on c-span, all beginning on monday, july 18th. next, anti-abortion advocates discuss the impact of their issues on the 2016 elections. then a house hearing on the future of guantanamo bay detention facility. after that, a senate hearing on the impact of the rising costs of flood insurance. now anti-abortion advocates speak at the national right to life convention on how right-to-life issues will impact the 2016 election. they discuss competitive house and senate races in november and where presidential candidates donald trump and hillary clinton stand on abortion. this is just over an hour.

>> welcome. welcome to national right to life's session, the battle before us. it has been an amazing year. full of surprises. and we have learned not to take anything for granted. the presidency, the house, and the senate are all in play, and we need the help of every one of you this year. we have a panel of people who work every day in these areas here. and i will introduce them briefly. i think you probably know them all already.

dr. david olstein, our executive director. our president carol tobias, and our political action committee director karen cross. [ applause ] . national right to life makes a recommendation on a candidate. when they do that, they take their time to collect all the facts and make the best possible decision on the life issue. don't let the media tell you how to vote. don't let your favorite commentator tell you how to vote. all of these people have lots of issues, and these issues, a

whole range of them, are influencing their opinions. you need to look at the candidate's record on life, the candidates' statements on life, and whether or not they have a real chance of winning because you shouldn't throw your vote away. and then what nrlc has learned from their research on the candidate. we are a group totally dedicated to the life issue. we want to help you compare candidates and make the best decision for life. this session is designed to help you do that. and so we have been sent by congressman peter roskam a video

which is very appropriate because he is the successor to congressman henry hyde. and this is the 40th anniversary of henry hyde's momentous amendment. [ applause ] so we would like to hear from his successor congressman peter ro roskam. he had hoped to be here in person but he sent us a video. >> i'm peter roskam from suburban chicago. and i want to say hello to everybody at the national right to life committee's convention. but i want to tell you a quick story. so it's a couple of years ago, and i'm in chicago, and i've been invited to be one of the speakers for march for life. i'm downtown chicago. it's a cold day. and i got there a little bit early. and i was waiting. just waiting for people to show

up. and off to one side there was some abortion protesters. these were pro-abortion protesters, and it was a small group. they looked miserable. their signs said terribly ugly things. and i felt sorry for them actually because they just seemed lost to me. and i was waiting, i began to hear some music. and over the course of the next couple of minutes, the music got louder and louder and louder and more and more joyful and buoyant. and then all of the sudden around the corner came thousands of pro-life advocates. and they had flags and they were dancing, and they had balloons. and the contrast between these two groups literally took my breath away. here you have on one hand this pathetic group that really is articulating a lie, and then you got a group that is articulating the truth. and i'm telling you, the witness that the pro-lifers were bearing, that is the witness

that life is a gift from god is one of the most powerful images that i've come across in my entire political life. we're on the side of the angels on this issue, literally we're on the side of the angels. we've got a lot of work to do. but there has been a lot of people that have been persuaded to see things as we see them. i want to let you know how deeply appreciative that i am of the witness you are bearing that life is a gift from god, and life is worth defending. thank you. [ applause ] >> and now you will hear from our president, carol tobias. [ applause ] >> good morning. thank you all for being here. i had my remarks prepared, and then yesterday we found out that there is going to be a vote in the u.s. house of representatives next week. so i need to spend a few minutes

telling you about that vote and encouraging you to get your grassroots people back home supporting this bill as well and getting contacts, calls, e-mails, whatever into your representative's office. as the obama administration has approached the end of its eight years, president obama and his appointees have become more and more brazen in trampling on the rule of law where they have an ideological goal that congress has not enacted into law, they manufacture their own laws. in the form of executive orders and directives from various federal agencies. where there is a law that they find idealogically distasteful, they refuse to enforce it, or they gut it by radical reinterpretation, and that is what is happening now. to years ago, the california department of managed care issued a decree mandating that nearly all health plans in the state must cover all abortions.

well, we said they can't do that because since 2004, we have had a federal law, the weldon amendment sponsored by congressman david weldon from florida at that time says no state government that receives any federal health and human services money, and of course california gets all kinds of that money, but no agency may discriminate against any health care provider for refusing to participate in providing abortions. the law explicitly includes insurance coverage and explicitly covers health plans. well, various churches and religiously affiliated schools filed complaints with the obama administration's department of hhs, asking that the administration a enforce the federal law, and thereby compel california to withdraw the state mandate that was forcing these churches and schools to pay for the killing of unborn children.

