>> for a woman to be at the head of the most powerful country in the world, when one of our key allies doesn't allow women to drive, and our most significant enemy at this time, isis, is literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls, i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. >> go to booktv.org for the complete schedule. >> american history tv on c-span3 this weekend.

>> adams famously said, my gift of john marshall to the people of the united states was one of the proudest act of my life. and marshall has been widely praised for transforming the supreme court into what his biographer john edward smith calls the dominant force in american life. >> the role will put the shuttle on its precise heading toward an imaginary target in space. >> the 1981 nasa documentary on the today maiden voyage of the space shuttle columbia. >> the 1960 campaign film for republican presidential candidate richard nixon.

>> i have decided that i will test my ability to win and my ability to cope with the issues in the fires of the primary, and not just in a smoke-filled room of miami. >> and a panel of authors on the recent books chronicling the mexican-american civil rights from 1930s to the 1970s. >> been this coalition of labor unions, mexican american civil rights leaders and religious authorities came together to protest the exploitation of the program and, in fact, accelerate congresses decision to terminate it the next year in 1964. and i think this was a moment of blossoming for the chicano movement. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule go to c-span.org. >> to special envoy for the closure of guantánamo bay's detention facility testified

before the house foreign affairs committee on wednesday. instead workers obama announced his plan to close the prison in cuba and relocate prisoners not eligible for transfer to facilities in the united states. committee chair ed royce of california and republican committee members was concerned about the security risks of transferring detainees to u.s. soil and other countries. this is about an hour and a ha half. >> this committee will come to order. president obama's race to empty the guantanamo bay detention facility is on. in recent weeks and months, many hardened terrorists have been released and sent abroad.

and according to the president's closure plan sent to congress last month, another 35 are set to be transferred by summer. unfortunately, we know many of the recipient countries don't have the desire or commitment or ability to monitor these dangerous individuals and prevent them from returning to the battlefield. countries like ghana and uruguay aren't typical security and intelligence partners, but they are being asked to shoulder a heavy burden and 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-in. that was certainly a finding of a committee investigation into the release of six detainees to uruguay in december 2014.

and 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 guantanamo at the time wrote to the uruguayan president that there was no information that these six 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, and fighters at tora bora. committee, committing mayhem, committing murders in afghanistan, and although the law clerk states that steps must be taken to substantially

mitigate the risk of released individuals from again threatening the united states, senior uruguayan officials asserted before that the six arrived that they would not impose or accept any conditions to receive these former detainees. indeed, these six terrorists were housed just blocks from 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 of the senior leaders of al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula are guantanamo alums. the administration is emptying guantanamo with the flimsy claim

that it is a terrorist recruiting tool. let me explain that i don't think that if you stand in line and rocket to recruit -- raqqa -- into isis, you say, guantánamo bay is going to be closed, no need to enlist your. what rock is about, what price is about is the establishment of the caliphate. that's what's driving recruitment and, frankly, the success of isis on the battlefield is driving recruitment. closing this detention facility has been opposed by bipartisan majorities in congress and even members of president obama's own cabinet. it's 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.

forty-five 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 guantanamo detainees to u.s. soil would be against the law. that's according to our secretary of defense and attorney general. i see no interest in changing that law, certainly not by the american people, 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 guantanamo would not take in any new terrorists captured on the battlefield. if the administration was

spending as much time working to capture and detain isis fighters as it was trying to close down a perfectly good facility at guantanamo bay, we'd be more secure. isis is continuing to threaten and expand in libya, afghanistan and elsewhere. europe is under siege by jihadists. we are under attack. so unfortunately, we are going to need a detention facility for fanatical terrorists, whose processing in the u.s. legal system is unwarranted and simply not feasible, and we're going to need that for a long time to come. and we will now go to introduction of our panel. this morning we are pleased to be joined by special envoy lee

wolosky was the special envoy for wonton will close out the is department of state. previously he also served as the 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 is department of defense. previously mr. lewis served as both a general counsel and minority general counsel of the house armed services committee. and we welcomed them both to the committee. we appreciate that our to witnesses, along with the intelligence community, have already agreed to meet with the committee in april in closed session on necessary classified issues. and without objection the witnesses for prepared statements will be made part of the record and members here one of five calendar days to submit any questions or any statements

or extraneous material for the record. and 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, mr. wolosky, mr. lewis, welcome to the foreign affairs committee and thank you for your service. we are reminded again today of the terrible cost of violent extremism. i was just on the floor of the house speaking on resolution declaring our solidarity with the people of belgium, so that's why i just got here. came to write from the floor. a dark shadow of a terrorist attack has fallen over another one of europe's great cities that we are all standing alongside the belgian people today as they mourn the dead,

build what's broken and seek justice. in these situations it's important to look at what were we can be doing to enhance cooperation with our partners and prevent this type of violence. it's also important reflect on where our policies have gone astray, and maybe made the situation worse. it's appropriate today we are taking hard look at one of the most troubling and divisive symbols of our counterterrorism efforts in guantánamo bay detention facility. the subtitle of today's hearing is what is the foreign policy and national security cost of closing the guantánamo facility. as policymakers, legislators and experts have been saying all since the facility open, the better question perhaps maybe what of the cost of keeping it open. for starters representative green on military resources, it cost nearly $5 billion a year to keep a person contained in guantánamo versus $70,000 to keep someone help animals --

free up $85 million a year. resource we could put to better use elsewhere combating terrorism. the argument against this goes we need to spend whatever it cost to these guys are too dangerous to bring here. let's look at that. today 91 detainees remain in gitmo. pix of the prison open 6-under 44 individuals who have been transferred out, 144 under president obama, 500 under president bush. today more than one-third of the current 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 returned to the battlefield. but in improved procedures under the obama administration it has nearly eliminated this problem. if the president plans to close the guantánamo detention, presidents a plan to close the guantánamo detention facility goes forward, only handful of

detainees would ever be brought to the united states. and those who are would be help in 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 good residents of these incredibly secure facilities? terrorists. sakarya moussaoui who helped plot the terror attack. richard reid, the so-called shoe bomber. dzhokhar tsarnaev are, the boston marathon bomber. afford many behind the 1993 world trade center bombing. six terrorists responsible for bombing our embassies in kenya and tanzania. all these men will call adx of florence in colorado for the rest of their days. for the very few prisoners were still in the military commission process we should try them in federal court to speed up justice for the victims. if there's any doubt we can handle the most dangerous terrorist, ask any of the people i just listed.

it isn't a question of what rights guantánamo today's should or should not be a quarter. it's just the simple fact the federal justice system has tried and punished terrorists much more effectively than military commissions. but beyond the dollars and cents, the on our safety here at home we need to consider the harm the afflicted are melted into surmountable. and just as important on our values. a terrorist seeking to recruit more fighters into the ranks, guantánamo the so it's a gift that keeps on giving. this prison has become so divisive and so reviled that our enemies no longer even need to call it by name. instead as we've seen again and again terrorist flip on the camera, the whole world can see, write out some innocent prisoner in an orange jumpsuit and cut off his head or light a bonfire. the orange jumpsuits were not selected by accident everyone knows what they symbolized. this prison has helped strengthen our enemies. this is become a stumbling block in a relationship with coalition partners.

it's not just americans that isis is addressing in those orange jumpsuits. it has created deep division at home. that's because gitmo has long string some our country's most important values. it's become synonymous as torture and indefinite detention when we are going to school and learn all about rights in the constitution, this was never allowed under american law. i want to vote retired major general michael leonard first command of a detention facility after 9/11. this is a quote from him. he said guantánamo was a mistake. history will reflect that. it was clear in the early days as a consequence of fear, anger and political expediency. it ignored centuries of rule of law and international agreement. it does not make us safer and it soldiers who we are as a nation. i ask unanimous consent that his full statement be included in the record. >> without objection.

