the human rights and if i really go after radical jihadists and work with them, they are going to be with me. i don't think so. that's not going to work. we've got to get beyond this. we need to develop a shared vision for where we want to go, what american values are and how we're going to promote them in the future come and we need to learn from the lessons and the mistakes and the good things that we've done over the last 15-20 years to move forward. with that i more than willing to take whatever questions you want to throw my way. [applause]

>> yes? >> a two-part question. are there any democrats that could give the same kind of speech to a room? and if not, if you were in this room with a group of democrats, what would they be throwing back at you? >> yeah, i think there are. there are some. there's not a lot of democrats, but no, there are some that clearly see the threat from radical jihadists. what would they throw back at me? you had hillary clinton was talking about, this amazes me. she talked about in one of the debates, said libya is a best example of a just outsmart power -- the best example of smart power. you've got to be kidding me.

that's -- what i believe they would throw back at you is you mention in the front row. you're a racist, islamophobe, you know, and you just don't see the world clearly. what i did in the book is i outlined a series of what i think are realistic foreign policy and outline. foreign policy is not black and white. most of the world that i dealt with in foreign policy gets gray. to move forward you sometimes have to do business with bad people. there's a whole series of things like that. it's messy, but no, you see it everyday. they are racers, they are scared and those kinds of things -- races. the other thing is all you want to do is go to work at know, i would've left gadhafi in place. i would've left assad in place to if we had left, i would've

left mubarak in place to get rid left those three governments in place, the middle east would be a whole lot different today. i think we also have to learn, because why would i say that? because i think we learned, hopefully we learned the lesson from iraq when you go in and break it, it's really, really hard to put back together. >> you parlay edge of my question. it seems like we're playing a game of whack-a-mole. we taken out and more show up in this vacuum. it seems like maybe our best strategy is to just support a few strong income even though that seems unpleasant in itself. >> it is unpleasant to they are not great choices, but the end result is, they kept the lid on the garbage can and when they were gone, because nato and the west were unwilling to put the resources and all of those types of things in place to keep the lid on. you see failed states.

the other thing our report will show, where do you see the greatest number of terrorist attacks of those types of things? in the failed states. what are the failed states? the ones we have been most active in. there is a total nexus. >> we will leave this discussion on radical islam at this point to go live to capitol hill where the state and defense department special envoy for guantánamo detention closer testifying this plan for the house foreign affairs committee. last month president obama announced his plan to put a close the detention facility in cuba. this is live on c-span c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> this committee will come to order. president obama's race to empty the guantánamo bay detention facility is on. in recent weeks and months, many hardened terrorists have been released. many of them have been sent abroad come and according to the presidency closure plan, sent to congress last month, another 35 are set to be transferred this summer. unfortunately, we know many of the recipient countries don't

have the desire or commitment or even ability to monitor these dangerous individuals and prevent them from returning to the battlefield their countries like ghana and uruguay are being asked to shoulder a heavy burden and a heavy responsibility. and there are real concerns about the administration setting aside intelligence assessments to deceive countries about the threat posed by the militants they are being asked to take him. that was certainly a finding of this committee, our investigation into the release of six detainees to uruguay in december 2014. i want to thank mr. jeff duncan of south carolina, the chairman of our subcommittee that focuses on the western hemisphere. the top state department official overseeing guantánamo at the time wrote to the

president of uruguay that there was no information about these six, no information that they were involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities against the united states or its partners or allies. no information? they were known to have been hardened al-qaeda fighters involved in forging documents, trained as suicide bombers fighting at tora tora, committing mayhem, committing murders in afghanistan. and although the walker states that steps must be taken to substantially mitigate the risk of released individuals from again threatening the united states, senior uruguay and officials asserted before that these six arrived, that they would not impose or accept any

conditions to receive these former detainees. indeed, these six terrorists were housed just locks the u.s. embassy without the prior knowledge of u.s. officials. and, frankly, were often seen outside of the embassy. the administration often talks of detainees cleared for release as if they are no longer a threat. but just over 30% of the detainees that have been released are either confirmed or suspected to have returned to the battlefield. several othe of the senior leads of al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula our alums of guantánamo. the administration is thinking guantánamo with the flimsy claim that it is a terrorist recruiting tool. let me explain i don't think that if you were standing in line and raqqa to recruit into

isis, you say, guantánamo bay is going to be closed, no need to enlist here. what rock is about, what i said this about his to establish a caliphate. that's what driving the recruitment and, frankly, the success of places on the battlefield is driving recruitment. closing this detention facility has been opposed by bipartisan majorities in congress and even members of the president's own cabinet. it is no secret that former secretary of defense hagel was pushed out in part because he was not certifying releases fast enough for the white house. yet, president obama remains determined to push out as many terrorists as he can to other countries. 45 or so other law of war detainees would be moved to u.s. soil. doing so could open a pandora's box of legal issues, impairing

our anti-terrorism efforts. fortunately, any effort to bring guantánamo detainees to u.s. soil would be, according to the secretary of defense, against the law. and that's also according to the attorney general. i see no interest in changing that law, certainly not by the american people him and our laws must be honored. the white house, meanwhile, has no solid plans to detain and interrogate terrorists captured today. that's a problem. indeed, the administration admits that its proposed domestic guantánamo would not take in any new terrorists captured on the battlefield. if the administration was been as much time working to capture and detain isis fighters, as it was trying to close down this facility at guantánamo bay, we would be more secure. isis is continuing to threaten

and expand in libya and in afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe. europe is under siege by jihadists. we are under attack. so unfortunately we are going to need a detention facility for fanatical terrorists who is processing in the u.s. legal system is unwarranted and simply is not feasible. and we are going to need that for some time to come. and we will now go to an introduction of our panel. this morning we are pleased to be joined by special envoy lee wolosky. use the special envoy for guantánamo closure at the u.s. department of state. previously he also served as a director for transnational threats at the national security council under president clinton.

