confirmed rate, to under five percent. it's much higher than the previous administration. we believe that reflects the fact that things i just described simply weren't done in at the previous administration. that's what we have done. >> mr. ingle, it's a more rigorous process. the process in the previous administration was only dod. primarily only dod, as envoy wolosky said this is interagency. when the obama administration took office there were 240 detainees at gitmo. we took a fresh look over a year at all detainees and decided three categories. those that could be eligible for transfer with appropriate security assurances to the proper country; that's that they wanted to refer for prosecution, and those that merited continued detention. state more rigorous because there was a broader group of

career professionals and some political but primarily career professionals. intelligence folks, career prosecutors, who looked testify case and also looked at all the evidence processes whereas the previous price was dod evidence, thing congress weighed in. we have a statutory overlay for all transfers. the bottom line is, as lee said, a much more rigorous and intensive process. >> thank you. you know issue think it's important to put it into context because, look, even one prisoner escaping is one prisoner too much. so we're not going to say that it's anything that is fuel proof -- foolproof. nothing is foolproof. with look and see what the administration has done, and the safeguards they tried put in, i feel that we're absolutely doing our best in fact it's a big

improvement than the previous administration. so, let me ask you this. heard a lot about the challenges of closing guantanamo. it is true that some former detainees have reengaged. so mr. chairman is very upset about and it so aim. can you help put those cases into context? what are the costs of keeping this facility open and how would blocking the transfer of detainees affect terrorist recruit and propaganda and coalition efforts to defeat terrorism organizations. >> it's wildly expensive. we can do it cheaper in the united states. more importantly for this committee our allies want us to close gitmo. aat first with the international community in my previous testimony i outlaned occasions

in which members of the previous administration, the department of state, said gitmo hurts us, and i believe it is a propaganda and recruiting tool. president bush said that, many others have said that. the bottom fundamental point is we want to protect the country from the national security leadership of this administration, president bush and many people in his administration, numerous secretaries of defense, numerous secretaries of state, officials, including the commandant of the marine corps says the cost of gitmo outweighs the benefits. it hurts us with international community, hurts it with taxpayer money and is it's recruiting tool. the president has made this decision in the national security community leadership has made this decision. >> sure. thank you. first, i agree with special envoy's comments and i do feel

compelled just to address this notion of terrorist escaping and prisoners escaping and things of that sort. just to remind the committee that the individuals that we're talking about were held in war detention by the united states were lastly held under law of war detention but they weren't convicted of a crime. when we transferred them to foreign countries, we transferred them subject to assurances, such as travel restrictions. there are a large -- this what's this administration does, the previous administration did not do this. there are large number of detainees of 532 transferred in at the previous administration, certainly, that weren't even subject to the travel restrictions that we put in place on these individuals. again, just want to make sure we are getting the term -- terminology right because escapes denotes incarceration.

when we transfer individuals who the u.s. government has concluded maybe transferred subject to security assurances, they are transferred subject to the security assurances. at that point they're not prisoners. they're former detainees under supervision. >> i will stop now because i know my time has run out. wanted to -- the thing that irks the chairman and all of us, the fact that this person was sent to uruguay and uruguay apparently doesn't have the ability to monitor this person who now has left the country. just briefly, can you talk about the case or do you need to do it in a classified setting?

>> on the issue of foreign country's surveillance capabilities i would need to discuss that with you in closed session, and i welcome the opportunity to do so, so that you may be informed about what those capablities are and aren't and how they were used and applied in this instance. >> i echo the envoy's comments. we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in detail and tell you, as we talked to uruguayan authorities and regularly review intelligence and regularly look at this, did secretary hagel, a very forceful, careful, deliberate person, finds the congressional notification saying he felt that uruguay could substantially mitigate any threat by the detainees.

i'm happen to discuss this in closed session. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll make arrange. s to do that. but at the same time the end of the day, uruguayans gave him the travel cards. gave him the travel card to travel. end of the day, he walked right out of there. three times. this time, nobody can locate him to get him back into custody. and he is an al qaeda linked terrorist. 'll go -- from florida. >> thank you so much for calling this hearing and continuing to demand transparency and accountable from the administration regarding its plan for naval station guantanamo bay and the detention center. as you point out, mr. chairman, the administration has not been forthcoming with the american people about the release of dangerous terrorists at various nations.

the reality is that the situation is far different than we've been told. i continue to ask myself, why does a nation like uruguay, a nation like ghana, a nation like senegal and so many others -- whoa i would they want to take in these dangerous terrorists unless they believed that the benefit outweighed the risk, unless the administration convinced them that the benefits outweighed the risks and not only that, but we're talking about a high risk, high threat individual, and that person has experience in evading authorities, will conduct operations, going nations that have limited intelligence that do not possess the most sophisticated monitoring system. that was obvious with the uruguay transfer.

and we're -- the terrorists not use that to their advantage, that they will be properly overseen. it would probably take just one day to realize how lax the security is in uruguay, for example. so, it's no surprise, i think to any of us, that one of these individuals managed to flee uruguay, where we now know that his movement was not required to be restricted. to brazil and from there, from who knows, as he chairman said, he may be on route to syria or there already. so i would ask you, if possible to get a yes or no answer -- has the administration promised any of these countries, whether it's uruguay, ghana, senegal, cash for taking in these individuals, and if so, how much, how often, and to which countries?

>> congresswoman, we have providedded de minimis money to moneys to support language training vocational training, things of that sort. that is fully disclosed to the congress and the congressional notifications that you received. >> if you could refresh my memory, uruguay, for example, how much would that country have gotten, for language and the other -- >> i can't tell you off the top of my head but we're happy to provide that information to you. >> i will get the notification and refresh my memory. has the administration offered any other favorable agreements or offered to support the countries on other related matters in exchange, and if so, what kinds of exchanges? >> nothing financial beyond what is in the congressional notification.

anything related is a broad category. i'd say generally in open session that many of our partners do view a detainee transfer as an opportunity to deepen security and counterterrorism and intelligence cooperation with the united states. we generally welcome that. we look to facilitate that interest where it exists. >> and has the administration provided military equipment or military training in exchange for taking in a detainee, and if so, to what extent and to which government? >> to the best of my knowledge, no. >> something we have to talk about the closed session. >> like knight night vision goggles or something like that. >> again the association of he security assurances is very detailed and complex, and to discuss any specifics i'd have to talk to you about that in

closed session and we're happy to do so. >> had has the administration provided intelligence equipment or training or promised or offered intelligence sharing to any government in exchange for accepting a detainee, and if so, to what extent and which government? >> we would have to talk about intelligence matters in closed session. >> seems to me that the absence of any of these agreements wouldn't need to be discussed in a classified setting. so, unless you say no to these questions i think it would be fair to assume that at least some of this has been happening. is it the intent of the obama administration to continue to release all but a handful of the most dangerous detainees in order to then say the congress, why keep gitmo open when he have

such few detainees there, as if president obama had not had anything to do with clearing out the number of detainees in the first place. >> we intend to continue centrally the policy -- essentially the policy of the previous administration to transfer detainees we conclude may be safely and responsibly transferred outside the custody of the united states in accordance with applicable law. >> would it be fair to say that from now until the end of the presidency we would be seeing more and more detainees being released five, 12, 2, unless there's just a handful and say look at all this wasted money for just handful of folks when you're the ones pushing them out? >> we have at the time 29 deattachees who are approved for transfer and our intention is to transfer those individuals

subject to security assurances. >> thank you. well, there's a great deal of resistance about having them come to the united states. thank you so much, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we go to mr. brad sherman of california. >> i'd like to comment on this over the next five minutes and probably offend both political parties. prior administration did release more terrorists than the current administration, more of those released by the prior administration have been caught fighting us on the battlefield. the fact is, much as we like to fight as democrats and republicans, the policy has been the same in both administrations. house them only in guantanamo because we don't have the political guts to house them here in the united states. and release as many as possible, far too many, far too quickly. and massively understate the costs of the release.