>> the coming back, thank you, mr. chairman. so coming back to our question, what are the cost of closing guantánamo? the answers are clear. the cost of closing the facility are far, far less than the cost of keeping it open. i'm not alone in this view. president george w. bush was very clear he wanted to close the. john mccain made a campaign promise to do the same. and overwhelming majority national to military experts including former secretaries of state and defense, cia directors, national security advisers and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff think it should be shattered as i pointed out the arguments against closing just don't hold up. at the end of the day the only justification for keeping the prison open is fear. fear of violent extremism, fear that our justice system or 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 enough. 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 with his propaganda tool for terrorists. we should work to element the president's plan and shut down this prison. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. everyone who knows me knows i take a hard line on this. i think we are far better off closing this facility are our interest, no other interest, or american interests. that if we leave it open. i look forward to doing our witnesses. thank you, mr. chairman and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. engel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman royce, ranking member engel, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the important matter of closing guantánamo bay, he was detention facility. i'm 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 rigorous processes in addition whether a detainee should be

approved for transfer and the extensive interagency efforts that ensure compliance with the optical 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 for many of the same 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 and 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, former secretary of

state clinton, rice, powell, albright, christopher, baker and kissinger have all advocated losing guantánamo. 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 from the pope to the organization for american states consistently call on the united states to close guantánamo. today for our 91 individuals detained at one time a, 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 implementation of rigorous in agency 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 improved -- up detainees for transfer. 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 six agencies and departments before a detainee may be designated as approved for transfer. after a detainee as approved for transfer the department of state lead to negotiations with foreign governments about possible transfer. we are joined in our efforts by 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, 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 arrive at a satisfactory security framework, with a foreign government, the secretary of defense seeks conference in the transfer come in a specific transfer from the secretary of state and homeland security, the attorney general, director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. 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 secretary of defense signed and transmit a certification to the congress saying his intent to transfer a guantánamo detainee. the rigorous approval and negotiation process i've described has contributed to the dramatic reduction in to confirm 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 by the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i am honored to join my colleague. mr. chairman, itablet appreciate your continued and sustained interest in this extremely important issue. at the outset i want to echo special envoy wolosky's statement and make one fundamental point regarding the

detention facility at one time away. the president and his national security team have determined that closing this detention facility is a bipartisan national security imperative. the president has repeatedly stated that the continued operation of the detention facility at guantánamo weakens our national security by damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, draining resources and providing violent extremists with a propaganda tool. in january of last year only to 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 the guantánamo is not a political issue. there 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, retired

commandant of the marine corps, major general michael leonard, first command of the joint detention task force at guantánamo, 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 reaffirmed this letter this month. as lead noted in addition to the former chairman of the chief of staff admiral mike mullen and martin dempsey support the guantánamo closure. it's the opinion of many others in our military. envoy lost his noted the bipartisan support for gitmo closure but i think it's important to highlight its broad conclusion. this conclusion is shared by two presidents, four former sectors of defense, a former secretaries 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 concluded that the guantánamo detention facility was a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies. the president himself made the 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 and 2016. these transfers have reduced the guantánamo detention facilities population of fewer than 100 for the first time since 2002 your overall, 27 nations since 2000 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 i cite several statements. cliff sloan, envoy wolosky's predecessor, noted an example. as a highly ranking security official in one of our staunchest allies in counterterrorism once told me, the greatest single action that united states could take to fight terrorism is to close guantánamo. and i note highlights by other characters and experts from the previous administration. john mallinger, matt waxman both worked for the department of state noted that counterterrorism affects of that closing gitmo. and i described in more detail in my opening statement. mr. chairman, i'm also prepared to address a plan to close the

facility at the president announcing the plan stated it has four main element. we will continue to transfer, accelerate the process, look for individual dispositions here 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 can i just want to state that secretary carter has forcefully stated that safety is his number one priority. he does not transfer a detainee and less is confident that the threat is substantially mitigated and attend the national security interests of the united states. ..

over 85% have been transferred. including 500 transferred by the previous administration. the president, his national security experts and this administration believe it should be coasted. the senior -- closed. senior military leaders of this country and leaders of the department of defense concur. as indicated in the letter by retired military leaders many believe the closure of this facility is single most important counterterrorism effort the united states can undertake. we believe the issue is not to close the guantanamo facility, it is how to do it. i look forward to your questions. >> let me ask both your

witnesses, secretary of defense carter and attorney general lynch both stated that transfers of guantanamo detainees to the united states are legally prohibited. is that your understanding of the law as well? >> it is my understanding of the law that statute in it is current form prohibits transfers to the united states which is why we are working at this time to work with the congress or seeking to work with the congress to modify the law in order to bring to the united states, small reducible minimum number of detainees ascribed in the president's closure plan. >> is it correct then that under current law the department of defense is prohibited from selecting any u.s. site or making any preparations for transfer of the detainees to the u.s.?

>> frankly i have no idea. that is a legal question that is most appropriately 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 the current statute does prohibit us from doing that so we're working towards doing that the plan that was sent up we gave a look at locations, military facilities and federal state facilities that could do that. we believe detainees as i said can be detained. we did not pick a specific location. >> the, one of the concerns that congress clearly has here is that in terms of our experience with those who have left guantanamo bay, over the long haul, those who have returned to the fight or those who have

suspected of having returned to the fight, there is a little over 30%. i understand the argument that the administration is making recent, recent individuals released they haven't returned -- lower percentage returned to the fight but of course there is a continuum in terms of collecting the information and monitoring and transitioning as people end up, i'm just looking at overall number. the overall number is in the neighborhood of 31%. and if we begin to focus on some of the recent examples of those who did, it is pretty concerning given ibrahim el kozi, one of

high-risk detainees transferred by this administration and by 2014 he joined al qaeda in the arabian peninsula and now he is in their leadership. last month we saw a video urging a takeover in saudi arabia. now he would not be out doing his propaganda if he was housed in guantanamo. one of the concerns i have on the rap sheet of those inside as we make argument, we've been through these discussions but we make the argument about the necessity of releases them but the fact is, the bottom line is, they end up, certain percentage of them pulling stunts like this, calling for overthrow of the government in saudi arabia and very engaged in that process

i understand in theory it's a recruit man tool, that thesis. certain percentage return to the fight and we have unclassified letter from the national director of intelligence, writing that the intelligence community lax reporting that the propaganda or isis recruits to join the group. there is a debate. i talked to former administration high-ranking officers and officials who have the opposite view of the view that you have laid out today, tell me no, it doesn't have to do with recruitment. we understand your theory on it. but there is the fact, and the fact we do have this process. so let me ask you this question. we do have this challenge

because of the way this process is releases individuals to countries that don't have the capabilities, so here is my question. mr. lewis lists in his testimony some of the countries that the administration transferred detainees to since 2009. so, mr. lewis, el salavador, kazakhstan, ghana. i would just ask lee, have you been to ghana? this is one. countries that i have been to are you fully confident it has the capability and motivation to monitor and track these detainees? >> mr. chairman, yes, we are. as you know no transfer occur unless we are confident in the security assurances that we have received and the secretary of defense makings requisite certifications to the congress. to date, and we only have