and we also have special envoy paul lewis for guantánamo detention closure of the u.s. department of defense, and previously mr. lew is serve as both a general counsel and minority general counsel at the house armed services committee. we welcomed them both to the committee. we appreciate that our to witnesses, along with intelligence community, have already agreed to meet with the committee in april in closed session unnecessary classified issues. and without objection the witnesses for prepared statements will be made part of the record and members here will have five calendar days to submit any questions or any statements or extraneous material for the record. at this time i would like to go to mr. eliot engel of new york who is the ranking member of this committee for his opening

statement here today. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you for calling this hearing. gentlemen, is to will ask you, mr. lewis, welcome to the fort affairs committee, and thank you for your service. we are reminded again today of the terrible cost of violent extremism that i was just on the floor of the house speaking on a resolution declaring our solidarity with the people of belgium, so that's what i just got here. getting it right from the floor. a dark shadow of a terrorist attack over another european city. we are standing alongside the belgian people today as they rebuild what's been broken and to seek justice. these situations is important look at what more we can be doing to enhance cooperation with our partners and prevent this type of violence. it's also important reflect on what our policies have gone astray, and maybe make the situation worse.

so it's appropriate today that we're taking a hard look at one of the most troubling and divisive symbols of our counterterrorism efforts, the guantánamo bay detention facility. the subtitle of today's hearing is foreign policy and national security cost of closing the guantánamo facility. as policymakers, experts have been saying almost since the facility opened, the better question perhaps maybe what are the costs of keeping it open? are starters the prison is a drain on military resources to get cost nearly $5 billion figure to keep a person detained. versus $78,000 a year to hold someone in our most secure federal prison. closing gitmo and transferring detainees to other secure prison would free up $85 million a year. resources we could put to better use elsewhere combating terrorism. the argument against this goes, we need to spend whatever it cost. these guys are too dangerous to bring here. let's look at fat. to date 91 detainees remain in

get no. since the prison open, 644 individuals have been transferred out of. 144 under president obama and 500 under president bush but as of today more than one-third of the detainees have been cleared for release. after a thorough review process under no circumstances will these people be released onto american soil. they will be transferred directly to other countries. prior to 2009 more than one in five released detainees return to the battlefield. but improved procedures under the obama administration has nearly a limited this problem. if the president plans to close the guantánamo detention and if the president's plan to close the guantánamo detention facility goes forward, only a handful of detainees would ever be brought to the united states, those who are would be held and super max prisons. they are called super max prison for a reason. no one has ever escaped from one. and who are some of the current residents that these incredibly secure facilities?

terrorists, supported the saudi who helped plot 2000 -- richard reid, the so-called shoe bomber. dzhokhar tsarnaev, the boston marathon bomber. the forum event in 1993 world trade center bombing. six terrorist responsible for bombing our embassies in kenya and tanzania. all these men will call adx florida and colorado home for the rest of their days are for the very few prisoners to the military commission process we should try them in federal court to speed justice for the victims. if there's any doubt what our justice system can handle the most dangerous terrorist, asking other people i just listed. it isn't a question of what rights of guantánamo detainees should or shouldn't be accorded. it's just the simple fact of the federal justice system has tried and punished there is much more effectively than military commissions. but beyond the dollars and cents

can be on our safety at home, we need to consider the harm it was afflicted on our security interests around the world. it is as important on our values. a terrorist seeking to recruit more fighters into the ranks, guantánamo facilities is a gift that keeps on giving. this prison has become so divisive and so reviled better in is no longer even need to call by name. instead as we sing again and again terrorist look on the camera so the whole world can see, the rate of some innocent prisoner and cut off his head or light him on fire. the orange jumpsuits were not selected by accident or everyone knows what they symbolize. this prison has up strengthen our enemies. is become a stumbling block in our relationship with coalition partners. after all, it's not just americans that crisis is addressing in those orange jumpsuits. it has created deep division at home. that's because gitmo has strengthened our countries most important values. it has become synonymous with torture and indefinite detention

when we were going to school to learn all about rights and the constitution. this was never allowed under american law. i want to quote retired major general michael leonard first command of the detention facility after 9/11. it is a quote from him. he said guantánamo was a mistake. history will reflect about. it was created in the early days as a consequence of fear, anger and political expediency. it ignored the centuries of rule of law and international agreement. it does not make us safer and it's always we are as a nation. i ask unanimous consent the major generals hosted included in the record. >> without objection. >> the coming back to -- thank you, mr. chairman. commitment to our question, what is the cost of closing guantánamo. committee address go to the cost of closing the facility are far, far less than the cost of keeping it open. i am not alone in this view. president george w. bush was

very clear he wanted to close gitmo. john mccain made a campaign promise to do the same. an overwhelming majority of national security and military experts including former secretary of state and defense, cia directors, national security advisers and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff think it should be shuttered as i pointed out the arguments against closing it just don't hold up and at the end of the day the only justification of keeping the prison open is fear. fear of violent extremism. fear that our justice system our prison system cannot get the job done despite all the evidence to the contrary. and fear if this was what our enemies want to instill in us. i don't want him to win. we shouldn't allow that. we should clean up the stain on america's commitment to justice and democracy. we should take away this propaganda tool for terrorists. we should work to open the president's plan and shut down this prison. i look forward hearing from eyewitnesses. everyone who knows me knows that i take a very hard line on this.