we are told that it's wrong to keep them there for the duration of the war because the war has lasted too long. that is their fault. they waged war against america and, no, we never guaranteed them the war would be short. the purpose of incarcerating p.o.w. is not only to keep them out the battlefield but to deter their comrades. when we tell the terrorists around the world, if you get caught, you'll get released, while the war is still going on, we encourage their recruitment. now, we're developed that there are only 12 identified circumstances when americans have died because of this release. that is such a massive undercount. first of all, when we release somebody and they rejoin the battlefield, do they send us a report?

are they listed on linkedin, and when an american dies on the battlefield do we gate report from the terrorist, here's a list of the people who killed him, the list of the people who provided them with logistics and the people that provided the recruiting the people that provided the financing? so i would -- unless we're certain that one of these released people is being monitored every day and is not doing anything to help the terrorists we have to assume they are waging war against us as they did before, and the costs of the -- the cost of release is unless the incredible conciliation, all the winks and nods, every country in in the world, especially small countries know, take one detainee, the president of the united states is personally indebted to you.

and when you got a fishing concern or if you're seeking something from the united states, now or later, the answer is, yes. we'll never get an accounting of that but a you can't can't for the winks and the nods. now, we're told that gitmo is a terrible -- that wet we gate tremendous propaganda advantage if gitmo is closed. we only partially close it we have no propaganda advantage. it's stale symbol the other side can use as long as it's open with one detainees. but we can bring these prisoners to the united states. that does not enhance their legal status. the supreme court ruled in the case that they have just as many legal rights there as they would here, but we -- here's an america we accepted nuclear bases in our states knowing they were targets for the soviet union, and now we can't even accept prisoners, and we whip up all this fervor. you have 443 convict terrorists

in american prisones right now. i'll ask our witnesses to raise their hand if they're aware of any of those that escaped? i see no hands going up. i'm not aware eve and researched this. we have got moussaoui. the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the world trade center 2003 bombers the unibomber and trying to bring the united states "el chapo" who escaped mexican prisons twice. we can't incars -- we can incarcerate people here and obtain the political advantage we're told can be achieved by shutting down gitmo. but instead, constantly vote on ways to not do it. if the legal rights of these p.o.w.s in the united states is too great if they're on u.s. soil, that's the fault of congress. we can pass laws identifying these are p.o.w., nonuniform enemy cot bat tenants and entitled to less protection than

those who wore uniforms fighting against us. so, we have a lot of dead americans as a result of this catch and release program. we have one party who says we can't house them here, although we're able to house terrorists here in our prisons, and we have got another political party so anxious to shut things down that we massively understate the cost of releasing. the. yield back. >> thank you, very much. mr. issa of california. >> thank you, madam chair. i would just like to bring us up to speed in one area. is it true that under current law, closing guantanamo is prohibited? >> i don't think that current law prohibits closing guantanamo. think what current law prohibits this expenditure of money to

move detainees at guantanamo to the united states. >> host: so, under current law you can close guantanamo by releasing the prisoners but just can't bring them here. that's your assessment. >> i believe the current law prohibits a detainee from being brought into the united states -- >> okay, so the reason that you both have titles that say, specific envoy for guantanamo closure, is because your job is to close guantanamo. is that right? >> sir, that is correct. >> current -- >> so -- >> i got a yes. >> my title gone or, iunderstand the president who loves chavez -- loves the castros enough to open up relations has not decided to give back what we have in perpetuity. so we'll leave that aside.

your job is to close the detention. you're working towards that. just want to ask one or two fairly simple questions. it's been said many times on both sides of the dyas that pressure pressure -- president president bush's administration released more prisoners than you inherited. >> yes. >> and during that time it's been discovered, and during thissed a marges it's been discovered, and made public, that in fact some released by the bush administration went back and killed americans on the battlefield, afghanistan and other places. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> so, george w. bush released more prisoners, attempted to vet them, was wrong, they went back, they killed americans on the battlefield. we know and it the public knows it. right? >> yes, sir. >> okay so george w. bush's failures are now very public.

they released people who went back and killed americans on the battlefield. okay? like mr. sherman, that's not necessarily popular with my party. this president has released many additional people who have returned to afghanistan. are you prepared to say that none of them killed americans? >> you're talking about guantanamo detainees returned to afghanistan -- >> guantanamo detainees released after 2009 who in fact went back and killed americans. >> the assessment of the intelligence community is that no detainees released since 2009 during this administration are responsible for the deaths of americans. >> so your public statement is that no detainees released by this administration have killed americans on the battlefield as of today. >> correct. >> i just want to make sure i have it on the record because i don't believe it. you can say it, and you're under oath, and i believe it, that you

believe it. so, i want to make sure we understand. we're sitting here and somehow president george w. bush, early on, releasing the less dangerous, the easier to vet, the less likely to be hardened criminal terrorists, terrorists, not criminals -- they were relievessed and killed americansor. leaserseninging people and they're not killing americans. howl do you account for that? is his rehabilitation? >> sir, there are lot of factual predicates in your question that would require correction. >> well, the president bush released people, they killed americans you. release people and they didn't kill americans on the battlefield. how do you account for that difference that you said under oath? >> as i indicated in my testimony, submitted for the record we have put in police

procedures that are comprehensive, rigorous, interagency in nature and we believe that at result of those procedures, that has contributed to the very substantial reduction in the re-engagement rates seen between both administrations. >> okay. let's do that. you have used procedures that have limited reengagement but has not eliminated re-engagement. >> that's correct. >> so you release people after 2009, they have re-engauged, back on the battlefield, attempting to kill americans. right? >> it is not correct to say anyone who has reengaged under the definitions used by the intelligence community for confirmed or suspected re-engagement as back from the battlefield. i'm happy to talk, or better yet, the intelligence community can speak to the committee about the standards used but is an overstatement to say that an individual, for instance, who has been suspected of re-engagement is on the

battlefield seeking to do harm to coalition forces. >> okay. but i just -- it's just one of these thing is think in a -- very public, not something that need be to privately discussed. something that -- mat dam chair -- madam chair if of can have 3 more seconds. people before me did. you have us believe in a public environment that although people released under this administration were more hardened criminals, the people that were in fact not released under bush because he thought they were too dangerous, have the been released, you're saying in a public forum they re-engage but you're saying nobody died. >> sir, again, it's incorrect to assume that individuals released under bush were less dangerous or more dangerous than released during this administration. again, this would require a rather long discussion about why, for instance, the overwhelming preponderance

detainees are from yemen. so, it's simply not correct to make blanket assess. s about who is more or who is less dangerous, or, frankly, what the procedures -- you talk about the vetting dub -- done by the bush administration. we're not aware hoff the type of vetting down in this administration so there are lot of premises in your -- >> thank you, mr. ice sample mr. duncan of south carolina. i'm sure will follow through. >> you need more time, the gentleman from california? >> 330 more seconds. >> i yield. >> thank you. just want to understand. we have heard endlessly that the bush administration released people and they went back on the battlefield, and president george w. bush and his administration have to live with the fact they thought these people could be safely released back to qatar and other countries, and ins'some cases they were wrong, but you continue to work toward closure by release back to these

countries,emen being a particular area of concern, and i just want to make sure the person public hears in an open session that you believe that you've been flawless in that no americans have died because of people released on this president's watch. and you've said that. i want to thank the gentleman who was kind to let me recap. >> thank you for your porch porch approach. >> i want to apologior to the laid you from department of state for being abrasive. and i thank you for your work. >> we established the fact that one of the gitmo six has uruguayan six has disappeared. we also established the fact that, i think, that there are certain requirements and parameters that must be met before detainees are transferred to a third country.