admittedly several months of experience, what i can tell you in this open forum, we are happy to come to we're pleased by implementation of government of ghana and security assurances. >> i've been to ghana and across west africa. it's a wonderful place and wonderful country but the fact is it doesn't have top-notch intelligence and law enforcement services to deal with this problem. gdp per capita is $4,000. it is 175th in the world. they have many challenges. so i'm going to guess that tracking former detainees from guantanamo is not a priority just as i said other examples

like uruguay. it wasn't up there. if they weren't returning or 31% haven't return to the fight, this would not be a concern lee, but this is a very real concern. i will go to mr. engel for his questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know's mali because of terrorism and attacks on 9/11 and attacks in brussels and things we're hearing emotionally you just want to say, throw them all in jail and put them all in jail and throw away the key but that is not how we're supposed to work as a nation. that is not -- what we stand for and i don't believe we should abandon our principles if we can still be safe. i would say that things are tradeoff. i wouldn't be for abandoning our

principles if it meant there was going to be larger chance of being unsafe as a result of releasing or transferring some of these people. but when you read the facts, you look at the facts, it's really worse by keeping them there. you need to have a balance sheet. i'm not for releasing anybody who was guilty but i'm also not for keeping people in prison year after year after year with no trial. that is not what i learned when i was in grade school, one of the reasons why this country is so great. opponents of closing the guantanamo detention facility often say that people currently in the prison are the worst of the worst or the most dangerous and that's why we should not release them at all. some critics point to risk assessments from the previous administration, from the bush administration in support of

this claim. what's your view how risk assessments have been conducted by the interagency task force and periodic review boards compared with previous risk assessments? given what you know about detainees currently held at guantanamo are they really the most dangerous? if not why have they been in guantanamo so long? is it because we transferred all the easy cases? explain how these people are vis-a-vis kises that have already been ajudicated. >> thank you, congressman, for the question. it is certainly the case there are some extremely dangerous individuals who remain guantanamo but it is also the case there are individuals in guantanamo who are not extremely dangerous. of the 36 currently approved for transfer, 29 are yemeni nationals and of course we've been unable to return them to

yemen, returning them to the country of origin is always our first choice in removing a guantanamo detainee from guantanamo. so there is a significant component of country of origin that goes into the remaining detainee population and why they are still there. with respect to your first question, it sort of bleeds into the re-engagement issues that the chairman raised which i appreciate the opportunity to address because we actually do have hard data on re-engagement and i'd like to refer you to the numbers in the report issued by the office of national intelligence earlier this month on re-engagement. the actual numbers are, in this administration, seven confirmed

re-engagement former detainees and the previous administration, 111. seven in this administration out of 144 transferred. that translates into 4.9%. number for the previous administration is 111 out of 532 which translates into 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 also think that you're exactly right, when you indicated, indicated in your opening statement that the risks of transferring detainees, and we acknowledged that there are risks must be weighed against

the risks of keeping the facility open. there has been until recently a bipartisan consensus that there are significant national security and foreign policy risks associated with keeping the facility open. that was articulated by the previous president who transferred over 500 detainees out of guantanamo in furtherance of his effort to close guantanamo because he recognized it was a propaganda tool. the conclusion was reached by non-partisan military leaders across the services. so, i think that when we talk -- and i'll stop speaking in a moment, when we talk about reengagement it is important to refer to the actual data that has been put forward by the director of national

intelligence. >> well let me ask you, who is left at guantanamo? is it correct that 91 individuals, of the 91 individuals who are at gain dawn mow, 81 is not facing criminal charges? is that true? is it also correct that 35 individuals have been cleared for transfer out of impawn town mow? what does that mean to be transferred out? who decides how long they have been cleared for transfer and why are they still waiting to leave? >> thank you for your question. there are 91 detainees guantanamo. 36 have been approved for transfer. some of them have been approved for transfer since 2010. some of them more recently. and 10 have been, are in some portion, some stage of the military commission process, either facing charges or serving sentences. and the remainder 40 some odd

detainees are neither proof of transfer or currently facing charges. >> can i, mr. chairman, if you just indulge me, i want to ask a federal court question. the administration plan calls for some guantanamo detainees to tried in federal court. congress posed a ban for transferring any goon town mow detainees to the u.s. including for try trial. from what i've seen federal courts have been extremely effective trying terrorism cases. since 9/11, federal courts convicted 500 people over terrorism related offenses but by contrast, 9/11 commission has been in pretrial hearing since 2012. the trial is n expected to be started until 2020. why have federal courts been so effective bringing these

terrorists to justice? >> the federal courts are 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 have been effectively convicted and are now serving time in the federal prison system. fazal shahzad, the times square bomber, richard reid the shoe-bomber, mr. tsarnaev, boston marathon bomber, moussaoui, the list goes on. they have all been held safely and security. the point the chairman raised about mr. al-qosi, i should report he was released from the custody of the united states after serving his military commission sentence. so he is an example of someone who went through the military commission system, was, pled

guilty to material support and conspiracy and then after he served his sentence in that system, he was released. if he were put through the article iii system he would probably still be serving his sentence and not be off doing, doing what he has been doing. >> if i could, we were talking about two difficult sets of numbers so could address that quickly before we go to the next member. in terms of the administration's numbers that they released, the administration's claim is 7.9% of detainees released under the president are confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorism. you were just using number confirmed. the administration released the figure that overall the rate is

just over 31%. investigators tell us that it takes four years to confirm. so there is, there is a question in terms of the trend line on detainees recidivism you about the overall -- but the overall rate i'm quoting here is the rate on confirmed or suspected. we'll go now to mr. chris smith of new jersey. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and welcome, both of you to the committee. yesterday i chaired an oversight hearing on focusing on the 14 countries reuters found after a series of investigative reports, i want this on the record and i would hope the press take note of this, because i think it is egregious flaw of the implementation of the trafficking victims protection act which i am the author of. i'm deeply concerned, tier 3 state department ranking.

it had been there during the bush administration. so designated during the obama administration only to be manipulated politically for non-human trafficking criteria in anticipation of this i find absurd. the tip report should be absolutely accurate and speak truth to power and defend those who have been, are you bored with this? >> no, sir. >> thank you. should speak to truth to power when it comes to sex trafficking and child sex tourism which is rampant and castro regime gleans enormous profits from it as they do from 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 cuban government is likely one of the largest and most profitable trafficking promoters in the entire world. so my hope is that this year, and yesterday's title of our

hearing was next time, get it right, that there will be no political manipulation of the trafficking tiers. if you read the report itself it reads inescapably to a tier 3 sanctions rating but when it got to another level there was manipulation there for political reasons. i find that appalling and deeply, deeply saddening. let me just ask you a question on point, the point man in uruguay as we all know for overseeing six transferred guantanamo detainees is the minister. are you confident in minister bonami's commitment to the former detainees do not link up with international islamic networks or assuring that these six individuals do not threaten our embassy personnel or mile-per-hour national as in ira guy? do you trust eduardo bernami and believe he is man of character?