for two years, the administration did nothing, despite many urgings and prods from members of congress. then finally just a couple weeks ago on june 21st, hhs took action. but it did not compel california to withdraw its abortion mandate. instead the administration sent letters to the people of california who had complained announcing that no violation of federal law had occurred. the letters were written by a government lawyer whose previous job was vice president of a pro-abortion legal organization. she announced that hhs had decided the weldon amendment only applied to those who file objections to abortion on religious or moral grounds, and said the department had decided that insurance companies in california did not have such religion-based objections. the churches and religiously affiliated employers who filed the complaints did have

religious objections, but they were not health care providers, and therefore they were not covered by the law. now there is no language whatsoever in the weldon law that imposes a religious test. and the weldon amendment explicitly includes health plans within its scope. so on its face, the california decree was as blatant a violation of federal law as could be imagined. to avoid this conclusion, the administration had to engage in its own blatant fabrication in order to achieve its idealogically dictated end. for good measure they suggested that the weldon law, which does no more than protect against government impelled participation -- compelled participation in the killing of unborn children might be constitutional, a suggestion that is not supported by any federal court decision. in the face of this outrage, paul ryan, speaker of the u.s. house of representatives has

announced that next week, probably on wednesday, the house will vote on legislation that would prevent states from requiring health care providers to participate in abortion. this legislation, the conscience protection act, and that's what you need to remember, the conscience protection act would prohibit any level of government from mandating that health care providers such as doctors and nurses and also entities such as hospitals and health plans and their clients would be covered. it provides for people who are affected by abortion mandates to file private lawsuits in federal courts so the cooperation of ideologically hostile activists drawing paychecks at the department of hhs would no longer be necessary. this legislation is urgently needed. an agency in new york has already adopted an abortion mandate similar to this california one. requiring small group employers to cover all kinds of abortion.

and on the very same day that the obama administration gutted the weldon amendment, a court in washington state ruled that public hospitals must provide abortions if they offer maternity care. i urge you to visit the legislative action site on our website, nrlc.org. from there it is easy to send a letter to your representative. you can just put in your zip code and it will tell you who your representative is, if you're not sure. the conscience protection act will be voted on in the u.s. house next week. make sure you have your people contacting their representatives to support this bill. nobody should be forced to participate in the brutal act of abortion. governments should never require doctors, nurses, hospitals, insurance plans, or employers who pay for insurance plans to participate in abortion. so please get that. do it today if you can. do it tomorrow, whenever you get home. just make sure that your people

are legislate their representatives now. people have a right to object to killing unborn children can. health plans' tax dollars should not be involved. all right. that was the legislative update right from yesterday. so my remarks. did you know that there is an election this year? yes, surprise. of course you did. on the ballot, of course there is a lot of attention placed on the presidential race. so on everybody's ballot will be the chance to vote for president. but in 34 state, you will also have a chance to vote for a united states senator. also on the ballot in many states will be a chance to vote for governor, attorney general, secretary of state. everyone will have a chance to vote for u.s. house of representatives member. and many of you, most of you will be voting on state legislative races as well. i want to take just a couple of minutes to look at the presidential candidates. now donald trump for many years had said -- well, we've got -- of course there is the videotapes that he is

pro-choice. and he has been out there publicly saying that. but he wrote in a news column earlier this year, and i want to quote, let me be clear. i am pro-life. i support that position with exceptions allowed for rape, incest, or the life of the mother being at risk. i did not always hold this position, but i had a significant personal experience that brought the precious gift of life into perspective for me. now donald trump has expressed his support for the pain capable unborn child protection act. he has expressed his opposition to taxpayer funding for abortion and abortion providers, and said that he would appoint pro-life judges. hillary clinton, having been in elected office, and just having been around for a very long time, has a much longer record. as awes senator, hillary clinton voted 100% against the babies. there was no limit on abortion

that she would accept. we had a 12-year battle to ban a particular abortion method, the partial birth abortion procedure. in this procedure, the abortionist grabs the unborn baby's legs with forceps and pulls the baby into the birth canal. the abortionist delivers the baby's body, all but the head. he jams the scissors into the back of the baby's head, inserts a suction tube, pulls out the brains. the head collapses and then he removes the head from the body of the mother. horrifying? absolutely. gruesome? definitely. hillary clinton voted repeatedly to keep that procedure, partial birth abortion, legal. now thankfully in 2007, the united states supreme court banned that procedure. and it is no longer allowed. more than half of the states have in effect laws that require

parents to be notified if their minor daughter is pregnant and considering an abortion. but there are some who think parents shouldn't have to be involved, shouldn't get to be involved. and there was an effort, of course, to take minor girls into other states to avoid or semiconductor vent the laws of the state that said parents had to be notified or maybe even have to give their consent before their daughter can kill their grandchild. congress tried to protect the rights of the parents in saying you cannot take a girl across state lines. but senate democrats, including hillary clinton blocked those bills. clinton didn't care about your rights as a parent. she apparently has no problem with someone taking your daughter into another state to get an abortion with you not even knowing she is pregnant. now let's look more at her record. the state children's health insurance program is a federal program that provides funds to states primarily so that they

help provide health services to children in low-income families. in 2002, the bush administration issued a regulation giving states the option of covering unborn children under this program, a policy known as the unborn child rule. since this was an administrative rule that could be changed by a future administration, the senate in 2007 held a vote to codify the unborn child rule. the amendment would have written explicit language into the schip program to guarantee that a covered child includes at the option of a state the unborn child. hillary clinton voted no. this woman who wants us to think she cares so much about health care, remember hillary care back in the '90s? but she didn't think unborn children should get health care or be allowed to be provided under this program. last year the united states house of representatives voted to pass the payne capable unborn