uruguay told us -- first all, uruguayan way -- the former president saved his government would place no restrictions on the moms of the six detainees that were released to uruguay. later we had their chief intelligence officer proudly inform the u.s. embassy that tease uruguayan six, the get move six work not be restricted in any way, and that he was not authorized to conduct monitor organize surveillance. so if we go back to the requirements have been talk about this morning, surveillance and monitoring and some assurances were part of the deal. america needs to understand that one of the six detainees, on the battlefield, al qaeda operative, captured either in tora bora,

afghanistan, has disappeared. uruguay, brazil, and united states, at this point, have no idea where this individual is. this individual that we're talking about, jihad diab, is a forger. he is responsible for forging documents, travel documents, for al qaeda terrorists. now disappeared into brazil. let's take it to the 30,000-foot level and think about brazil in general. got an area in brazil and paraguay on a border region. a lot of folks are transiting through latin america northern as the tri-border region. they're coming through south america, to that area, a lot of times an fake passports. they're changing the documents in that region for other false

documents and trying to transit through thatin america to get to america to get to the united states. case in point -- traveled to the tri-border region in brazil on fake israeli passports. the hypocrisy is alarming, exchanged the documents for $25,000 for fake greek passports that they used to travel to honduras, apprehended in an airport, trying to come the united states on fake greek passports. ...

>> to possibly travel to the united states of america. but let's taken another step. there is a huge thing going to happen in brazil known as the olympics. that is a heck of a terrorist target. we have an operant who is up forger and who has disappeared in brazil who has the ability to forge documents and he's in a country that's ready to host the olympics. i hope the counter terrorism groups are fullbore. i want to ask now that this gentleman has escaped he has gone missing is the obama it ministration concerned about that. >> there would've been our preference that all six of the detainees transferred to uruguay. i ask you a question.

>> are they concerned over the jihad's disappearance. i would have preferred that he stayed in your gate with the five other detainees through the end of the program which was for another few months until december 2014. if you're asking me what concerns me frankly it is the 532 who were transferred during that. >> we had established the fact that wish you would've stayed and would be right there with the other five. what i'm asking you is the obama administration concerned that he has disappeared. >> i believe i had answered your question. >> mister lewis. >> certainly what you know now will you review of the letter and the concerns so that your government who can pretty much

had been tricked will you do that. we stand by the sloan letter and we stand by the representation that we made to the government of your gay during the transfer. in fact, i believe that the you're gay wins told you that they believed the united states have provided accurate information. they did and that contradicted some information they made a publicly. >> why do you think that is? >> we can go back through all of this. why would they say one thing to you and another thing privately. >> mister duncan could you yield for a minute? >> i did want to put something in perspective for our witnesses here. it's for why the western subcommittee would be upset here. and the fact is the chief of intelligence in uruguay planed

to our committee and gave us the information that they were not allowed to monitor or surveilled these six terrorists. in the decision you made was to transfer them anyway he made us salvation -- you made that observation prior to the transfer. you made the decision to transfer the six despite our warnings. the second point that is upsetting to him is that the intelligence chief was then dismissed from his position after warning us of that and subsequently warning us that they were casing or outside our embassy after the release it again that they were not allowed to monitor. now we find ourselves in the situation despite jeff

duncan's ad musicians admonitions and concerns in despite what we brought up at the prior. we find ourselves in the situation where one of these six indeed been able to walk out of uruguay and no one knows where he is but we do know his attitude and this is the reason for our concern. but i think mr. duncan for his trips and his work on behalf of the committee. >> i want to thank the chairman for helping clarify that. we had been asking about these and the uruguayan ability to monitor them for a long time now. and we had raised concerned about events such as what we witnessed in the last 60 days

he was an out cut it terrorist. were supposed to tell them that it wasn't engaged they weren't hurting the allies. it's very clear that he was. think you mister chairman. >> we go to mister matt samet of arizona. >> thank you mister chairman left him you are here you testified that they had been killed and i will take you back on their question. he is subsequently notified the committee that those deaths occurred in afghanistan by as many of 14 former detainees who were released by the bush administration and i would like to ask a few questions about that. how many americans were killed where they u.s. servicemen and women or were they both and

what are their names and where are they from peered there are 14 and i can get you the specifics on that. i believe the intelligence committee can get that. the number is 14 many of the incident were large scale firefights. we can always distinguish whether americans were killed or other participants. the intelligence committee can get you the specific details. >> just to recap the specifics i want to know if they were service men or women or civilians or both and i would like to know what their names are and where they're from peered those are the things i'd like. i like. you can get me all of that. >> yes sir. >> that would be very helpful. and then just to piggyback on some of the other questions knowing that there were casualties associated with those detainees to afghanistan specifically you then as an administration and decided it was okay to still release

detainees to afghanistan is that correct. >> it may have been correct. at the moment i can assure you that each detainee transfer to afghanistan or frankly anywhere else, is subject to the review of the chairman of the chief of staff and i can tell you they would not concur in any transfer over the objection of the chairman of the joint chief of staff. >> to the prior release did the intelligence community assess that the government of gas gena stan -- of afghanistan was able to control this individual. >> they are not transferred into custody. the standard is mitigating the threat that they may pose and again these are determination

that would've been made in conjunction with and subject to the consultation with the chairman of the g joint chief of staff if in fact they occurred in this administration. >> yes there had been transfer to afghanistan and as orlosky says we do consult with the field commanders prior to any transfer and again those transfers have been made under the statutory standard the any threat is going to be substantially mitigated by the host nation peered it's better to talk about this in a closed setting sir. >> you did say that one of your criteria for releasing them to afghanistan was not monitoring, that's not a concern you didn't care whether you were able to are able to monitor or not. >> what i can say is that any transfer to afghanistan would have involved the consultation

of the chairman of the joint chief of staff. that's what we do and all transfers particularly in a place like afghanistan. with the state department currently would not consent to any transfer to a place like afghanistan unless the chairman of the joint chief of staff conference in the transfer. >> afghanistan is an active war zone and it's one of the most corrupt countries in the world. i guess what a lot of us would like to understand if monitoring isn't part of the decision and making sure that whereabouts are ascertained one of us would like to know why that is not the criteria. thank you mister chairman. to yield back.

>> the chair now recognizes mister weber. >> thank you. you said that the standard was not an elimination of risk was that true under the prior administration as well. >> i don't believe so. >> they came in with that in 2009 basically. >> actually the congress came into it it's written into the nda a is a piece of legislation passed by the congress and signed into law by president obama. >> so that was a standard you use? that is pretty shocking. we were told that uruguay was not going to be able to monitor these guys travel peered there six terrorists and i'm not knowledgeable to who they are.

these are not who were released. is it fair to say in the bush administration didn't they attempt to release was a lower level of risk combatants at first? >> i can't speak to that. i don't know what the process was. >> is that fair to say in the current administration that you chose to release the lower risk first and held the worst to the last? >> the worst a we are not releasing. we are only releasing or transferring subject to security assurance is those individuals who have been designated as approved for transfer by the six agencies and departments of the government that are responsible for those decisions. >> but common sense would probably dictate that.