>> thank you for your question, congressman. i don't know him but i can say we're confident -- there is never, as i said no risk associated with transferring a detainee. the appropriate calculus we believe is the one essentially congressman engle put forward, weighing the risks of transferring versus the risks which have been recognized across the spectrum of maintaining the facility. but we're confident to your question that the government of uruguay is taking appropriate steps to substantially mitigate the risk associated with each of the six detainees that have been transferred to its custody. >> again is it your view that the minister of this, this particular minister, an avowed leftist is trustworthy? because he is guardian. >> i don't agree with that necessarily. when we look countries to resettle detainees in, we do not

base it on personalities. we base it on the government as a whole, the capabilities of the government as a whole and the willingness of the government. and then of course the specific security assurances that have been negotiated and our assessment of whether or not those security assurances can and will be implemented. >> but since he is likely to be the point man or is the point man could you provide for the record at least your analysis as to his trustworthiness? >> i can't because i don't know him. but again, when we, when we work at transfer opportunities we base our conclusions on the capabilities of a government -- >> you about he is the point person for the government. he may be now. he may not be tomorrow and so we don't, we don't really on. >> we don't rely on particular personalities. >> with due respect, personality is government. the person walking point on issue like this one, happens to

be this minister of interior we would want to know whether or not is a person who could be trusted. particularly with such people who have committed terrorism and may recommit. >> as i said i have not met him so i feel uncomfortable offering a personal assessment. what we do do is we base our decisions on, on governments as a whole. >> but again, for the record, if you could provide additional amplification of those who analyze the situation and felt comfortable enough to proceed with this, vis-a-vis this particular minister? >> the department of state felt comfortable. >> but if you could provide that that analysis in follow-up answer? >> just to be clear, what the analysis of? >> we do do a lot of that by follow-up answer because we need to go to mr. david cities -- sis sill lien any and get through a

lot of members. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this refers to cost of plan to close guantanamo bay, the vast facility, vast majority of leaders you indicated and leaders of both sides of the political spectrum say the real foreign policy national security costs come as a result of keeping the prison open and in fact describe it as the closing of guantanamo bay detention facility is a national security imperative. and so i would like you to speak how the administration's plan to close guantanamo bay detention facility will impact our ability to work with our coalition partners in the fight against terror and how failure to close it is finding a real impediment to that critical work. >> thank you, sir. as i noted in my opening statement continuously countries are across the world and allies

tell us that gitmo hurts us. so we work with those countries by closing gitmo, we address a concern of the rest of the world. the united states needs to lead. we can't do this alone. and when our allies in counterterrorism are telling us that gitmo needs to be closed we take an issue off the table. we don't remove the risk completely. it is always going to be a propaganda issue, we take that issue off the table. >> and does the presence of guantanamo bay have an impact on our ability to use diplomacy and soft power to press other countries to uphold human rights obligations including responses against torture, forced disappearance, arbitrary or indefinite detention, things we speak about with other countries and has our credibility been harmed by the continued indefinite detentions in guantanamo bay and and at that facility.

>> yes, sir, i believe it does. the president noted that leaders meets continually raise the issue of gitmo and detainees. lee's predecessor cliff sloan mentioned that how he has been told by closing gitmo would be single greatest issue to help our counterterrorism efforts and repeated leaders from both this administration and previous administration have said the same. so i think it does hurt us. >> with respect to 36 detainees approved for transfer, some since 2010, what is the, what is taking so long for that to be completed? >> well, as lee said most of them are yemenis. 29 are yemenis. we can't confidentially send them to yemen right now. we have to look at a list of 27 other countries that have stepped up and find a fit for that detainee, find a fit for security situation in the country. their willingness around capacity, so it is a mixture of sequencing.

it is a mixture of the domestic issues in the country. but 27 countries demonstrates that there are countries that want to help us and are willing to step up. we are confident that the majority of these 36 can be transferred the next several months. >> thank you. and with respect to the issues regarding re-engagement, the office of the director of national intelligence categorizes these reengagements in three different ways at least for purposes of this hearing. 17 1/2% of detainees have re-engaged. but if you break that number down prior to this president, prior to january of 2009, the number was 20.9% but since president obama, the figure is 4.9%. so mr. wolosky, will you explain, are those figures accurate? what do they represent? and how do you account for this dramatic reduction in re-engagement which is critical? obviously any re-engagement is

alarming but the fact it has been brought to 4.9% from 20%, didn't happen just by magic. there has to have been some change in process. would you speak to that? >> sure, sir. yeah, there have been many changes in process have been put in place of this administration. from the actual decision to approve someone for transfer, which is a complicated, time-consuming very thorough and very rigorous interagency process and only moves forward with the consent with each of six agencies and departments. two, then the actual decision to transfer and approve transfer detainee to a specific country which again is a rigorous interagency process. that entails the negotiation of detailed and quite specific security assurances with a specific country. and then ultimately input from

the same six agencies and departments and then congressional notification by the secretary of defense. so our process is very thorough, it is very rigorous, it is very time-consuming further to your question why things have taken so long. and we believe that again, there's never no risk but we believe that the relative success of our processes are, processes are reflected in the reengagement figures when you look at the figure, the small figure in this administration and larger figure in the previous administration. >> thank you. i would yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. rohrabacher. >> well the first question i would like to, answer with a yes or no, it's, has the defense department ever knowingly transferred a detainee to a

country that did not exhibit an stability to substantially mitigate the risk or maintain control of that individual? i think a yes or no could be, that is very straightforward question. >> no? >> has the defense department ever sent someone to a country knowing that that person, that country was unable to take, keep control of that person? >> no. >> while i'm not from the defense department, i'm assuming your question relates to this administration. while that was the statutory standard -- >> actually it doesn't. do you know of any examples? >> i can't speak for the previous administration, sir. >> okay, what about this administration, can you speak whether or not the defense department has transferred a detainee -- is there some reason you can't say yes or no? >> i represent the department of defense so. >> all right. >> sir, what i can tell you --

>> leaving it at knowingly, do you know of a case where the defense department has knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit the ability to substantially mitigate the risk by inma takenning control of the individual? do you know of a case like that? >> i do not. >> okay. >> so the statutory standard -- >> it is all right. all right. you made your answer. let me just suggest that this idea that people throughout the world are going to be, are so upset with us for keeping a significant number of people who were captured as part of terrorist unit incarcerating them in guantanamo, that that such a horror story that it's a recruitment vehicle, that is what the president is telling us. that is what the administration is telling us, rhett me suggest

if that is true, our european allies and some others believe that taking these hardened murderers who murder, men, women and children an incarcerating them on cuba or anywhere else, let me suggest that attitude of our european friends may well be changing in the next six months or so when they realize that the slaughter that is taking place in paris and now in brussels is part of a international movement to destroy western civilization, replace it with a caliphate. and when they understand that, my guess is that view that is actually, so bad to keep these people in prison will change as well. let me ask you this, we say that about 30%, whatever that figure is that have been released have returned to terrorist activities. how many lives have been lost by

those terrorists who went back to their terrorist activity? how many lives? >> i can talk about that in a classified setting. >> classified? oh, it is, so is it over 10? >> sir, what i can tell you is unfortunately there have been americans that have died because of gitmo detainees. >> how many americans have to die, how many people in brussels or paris, have to die, civilians, what is the threshold at that point, maybe we will keep them under control in gitmo? >> sir, when anybody dies it is a tragedy and we don't want anybody to die because we transfer detainees. however, it is best judgment and considered judgment of this administration and the previous administration that the risk of keeping gitmo open is outweighed -- that we should close gitmo.

>> so the innocent people we're going to lose their lives because of this, they're just part of the equation? >> no, sir there are risks -- >> i'm sorry, i want to tell you this much as far as i'm concerned if one child is saved because she would have been blown up by someone who is being released it is better to keep all the 0 of those people in -- 90 of those people in gitmo. and this idea the people of the world, oh, they're so upset with us it is a recruiting vehicle that we've kept terrorists who murder innocent people in gitmo, well, you know what? i think that, the bigger recruiting tool today is when our government especially this administration, is perceived as being weak. i think terrorists are recruited not because we've held other terrorists in prison but because we look like we're weak and can not deal with the challenge. this disgusts me. thank you very much.