child protection act. they say if an unborn child is developed to the point where he or she can feel pain, abortion should not be allowed. hillary clinton opposed the pain capable abortion act. she thinks it's okay to kill babies who have developed far enough along in the pregnancy that they can feel pain. and of course hillary clinton is planned parenthood's favorite candidate. the nation's largest abortion provider announced it will spend around $20 million to elect hillary clinton and pro-abortion senators. when bill clinton was president, he said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. hillary doesn't use that anymore. she just wants it legal. in fact, she has not met a restriction or a limit on abortion that she would approve of. she says the unborn child has no constitutional rights right up until the day of birth. in april, chuck todd on "meet the press" asked mrs. clinton,

secretary clinton when or if does an unborn child have constitutional rights. she answered, "well, under our laws currently, that is not something that exists. the unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights." well, two days later on "the view", paula faris said secretary, i want to ask you about some comments you made over the weekend on "meet the press" regarding abortion. you said, quote, the unborn person doesn't have constitutional rights. my question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights? and are you saying that a child on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights? clinton responded, "under our law, that is the case, paula. i support roe v. wade." now when you think hillary clinton, think abortion for all nine months, for any reason. no limits, no restrictions allowed.

now it's not just the presidential candidates that will be on the ballot this fall. last week, the supreme court overturned a fifth court of appeals ruling on a ruling out of texas. it was a win for the abortion. planned parenthood announced a nationwide campaign. they will work to repeal pro-life laws, pass pro-abortion laws. well they didn't say pro-abortion, but that's what they are, and enact pro-abortion laws and pursue litigation to strike down laws they consider to be unjust. now i will admit i was a bit amused by that. i'm thinking you have not been able to pass pro-life laws in most of these states in how many years, and yet all of the sudden you're going to do that? we've been passing pro-life laws in state after sate after state for years after year year. and they think they're going to waltz in and just repeal them?

they don't have the people. they don't have the popular support. they have not been electing legislators. you have been electing legislators. you have been passing pro-life laws. it's not going to be as easy as they think to challenge this group when you go home and you work with your people and you elect those pro-life legislators. it's not going to happen. so, you know, good luck to them, but it ain't going to happen. [ applause ] there are, i will say, there are a handful of states that they have been able to get some of their legislation through, that they have been able to dominate. the way the abortion industry has been able to accomplish what they accomplish is through the courts. because they're not electing legislators. they're not passing bills. there is one state in particular that they have a good firm grip on, unfortunately. that is california.

i just talked about the con shns protection act where the state of california of is telling insurance companies they have to cover all abortions. last year they passed another draconian law. they are telling pregnancy resource centers that when a woman comes into your facility, you to give them information telling them that the state the provide low cost prenatal care, family planning services, and abortion, along with the notice that if they want the abortion, the state will probably pay for it. now can you imagine a state government telling taco bell that they have to tell customers coming in their door that we serve pepsi products. if you want coke, you have to go down to the mcdonald's station on the corner. telling a honda dealer that if someone walks in their door looking at their cars, they have to tell them where they can also go look at ford cars? pregnancy resource centers have a moral objection to telling

women where they can go to kill their unborn child. i think this law is horrible. it's in the courts, and i would encourage you all to be praying that it be overturned. pregnancy resource centers are outnumbering abortion facilities by three or four to one in this country. giving women choices, giving them options. [ applause ] the problem is the abortion industry can't stand competition. and i would say to them when you only allow one option, you cannot call yourself pro-choice. [ applause ] i am a tremendous admirer of winston churchill. he was the right man in the right place at the right time. to quite frankly, save the world. if it hadn't been for his

determination and indomitable spirit, we can't know how much of the world adolf hitler would have been able to conquer. to express this country's appreciation, in 1963, president john f. kennedy made churchill an honorary american citizen, i think well-deserved. but in the book "the last lion: defender of the realm" churchill says that hitler was outkilling even his teutonic ancestors. and not since the mongols came in the 13th century had europe seen such methodical, merciless butchery on such a monstrous scale. we are in the presence, he concluded, of a crime without a name. i read that and i thought wow, methodical, merciless butchery on such a monstrous scale. we are in the presence of a crime without a name. now i know you are all thinking the same thing i was thinking.

that is what we are in right now. methodical, merciless butchery. one million unborn children every year killed by abortion, having their arms torn off as they are dismembered, bleeding to death, as limbs are torn off. being scraped out of the uterus with a metal curette. being vacuumed or suctioned out of the uterus. this is merciless and methodical, except this crime does have a name, and it is abortion. we must do everything we can to stop it. the battle before us is to elect pro-life candidates who will continue to pass pro-life laws so that we may once again in this country protect our children. thank you. [ applause ]