>> i don't think that that is a fair assumption respectively. one reason why it is not a fair assumption is because for years we haven't released yemeni detainees who in many cases are low-level fighters if that because of the circumstances in yemen. so currently many of the detainees who remain in guantanamo and two are approved for transfer are from yemen and that could reflect more of their nationality than their risk profile. >> goes to the risk profile peered the five that were exchange for bergdahl are any of those back on the battlefield. >> no, i'm going to refer to the colleague because it was an anonymous transfer negotiated by the department of defense by a prisoner exchange. >> i will move to next question. so there are countries who take the administration

negotiates with and we have a disagreement about whether they will monitor them are not. what number of countries do we look at for transferring these. >> how many countries are involved. i think we've transferred them in this administration to 30 or 40 countries. >> we say we resettled 30 and send them back to their own country. >> are you monitoring? you talked about earlier in your comments you spoke with career government officials in making those determinations, career pediment officials on the united states side or the preferred country side or both. >> i was referring to the u.s. >> almost 30 country we are sending people whether they can monitor them effectively are not , we call it i think it was information sharing.

is that in real time? >> it can be. >> it can be, but is it? >> in some circumstances i am up where up. we can discuss that in closed session i would welcome the opportunity to do that today. >> of those 30 countries are you able to track in real-time and in retrospect are you able to track this country did a good job keeping up with her and panted, this country did it, this country was okay and this country was lousy? is there a scale of rating those countries and their abilities? >> i'm not aware of a scale but certainly. >> how do you know going forward if they don't to a good job we will give them another one or two or three how do you determine that? >> by the record. >> that would be a scale, what in?

it would be specific to that performance of a particular country there monitoring, their information sharing with the united states. if we are not satisfied with results on a previous transfer we wouldn't transfer a new want to the same place. >> that makes sense. of the discussion you head with mister duncan you talked about those released under the previous administration, there were 530 released how many is under the current administration. >> 159. >> i don't think you and i agreed on the fact that somehow bush released the good ones and obama released the bad ones. is at a fair statement? >> correct. >> reggie say would you say they were roughly equal? >> it is impossible to generalize, each case is different. i was trying to push back against the suggestion that bush released the easy ones and we only have the hard once.

>> that's not an accurate characterization. >> without the specifics you can't accurately know that but in general a reasonable person might make that kind of assumption? >> we are all about talking about specifics that's why were here we had requested the opportunity to meet with you in closed session because we have a lot of what is said including about uruguay is an accurate and i'm happy to tell you if you're interested in learning the facts about that. >> mister velasquez i am out of time. thank you for being for right peered there are 29 detainees that are currently eligible for transfer who we believe we can transfer safely and responsibly if we get security

assurances. >> can i make a suggestion? don't send them to your day. >> many of them are yemeni. that's why we are here. >> at the end of the are year gay program you mentioned earlier that the guy got free two months early. tell the committee what would additional two months done in your opinion? rehabilitated that combatant? >> this individual was a problem from the moment he landed in you're gay and i will tell you that and be upfront about that. his resettlement was difficult. he did not want to participate in the opportunities that were being afforded to him by the government. >> should we had had snapback sanctions in place. >> we are not repopulating. >> mister chairman i gill back. >> we go to mister joe wilson of south carolina.

>> thank you for your leadership on this issue and it's so important. i've have the opportunity to visit guantanamo twice to see the personal there, the professionalism of our military, it is a place where terrorists should be. in my home state of south carolina we have learned a lesson there was one terrorist at the navy break interesting, he said he was attracted more terrorist to come to the community and threatened attacks on the facility, but in schools at risk, neighborhoods in the immediate neighborhood at risk, it is utterly absurd. the thought of bringing them to the united states in any way or releasing them. it's interesting you say yemen. you released release people to yemen which was supposed to be an example of great success by this administration of establishing a stable country and within days of releasing and pardoning terrorist the country collapsed.

interesting to know what did happen to the persons released to yemen previously? >> we did not release individuals to yemen. >> you have previously released before the collapse of the country but there is a consensus here which is not good and the consistency is we have an administration that has dismissed isis is a junior varsity. these are the same people after the announcement of junior oversight that committed mass murder in jakarta, in brussels, in paris in and paris in orlando, in san bernardino. we know the mass murder this week in baghdad and kabul peered over and over again there has been a dismissal of threat to american families. additionally it's incredible to, this administration is very consistent by reaching a dangerous iranian nuclear deal providing tens of billions of dollars to a state sponsored terrorism. just last week the funding

that has been provided by i want to hamas again, it is extraordinary to ignore this and then we come, pardoning and returning terrorist to go back on the battlefield. this is inconceivable. and also quite illogical. as you talk about a recruiting tool. i route credential is releasing people not being serious about detaining people of every intent to kill american families. it's really interesting to me that they don't use the argument that it's a deterrent or a recruiting tool to head presence within the united states. of course it is a deterrent, people know they will be incarcerated they are less likely to commit a crime or kill american families and i'm really grateful that even cnn yesterday reported u.s. officials have said the 44-year-old syrian national

went off the radar several weeks ago in uruguay where he was resettled in 2014. not prior to 2009. uruguay's interior minister told cnn he was considered a refugee by the government and as such he would not need permission from authorities to leave the country. he would only need permission from the foreign country he wished to enter are in agreement with the u.s. that enables the release of gitmo detainees to your gay. we will we consider what you're doing. the disappearance could provide fuel proponents to close the detention facility at guantánamo especially if he is found to be attempting to join a terrorist group. of the 676 detainees released from the detention facility as of january, 118 have referred to the fight an additional 86

are suspected of returning recidivism rate of one out of three release according to a recent report from the administrations office of director of national intelligence. by releasing and pardoning these people, american families are at risk around the world and i just hope you will reconsider what you are doing. gordon england the former secretary of the neighbor -- navy he is a person of highest integrity he has mourned that the process of releasing the early process did work what's been done is that there were 200 detainees when he departed none had not had been approved for release under the president or than half have been released none of the low risk according to figures betting he has conducted during the bush administration.

they are misleading at best. i hope you will really reconsider and understand we are in a global war on terrorism this is not an academic exercise of deterrence or incarceration and i gill my time. >> we go to mister diener rohrabacher. >> think you. do any of you know cases do you believe americans at got moe were involved with criminal mistreatment of the detainees. >> not aware of that. >> the president has made it a national security imperative that we go enclose gitmo in this we are told that he has to close gitmo a close gitmo because it has such a bad reputation but yet from what

you just said we know that those charges are not true. is that right? >> we have a propaganda campaign going on by the enemies of the united states against us claiming that there was some kind of major criminal mistreatment of prisoners in one tom nomo. neither one of you knows of an example of that, or the fact is there was one or two incidences that didn't reflect on what was going on. is that correct? >> the issue is monthly so. many people around the world many countries who think that there were things that went wrong. we don't believe there were.