>> we go to robin kelly of illinois. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. wolosky, yesterday i returned from cuba with president obama's delegation where we discussed the opening of the u.s.-cuban relations. while we have made steps toward developing positive bilateral relations president castro repeatedly stated that relations with the united states will never be fully normal so long as the united states occupies or utilizes the guantanamo bay detention facility. how do you imagine the continued use of the guantanamo 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 guantanamo bay, cuba. are intent, as you know, to close the detention facility at

that base. we would expect to continue to use the base for dealing with mass migration, contingencies also to support coast guard operations with respect to counterdrug operations in the region. >> okay. to what extent do you believe this local diplomatic security could contribute to advancing our national security efforts? >> as you know president obama feels firmly that closing guantanamo is in the national security interest of united states. no detainee is transferred from guantanamo, absent certification from the secretary of defense that the specific transfer will further the security of the united states. as i said in my opening statement president obama was hardly the first u.s. president

to conclude that closing guantanamo was in the national 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 distraction to our allies. not only did he believe that, he acted on it in transferring over 500 detainees from guantanamo to third countries. so we, we believe, as did president bush, as did numerous former secretaries of state of both parties, same for secretaries of defense, same for three chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and numerous retired flag officers that closing guantanamo will on balance enhance our national security. and as which have said, you can

not live life without risk and the proper analysis as congressman engle suggested we believe is balancing the risks of keeping it open versus the risks of closing and we work diligently to prevent reengagement. we've been quite successful in this administration preventing re-engagement and even one detainee returning to the fight is one too many but the proper analysis is balancing risks of closure and versus the risks of keep it open. i would point out obviously out 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 and continued maintenance of this facility at guantanamo 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 the to question. isil which claimed responsibility for the belgium attacks, uses guantanamo as a propaganda tool. there is no question about this. we've all seen images prisoners taken isil being executed wearing orange jumpsuits that we believe are meant to mimic and evoke, evoke guantanamo jumpsuits. there is no question this is being used as a propaganda tool as president bush concluded himself when he determined to close the facility. >> i'm running out of time.

so thank you, i yield back. >> matt salmon of arizona. >> thank you, mr. chairman. as long as we're talking about cuba policy i would like to get something off my chest. i find imagery of the president yucking it up with farc terrorists at a baseball game yesterday when europe is under siege by terrorists disgusting. absolutely disgusting. and i believe that -- i'm not going to go 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 letter, the letter assuring uruguay government that none of the detainees had ever been associated with terrorism. we know this isn't true. and i know it was your predecessor who wrote the letter but you can walk us, can you

walk us through how the administration could make such a misleading statement? how can you expect a host government to then take seriously the monitoring and mitigation of the detainee? in uruguay's case the government stated ahead of time they would not monitor and we still released them. does this speak to the administration's overall willingness to accept greater risk in pursuit of the president's political goal to empty the prison? mr. wolosky? >> sure. yes, sir, thank you. first although we can not speak in an open session about the specifics of the security assurances that have been agreed to with any one country i can assure you that any public statements you may have just referenced are not accurate and we do have security assurances with uruguay. we briefed this committee in closed session on those security assurances and we're happy to come and brief you about what

they are and how they're being implemented. as to the sloan letter, what i can tell you is that the conclusions in the sloan letter mirrored the conclusions reached by the executive, ootf process, which was the process put in place at the beginning of this administration to kaley review all reasonably-available information to the u.s. government with respect to a 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 intelligence community. many of them career professionals, and they reached certain conclusions about each detainee and the, information available, then available to the united states about each

detainee. so what the chris sloan letter does it attracts the conclusion of the eotf report which was this comprehensive interagency review which was conducted for the specific purpose of analyzing the available information in the u.s. government about each detainee and making a specific recommendation about each detainee. >> whatever justification you're trying to make for why the letter, though inaccurate, was sent, doesn't really provide a lot of comfort to most of us the fact is, it was flat-out wrong. it was in error. and a gross error. in an interview with recently with npr you said that after having visited guantanamo bay you felt that the detention center was better certainly than any state or local correctional

facility or prison you visited and better than many of the federal facilities yet you're advising the president on closure of this facility so we can propose building a new facility here. does that make any sense? would it not be better to tell the american 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 it? wouldn't it be dispel to false narrative some use rather than close down by your estimation is a great facility? >> i do think it is professionally run and humanely-run facility. in particular the servicemen who, and women who serve there face enormous hardship in their service. they do an outstanding job in running facility. general kelly did an outstanding job managing that. now admiral tiff taken over that

process and they both do an incredible job maintaining top, what is a very well-run facility. that said we still think it should be closed. >> we're going to greg meeks of new york and mo brooks of alabama. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to get, first a couple of things straight for the record. as i listened and my heart goes out to those individuals who lost their lives recently in belgium and as well as we talk about the paris attacks often, and you talk about, i want to make sure 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. we should be just as concerned in nigeria, in kenya, in turkey. so to think that these are all human lives. we've got to be concern about all of those lives, not just in one area and not just against us. it is not just against christians. when you look at that muslims

have been killed also by these thugs, that should be properly noted. and it should also be clear, i think that 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, that is what i'm hearing, folks are saying out of fear we need to keep gitmo open, would be monumental mistake, one hurts america's interest rather than helps it. what comes straight to mind we acted out of fear when we put the japanese into interment camps. therefore i caution us. after it happens, we say, oh, look at our past, we try not to talk about what we did. so history gives us a reminder of what we should or should not be doing in this place, and

calmer heads, better heads as opposed to acting out of fear and emotion. the record should be clear. it should be clear all kinds of lives are lost in all parts of world. this is threat to everybody, not just to the west, not just to christians but to everybody and that is why we have to ban together and work together in a cooperative manner. that being said let me ask a quick question. is where do we go? if the guantanamo detention facility closed, we closed them, tell us what will the united states do when we capture terrorist suspects in the future? do we have other adequate facilities for these individuals? and how would the administration approach the future capture, detention and interrogation of high-level isis commanders. >> thank you, sir, we do believe we have the facilities. any future captures would be considered on a case-by-case basis and we would consider whether the host nation could detain them or whether there be

a disposition, prosecution under article three, possibly military commissions but we believe we have the ability we've shown in one or two cases in iraq recently, detain people and turn them over to the host country but it is on a case-by-case basis. >> so there is a clear, concrete plan how we would do this? >> yes, sir. >> let me ask also, 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 director of national intelligence, that fewer than 5% of the 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, used re-engagement rate that is 30%. now is it 30 -- can you describe how you make that determination, how those rates are determined and why is there such a

disparity? >> well, let the chairman speak for himself but i think -- >> will the gentleman yield? i will speak. because it is confirmed and suspected. you're leaving out suspected. >> not in this administration respectfully, sir. the rate of suspected in this administration is 8.3%. >> no, that is the exact numbers i concur are right and overall numbers are over 30% over all. and 8.9, 8.9 confirmed and suspected and as explained to us, the investigators take, say it takes about four years lead time in order to get the confirmation, all the confirmation. i just explaining. i will yield back. >> there were over 500 -- 530 detainees transferred during the previous administration. obviously we can not speak to the circumstances under which those detainees were transferred. first, how was a decision made to transfer them? second, how was a decision made

to transfer them to a specific couldn'ttry? third, what assurances if any did the previous administration obtain from the third country to keep us and them safe. we can't speak to that. all we can do is speak to what we are doing -- >> that is what i want you to do. >> what we're doing in in administration at both stages of process, making a determination in principle that detainee may be approved for transfer and designated as such, second, transferring him to a specific country, subject to specific and detailed security assurances. what we're doing is very thorough, interagency, it is very comprehensive and takes a long time. it is described at length in my written testimony. i'm happy to answer questions about it but the results of it, asset forth in the odni report from this month are clear. the results of it are, first, confirmed reingaugement, seven out of 144. that is 4.9%.