>> thank you, carol. once again, she's given us great things to think about. and now our political action committee director, karen cross will begin to talk to us about the battle ahead and what we have to do politically. [ applause ] >> good morning. every election year brings with it new challenges. and it's not an exaggeration to say that this election has been the most unpredictable election year of our lifetime. but there do remain constants. every election, pro-life leaders take their training from the national right to life

convention and use it to rally the grassroots troops in preparation for the battle ahead. every election, we encounter those who were so discouraged with how some races are shaping up that they hide behind their anger and sacrifice their right to vote. and every election we make decisions that will have consequences for good or ill for generations to come. yes, in politics we always have to be looking forward, being watchful and vigilant. in a field that is constantly changing. but we can't just look to the future. we must also learn from our past, being ever mindful to not repeat history's mistakes. it's no wonder, then, that i've always been fascinated by history. reading over the founding of our country, especially those willing to fight the necessary

battles, giving up their lives and their happiness. for the opportunity to give us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of our own. i often find the selflessness reflected in the pro-life movement. we who dedicate our lives fighting for the rights of people we will never meet. making sacrifices so that others might live. as pro-lifers, we are instantly on the battle lines. we battle for the hearts and minds of americans. we're on the front lines in a spiritual battle as well. and we find ourselves battling to keep pro-life leadership in the united states house of representatives and the u.s. senate so that we can pass protective pro-life legislation that saves lives.

we -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. how many times have we heard these words? too many of us have become numb to the profound history behind them. we forget that these words represented a truly radical idea of the time. they fought on the front lines of history, incapable of knowing the ripple effect their efforts would have on future lives. but they knew that these ideas, life, liberty, were worth fighting for. each time you enter the voting booth, you have a ripple effect that will impact the entire country. you will be electing senators and representatives who will determine the direction of our

nation, and who will decide the next members of our supreme court. you will be electing local representatives who will decide whether your state represents -- respects life or passes laws that prey on the vulnerable. those local representatives whom you elect may eventually run for higher office. and so the cycle continues. each vote we cast or do not cast will have consequences. you may tire of hearing me tell you that each election is the most important we have ever seen, but with each election comes new opportunities, new dangers, and fresh faces. each election is a chance to protect mothers and their unborn children. and each election i will sound the call for you to take up your arms and work for political leaders who will represent all

of us born and unborn. the freedom to vote and the opportunity to have an impact of this magnitude is a great responsibility we all bear. as we look to the upcoming supreme court nominations, perhaps the greatest responsibility we in the political field have right now is to ensure we have a pro-life senate that will confirm pro-life nominees and block judges who would entrench roe. there are a lot of races we will need to work on to accomplish this task, but i know that armed with this information, you will go back to your communities and rally the necessary troops to see this through. as we discuss these senate races, i will be talking a lot about the nation's largest abortion provider, planned parenthood and the extreme pro-abortion pack that only

works for abortion for women for any reason, emily's list. but i don't like repeating myself. so i'm going to give you your first and easiest task in the upcoming battle. so you need to wake up, because i need your help. when i say planned parenthood, you say the nation's largest abortion provider. good job. next, when i say emily's list, you say the extreme pro-abortion pac. got it. so this year there are 34 u.s. senate seats up for election. okay. i think we need to go to a next slide. yes. thank you. ten democrat seats and 24 republican seats. all of the democrats up for reelection are pro-abortion. according to cook political report, eight of the ten

democrat seats are currently safe, while 13 of the 24 republican seats are actually vulnerable. democrats need a net gain of five seats to regain control of the senate or four if they win the white house. in order to maintain pro-life leadership, we cannot afford to lose any pro-life senators in 2016. and the senate elections will be tough. please do not fall into the trap of thinking that if you don't live in one of those toss-upstates, that this election does not affect you. remember, we are all in this together. and we need to support each other regardless of our location. if you were nowhere near a race, find out how you can support your colleagues via social media. reach out to your friends and family who may live in different locations. never stop looking for an opportunity to make a difference.

we are all responsible for these races and for the future of our country. so with an eye towards how you can make an impact in the battle before us, let's review the most pressing senate races we face in november. just last month, many of us breathed a sigh of relief when pro-life senator marco rubio announced he will run for a second term in the senate. senator rubio has voted pro-life on every occasion. yay. [ applause ] following the august 30 primary, rubio's opponent will likely be either pro-abortion representative allen grayson, or pro-abortion representative patrick murphy. who is so extreme on the life issue, he even voted against the bill to care for babies who are born alive during an abortion, and he voted to continue funding

planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> pro-life congressman joe heck will face pro-abortion former attorney general katherine cortez masto for nevada's open seat. the congressman voted for the pain capable pro-abortion act and voted to defund planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> in contrast, cortez-masto is supported by pro-choice america and emily's list. >> pro-abortion pac. >> in new hampshire, senator kelly ayotte, who has a 100% pro-life voting record is being challenged by pro-choice maggie hassan, another democrat supported by emily's list. >> the extreme pro-abortion pac. >> in ohio pro-life senator rob portman is facing a challenge by former pro-abortion governor ted