they perceive that have happened. >> let me correct it. a lot of people think that but there are a lot of people who hate our country who are promoting it knowing it's not true this is it nice american politics. this is in a criminal matter although the president would like to think of these terrorists as being american criminals, americans who made a criminal act. this is people who hate our way of life, they're engaged in an organized effort to terrorize western civilization by murdering large numbers of noncombatants. we are trying handle this and what we get is a president the president who makes a national security imperative to give into this people propagandize and by doing add some sort of credibility to him. to the charge that our people who are working in guantánamo are bunch of fools who are torturing these people. there may be one or two incidences where someone instances where someone lost her temple or did something

wrong that by and large you know and we know the prisoners in guantánamo had been treated extra nearly well. the president, by making it a national security impaired up, has basically demonstrated that the propaganda by people who hate us will succeed and it will be seen and is seen as a sign of weakness by terrorists all over the world. this very act that we are talking about is encouraging those people who will murder noncombatants especially americans. let's get back to the number 532 released by bush. among those, a lot of people were picked up. those from afghanistan will be picked up. they were in afghanistan at the time of the operation and a lot of situations like that. obama has released 159, i think it is a bit disconcerting, this

administration insists on treating terrorist and those involved in terrorist activities as nothing more than criminals. they aren't nothing more than what criminals would be in the united states. that is white the president perhaps finds it impossible to say the words radical islamic terrorists because that is different than just some criminal who has committed an act of violence or murder in the united states. and by doing so seen as a weakness, the president is encouraging terrorists around the world to take advantage of this weakness, take advantage of the fact we are willing to retreat if you have a propaganda campaign. i'm glad to hear that we are actually suggesting that our guys didn't commit all sorts of horrible acts against these people but of the 159 that were released, what is

disconcerting is when i her we don't had proof and it has been determined that this number of people haven't committed any of these other acts after they had been released. i like mister esa it is absurd, it is so bad the fact is if we are awaiting for evidence to prove before we can say we think it's probable that they had been involved because we know what kind of people they are. that's one thing but what we are being told is unless we had overwhelming evidence that they've killed americans or other innocent people we are going to assume they haven't. while, this is a way not watching out for the security interest of the people of the united states. this is projecting weakness, this is gonna make sure that more americans die if i nothing else, giving and and

having a president of the united states insisting on treating terrorist as if they are american criminals which will do nothing but encourage terrorism overseas. >> we go to mike mccall chairman of the homeland security. >> thank you, mister chairman. the president campaigned on a promise to close guantánamo. is it fair to say that that campaign promise well not be fulfilled. >> it's difficult to save as you know we are asking the congress to reconsider its position on bringing a small number of detainees into the united states where as you know better than most are federal prison system has a 100% success rate in safely incarcerating over 400

convicted terrorists. >> the current plan is to process 29 transfers out of gitmo which would leave 79 detainees that with leave 50 at guantanamo. right? >> that is correct. there are ten that are in some save -- phase of military commission process that are being prosecuted or serving sentences. the periodic review board process is ongoing so it's possible that the number of detainees will increase but your route numbers are generally correct. >> i saw the evil incarnate. so the 50 remaining is it your intention we have passed in the congress under the national defense authorization bill and express prohibition against bringing these

detainees into the united states. this administration will honor that legal restraint it will follow the law? >> as a president said his goal is to work with the congress to change the law. >> what is the status of the child of collegiate mohammed. >> it is in the motions phase sir. >> why is this taking so long? >> as a federal prosecutor this has been since september 11. >> i'm a former federal prosecutor as well. other people are better and placed to answer your question but probably but i will tell you is, it is a new process, everything is new, there is no precedent. there are a bunch of very good defense counsels and the judge is being careful and deliberative. we have a very good chief prosecutor general martins martens who is trying very hard but is just hard to do

that law carefully as you know. >> defense counsel falling a lot of emotions. >> there are 50 detainees that are left how many of those will be facing military trials? >> right now there are seven in the motion phase, the september 115 and the alleged coal bomber and one more al qaeda leader there are three in the sentencing phase and we are continually looking at the others to see if there can be case but i am not best place to tell you where we would be. >> getting back to those you plan to release, we know 13 released have been implicated in attacks against the united states or coalition forces in afghanistan not a good number. let me ask you this question, has administration ever refused to send detainees to a

country because it could not provide adequate security? >> absolutely. there are many countries we look at that we ultimately determine are not suitable for this. >> you mentioned a lot of these detainees you want to transfer out our yemenis. yemen is a failed state in stay in my judgment. it is in a really bad state of affairs. you have the iranian forces, al qaeda, the arabian peninsula fighting external operations against the united states. it can you tell me definitively you will not be sending these detainees to yemen. >> yes. >> that's a very good answer. what country would most likely receive them. --? >> i would prefer to talk to you in closed session about

that. but i will say as you know generally we prefer to reap penetration because cultural affinity, language, skills, puma connections, in this case that is not going to be possible for yemen so we are looking at other alternatives. >> the saudis have a pretty good radicalization program have you consider that? >> yes in fact we transferred a number of yemenis to saudi arabia. >> my time is expired. >> i want to get back to the issue of what you told this committee in march just enclosing here. we ask specific questions about the transfer of detainees to countries ill-equipped to handle them. and specifically we ask whether the department of defense ever transferred a detainee to a country that it knew was incapable of maintaining control of the

individual and keeping him from returning to the battlefield. and mister lewis responded no. mr. wolosky stated he was not aware. >> your written response to the committee's letter said this week sets the lot is not prohibit us from setting detainees to countries of personal derogatory intelligence assessment peered partially derogatory in common terms can't contain or at least are seriously challenged in containing those terrorist. so why didn't you cite did you cite the law instead of suggesting to the committee that detainees were not being transferred to countries that were incapable of maintaining control of them when it is so clear that they are? that is the point i want to make. that's why this seemed to me like misleading the

committee. while i appreciate the witnesses willingness to speak in a classified setting which we will take advantage of, that can't hide the fact that these issues can and have been discussed very productively here today. as you can see what we have serious concerns about this policy and we will continue this conversation. but i do want to thank the witnesses and think the members of the committee and the committee is adjourned.

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] a

live look at the u.s. capitol. it left five officers dead in another seven wounded. and earlier this morning as

the house came in pat conroy opened today's session with a prayer. he was followed by comments house speaker paul ryan and minority leader nancy pelosi. this is ten minutes. >> lord, have mercy. our nation awakens to more news of deadly violence around the country. fear of safety from such violence prevails in many places. fear of you, zero lord is the beginning of wisdom bless the members of the people's house with such wisdom. un as they continue the work of this assembly, guide them to grow in understanding in attaining solutions to our nation's needs. bless those as well charged with protecting and serving our country. they, too, need wisdom and

insight into the pressure points of insecurity among our citizens. lord, have mercy may all that is done at this day be for your greater honor and glory a man.edge of allegi >> the chair has examined the journal of the last days procedures and us announces to the house approval thereof. the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania mr. thompson. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america into the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the chair will entertain up to five request for one minute speeches on each side of the

aisle for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsine h. seek recognition. >> mister speaker i would like to address the house for one minute. >> the speaker is recognized for one minute.ight in >> we are all stunned by the events last in dallas. we are all outraged. and attack on the people whoou protect us as an attack on all of us.ed our hearts are with the dallas police department. our hearts are with the victims, and especially with their loved ones. they wear the badge to. i note that to be a cop's wife, or to be a cops has been is to prepare for the worst, but who could have fathom such were as this? our ang there's no cause or context in which this violence, this kind of terror is justified. none at all. there will be a temptation to let our anger hard in our

divisions. let's not let that happen. there will be a temptation to let our anger send us further into our corners. let's not let that happen. that script is just too easy to write. it's too predictable. let's defy those predictions. offer -- a few perpetrators of evil do not represent us. they do not control us. the blame lies with the people that committed these vicious acts and no one else. and as the president rightfully said, justice will be done. we also have let the healing be done as well. this is been a long week for our country. it's been a long month for america. we have we've seen terrible, terrible, senseless things. violence

every republican and every democrat wants to see less gun violence. every member of this body wants a world in which people feel safe regardless of the color of their skin. and that's not how people are feeling these days. sometimes we disagree on how to get there. having sometimes we disagree passionately on how to get there but in having this debate let's not lose sight of the values that unite us. let's not lose sight in our common humanity. the values that brought those protesters to the streets in dallas, the values that brought the protesters to the streets in washington last night, respect, decency, compassion, humanity. if we lose those fundamental things, what's left?us we need to take a moment here