suspected, 12 out of 144. that is 8.3%. those are what the numbers are, sir, for this administration. i would point out also that with respect to the standards that are applied in the defining what it even means to be confirmed or suspected, it is important to point out first, that confirmed is a preponderance of information standard. so this is not a reasonable doubt. this is not that we are -- >> gentleman's time has expired. if i could just go to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho, for his questions and then maybe a question for mr. trent, and mr. connolly. >> i have more of a statement, i appreciate it. you know, to start with, when we speak about closing guantanamo i'm glad to hear you on the record backing up administration saying they will not transfer the naval base back to cuba. we're talking about the detention center only. there are two entities there as

we're all aware of. as far as the recruiting tool, guantanamo bay as recruiting tool i don't see how -- i think that is weak argument f those people come to the united states, is that not a recruiting tool too? so to say they're in guantanamo is stronger recruiter tool is sophistry at it is finest. jihadis will look at them being here in the belly of the great satan. i think that argument is very weak and we shouldn't even talk about that i disagree with your comments about the uruguay six. i came back there and met with foreign minister. they don't have a clue what the negotiation when it was negotiated under president mojica. they don't know what the deals were, what, what the conditions were. they don't have a clue of monitoring and i think it is a joke but saying that, i think the overall success rate, if there were 780 total detainees, we're down to 94%, have been processed.

that leaves only 6% and of those 6%, there is, that is taken out to 36%, or 36 that have already been cleared, yet this administration hasn't found them a suitable place to go. i would encourage you to move a little bit quicker on that. and of the remaining 52%, if we take the 30% that we know will go into combat against our young men and women or suspected, that comes out to be 15.6 terrorists back 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 rest of my time back to mr. trout. if that is okay. >> one we from mr. trot and one question from mr. connolly. >> thank the gentleman from florida. if we move detainees to u.s. soil that will not be used recruitment tool by isis? they will go silent now that we've done right by our allies?

>> it is a tool but legal point much view we're take away issue our allies are asking us to do, saying close gitmo. >> do you think our allies will change their position in light of brussels and paris like sucked earlier? would you agree there is chance they will change their in light of recent events? >> continuing position they want gitmo closed. that our leadership and bush administration leadership said that the costs of gitmo outweigh the benefits. >> thank you, mr. trot. we go to mr. connolly for his question. >> mr. wolosky or mr. lewis, you remember the cia terrorist incident number of years ago in fairfax county? >> yes, sir. >> was the perpetrator of that terrorist incident caught and tried? >> it is my understanding, yes. >> was he tried in guantanamo or was he tried in u.s. district court right here in virginia. >> it is my understanding is district court here in virginia. >> and was he sentenced?

>> it is my understanding, yes, sir. >> he received a death sentence, as a matter of fact, did he not? >> that i do not know personally, no, a severe sentence. >> and somehow our system of justice worked, not on cuban soil. on virginian soil. we could handle a terrorist and did. i just, for the record, you know, we have to take into account the consequences of the symbolism of guantanamo and frankly, the fact that the suggestion is planted that we're not all that confident in our own system of justice and in handling terrorist cases. the fact of the matter is, we do have experience and our system worked. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. connolly. we have votes on the floor. we appreciate the time of our witnesses this morning. and our witnesses have agreed to meet with us in april in closed session, so we appreciate that. as you have heard there are many concerns with the president's

plan, especially give the ever-growing terrorist threat as evidenced by what happened in brussels this week. the points made by mr. trott and mr. yoho bring to mind a conversation i had yesterday with the former ns-a and former cia director about the concept of, that if you move them to u.s. soil, in fact that will be a magnet for terrorist, the fact that jihadists are being held in the united states, and so i think the last two, the last questions raised were also questions worth contemplating but we will, we will adjourn at this time for the votes and we thank our panel. >> thank you very much.

[inaudible conversations]. [inaudible conversations].

gnawed nude. [inaudible conversations].

>> the need for horses on the farm began to decline radically in the 1930s. it was not until the 1930s that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on a tractor. and starting in the 1930s, 1940s you had almost complete replacement of horses as the work animals on forms. i do believe in one of my books on horses i read that in the decade after world war ii we had something like a horse holocaust. that the horses were no longer needed. and we didn't get rid of them in a pre pretty way. >> sunday night on "q&a," robert gordon, professor of economics at northwestern university, discusses his book, "the rice and fall of american growth," which looks at the growth of american standard of living

between 1870 and 1970 and questions its future. >> one thing that often interests people is the impact of superstorm sandy on the east coast back in 2012. that wiped out the 20th century for many people. the elevators no longer worked in new york. the electricity stopped. you couldn't charge your cell phones. you couldn't pump gas into your car because the it required electricity to pump the gas. . .

>> booktv weekends, they bring you author after author after author. >> i love booktv and i am a c-span fan. >> we are planning live coverage this want of a conference on consumer issues hosted by the consumer federation of america. that meeting set to start any moment. we are having some technical problems and we hope to strengthen those out and bring that to you when it becomes available. right now a look at yesterday's state department briefing, briefing reporters on the tax in brussels and suggested john kerry's visit to brussels.

>> [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon, everyone. i beg your patience at the top because i've got a number of toppers to get through. so beginning with turkey and deputy secretary lincoln's visit. u.s. and turkish interagency delegations led by deputy secretary of state anthony bullington and turkish undersecretary for foreign affairs met march 23 to discuss our joint efforts to combat terrorism come to support a political transition in syria and strengthen regional security. deputy secretary blinken also met separately with foreign

minister to discuss the range of topics our bilateral relationship. deputy secretary blinken and our ambassador to the republic of turkey, john bascom also paid their respects at the site of the march 13 terrorist bombing in ankara's neighborhood in which nearly 40 people lost their lives. paris, beirut, ankara from istanbul and now brussels, the attacks in all these places and on a daily basis in iraq and syria underscore the nature of the threat that we are facing and reinforce our determination to work closely with our partners and allies, the turkish people and government as well as other international partners to defeat daesh and other terrorist. reflate i want to speak about today that the international criminal tribunal for the former yugoslavia convicted a man of genocide, crimes against

humanity and war crimes. with the trial chamber's conviction, we move one step closer to closing another painful chapter in the story of the conflict in the former yugoslavia. we will never forget the horrors of genocide in bosnia with many of the crimes committed on all sides of the conflict in the former yugoslavia nor will we ever stop honoring their victims and survivors. we arguments of the international community to cooperate with the icty and respect its decision. third one, this is on yemen, talks and a cease-fire announced. united states welcomes the announcement by the u.n. special envoy for yemen that parties have agreed to a nationwide cessation of hostilities in yemen begin april 10 in advance of the next round of peace talks to start april 18 in kuwait. the time for fighting in yemen to end, the time for the fighting in limited and is now.