strickland. portman has a 100% pro-life voting record while strickland had a dismal voting record in congress, voting against the pro-life position nearly 80% of the time over ten-year span. strickland has been endorsed by planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> in pennsylvania, pro-life senator pat toomey is facing a challenge by katie mcginty, another candidate from emily's list. >> the extreme pro-abortion pac. >> in wisconsin, pro-life senator ron johnson faces pro-abortion former senator russ feingold. senator johnson has a 100% pro-life voting record. in contrast, former senator feingold supports the current policy of abortion on demand and voted against the partial birth abortion ban every chance he had. and is endorsed by planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion

provider. >> north carolina pro-life senator robert burr is face challenge by former assemblywoman debra ross, a candidate supported by emily's list. >> the extreme pro-abortion pac. >> in arizona, congresswoman ann kirkpatrick, a candidate from emily's list -- >> the nation's largest -- >> the extreme pro-abortion pac is challenging pro-life senator john mccain. senator mccain's pro-life record contrasts greatly with kirkpatrick's, who voted against the pain capable legislation and voted to fund planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> pro-life el paso county commissioner darryl glen is challenging pro-abortion senator michael bennet in colorado's senate race. michael bennet voted against the

pain-capable unborn child protection act and has been awarded a 100% lifetime rating by planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> pro-life congressman todd young will face former congressman baron hill for indiana's open senate seat. todd young has a 100% pro-life voting record while baron hill has a mixed record on abortion. including votes to continue funding planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> in missouri, senator roy blunt, a pro-life leader in the senate, is facing a challenge by pro-abortion secretary of state jason kantor who had 100% pro-abortion voting record while in the missouri house of representatives. and finally, in iowa, pro-life senator chuck grassley, chairman of the senate judiciary committee is facing a challenge

by pro-abortion former lieutenant governor patty judge. senator grassley has a 100% pro-life voting record while patty judge is so extreme on abortion that she is supported by emily's list -- >> the extreme pro-abortion pac. >> and planned parenthood. >> the nation's largest abortion provider. >> good job, guys. [ applause ] as you can see, there is a lot at stake for babies and their mamas in the senate in 2016. moving on to the house of representatives, if you look at the screen, you'll see the current list of competitive house races. democrats need a net gain of only 30 seats to take pro-abortion control of the u.s. house of representatives. the battle for majority control of the u.s. senate and the u.s.

house of representatives will have sweeping implications for the future of the pro-life movement. the loss of the pro-life republican majorities would be devastating to life issues. i began this morning by talking about history and the importance of reflecting upon where we have been. so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. a radical idea in the 1700s that we all have the equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness carries us through our actions today. but today we make history of our own. today we make choices for future generations to reflect upon. will they look back in 300 years at our choices and deride us for staying silent in the face of evil? will they admire our diligence in protecting the weak and the

vulnerable? will they wonder why we didn't do more? no. no, they won't. that last one is off the table. we will do all we can. [ applause ] we will fight with our last breath for those who cannot speak for themselves. as long as there is the violence and injustice of abortion, there will be those of us who stand against it and work to protect all of our unborn brothers and sisters. abortion is the ultimate human discrimination, and we will not stay silent. [ applause ]

the late elie weisel told us to remain silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all. in every battle there are soldiers, and every soldier needs their marching orders. these are yours. do not stay silent. do not be discouraged. and do not let fear or allow fear to guide your steps. the stakes are too important, and every voice will be needed to ensure the senate holds. we must hold the senate. you must hold the senate. if you leave here today and do nothing, we will fail. you must take this information and you must reenergize your troops at home who weren't able to join us today. when the grassroots march is

won, we will succeed. and with our success will come a culture that makes good on the promise of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, karen. and now i would like to present to you for the next speech dr. -- i hesitated a moment because he gives us information in a slide show also, and he is, as many of you know, he was a professor of mathematics. and he understands these figures, and they are very

important to us to understand too, because they tell us how we can succeed and what's happening out there. dr. david osteen. [ applause ] >> thank you. for it is god who works in us, both to will and to do according to his good pleasure. you shine as lights in the world, holding forth the word of life. you shine as lights in the world holding forth the word of life. those words almost 2,000 years ago by st. paul. he was inspired to write have aptly described, spoken to and spoken about many, many good men and women through the ages.

who have fought against evil. and certainly there are no people today they more aptly describe and speak to and speak about than you, shining light in the world, holding forth the word of life. and you have had success. you've heard about the challenges facing you right now. but let's reflect for a moment on what you have done. there are 600,000 fewer babies killed today annually in the united states than at the height of the abortion epidemic. [ applause ] think of that. think of the blessings that you have. how many people have actually saved a life? and through your work, your

sacrifice, your faith, you're saving lives. today when you go home, despite having the administration raid against us and the billion dollar a year abortion corporation called planned parenthood arrayed against us, we're continuing to make progress. four more states this year banned dismemberment abortion. [ applause ] two more states stopped abortion when the baby could feel pain. [ applause ] now the pro-abortion forces are reveling in the victory they had in the supreme court. they're energized, and they plan to move forward. and they hide behind judges.