for reflection for thought, for prayer, for justice, for action. right now let's let justin be done -- let's let justice be done. i yield. ge >> for what purpose is a gentle lady from california seek recognition? >> i ask for one minute. >> without objection she is a recognized for one minute. >> thank you mister speaker.e ht the ambush and murder of police officers during upve peaceful protests is that the tragedy. i agree with the speaker that episodes like this must not harden our divisions to unify us as a country. we are all horrified by this despicable act of violence in we share in the shock and grief for the officers killed, their loved ones in the entire

dallas community. when these officers left their homes earlier in the day,right e there's always the chance that they would be in danger. right now we don't even know the names of all of them. at the the names have not been released.thompson but i do want to acknowledge dart officer brett thompson and those whose names have yetvi to be released as those who are wounded including one civilian. many questions have yet to be clear but whatever the motivation of the perpetrators of this horrible crime it is clear that those perpetrators of this file act have an agendada of evil. the past few days have seen too much death and too muchrk heartbreak. as martin luther king wrote, darkness cannot drive out darkness. and hate cannot drive out hate.

only love can do that. and that, of course, reminds me of our glorious song of st. francis which is the anthem of my city of san francisco that i call upon now. st. francis, appealed to the lord. make me an instrument of thy peace where there is darkness may i bring light.e. where there is a spare may i bring hope. i associate myself with the remarks of the speaker when he referenced our president. justice will be done. justice must be done. and we must also mercy must be done. and as we do that as we seek mercy and justice i also want h to reference a remark of the mayor of dallas when he said we make it to the root causes of what happened last night.n br and in that spirit i also wanthi to acknowledge alton sterling

thes in baton rouge and philando castile. we have to get to the facts into the root causes of what caused these tragedies. in the spirit of martin luther king in the saint of saint francis of assisi we must continue to work the work of nonviolence and semantic the and to senseless killing everywhere.th we must do so while sharing our common values, our safe in the dignity and worth of every person, the spark of divinity that lives in all of them in our tremendous, tremendous grief in the loss of life. just in particular for the families of the police officers, thank you. thank you for sharing your loved ones with us. we pray that it is a comfort to you that so many people mourn your loss and are praying for you.

thank you mister speaker. after those comments from house leadership during a roundabouts texas congresswoman ask for a moment of silence on the house floor. in remembrance of the five officers killed last thing in dallas. she was joined by several other members of the texas delegation. here is a look. is reco without objection the gentle lady from texas is recognized. of me think my colleagues from texas for joining me. the calculated ambush and murders of the dallas law enforcement officers during up peaceful protest last night dis was a disgraceful act of violence. it happened in my district, i live less than five blocks away. my prayers and sympathy got to the family of the officers and the victims of the shooting.

i response going forward not just in dallas but across our nation will be more important now than ever before.ling and my thoughts and prayers are also with the families of alton sterling and philando castile who violently lost their lives this week as well. we must de-escalate violence. this recent violence served as a stark reminder that relations between law enforcement and communities they serve remain extremely tense. we must do everything we cannd k not to blame this tension even further. we need to recognize the root cause of this tension and work to end the divisiveness between law enforcement and citizens. i do also want to commend the dallas police department, the dallas police chief, david brown, a constituent and someone i work with very closely and the dallas area rapid transit were closely for

their brave and swift response to the shooting. these officers are among some of the most capable and professional law enforcement officers in the country. and i commend them for their bravery during this incident. mister speaker i ask for asked for a moment of silence. i ask not just for a moment of silence but also for firm action . we need to bring meaningful legislation to the floor that will help bridge the divide between law enforcement and communities. thank you mr. speak and i yelled back.

sunday morning testimony from fbi director on his agency's recommendation not to prosecute hillary clinton for her use of a private e-mail server. he spoke yesterday before the house oversight reform committee and we will show you that hearing sunday morning at 10:35 a.m. on c-span. i wrote to the white house coverage continues in cleveland with live coverage of the republican party platform committee. monday july 11, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern and continuing july 12 at 10:00 a.m. eastern. the rnc platform committee is responsible for drafting and approving the party platform and submitting it to delegates. live coverage on c-span, the c-span radio app and c-span.org. earlier this week a house senate congress committee for the comprehension exertion and

act. they considered several amendments for members and senators. this is to a half hours. -- this is two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, everybody. so i call this beating of the house and senate on s-524 the company comprehensive addiction and recovery act of 2016 to order. at the outset i'd like to make a few procedural announcements as well as a few requests of my fellow conferees. we have allowed two minutes for each member to make an opening statement. last night 16 amendments were filed. i have to say more than we anticipated when we scheduled the meeting last week. votes are expected in the house and senate between

2:00 and 3:00 this afternoon and in order to be respectful of everyone's time in order to move through the amendment that have been filed i'm going to strongly urge my fellow conferees to offer their statement for the record rather than use their two minutes of statement time today. if you decide you need to speak, i would ask that you try to use only one minute of your time so we can move to the consideration of amendments. this room is aptly named the john dingell room. it is his 90th birthday and there is a celebration in support of his birthday. we would like to be done by the time votes start knowing that there is another event that we have to use this room for. in the spirit of moving things forward i would welcome all of you to the conference on s-524. i look forward to deliberations today and i will submit my opening statement for the record. >> mister chairman? >> i would recognize the

general from tennessee. >> when would it be appropriate to name a chairman of the conference? >> right now. >> i nominate of the chairman as chairman of the conference. >> gentleman from second -- gentleman from vermont seconds that. is there an objection? if not, i am named as chairman. so i would not recognize senator grassley for two minutes. i had urged folks not to use their time. thank you mister chairman. i will be brief i will put my full statement on the record. but i do want to be here because i never seen anything like this. but in my own state the opioid addiction from a years as a

parent and grandparent and years as a prosecutor, i have never seen this. i have held hearings and have conversations across kitchen tables, i've heard how this head torn apart families and communities. destroyed lives. were desperate for help. that's why were here, because mister chairman, all of you represent communities just like we head in vermont. there is not a state under a district that isn't facing this. we are in this together. if we stick together we can do something about it. the comprehensive addiction and recovery act through the senate. prior to the knee-jerk reaction was putative on addiction. we showed as you combat

addictions as you would any other disease. prevention, treatment, recovery. i think that i worry in the draft conference report that we had programs administered by the attorney general and then they have stripped out these strategies that are best practices evidence shows that. it replaces a structure of the senate care of legislation that we supported with a block grant. that would place important programs in jeopardy such as the heroine task force. we also need real funny. what i'm saying is anyone of us if we go home and had honor -- honest conversations at home we are going to find people who had families that have been torn apart by addictions, suicides that could've been avoided,

families destroyed and they are looking for us to do something. thank you, mister chairman. >> the gentleman time has expired peered any members wish to make an opening statement. we recognize the member from new jersey. >> thank you, mister chairman. i will try to summarize. the opiate abuse academic has taken a tremendous toll on families and communities around the country. while there are important provisions in this conference agreement that will help us begin to address this epidemic, we can and should not approve any conference report that does not provide funding. house and senate democrat conferees but for that we all support so there's no excuse for us failing to make the federal investments necessary to begin to turn the tide in