i think we are far better off closing the facility for our interests, no other interest, our american interest. it if we leave it open. i look for during our witnesses. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. in the. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman royce, ranking member engel, distinguished names of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the important matter of closing guantánamo bay, cuba's detention facility. i am honored to be joined today by my colleague paul lewis, special envoy for guantánamo detention closure at the department of defense. today i would describe the rigors processes that determine whether a detainee should be approved for transfer and the extensive interagency efforts that ensure compliance with apical statutory requirements before each transfer takes place. at the outset let me emphasize that president obama concluded

that the continued operation of the guantánamo detention facility damages our national security fro for many of the sae reasons that led president george w. bush to the same conclusion. according to president bush, by his second term, and i quote, the detention facility have become a propaganda tool for our enemies at a distraction for our allies, closed quote. it remains so when president obama took office and it remains so today. the bipartisan view that guantánamo should be closed is not limited to presidents bush and obama. senator john mccain has said that he is in favor of closing guantánamo. likewise, am a former secretary of state clinton, rice, powell, albright, christopher, baker and kissinger have all advocated closing guantánamo bay are so, too, have three former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff,

and 42 retired generals and admirals. the list goes on. in addition to leading democrats and republicans, world leaders and international organizations, the pope to the organization for american states consistently called on the united states to close guantánamo. today that are 91 individuals detained at guantánamo. down from a peak population of 680. altogether, a total of 779 detainees have passed through guantánamo, and of those, 688 have departed. the vast majority of detainees transferred out of guantánamo to other countries, some 532, were transferred before president obama took office on january 20, 2009. prior to the intimidation of rigorous interagency procedures that were implemented by this administration and are described more fully in my written testimony.

my written testimony described in length the two processes by which this administration has approved a detainees were transferred to what they have in common is rigorous review and analysis of all available information in the possession of the u.s. government, and the unanimous agreement of the six agencies and departments to for a detainee may be designated as approved for transfer. after a detainee as approved for transfer the department of state policplease negotiations with fn governments about possible transfer. we are joined in he in our effoy colleagues from the department of defense, justice, and homeland security as well as by those in the intelligence community and other joint staff. the decision as to whether, when, and where to transfer a detainee is the culmination of a rigorous interagency process similar to the initial decision to approve a detainee for transfer.

this process am including the process by which we negotiate security assurances with our foreign partners, is described at length in my written testimony. i look forward to your questions about it. once we arrived at a satisfactory security framework, with a foreign government, the secretary of defense seeks concurrence in a transfer from the, in a specific transfer from the secretary of state and homeland security, the attorney intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. general, director of national only after he receives the views of those principles and only after he is satisfied that the requirements of the national defense authorization act are satisfied, does the second defends sign and transmit a certification to the congress conveying his intent to transfer a guantánamo detainee. the rigorous approval and negotiation process i've described contributed to the dramatic reduction in the

confirmed we engagement for detainees transferred during this administration. thank you again, ladies and gentlemen, of the committee. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak before you about this important issue and i look forward to your questions. >> mr. lewis. >> chairman royce, ranking member engel, distinguished members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am honored to join my colleague lee wolosky. and try to i could appreciate your continued and sustained interest in this extremely important issue. at the outset i want to echo special envoy statement i make one point regarding the detention facility at one time away. the president and his national security team have determined the closing this facility is a bipartisan national security imperative that the president has repeatedly stated that the continued operation of a detention facility at guantánamo

weakens our national security by damaging relationships with key allies and partners, draining resources, and providing violent extremists with a propaganda tool. in january of last year, 42 retired military leaders all retired general officers or flag officers wrote the leadership of the senate armed services committee and forcefully argued for the closure of this facility, stating the issue of what to do with guantánamo is not a political issue. that is near unanimous agreement from our nation's top military intelligence and law enforcement leaders that guantánamo should be closed. this letter was signed by general charles krulak, a retired commandant of the marine corps, major general michael leonard, first command of the joint task force at guantánamo come general joseph, former commander of u.s. central command, general david maddox, former commander of the u.s. army in europe, and many other leaders. many of these leaders with a

firm this letter this month. as lee noted in addition former gym of the joint chiefs of staff admiral michael mullen, general martin dempsey support guantánamo closure. it's the opinion of many others in our military. envoy -- envoy wolosky has noted support for cable kludge but i think it's important to highlight this broad conclusion. this conclusion is shared by two presidents, four former secretaries of defense, a former sectors of state and it demonstrates this bipartisan support at the highest level of our national security leadership. as envoy wolosky noted, in his memoirs president george w. bush himself included at the guantánamo detention facility was a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies. the president himself made this statement. and as president obama recently noted, by 2008 it was widely

recognized that this facility needed to close. this was not my opinion. this was the bipartisan support to close it. as the special envoy for guantánamo detention closure, my primary focus is on the transfer process. 16 detainees have been transferred to date since 2016. these printers have reduced the guantánamo detention facilities population of fewer than 100 for the first time since 2002. overall, 27 nations since 2009 have accepted guantánamo detainees who are not from that perspective country. in addition, 13 other countries or territories have accepted repatriation of their own citizens since 2009. as with our military leaders, foreign leaders regularly cite the guantánamo detention facility as an obstacle to counterterrorism efforts. in my written statement eyesight several statements. cliff sloan, envoy wolosky's

predecessor, noted an example. as a highly ranking security official from one of our staunchest allies, counterterrorism once told me, the greatest single action that united states can take to fight terrorism is to close guantánamo. and i note highlights the other counterterrorism experts from the previous administration. john mallinger, matt waxman both work for the department of state, noted the counterterrorism effects of not closing gitmo. and i described in more detail in my opening statement. mr. chairman, i'm also prepared to address the plan to close guantánamo detention facility. the president announcing the plan stated that it has four main elements. we will continue to transfer, accelerate the process, look for individual dispositions, and most important we will work with congress to find a location to transfer everybody from guantánamo safely and securely.