they don't elect legislators. but think what they won. think what they're overjoyed about. and it says something about the pro-abortion. what they won was the right to operate clinics so shabby that they can't meet the standards of other outpatient surgical centers. they won the right to have so-called doctors who are so bad they can't get admitting privileges at a hospital. what a great victory. we've got the shabbiest clinics, we've got the worst doctors. that's the pro-abortion movement. but they are so energized, they think they're going to defeat us this year. because they believe there should be, and they do, they say this, more abortion clinics, more abortionists, more abortions. and you have been making abortion rare. not as rare as it should be, a million kids a year are still

dying. but you have been, i don't know, hillary clinton's not happy. bill said he wanted abortion rare. hope he's happy. we're trying to do it. now they mention taking away the hyde amendment. and we want to talk a little bit about that. and i'm going to come back to that. they think they're going to use your tax dollars to pay for abortion. they're already getting planned parenthood is getting hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars, hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars annually anyway. but they want it directly to pay for abortion. well, we're going to stop them. it is no accident that the pro-life movement has been able to pass this legislation because

as i have said before, those i've had the pleasure to meet with before here, they have never, ever had the majority of the american people for what they stand for. unfettered abortion on demand for any reason at any stage of pregnancy using your tax dollars to the pay for it. they've never had that. they don't have it today. that's why they don't elect legislators. it is no accident that the united states house of representatives, which is the most representative branch of the federal government, has year in and year out, year in and year out had a pro-life majority. and now i'm going to, as darla mentioned, yes, she knew those that have been here before there would be numbers. i want to show you why. this is a poll just released by gallup. what did they ask? do you think abortion should be legal in all circumstances?

legal in only a few circumstances, legal in most circumstances? or legal under any circumstance? notice 56% of the population believes abortion should be never allowed or only allowed in a few circumstances. few circum. only 29% sides with the emily's list, planned parenthood position. not our poll. this is gallup. the next pop shows essentially the same result taken this march and i only put it up so i could show you several like this, to help validate the first taken by cnn. again, 54% thinks abortion should always be illegal. legal in only in a few circumstances and 29% agrees with the position of planned parenthood and narol.

the next, with respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life? now, on these labels, there is essentially parity between the pro-life and pro-choice decision. in this gallup poll it shows 46% adopting the label pro-life. and 47% adopting the level pro-choice. many of the pro-choicers don't know what that label means according to planned parenthood, emily's list and nerol. in the next slide we see that 57% of the population believes abortion should be permitted only to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape and incest. only 20% of the population would allow abortion after the first

three months of the pregnancy or at any time during pregnancy. 24% of the population would allow it in the first three months. when you cross tab this, next, you find that among pro-choice, this is among self id'd pro-choicers. 44% of them would only allow abortion in the first three months of pregnancy. meaning they would support the pain capable unborn protection act. remember, the candidate is running with emily's list, with nerol, with planned parenthood. they have to pledge. they keep a lock on them just like this. you know, they have to pledge against the pain capable unborn child protection act. they have to pledge in favor of dismemberment abortions where the baby is pulled apart arm by arm, leg by leg, alive in the

womb. they have to pledge to use your tax dollars to pay for abortion, and according to this, they have, at most, 32% of the population agreeing with that position. so it is important that your pro-life candidate not allow this election to be decided on labels. they have to make -- the pro-life candidate has to make sure people understand that their opponent, their opponent is so extreme they believe in abortion for any reason, late in pregnancy, they think it is perfectly okay to kill a kid who feels the pain of abortion by pulling off the arms and legs while it is alive and they want to use your tax dollars to pay for it. that is the planned parenthood position so it is important that the pro-life candidate articulate that and on the question of using tax dollars for abortion, if they want to

make that the campaign issue this year, bring it on. 49% of id'd pro-choicers oppose using your tax dollars to pay for abortion, so let's make that the issue this year. next slide. now, gallup asks, thinking about the abortion issue, does the candidate have to agree with your position? 20% of the population says that the candidate must share their view on abortion. 49% says it is one of the important factors. iemds going to look just at what i call the hard pro-life incredi increment. 20% of all respondents say the

candidate must agree with their position on abortion. that is 23% of the pro-lifers and 17% of the pro-choicers. next slide, when you do the math, in other words, you take the % of pro-lifers against the percentage of people who self id pro-life and i'm working in the same poll, in the same gallop poll doing the cross tab, you find 10 and a half % of the population are one, pro-life, and two, say the candidate has to agree with their position on abortion. 8% say they're pro-choice and say the candidate has to agree with their position on abortion and that gives us a 2.5% pro-life increment. that is consistent with what we've had in past elections going back to 1994. i'm told you before. if a candidate is going to lose by 689 points, the pro-life