this public health crisis. i strongly support the provisions that expand access to treatment but they will largely remain just that ideas if we did not provide the federal funding necessary to help states and local communities respond to the crisis. those on the frontlines of the crisis had been clear about the urgent need for immediate funding. the national governors association in 182 advocacy groups had written to us to include federal funding in this package and we should listen to them and add the funding. mister chairman, there are two specific policies that are included that i believe are critically important to our response epidemic. we need an all hands on deck approach to this crisis and that's why i strongly support the provision allowing nurse practitioners and assistance to treat individuals with opiate abuse disorder. the conference report also clarifies that a dr. patient may request that a prescription for a scheduled two substance be partially filled. this important change could help reduce the amount opiates dispensed unnecessarily and reduce the number of unused pills in circulation and therefore reduce the risk of misuse and overdose. so again, mister chairman i believe that this conference

report substantively is a good conference report but without the funding, i cannot agree to support at this time. i would urge that we include funding. >> the gentleman's time has expired peered we recognize the gentleman from iowa, mr. grassley. >> you've heard the annual figure of about 40 some thousand people dying from this overdose every year so that is 129 americans a day died from drug overdose. 129 of our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, parents spouses, coworkers, friends and neighbors lost two addiction every 24 hours. it's a human tragedy that touches communities of all shapes and sizes across the united states. despite the awful toll of this epidemic i had been inspired

by how many of our fellow citizens that have turned their personal tragedies in the stories of hope. i have heard the stories across my state of iowa, the senate judiciary heard them during a hearing i could been on this crisis in january. now congress has the opportunity to do our part and past this landmark bill cara. it's a comprehensive approach authorizing almost 900 million dollars over five years for prevention education, treatment, recovery and law enforcement. i was proud to lead the bill through the committee and manage unanimous approval by the full senate. i am pleased that the bill now also includes the kingpin designation improvement act which i introduced with the senator from minnesota and after all of our hard work kara now represents the collective effort of both democrats and republicans from both the house and the senate. the time for us to act is now.

let's not let another 129 americans lose their life without approving the conference report. is over 100 advocacy organizations had urged us to do. let's move kara one step closer to becoming law. >> the chairman recognizes the majority leader of the house is your mccarthy from california for an opening statement. >> thank you, mister chairman. before i begin i want to thank you for your work on this issue and many others and not giving up. i appreciate that. mister chairman, the crisis continues unabated in our country. families are suffering, communities as we know are being torn apart. those who are addicted are deprived of their basic freedom of well. now we have a chance to reverse this and get the people new hope. government can't and addiction. but it can support community efforts to stop opioid abuse

and help those in recovery. the house bill has targeted the root causes and the results of the epidemic. the drug trade prescription abuse, healthcare, prevention and recovery. but we aren't just creating new programs with the hope that more money attached to some new washington ackerman will solve our problems. such problems are generally created with good intentions. but good intentions don't make good government. this legislation uses the power of data to determine at the programs we are funding to fight opioid addiction actually work. that is the purpose of the open act which i sponsored with minority whip's. it gives healthcare officials, researchers and engaged citizens the opportunity to see executive with their government is doing and use that information to respond to the opioid epidemic. i want to think that there

many of the committees and all of the conferees for their bipartisan work over the many months to get to where we are today. but today is not where we should and. we have to finish this. and the sooner the better. i look for to getting this bill signed into law and i yelled back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman for mr. alexander. the epidemic abuse is killing more tennesseans than car accident or gunshots do. with a 1,000 tennesseans die from a opioid abuse every year. last month the headline in a knoxville newspaper said opioid crisis hard for officials to get a handle on. the way to fight this epidemic is not to wage a battle from washington but to support those who were waging the battle on the front lines. county by county, doctor's office by dr.'s office. what we are doing today should afford substantial health supporting education prevention and treatment in

providing grants to expand reversal medications. providing grants to carry out the company has comp a response. this legislation is about program reform. this comprehensive addiction and recovery act passed the senate 94 to one. it passed it 400 to five. we should initiate its work today. 184 different advocacy groups signed a letter yesterday thing this support to the conference report. it is bipartisan. it includes the work of many members. money helps. money helps. over the last two years, congress has increased funding for the opioids by seven times. 766% if we include the recommendations of what the senate appropriation committee has recommended this year and we have not yet heard from the house. this is the regular order. when we fixed no child left behind we did appropriate

dollars, when we passed the defense defense bill we don't spend dollars we do that on the spending track and both tracks have been working well. the important discussions going on about finishing our work on funding i'm glad to be a part of this committee. is important we get a result today. >> gentleman yells back. chair would recognize the gentle lady from washington state, senator patty murray. >> i want to start by sharing something that a constituent of mine was daughter died whose daughter died of an overdose said about the opioid epidemic. it can happen to anywhere. -- it can happen to anyone it is everywhere. she is right. no one is immune to this disease. more than any other year on record. the number of hair when overdose deaths nearly quadrupled from 2000 to 2013. this epidemic is hurting children, parents, grandparents, friends and neighbors all across our

country. so i'm glad we were able to reach bipartisan agreement on many policies that we are debating today but just changing policies alone will not be enough we all know that without more funding to expand access to medication, assisted treatment, states simply won't have the resources they need to put people on the path to recovery and saved lives. and very concerned that if we have the bill that changes our nations policies but completely ignore the funding that would enable cities and states to put these policies into practice, the funding might never come. for too many families, there is no later. there is no next time. this is the would be owed build this year and people across the country are running out of time. that is why i'm introducing an amendment that lays out a clear plan for investing desperately needed resources in preventing and treating addiction so families and

communities get the relief they are calling for. i hope all of our colleagues will join me in supporting it especially since so many of you on both sides of the aisle agreed heading into conference that new investments in prevention, treatment and recovery aren't necessary. we have an opportunity in the clear responsibility to take likes -- life-saving action on this issue today. we have a choice between preventing more of the desk we've heard too much about and allowing the status quo to continue. from others like penny and many others who are separate as a result of opioid addiction all across the country. let's make the right choice today. >> gentle lady yields back peered the chair recognizes the commerce been from new mexico. >> thank you very much mister chairman. 201,447,000 people died from drug overdose. it accounted for 28,000 deaths an increase of 200% since 2000.

my home state of new mexico has been hit hard by this crisis. in 2014 alone 547 people lost their lives. they missed thanks giving dinner or their daughter softball game, 547 people who aren't able to are able to help their son with her math homework or kiss their daughter or spouse good night. i've 547 brothers and sisters parents and friends that we lost two simpering i know that the members of this conference committee are committed to helping our communities because this crisis touches everyone. every member of this committee represents someone who has suffered. many of our constituents had experienced this tragedy firsthand. these are our friends, our loved ones, our neighbors. but if we want to address this crisis in a meaningful way in a way that will save lives, then we need to do more. and we we need to make real

investments and provide funding for this package. take legislation i induced. it passed with bipartisan support and i'm encouraged its inclusion will help mothers for the care they need to put their families on the right path. for this effort to make a difference we must provide robust funding. to continuing the status quo well not work. if we are going to successfully combat this epidemic and save lives and help people then we must that we must provide more resources more funding. the work we are doing today is so important. but we have the opportunity to invest in the tools needed to combat this crisis and save lives. i think my colleagues for their efforts. but we need to do more and help we can do that. then we can come together today and do what is right.