as far as the transfer process, i just want to state that secretary carter has forcefully stated that safety is his number one priority. he does not transfer a detainee unless he is confident that the threat is substantially mitigated at its international student interest of the united states. finally i'd like to take a moment to recognize the military service members conducting detention operations at guantánamo bay. too often in the course of considering the future of this facility we lose sight of the remarkable men and women who serve honorably under extraordinarily difficult conditions. they have our deepest appreciation for their service and their professionalism which they displayed each and everyday on behalf of our nation. gentlemen, president bush worked to close what i will get many officials and administration worked hard towards that objection. we are closer to the many people realize by the nearly 800 detainees who have been held at guantánamo since the facility

opened, over 85% have been transferred including more than 500 that were transferred by the previous administration. the president and his national seed experts and this administered to believe it should be closed. the senior military leaders of this country and the leaders of the department of defense concur. as indicated in the letter by the retired military leaders, many believe the closure of this facility is the single most important counterterrorism effort that united states can undertake. we believe the issue is not whether to close guantánamo detention facility. is how to do it. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> let me ask both our witnesses. secretary of defense carter and attorney general lynch have both stated that transfers of guantánamo detainees to the united states are legally prohibited. is that your understanding of the law as well? >> it's my understanding of the

law that, that the statute in its current form prohibit transfers to the united states, which is why we are working at this time with congress, or seeking to work with the congress, to modify the law in order to be able to bring into the united states a small, reduce to a minimum number of detainees as described in the president's closure plan. >> is it correct been that under current law the department of defense is prohibited from selecting any u.s. site on making any preparations for transfer of detainees to the u.s. because, frankly, i have no idea. that is a legal question that is both a properly directed to the department of defense. >> mr. lewis? >> mr. chairman, we believe detainees can be safely and securely and humanely detained in the united states.

we believe, i believe that the statute does prohibit it, prohibit us from doing that so we are working towards doing that. the plant that was sent up, we gave a look at locations, military facilities in federal and state facilities that could do that. we believe detainees as i said can be detained. .. in the long haul those that returned to the fight or those that are suspected of having returned to the fight is a little over 30% and i understand the argument that the administration is making that

recent individuals released they haven't returned for the lower percentage but of course there's a continuum in terms of collecting the information and monitoring and transitioning as people end up -- i'm just looking at the overall number in the neighborhood of 31%. and if we begin to focus on some of the recent examples of those who did come it is pretty concerning a. of. by 2014 he had joined al qaeda and the iranian peninsula and now he is in their leadership

and last month we saw a video merging a takeover in saudi arabia. he wouldn't be out doing his propaganda if he were housed in guantánamo. the rap sheet as we make the argument we've been through these. >> it's a recruitment tool. the fact is that a significant percentage of the return to the

fight and an unclassified letter to congress from the director of national director of national intelligence writing that the intelligence community lacks the report the propaganda has in the isys recruits to join the group so i certainly talked to the former administrating officials that have the opposite view that you laid out today that told me know they don't think it has the dual recruitment. we understand your theory but there is the fact we have this process and this challenge because of the way this process is releasing individuals to countries that don't have the capabilities. mr. lewis lists some of the countries they transferred detainees to since 2009.

el salvador, kazakhstan, and i would just ask have you been to ghana and does it have to get the buddies to track these detainees? >> no transfer occurs unless we are confident in the security assurances that we have received and the secretary of defense makes the requisite certifications to the congress. and we have seven months of experience. what i can tell you we are happy to come and brief you in closed session if we are very pleased by the implementation by the government of the security assurances that have been agreed to.

>> we've been to ghana and it's a wonderful place. it's a wonderful country. the fact is it doesn't have top-notch intelligence or services to deal with this kind of problem. the gdp per capita is like $4,000. it's 175th in the world. the fact is the leaders have many challenges facing them every day so i'm going to guess the tracking and monitoring of the former guantánamo detainees isn't a priority just as it wasn't in the other examples that i have laid out for you today. it just wasn't up there and if it were not returning it 31% hadn't returned to the fight this wouldn't be a concern that but this is a very real concern. i will go to mr. ingle for his

questioning. >> you know, emotionally, because of terrorism and the attacks on 9/11 and brussels and things we are hearing emotionally you want to say throw them all in jail and put them in and throw away the key but that's not how we are supposed to work as a nation and what we stand for. i don't think that we should abandon our principles if we can still be safe. i wouldn't be for abandoning the principles and there's going to be a larger chance of being unsafe as a result of releasing and transferring some of these people. but when you read the facts and look at the facts and see it

worse by keeping them there and to have a balance sheet i'm not for releasing anybody that was healthy but i'm also not for keeping people in prison year after year with no trial. that's not what i learned when i was in grade school. opponents of closing the guantánamo facility often say that the people currently in that prison are the worst of the worst and most dangerous and that's why we shouldn't release them at all. some critics point to risk assessments from the previous bush administration and support of the claim. what is your view of how the risk assessments have been conducted by the interagency task force and the review boards in the risk assessments and given what you know about the detainees held at guantánamo are

they t most dangerous, and if not, why have they been in guantánamo for so long? is it because we've already transferred the cases to explain how these people are that have been adjudicated? >> there are some extremely dangerous individuals that there are individuals in guantánamo that are not extremely dangerous. of the 36 that are currently approved for transfer, 29 are done yemeni nationals and we've been able to return them to their country of origin which is the first choice removing a guantánamo detainees from guantánamo so there is a significant component for the country data goes into the

remaining detainee population and why they are still there with respect to your first question in the re- engagement issue that the chairman raised, which i appreciate the opportunity to address because we do have hard data on the re- engagement and i would like to refer you to the numbers in the report issued earlier this month on re- engagement. the actual numbers are in this administration saban confirmed pre- engagement former detainees. in the previous administration, 111. seven in and this administration out of 144 transferred that translates into 4.9%.