movement can't put them over the top. most are won by a point or two. if we have the resources. we don't need the 20 million. we don't need the billion. i'm going to talk about what we do need. if we have the resources to reach the pro-life people, we can provide an edge, a hard edge to two to three points. we have an election after election after election and that is what we're going to need. let me show you where we stand with some of these tough senate races. i'm going to show you some of the closest ones and remember, we have more of the good guys up than the others this time. in arizona, here is three polls showing mccain leading from between two and nine points. think he will win? i think he'll win but we have to be there. in the next state we want to look at in florida, this was before senator rubio came in

that looked like we might lose. we saw three polls since then. one has him tied and that is putting him against the person that seems this time to be leading for the democratic nomination. he may not win. mr. grayson may win this and we would do even better against him but it shows rubio ahead essentially in one, tied in one, and murphy leading by one. we've got to be in florida. a big, expensive state. in iowa, grassley ahead by seven, grassley ahead by one. we can't take this for granted. in new hampshire, four polls winning by two, losing in two. tough race. our two to three points will make the difference in new

hampshire. next slide. north carolina. always competitive. we usually win, we usually have to do everything. burr is ahead in the last three polls but look at one of them, by one point and it is always a close state. in ohio, can you get any closer than that? we're up by one, we're down by one, we're tied. a basig expensive state. pennsylvania, last three polls, up by one, up by one, up by one. this is all in the margin of error. and finally, in wisconsin, we're trailing. we're trailing against someone who voted every chance he had in favor of pulling children out of the womb alive, stabbing them in the head, and suctions out their

brains in a partial birth abortion. next slide. in every election between 2004 and 2014, national right to life, according to polling, when we ask the whole population did you hear anything from national right to life. did you hear an ad, did you get a phone call, did you get a piece of mail, did you get a piece of literature distributed. 20% of the population say they heard from the national right to life and we didn't have $20 million to do it but we had you. we've got to produce that again. and to do that, we're going to have to have some resources. we don't need 20 million. we don't need 100 million. we don't need a billion but we

need 4 million that we don't have right now. we do need 4 million that we don't have right now and i'll tell you that this has been the toughest year we have faced since i've been executive director of national right to life and i came here in 1984. for our political fund raising. it has been a topsy turvy, for many a discouraging year. many, many, many pro-life dollars or dollars from people who would normally donate were spent among 17 candidates in the republican primary and it has been discouraging to some people. we have to pick up from that. we have to win tar heels race-- have to win these races and we need to have the resources to

do. i'll ask you to do a couple of things. would you please, every dollar counts. we'll pass the plate. would you please contribute anything you can, i know it cost you to come here, but think about your expendable funds. write the largest check you can to the national rights victory fund or make a cash contribution to national right to life right now to help support our activities because we're 4 million short and as they, i think they're going to, i hope i have people passing baskets. yes, please, just whatever you can donate, as large as you can, whatever you can, and then, if you can't right now, if you want to give us a note to give us a call, we will. anything you can give because we're short and we have to get

that pro-life increment. whatever you move to do. then i want you to do something else. you'll get a piece of paper passed out, too. i hope with this prolifevicto prolifevictory2016.com. at any time you feel moved to between now and the election, but i want you, how many of you are on facebook? how many of you ever tweet? ever use e-mail? do you have any friends? okay. now, i hear these people say to me, i have 2,000 friends. i have 1,000 friends. i think i've got three here. i've got 15 or 16 and my kids,

but you can do this, i'm told of that if you put this on your facebook page and you ask all of your facebook friends to donate, and then ask them to put it on their facebook page and you can do that, you know, that is a matter of a few clicks. could you all tweet this out? and just say please give to be pro-life candidates. go here, or goiv pro-life, to help elect pro-life candidates, go here. can you e-mail it to your friends and share it? everyone here, i believe i'm told can reach thousands of people. so please, please do that and help us. we're going to ask you for your help. we're going to ask you, you know, to pass out the pro-life literature. we're going to ask you to speak. we have a tremendous challenge in front of us. a tremendous challenge in front of us.

and we're not guaranteed that we're going to win every victory this year. we have done far more than the pro abortionists ever thought we would. i remember many years ago when i was on the stump debating abortion and i was then teaching at a college in minnesota and they there was a professor from at a neighboring university who was a biology prof i would debate and he was funny and humorous and a much better debater than i was. i remember clearly him telling me after one debate. he said, essentially, you know, dave, you know, you know, you've lost this. it is over. in just a few years, this is settled. well, thank god he was wrong,

you know? and thank god for everything you do. may your light shine brilliantly and your word of life be heard strongly and clearly in november. thank you. [ applause ] >> well thank you all. i've never been prouder of this team. they did a great job presenting our case here. thank you and go forth and take on the forces of, i want to say

evil and i think they are evil because killing -- i cannot imagine a greater evil in the world than killing a helpless little baby. you have a great job and go forth and do it. >> book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend and here are programs to look out for. on saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern, hillary clinton's 1996 book it takes a village is a topic of a roundtable discussion with gil troy. >> no one knew what people were talking about. it takes a village is hillary's branding. >> carlos lozada of the washington post. >> it was a big moment to declare as she did in the book, i'm a moderate.