we recognize for the opening statement. they are coming together to tackle this important issue. i'm very pleased to serve as a comfrey. this is an epidemic that is devastating individuals families and communities across the country. my own home state of utah has been particularly hard hit. 289 people in 2014 died to opioid abuse it's more than half of all drug overdose related deaths in the state for that total year. a series of bipartisan votes in both chambers we are poised to take action at a conference agreement that they want and deserve. i was pleased to vote for the bill when it was voted out of the judiciary committee and when it passed by a vote of 94-. he worked for years along side

the white house beard and i commend has his as well for his leadership. i must also recognize the senator she has long been a true champing at this as well. speaking as the chairman of the finance committee i'm pleased that it provides medicare with important tools in the fight against abuse. the agreement allows medicare part d prescription drug plans to work at risk beneficiaries to provide those. and one pharmacies to fill all of the prescriptions. this is a common step that will improve patient care and reduce abuse. and also makes it more likely that they get the help that they been. i can understand a family. they have this have this leadership at this issue. there is access to medication treatment and with our past

work on this issue. the rest of the remarks. >> the gentleman yields back. we have the opening statement. thank you mister chairman i'm pleased to be here today. and commend my colleagues. over the past several weeks comfrey's and staff worked diligently to produce of the conference report in front of us today which represents a copperhead separate spots plaguing our nation. in particular i am pleased that the conference report has the justice department grant program the abuse reduction act sponsored by my colleague and friend. i believe this program will do a great deal to help stem the epidemic of abuse by offering states and localities the resources needed to fight addiction.

importantly, the comprehensive grant program is authorized at $103 million annually over the five years and is fully offset in accordance with the house protocol. i'm also thankful to chairman mark rogers, and others who worked closely with us in this effort. this year the house appropriate or's have included $103 million in funding for and tied. it aligns with the authorization amount and hr-504. it includes the provisions of other bills in the jurisdiction of the house jujitsu rate committee including hr 5048. hr 5042 and the hr 4985 the

kingpin designation improvement act. these bills take real steps to address the epidemic and provide real relief to a real problem affecting real americans. members of the spot it should be proud of the zacapa schmitz. i support the compass report and urge my colleagues to do the same. >> gentleman yields back peered the chairman recognize the man from oregon. >> thank you chairman. the addiction is ripping through many american communities like wild fire. in my view, you cannot fight an inferno with a treatment and prevention package that's no more than a thimble full of water. they have to be financial resources that reflect the magnitude of the problem. resources that prevent opioid addiction from escalating in the first place. resources that strengthen enforcement to ensure bad actors don't rip off the

system. resources that get better access to treatment for our people. it would be legislative malpractice for congress to do only half the job while the crisis continues to rage across america. action needs to be taken today to lock in real funds to deal with this epidemic. i'm sorry to say the measure be considered now fall short. the conference does have an opportunity and that is to come together in a bipartisan fashion and i note that chairman upton's comments there's been an awful lot of a partisan work done in this committee over the years and it's my hope that we can work together in a bipartisan way to improve this bill today and lock in the real funding we

need so we have enforcement, treatment and prevention. thank you mister chairman. >> gentleman yields back. the chair will recognize our next speaker for an opening statement. >> thank you mister chairman. i am glad that we are gathered here now. to make some progress with respect to this epidemic of the opioid and heroin addiction and crisis across the country and bring together the efforts of both chambers. i have the opportunity to participate with the senator of maryland about two months ago in a roundtable discussion in annapolis in my district in the state of maryland and we brought together in that forum a diverse group of advocates, treatment providers, first responders, hospital

personnel, law enforcement, all of the people who professionally now are affected by in our trying to respond to this crisis of opioid and heroin addiction across the country. it's a crisis that is obviously touching just about every community in our country. and much of the discussion as you would imagine as much of the components of the legislation that we are looking at today was addressing public awareness education breaking down, the silos that exist among all the different parts of the community that can mount an effective response to this crisis. but in addition, of course, there was a discussion of trying to bring resources to bear to make a real difference and in particular the treatment providers who are at the table and part of that discussion making a point that they need more resources so in addition to the things that

are achieved through the legislation that were going to be looking at today bringing more resources to bear said the response can be what the american people i think expect it to be. i think are prepared to prepare put resources behind is a critical part of the conversation. i hope that we can bring more resources behind that effort and with that i yelled back peered. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from mr. -- in new jersey for an opening statement. i asked that my remarks made part of the written record. >> thank you sir. >> the chair would like to recognize the chairman from texas. opening statement. >> thank you mister chairman the united states is experiencing a opioid abuse epidemic. 25 percent of patients who had per side -- prescribed opiates

for long-term pain subsequently battle addiction. has been it to lean americans abuse or depend on prescriptions. tens of thousands of americans die each year from opioid overdoses. these deaths are preventable yet they have quadrupled since 1989. the house and senate have approved version of the comprehensive addiction and recovery act. i am a cosponsor of the house bill. today congress moves closer to combating opioid addiction. the bipartisan conference report ensures that the necessary resources are in place to prevent or respond to opioid abuse. i think my colleagues here today and the authors of the house and senate legislation for their efforts and i urge adoption of the conference report and yelled back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes of the jet a minute from texas for an opening statement. >> prescription drug and hair when addiction crisis has

ravaged so many of our families and neighbors and communities at every corner of the country. nearly every 12 minutes someone in america dies from a drug overdose. it is a grave reality and we must face it head on. i support the underlying legislation that believe that these programs have the potential to help expand access to treatment prescribing practices to facilitate understanding the disease and educate providers and policymakers policymakers in the public. however, absent actual resources to address this crisis have on and meaningfully impact those affected will accomplish little. i join my colleagues in urging us to include -- include funding for the opioid epidemic as we stated in our recent letter. the scope and urgency will justify this be considered emergency spending and yet we are willing to put federal budget savings on the table to mistreat there's no excuse for inaction when it comes to funding for treatment and prevention. i want to think my colleagues in the staff of their work to

move this issue forward and i yelled back the balance of my time. >> thank you sir. >> thank you mister chairman. i will submit my formal remarks for the record peered on june 30 in kentucky i have attended a forum on opioid. we talked about a lot of statistics a people who have passed away. we do mother there was child was the honor student in high school, played soccer, tore a seal and went to a position and get a prescription and then became addicted to opioid which led to hair when. in the two years that the family went through including relocating to orlan spero just to get out of the neighboring state where this happened her daughter went home to visit a friend and came back and found her dead after this she thought she was clean. these are the stories across the country. in honor of her and her daughter i urge that we move this legislation forward and i

will submit the rest of my remarks for the record. >> the chair yields back. the chair recognizes the congressman from tennessee. >> thank you mister chair and members of the committee. i applaud the bill but i want to suggest that one of the major reasons we have a problem in this country and the reasons young people use hair when is because this congress and governments throughout this country had wrongly sent a message to young people that marijuana is more dangerous to you than heroin. that's the message we send by having marijuana a schedule one. marijuana is more dangerous than heroin. young people see that and they think government lies to them about drugs. they try marijuana and they find out is not harmful and then it doesn't run their lives not that they should be doing it when they are under 21, not that they should

necessarily be doing it later but in dc and many states you can do it legally and people do and are killing themselves and aren't causing or committing crimes because they do it. but this congress and government stressed governments throughout the slant have told young people we are old fogeys and we don't know what were talking about. we think marijuana is more dangerous than heroin. therefore they think it's okay to do it heroin and then they die. we need to be straight and honest and marijuana should not be schedule one it should be scheduled but a minimum it should be scheduled to as this drug in this particular bill. schedule one for marijuana is wrong it's an alternative painkiller that could do for people who would not then go.

it is alarming to see that today, opiates and heroine abuse is once again on the rise. it is in fact at epidemic levels every community throughout our country including my state of california which the cdc software thousand 521 drug overdose deaths in 2014 alone. recently in my district in pasadena, i met ryan hampton who for in five heroine users began by using prescription drugs. it was once an ambitious white house intern who was succeeding at college but then broke his knee while hiking and was put on scription opiates for pain area ryan like so many other young people became a pet