the number for the previous administration is 111 out of 532 which translates to 20.9%. we believe that this data affirms that the procedures that we have put in place during this administration have worked to substantially reduce any re- engagement concerns, and i think that you are exactly right when you indicated in your opening statement that the risks of transferring detainees come and we have acknowledged that there are risks that must be weighed against the risk of keeping the facility open. there has been until recently a bipartisan consensus that there are significant national security foreign-policy risks associated with keeping the

facility open. that was articulated by the previous president who transferred over 500 detainees detainees held at guantánamo in furtherance of this effort to close guantánamo because he recognized that it was a propaganda tool. the conclusion was also reached by the nonpartisan military leaders across the services so we talk about re- engagement that refers to the actual data for the director of national intelligence. >> who is left at guantánamo? is it correct that 91 individuals, of the 91 individuals that remain in guantánamo, 81 are now facing criminal charges. is that true and correct the 35

individuals have been cleared for transfer out of guantánamo's what does it mean to be transferred out and who decides how long they have been cleared for transfer and why did they wait so long to leave? >> there are 91 detainees. 36 has been approved for transfer. some of them have been approved for transfer since 2010 some of them more recently. ten of them have been apportioned to some stage in the military process either facing charges were serving sentences and the remainder 40 some on the detainees are neither approved for transfer or currently facing charges. >> please indulge me i just want to ask the federal courts question because the administration's plans calls for

some detainees to be tried in the u.s. federal courts and congress has imposed the ban on transferring any detainees to the u.s. for any reason including trial. but from what i can see, federal courts have been extremely effective try and terrorism cases since 9/11 the courts have convicted over 500 people on terrorism related offenses and by contrast, the 9/11 military commission has been in the hearings since 2012 so the trial itself isn't expected to start until 2020. why have the federal courts then so much more effective at bringing these terrorists to justice? >> the federal courts have a proven mechanism for both convicting and then making sure that convicted felons serve time safely and responsibly. you're right, there are numerous terrorists who've been effectively convicted and are

now serving time in the federal prison system. as the times square bomber, richard reid, the shoe bomber, mr. tsarnav. i should point out that he was released from the custody of the united states after serving his military commission sentence so she is an example of someone who went through the military commission system and pled guilty to support and conspiracy and after he served in the system, he was released. if he were put through the

article three system, he would probably still be serving his sentence and not be off doing what he's been doing. >> we are talking about two different sets of numbers so if i can address this quickly before we go to the next member in terms of the administration's numbers they released, the claim is 7.9% of detainees released under the president are confirmed or suspected of re- engaging in terrorism. you were just using the number confirmed and the administration released the figure that overall it is just 31% and investigators tell us that it takes four years to get confirmed. so there is a question in terms of the trend line on the detainees recidivism but that the overall rate that i'm

quoting here is the race on confirmed or suspected and we will now go to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much and i welcome both of you to the committee. yesterday i chaired an oversight hearing on focusing on the 14 countries found after a series of investigative reports and i want this on the record and i hope the press will take note of this because it is a flaw in the implementation of the act which i am the author of. the state department ranking is the worst that he had been since the bush administration had been designated during the obama administration only to be manipulated for long human trafficking criteria in anticipation i find observed it

should be absolutely accurate and speak truth to power and defend those that have been on board with this. it should speak truth to power when it comes to sex trafficking and tourism which is rampant in the castro regime gleams enormous profits as they do from the labor trafficking. and we have an upgrade which takes them off the sanctions list, which i find to be appalling. yesterday one of our witnesses pointed out that the cuban government is likely one of the largest and most profitable trafficking promoters in the entire world so my hope is that this year title of the hearing is next time get it right. there will be political manipulation and the trafficking tears if you read the report itself, it reads inescapably to the sanctions rating but when it got to another level there was a

manipulation for political reasons and i find that appalling and deeply saddening. let me ask you a question on the planes that we all know for overseeing the transfer of detainees is the minister of interior. are you confident in his commitment to ensuring the former detainees do not link up with international terrorism networks or that these individuals do not attend the embassy personnel were american nationals in other words, do you trust and believe that he's a man of honorable character? >> i don't know him but what i can say is we are confident. there is never no risk associated with transferring a detainee. the appropriate calculus, we believe, is the one the congressman put forward which is

weighing the risks of transfers versus those across the spectrum of maintaining the facility. but we are confident to your question that the government is taking appropriate steps to substantially mitigate the risk associated with each of the detainees that have been transferred. >> is it your view that this particular minister is trustworthy? >> i don't agree with that necessarily. when we look at countries to the saddle we do not base it on personalities. we base it based it on the government as a whole and the willingness of the government and none of the specific security assurances that have been negotiated in the assessment of whether or not

they can and will be implemented >> could you provide your analysis as to his trustworthiness? >> i can't because i don't know him but when we look at transfer opportunities, we base our conclusions on the opportunity -- >> that he is the point person of the government. he may be now and he may not be tomorrow. so we don't rely on particular personalities as the bottom line. >> but personnel is policy and if there's a person walking point on a particular issue like this one and it happens to be the minister of interior i think we would want to know whether he's a person who can be trusted particularly with such people that have committed terrorism and may reconnect. >> i haven't met him so i don't feel comfortable offering personal assessments.

what we do is base our decisions on government as a whole. >> that's why for the record if you can provide the implementation of those that analyze the situation and feel comfortable enough to proceed in this. >> the department of state felt comfortable. >> if you can provide the analysis just to be clear that the analysis is. >> we need to get through a lot of numbers here. >> the title of this hearing refers to the national security costs of the administration's plan however the majority of the leaders as you indicated save

that the real foreign-policy as a result of keeping it open and describe it as the closing of the detention facility as a national security imperative and so i would like you to speak to how the plan to close guantánamo bay will impact our ability to work with our partners in the fight against terror and how the failure to close it is providing an impediment to that critical work. >> as i noted in my opening statement, continuously the countries across the world and allies tell us gitmo hurts us so we work with those countries and by closing gitmo, we address a concern the rest of the world the united states needs to lead. we can't do this alone and when

our allies and counterterrorism are telling us gitmo needs to be closed, we taken issue with the table. it's always going to be a propaganda issue but we take it off the table. >> does the president of guantánamo bay have an impact to use diplomacy and soft palate to press other countries to uphold responses against torture and forced disappearance, definite detention, things we speak about with other countries and has our credibility been harmed by the continued detentions at wonton obey? -- guantánamo bay. a speck of spec they continuously raise the issues of gitmo and detainees. he mentioned how he's been told closing gitmo would be the

biggest issue helping our efforts and the repeated leaders in this administration said the same so i think it does hurt us. >> with those that have been approved for transfer, what is a taking so long for that to be completed? >> we can't confidently send them to yemen right now. we have to look at those that have stepped up and find that detainee, find the fed for the security situation in the country, their willingness and capacity so it's a mixture of sequencing and a mixture of the domestic issues of 27 countries demonstrate there are countries that want to help us and our willing to step up and we are confident the majority can be transferred the next several months.