we are -- tak take steps to just violence as soon as possible violence as soon as possible, it's a very all honor of the upcoming cessation of hostility, or risk frankly or correcting this conflict at for the cost to human life. we urge party to return in good faith to the u.n. let talks because it's owned by returning to a peaceful political transition process that human can address the urgent humanitarian crisis and rebuild the economy to create a better future that you many people desperately want and deserve. the, i cessation of hostilities will allow for the delivery as well as critically needed relief throughout human and we urge all to visit the entry and delivery of a -- to the civilian population including urgently needed food, medicine and fuel through all of the yemen sports and to allow for the unhindered access for humanitarian, for humanitarian organizations to reach the people they need. the last one is just an update where we stand in terms of

injured and missing americans in belgium. so the belgians have shared information with us on u.s. citizens potential injured by the attacks. this includes the names of your citizens are known to be injured and the names of unaccounted for individuals. the belgians are still in the process of identifying the deceased. we are centralizing all information that we have on the affected you citizens of all sources that includes information the belgians have shared with the information provided directly to us from family members and loved ones as well as media reports. we are making every effort to locate you citizens were unaccounted for. our embassy staff is providing all possible emergency consular assistance to you citizens. belgian privacy laws place certain restrictions on our access to hospitals that are treating the injured, but we are making every effort to visit,

meet with, and this is those american citizens who have or have been affected by the attacks, as well as share information that we get with their loved ones. at this time, we are unaware of approximately a dozen you citizens who have been injured in the attack. so that number has not changed since yesterday. also at this time we are not aware of any u.s. citizen deaths your we must emphasize that a number of you citizens remain unaccounted for and belgian authorities have not yet released nationality information reported fatalities. now with regard to our own internal, international music government accountability, that is still ongoing for two individuals. and we're making every effort to account for the welfare of both chief of mission personnel as well as, as i mentioned, u.s. citizens in the city. yeah. over to you, brad. >> can you see anything more

about those two individuals or is that, are you restricted? >> i can't at this point i. certainly as we established ultimately their whereabouts we will obviously update you. when we have, we have two obvious operate under privacy act considerations as well. >> user the belgians still haven't given any identification for the deceased? >> so they have not. yes, that's correct. they have not released nationality information for reported fatalities. and they are still, frankly, in the process of identifying the deceased, all of the deceased. >> are these families that are waiting for word, are you pressing them to do this as fast as possible? >> of course. >> isn't a problem they have been able to identify them, the individuals and their nationalities, or they are choosing not to at this point the? >> our understanding is that this was a mass casualty event.

everyone realizes that. with a number of fatalities but also a number of injured. and with regard to some of those fatalities, identification is a problem. it's hard. it's difficult. also many of the injured were taken to various hospitals around brussels, and so we understand that internally the belgians are also trying to come up with the identity, identify all these individuals, and then release that information to the appropriate embassies, not just the united states but other embassies or other missions that may have been affected. >> you're saying that you're not aware of any u.s. deaths at this point but they're still too

americans unaccounted for? >> that's correct. so there are a number of you citizens with large who are not accounted for -- writ large -- we have not been giving out a press size figure on that for obvious reasons. as i said when he got a bunch calzati event, abducted to talk about that a little bit, whether it's a natural disaster or whether it's a terrorist attack, it just takes a matter come it takes sundays to accumulate all the names, to come up with a credible list and that's what we're in the process of doing right now. with regard to official americans, we have identified two individuals who are not yet accounted for. >> i heard on the news today the parents of one american, the missionary, you know, they are going to brussels to look for him. a couple actually, a husband and wife, their parents were also on radio saying they are on the way to belgium to look for their kids.

so there are three -- >> i'm aware of both of those cases. iges gets bigger than because of privacy act considerations. there's a number of cases like that, everyone of them heartbreaking and difficult for these families. they want information about their loved ones who are missing. we have folks on the ground, and back here, frankly, a small task force that we've established to work these names, to trying to find out, again, establish a credible list of names of people who are still unaccounted for. but it also their folks on the ground, even though today as a holiday, we have these people still is able to work with assemblies to try to give them the information they need. and this is not an excuse in any way, but it's just a recognition of the fact that it's still, i know, two days later still very fluid, try to get accurate information. we still didn't have accurate, precise information before we

can share it with his family. we can't report on rumors. we have t to have actual information, just like you guys do. it takes some time, unfortunately. >> could i just, we stay on belgian? >> yet, please. >> can we stop the terror attack? yesterday the israeli prime minister netanyahu had a press conference where he talked about the terror attacks in brussels. he said many times that terrorism is not caused by occupation or despair, but, in fact, by hope, the hope of daesh in establishing caliphate all over the middle east and the hope of palestinian terrorists and establishing a palestinian state. do you agree with that assessment? is there a connection between the occupation, the israeli and palestinian reaction and someone? is there any kind of connection in your view or in your assessment? >> look, i think what you are saying, saying, let's be very clear that even the daesh for

isil has claimed responsible for this attack. we don't have confirmation of that. there's all the hallmarks of a daesh effort but, unfortunately, there's other terrorist groups were also keen on these commentary on these kinds of attacks. let me finish, sorry. but again without being able to get into the minds of those who carry out these attacks, i think it reflects more of an effort to inflict on who they see as western or westerners, whether it's in places like turkey, but also in belgium and paris, and to so sow fear that taken care f these kind of attacks and to attempt to lash out. i don't know if this is about establishing a caliphate beyond the territorial gains that they tried to make in iraq and syria but it's another aspect of daesh is kind of warped ideology that

they're carrying out these attacks on europe and elsewhere if they can. >> i'm really more interested in the palestinian angle of this thing. >> i'm sure you are. >> you want to say basically, he went on to say that the occupation is there to prevent acts like the ones that happened in brussels. do you see any connection with that? >> look, i'm not going to parse certainly prime minister netanyahu's words. we've been very clear that no violence is justified. whether it's the hopes with the dreams or the aspirations of a certain people never justifies violence. what we have been very clear about is that we need to see affirmative steps by both sides, palestinians as well as the israelis, to get back to a place where we can talk about a peace process and a two-state soluti solution.

>> i just want you to indulge me for a minute. you agree or disagree that the occupation presents, the occupation, the israeli occupation of the west bank prevent acts of terror in europe and elsewhere. do you agree with that? >> one more time. the occupation of -- >> ddo you agree with us just yesterday made by the prime minister of israel that the occupation, the israeli occupation in the west bank prevents or serves to prevent acts of terror in europe and elsewhere? do you agree with that notion? >> i'm just not going to give that kind of assessment except beyond what i just said, which is what we need in the middle east is a credible steps, our credible, affirmative action on both sides to get us back to the place where we all agree they need to be, which is to be able to start a peace process towards a two-state solution. that's the challenge before them. so no violence would ever justify that.