>> with regards to the re- engagement with the director of the office categorizes these re- engagement in three different ways for purposes of the hearings. 17.5% of detainees have reengaged but if you break that number down prior to this president prior to january of 2009 sends the previous 4.9%, can you explain what do those figures represent and how do you account for this dramatic reduction in free engagement which is critical? the fact that it's been brought to 4.9% from 20 percent didn't happen just by magic. it has to have a change in the process. would you speak to that?

>> there've been many changes put in place from the actual decision to improve someone for transfer which is a complicated and time-consuming, very thorough process that only moves forward in the consensus of the agency departments so than the actual decision to transfer and approve to a different country, which again is a rigorous interagency process that in details the negotiation of detailed and quite specific security assurances in a specific country and then ultimately input from the same six agencies and congressional notification by the secretary so our process is very thorough and time-consuming further to the question of why things are taking so long and we believe

that again, there is never no risk that we believe the relative success of the processes are reflected in the figures when you look at the small figure in this administration and the larger figure in the previous administration. >> i would yield back. thank you mr. chairman. >> the first question has the defense department ever knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that didn't exhibit an ability to substantially mitigate the risk or maintain control of that individual i think yes or no could be that as is a very straightforward

question. has the defense department to send someone to a country knowing the person of that country was unable to take control of the person? >> i'm assuming that your question relates to this administration. >> actually it doesn't. do you know of any examples? the >> what about this administration. can you speak to whether or not the defense department has -- is there some reason you can't say yes or no? a >> i don't forget the department of defense. what i can tell you is -- >> do you know of a case where the defense department has knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that didn't exhibit the ability to mitigate the risk of maintaining control, do you know of a case like that?

>> so the statutory standard -- >> you made your answer. >> let me suggest that this idea that people throughout the world are so upset with us for keeping a significant number of people who are captured as part of the terrorists units and incarcerating them in guantánamo that is such a story that is a recruitment vehicle and that is what the president is telling us and the administration is telling us. let me suggest if that is true, the european allies and others be the taking these hardened murderers that murder men, women and children and incarcerating them on cuba or anywhere else but me suggest that attitude of

the european friends may well be changing in the next six months or so when they realized the slaughter that is taking place in paris and brussels, this part of an international movement to destroy western civilization and replace it with a caliphate and when they understand that, my guess is that view is so bad to keep these people in prison will change as well. let me ask you this we say that about 30% or whatever the figure is that have been released have returned to the terrorist activities. how many lives have been lost by those terrorists who went back to their terrorist activities?

a because we transferred detainees. however, it's the best judgment and the considered judgment of this administration and the previous administration that the risk of keeping gitmo open is outweighed, that we should close gitmo -- >> so that innocent people, we will lose their life because of this, they're just part of the equation? >> no, sir. >> as far as i'm concerned if one child is saved because blown

up by someone who's been released an from its better to p all 90 of those people in gitmo. this idea that the people of the world, they are so upset with us but it's a recruiting vehicle, that we have kept terrorists who murder innocent people in gitmo, well, you know what? i think the bigger recruiting tool today is when our government, especially at this administration, is perceived as being weak i think cameras are recruited not because we felt other terrorists in prison, but because we look like we are weak and cannot deal with the challenge. this disgusts me. thank you very much. >> we go to robin kelley of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. wolosky come yesterday overturned from cuba when we discussed the opening of u.s. cuban relations. while we have made steps toward developing positive bilateral relations, president castro has

repeatedly stated that relations with the united states will never be fully normal soong as the united states occupies or utilizes the guantánamo bay detention facility. how do you imagine the continues of the guantánamo bay detention facility would affect the process of normalizing relations between the united states and cuba? >> thank you, ma'am. as the president has said, this administration has no plans to leave, to turn over the base at guantánamo bay, cuba. we are intent as you know to close the detention facility at that base. we would expect to continue to use the base 40 with mass migration contingencies, and also to support coast guard operations with respect to

counter drug operations in the region. >> okay. to what extent do you believe this local diplomatic security which contributed to our national security efforts? >> as you know president obama feels firmly that closing guantánamo is international skewed interest of the united states. no detainee is transferred from guantánamo absent a certification from the secretary of defense, that the transfer come specific transfer will further the national security of the united states. and as i said in my opening statement, president obama was hardly the first u.s. president to conclude that closing guantánamo wa was in the nationl security and foreign policy interests of the united states. the first president to do that was the man who opened it up, george w. bush, who concluded that it was a propaganda tool

and a distraction to our allies. not only did he delete.com he acted on it in transferring over life hundred detainees from guantánamo -- 500 -- to third countries. so we believe, as did president bush, as did numerous former secretaries of state of both parties, saying for sectors of defense, same for three chairman, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and numerous retired flag officers that closing guantánamo will on balance enhance our national security. as we have said, you cannot live life without risk. and the proper analysis as congressman engel suggested, we believe is balancing the risks of keeping it open versus the risk of closing it.

you know, we work diligently to prevent reengage but. we have been quite successful in this administration in preventing re-engagement. and even one detainee returning to the fight is too many. but the proper analysis is balancing closure, the risk of closure versus the risk of keeping it open. i would point out that obviously our hearts go out to the people of belgium today. and our hearts went out to the people of paris just a few short months ago. but the maintenance, continued maintenance of this facility at guantánamo bay, did not prevent either of those attacks. there are unfortunately going to be acts of terrorism, probably whether the facility is opened or closed. the proper analysis is what are the risks of keeping it open in light of the very obvious use of

that facility as a propaganda tool which, frankly, you should not have to question. isil, which is now claimed responsibility for the belgium attacks, uses guantánamo as a propaganda tool. there's no question about this. we've all seen images of prisoners taken by isil being executed wearing orange jumpsuits that we believe are meant to mimic and evoke the guantánamo jumpsuits. there's no question that this is been used as a propaganda tool. as president bush himself concluded we determined to close the facility. facility. >> i'm running out of time, so thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as long as we're talking about cuba policy come off as something i'd like to get off my chest. i find the imagery of the president yukking it up with

ferc terrace at a baseball game yesterday when europe is under siege by terrorists discussing their absolutely disgusting. and i believe, well, i'm not going to go on on that. i just think there are better things that i think the public should be seeing. one of the troubling aspects of the transfer of six detainees to uruguay was the slow wonder to the letter uruguayan government that none of the detainees had ever been assaulted with terrorism. we know this isn't true, and i know it was your predecessor who wrote the letter. but you can, can you walk us through how the administration could make such a misleading statement? how can you expect a host government didn't take seriously to monitoring and mitigation of the detainee? in your case rates become a state at the time they would not monitor.

and we still released them. does this speak to the administration overall willingness to accept greater risk in pursuit of the president political goal to empty the prison? mr. wolosky. >> sure. yes, sir, thank you. first, although we cannot speak in an open session about the specifics of the security assurances that i didn't agree to with any one country, i can assure you that any public statement you may have just referenced are not accurate. and we do have security assurances with uruguay. we breathe this committee in closed session on those security assurances. we are happy to come and brief you about what they are and how they're being implemented. as to the salon letter what i can tell you is that the conclusions in that letter mirrored the conclusions reached by the executive, the dot of process which was the process

put in place beginning of this administration to carefully review all reasonably available information to the u.s. government with respect to any particular detainee. that process was described in some detail in my written submission. it involved dozens of national security professionals from all relevant agencies and departments of the government, including the intelligence community. many of them are real professionals. and they reached certain conclusions about each detainee and the information available, that the table to the united states about each detainee. so what the sloan letter does is it attracts the conclusion of the eotf report which was discovered at the interagency review that was conducted for the specific purpose of

analyzing the available information in the u.s. government about each detainee is in making a disposition recommendation about the detainee. >> whatever justification you are trying to make for why the letter, though an accurate, once said, those would provide comfort to most of us. the thought was it was flat out wrong. it was an error. and a gross error. in an interview with recently with npr, you said that after having visited guantánamo bay, you felt the detention center was better certainly than any state or local correctional facility or person you visited, and better than many of the federal facilities. yet you're advising the president on the closure so he can propose building a new facility here. does that make any sense? would it not be better to tell the iraqi people and the world the real story about the

facility, that it's a model detention facility, that the international committee of red cross, icrc has a regular access to get? would be best to dispel the false narrative of some use rather than close to what by your estimation is a great facility? >> i do think it's a professionally run and humanely run facility, and in particular the servicemen and women who serve their faced enormous hardship in their service, and they do an outstanding job in running the facility. general kelly did an outstanding job in managing that. now admiral james has taken over that process and they both do an incredible job in maintaining a top, which is a very well run facility. that second we still think it should be closed. >> we're going to mr. meeks and then mr. brooks of alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i just want to get first a couple of things straightened for the record. as i listened and my heart goes out to those individuals who lost their lives recently in belgium, as well as tom we talk about the paris attacks often, you talk about how i just want to because everyone and the record is clear that this war is not just against the west. we don't talk about all of the attacks that has taken place in various places. it's taken place and we should be just as concerned in nigeria, in kenya, and turkey. so to think that these are all human lives. we've got to be concerned about all of those lives, not just one every and it's not just against us. it's not just against christians. muslims have been killed also buy these stocks. that should be properly noted. -- thugs. it should also be clear, i think the historical record is clear that in acts of fear, when we act out of fear our nation have

made monumental mistakes and keeping gitmo in operation out of fear because that's what i'm hearing. it was -- focusing out of your we need to keep gitmo open. another monumental mistake that one hurt america's interest rather than helps it. what comes straight to mind is we acted out of fear would put the japanese into internment camps. and so, therefore, i caution us. after it happens to me say look at our past, we try to not talk about what we did. and so history gives us a reminder of what we should or shouldn't be doing in this place, called the heads and their heads as opposed to acting out of fear of emotion to i just think the record should be clear on that and it should be clear all kinds of lives lost in all parts of the world. so this is a threat to everybody, not just to the west, not just to krishna to everybody because while we have got to

band together and work together in a cooperative manner. that being said let me ask a quick question. we are to be go? if the guantánamo detention facility is closed, we closed them, what will the united states do when we captured terrorist suspects in the future? to get other adequate facilities for these individuals? how would the administration approached the future capture, detention and interrogation of high level isis commanders? >> we do believe we have the facilities. we do any future captures what they consider on a case-by-case basis, and we would consider whether the host nation could detain them or whether it would be a disposition under prosecution, either article iii hostile to military commissions, but we believe we have the ability as we've shown in one or two cases in iraq recently to detain people and been turned over to the host country. but it's on a case-by-case

basis. >> the is a clear and concrete plan on how we would do this? >> yes, sir. >> i was listening to some of the debate earlier, and there was a question about recidivism rates and, i guess, according to the official report from the office of the director of national intelligence that fewer than 5% of detainees are transferred by the obama administration are confirmed to have engaged in terrorist attacks. but i did hear i think it was chairman royce talk about usually engagement rate that is 30%. can you describe how you make that determination? how those rates are determined that why there's such a disparity? >> well, i will let the chairman speak for himself but i think that's big would the gentleman yield? i will speak. because it's confirmed and suspected edge leaving out suspected spill not this administration respectfully, sir. the rate of suspected in this

administration is 8.3%. >> that's the exact number is i can for our ride, and the overall numbers are over 30% over all. and 8.9 i'm 8.9 confirmed and suspected. and as explained to us, investigators say it takes about four years leadtime in order to get the confirmation come all of the confirmation to i'm just explaining. i will yield back. >> there were over 530 detainees transferred during the previous administration. obviously, we cannot speak to the circumstances under which of those detainees were transferred. first, how was the decision-making transfer them to second, how was that, how was because he made to transfer them to a specific country? what assurances do any good the previous administration obtaining from the third country to keep us and then save? we can't speak of it. all we can do speak to what we are doing speed that's what i'm asking you to do.