>> at my last question is on the role of mosques and so on, and actually -- >> the role of? >> of mosques in europe and basically inside and i kind of violence. it was report today in the "washington post" that the grand mosque in brussels actually created that kind of sentiment and so on. it's a mosque that was financed by saudi arabia. the land was given by the king of belgium some years back in the '70s to his saudi monarch and so on and they built the mosque. and it says that a lot of those who frequent this mosque are rockets. they come from the mountains. they are quite tolerant and so on but they get radicalized through incentives were going to mecca and medina and for education and so on. i wonder if you have any comment on that? >> look, honey, countering violent extremism is a

significant part of trying to root out the type of radicalization that we're seeing in many places in europe and elsewhere, and elsewhere. and those efforts need to continue. whether it's through the internet, through social media with its the mosque or other institutions, we need to be very mindful and we're working with many of these communities as well as many governments in europe to address some of these challenges. >> back to the official americans. i completely understand you don't want to get into detail about them but could you i guess clarify the term official americans just in terms of practically how we can described in? by these government employees? does this included family members of? >> if i can just characterize very broadly, these are the individuals who were either dependence of or employees of

the u.s. government that would include military as well. >> not necessarily state department voice? not even necessarily employed by the families of? >> correct. >> are we ready to move off? are we done with belgium? belgium? belgium? >> the family this is very given wrong information by the state department, were they given wrong information and data got back in contact with him to correct that? if he could from the podium just for the friends and friends and friends and friends and family just give them a sense of, that you doing everything possible to find these missing people. >> so very aware obviously of the case you raise. after serving don't want, the family is undergoing an ordeal that few of us can imagine. they are seeking information.

we are trying to respond to give them accurate information. they are trying to get from other sources as well. we understand that. it's incumbent on us to really try to get accurate information, and we don't have that yet. and we don't want any misunderstandings. and we are very sensitive to not just this family but the concerns that so many of the loved ones and family of the missing are going through. so i do want to be clear that in terms of u.s. citizens in belgium, a few haven't been in contact, and this is clearly a commonsense rule but it had been in contact with your friends and family please do so, let them know you are okay. u.s. citizens injured by the attacks should also contact the

belgian crisis center by dialing one 7/7 one or simply reach out to the u.s. embassy, and i can give the number of -- 028-11-4000. dares a team at the embassy of consular officials who are basically better simply to track down these missing americans but also provide whatever information they can to some of families who are on the ground were called in to look for updates. all i can say is that, you know, recognize several days after the attacks but i can say we are working this issue very hard. we are trying to get accurate information. it's partly getting this information from belgian authorities. as i said many of the injured when to a broad swath of

hospitals in trying to get information from active information on the nationality and the identities of some of these injured has been done. we'll try to do that as soon as we have an accurate information, we will be back in touch with those families. >> i'm sure they understand the wrong information can be, but i just want you to confirm that there were given wrong information at the effort -- >> if there was any misunderstanding we apologize for any misunderstanding in that regard. anything else on brussels? >> i know this was discussed briefly yesterday but given the location of the attacks and to the details that are coming out, is there any reason to believe american entries were targeted? >> we still don't have any determination for any kind of an understanding of who the exact target was or whether, as anyone can imagine, walking into an airport or walking into a subway station and simply detonating a

bomb is going to cause mass casualties among civilians. we don't at this point have a credible evidence that suggests it was targeting americans. we just don't. >> you just mentioned 10 injured and to not traced or not -- >> so about a dozen injured. when i say that, i'm talking about probably american citizens. i know it's confusing. the are a number of american citizens who are unaccounted for here. >> you don't have that number? >> i can't give a precise figure. they are working right now to really compile a more precise list. >> edges of the names are not being released. have the belgians giving you their names and asked you not to release them, or can we have the names of? >> so we can't. i mean, certainly in the case of private citizens, and especially ones who are missing, we are not able to in those cases get that kind of privacy act waiver that

we are obligated to get in order to publish those names. >> what about the 12 that you have, the injured? >> again we are trying to access, some of them we have, where they're at in hospitals. not all of them all are in hospitals of course but i don't have an accurate count of, normally when we walked in, and i'm just speaking broadly now, whether it's an american citizen held in prison in whatever country or whether it's an american citizen injured in an attack or a natural disaster, when we make contact with them, a consular officer will explain what services we can provide to them, but also say if you would wish, we can share your information publicly. you have to sign this privacy act waiver. some decline, some sign. i don't know if anybody has side in this particular instance. i don't have any names to reach out. >> how many of these 12 are u.s. government employees?

>> none of the dozen or so injured to my knowledge our u.s. government employees. >> private citizens? >> private citizens. >> other subject? >> yet. way, let's finish -- >> i thought one individual was injured was an air force -- >> thank you. that's right. >> i want to ask you were able to verify what the turkish pressure the alleged yesterday that gave information, since the belgians have refuted that. >> were not able to -- >> so you've not been able to establish -- >> look, again, without parsing words of the president of turkey, we surveyed don't have any reason to doubt what he said. the belgian authorities have responded to it and said they didn't have enough evidence or information about whether this individual had terrorist ties. that may will be the case. we simply don't have the

details. that said, it does speak to the ongoing challenge of tracking these individuals, and that has been something that we've been working with belgium, with france and with other countries in europe at how you track these individuals, border control, watch lists, whatever you want to call them. but as these people move from country to country and, indeed, in europe it's a challenge because it's a quote-unquote borderless union. it's something that we are actually working and had been working with belgium for some time, and especially in light of the attacks in paris in february, we have stepped up those efforts. and so we're going to continue to work with belgium as well as other countries in europe to better improve passenger screening, security checks, all those things that can help tighten up the net, i guess is how i put it. >> we talked about that

yesterday but do you call your european allies to do more in terms of counterterrorism, to share more intelligence not only between them and also with the u.s.? since we talked about it yesterday, former secretary clinton was speaking out against europe and think that european countries were not doing enough. do you share her view of? >> yeah. i mean, so as i said, we've already seen a significant increase in coordination with our partners in europe. and as i said that includes adding suspects to watch lists and sharing that information more broadly. but we all have to continue to increase our bilateral and our multilateral cooperation against terrorism. that's partly just to close the gaps in our ability to identify these individuals and to prevent the next attack. >> sorry to harp on this point but on this hydraulic effect, i

mean, we are inundated with commentary how as the ground shrinks from underneath -- fighters in syria and iraq, they find a way back to europe, especially that maybe 5000 fighters and so on joint and you are now like 400 who are in europe somewhere. i mean so is europe being lax in its cooperation with you and others or coordinating with one another? >> again, i'm not going to give an assessment one way or the other. i'm not going to give europe a grade. as i said yesterday, and i mean no disrespect to the many security experts have discussed or given their assessments of europe's ability to deal with this threat, but there's always a degree of monday morning quarterbacking, to use an american expression, after an event like this, and that's natural.

where our focus is and has been, frankly, for some months now is working with these governments, not just belgium but including belgium, to really tighten the gaps, improve capacity, build capabilities to increase that kind of border security. is that going to be able to prevent every case, self radicalization or homegrown when people haven't been to syria or iraq or trained directly with isil? certainly not but it's part of the solution. ultimately the solution is to destroy daesh, but even then we stop the threat of terrorism. we've recognized this. it's a reality of the times we live in that these individuals are always going to be out there who want to get out these kinds of attacks. and we need to do everything we can, and that's the u.s., it's europe of its countries around the world, to try to prevent that, to tighten up the net, to try to disrupt these networks,

but it's a challenge. >> can we move on? >> please. >> it's on human. >> i'm sorry, brad. obligate to you. >> do you know if iran played any help for role to achieve disagreement on a cessation of hostility's in yemen? >> i don't. obviously, excuse me. the saudis played a role in this as well as the gcc. i don't really have an assessment of what, if any, role iran deeply in debt. i just don't. -- did play in that. >> i wanted to get another crack on syria and yesterday. it seems that the syrian army backed by the russians has pushed into palmeiro now. are you hoping that they push

daesh out of the city or do you have no position on who controls the city and its ancient ruins. >> thank you for giving me another crack. a do over, right? so a couple of thoughts. first of all, as you well know and i think you have traveled to palmyra at one point? yet. it's a long-suffering place, and isil invaded the city in 2015, the assad regime respond with increased airstrikes causing many civilian casualties. it suffered from isil atrocities, that includes the gruesome murder last august of khaled assad, and the sector spoken about this, who was beheaded. its history and culture have