>> at both stages of the process, first making a determination in principle that a detainee may be approved for transfer and designated as such. and second, transferring them to a specific country subject to specific and detailed security assurances. what we're doing is very thorough. it's interagency. it's very comprehensive and it takes a long time. it's described at length in my written testimony. i'm happy to answer questions about it. but the results of it as set forth in the odni report from this month are clear. the results of it our first, confirmed reengage the. seven out of 144. that's 4.9%. suspected, 12 out of 144, that's 8.3%. those are what the numbers are, sir, for this administration. i would point out also with respect to the standards that are applied in defining what it

even means to be confirmed or suspected, it's important to point out first that confirmed is a preponderance of information standards. so this is not a reasonable doubt this is not -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. if i could just go to the gym in florida for his questions -- gentleman from florida. >> i have more of a statement that i appreciate it. to start with, we respect the closing guantánamo i'm glad to you on the record back at the administration said that they will not transfer the naval base back to cuba. we are talking about the detention center only. there's two entities as we are all aware of the. as far as the recruiting tool, guantánamo bay is a recruiting tool, i don't see how come i think that's a weak argument because if those people come to the united states, is that not a recruiting tool? so to say there in guantánamo will be a strong recruiting tool i think is hypocrisy at its

finest. because of the jihad is will look at him being here in the belly of the great satan. i think that argument is very weak and we should need to talk about the. i disagree with your comments about uruguay six. i just came back to, met with the foreign minister they don't have a clue as to what the negotiation was when it was negotiated under their president. they don't know what the deals were, what the conditions were. they don't have a clue of monitoring, and i think it's a joke. but saying that i think the overall success rate if there were 780 total detainees, we are down to 94% have been processed. that leaves only 6%. at of those 6%, that's taken out of the 36%, or the 36th out of already been cleared, yet this administration hasn't found a suitable place to go to i would encourage you to move a little

bit quicker on the end of the remaining 52% am if we take the 30% that window will go into combat against a young men and women come or suspected, that comes out to be 15.6 terrorists by fighting our young men and women. and i don't think any american would want that, or people around the world. i'm going to yield the rest of my time back. >> we are going to have one question from each. >> so thank you. thank the gentleman from florida. if we move the detainees to u.s. soil, that's not going to be used as a recruitment tool by isis? biblical silent now that we have done right by our allies speak with you will still be a tool but we take away from a legal point of view, we are taking with the issue that our allies are asking us to do good they are saying close gitmo. >> do you think they will change the position of light of brussels and paris like was suggested? isn't there a chance you agree there's a chance they will

change their position in light of recent events? >> it's been a continued position they want gitmo closed. that ou are leadership and the h administration leadership said that the cause of gitmo outweigh the benefits. >> now we go to mr. connolly for his question. >> mr. wolosky old mr. lewis, do you remember that the cia terrorist incident a number of years ago in fairfax county? >> yes, sir. >> was the perpetrator of that incident caught and tried? >> it's my understanding, yes. >> once he tried in guantánamo or was he tried in u.s. district court writer in virginia? >> it's my understanding in virginia. >> and was he sentenced? >> it's my understanding, yes, sir. >> cases receive the death penalty speakers that i do not know that it was a severe sense. >> some of our system of justice works. not on cuban soil. on virginia soil. we could handle a terrorist, and he had.

i just for the record, you know, we have to take into account the consequences of the symbolism of guantánamo. and, frankly, the fact that the suggestion is planted that we are not all that confident in our own system of justice in handling terrorist cases, and the fact of the matter is we do have experience and our system worked. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. gallagher we have vote on before. we appreciate the time of our witnesses this morning. and eyewitnesses have agreed to meet with us in april in closed session, so we appreciate that. as you've heard the and many concerns with the president's plan especially given the ever-growing terrorist threat evidenced by what happened in brussels this week. the points made by mr. trott and others bring to mind the conversation i had yesterday with the former nsa and cia

director about the concept that if you moved into u.s. soil, in fact that will be a magnet for terrorists. fact that jihadists are being held in the united states. and so i think the last questions raised were also questions was contemplating, but we will adjourn at this time for the votes and we thank our panel. >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> as we often remind you, if you missed any of this you can see it anytime in the c-span video library. go to c-span.org. throughout this year we've been asking viewers, do you think closing guantánamo bay poses a national security threat on our facebook page. closing guantánamo poses not only a security threat to the united states but increases the existential threat to some american allies. it must remain open as an island prison for those hellbent on destroying western civilization. mike says no, closing guantánamo

they will not pose a national security threat. in fact, quite the opposite. try them into court and. try them into court and send it to a prison or, if they're not on gilder, release them. we invite you to weigh in on our facebook and twitter pages. go to facebook.com/cspan. democratic presidential front-runner hillary clinton is in california. she will be giving a speech on counterterrorism at stanford university. she's expected to address yesterday's attacks in brussels. also today, house speaker paul ryan addressing members of the press and capitol hill interns on the state of american politics. we will bring you his remarks tonight starting at eight eastern on c-span. on c-span2 its booktv in prime time looking at recent books on disease and medical care.

that is all tonight starting at eight eastern here on c-span2. .. a dominant force in american life. >> and on real america. >> [inaudible] >> the shuttle is on a heading towards an imaginary target in space.