>> and amie parnes. >> she is pushing the ideas that she is pushing today. equal pay and child care which is a huge issue for her right now. >> at 8:30 p.m. eastern, gary byrne discusses crisis of character. a white house secret service officer discusses his first hand experience with hillary and bill and how they operate. on sunday acht 9:00 p.m. eastern, afterwards, manhattan institute senior fellow heather mcdonald discusses her book the war on cops which looks like policing. she is interviewed dolores jones brown. >> there is no question that black males today face a much higher rate of getting stopped when they're innocent than while males do today and that is a crime tax that the community unfortunately pays because of the elevated rates of crime. >> go to book tv.org for the

complete weekend schedule. our road to the white house coverage continues in cleveland with live coverage of the republican party platform committee. monday, july 11th, starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern and continuing tuesday, july 12th 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. on thursday, two house home land security sub committees presented findings from their investigation on miss allegation by employees of the transportation security administration. members of the sub committees heard testimony from two tsa officials. this is almost two hours.

royce . this hearing will come to order. today will welcome back the obama administration's top officials for closing the detention center at guantanamo bay in march, these two gentleman appeared before the committee to discuss the proposal to relocate the prison and detainees to the continental united states as well as the process of releasing individuals

to foreign countries. much of the news from that hearing surrounded mr. lewis's revelation that, in his words, unfortunately, there have been americans that have died because of guantanamo detainees, and indeed last month, the washington post reported that the administration believes that at least 12 detainees released from the guantanamo facility have since attacked u.s. or allied forces in afghanistan, killing about a half dozen americans. that was startling enough, but it is particularly disturbing that upon close examination, these witnesses made statements to the committee that are inconsistent with the documents and inconsistent with information that the administration has supplied the committee under the law,

specifically, the committee asked whether the department of defense ever knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit an ability to substantially mitigate the issue of recidivism or maintain custody or control of the individual. mr. lewis and mr. wolosky assured committee members that it had not. yet numerous intelligence reports provided by the administration suggest that their answers were inaccurate. in fact, the defense department had done so on numerous occasions. the secretary of state has the sole responsibility to negotiate transfers, including agreements to monitor released detainees. under the law, congress regularly receives information from the intelligence community,

on the return to terrorism rate of individuals released to foreign countries, as well as assessments of a country's ability to prevent terrorists from returning to the fight. simply put, many countries just aren't up to the job and a diplomatic agreement to do the job isn't worth the paper it is written on if a country does not have the resources, does not have the training, to dekeep committed terrorists from returning to the battle field, yet, the administration has sent guantanamo terrorists to these countries anyway. to then deceive this committee and the american people is deeply disturbing and when given the opportunity to correct the record for the committee, they ignored us. i appreciate that the administration finally responded on tuesday but it shouldn't take

the calling of a hearing to illicit a return letter, especially on something as consequential as this. this committee has an obligation to conduct over sight. while we have differences of opinion over guantanamo policy, i don't think anyone here finds the administration's dismissi dismissiveness acceptable and should anyone think the committee's concerns are theoretical and specifically i was pressing on those transferred to uruguay, it is not theoretical because now abu wa'el dhiab, sent from guantanamo to uruguay in december of 2014, we sounded the alarm about uruguay's lack of legal framework, we explained to

you about the critical resources to prevent travel outside of the country that that was lacking in the case of uruguay and so what is the result? the result is last month, jihad dhiab disappeared from uruguay. this was after mr. wolosky testified to us in march that we're confident that the government of uruguay is taking appropriate steps to substantially mitigate the risk of this former detainee and others sent to uruguay. yesterday cnn, citing u.s. officials, reported that this terrorist was last spotted in venezuela. he is believed to be headed back to syria or yemen. we have been awaiting answers to the committee's inquiry. while i've been present, the

president has been in a rush, seemingly willing to release guantanamo terrorists to wherever he can. i wish we were not here today, holding another guantanamo hearing this week was not my intention but he is loose and my patience has run out and i now turn to the ranking member. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and mr. wolosky and mr. lewis, welcome back and thank you for your service. last time you gentlemen were here i made my views on the guantanamo prison pretty clear and i would ask that my opening statement from that hearing be included as part of the record of this hearing. >> without objection. >> to recap, the prison should be closed. national security experts at both parties agree with me. in fact, i have a letter here from 36 retired generals and admirals calling for the prison's closure. and i ask that it be included in

the record. the prison is a waste of money and propaganda tool for terrorists. end of story as far as the prison goes. there were issues raised about transferred detainees at the last hearing that deserve some follow up and i say transferred rather than released because there is an extensive process that goes into removing the detainee from the presideison a sending them to another country. it is important to know how exactly we're monitoring transferred detainees and assessing the risk they pose. those are good questions but because they deal with intelligence methods, we can only discuss them in a closed, classified setting. my understanding is that the administration offered to do just that and that offer was rebuffed. i hope that after this hearing in a few weeks or so, we can have a closed, classified setting to get answers to some questions that you are not

really allowed to say here in open session. so why are we here? the title of today's hearing is demanding accountability, the administration's reckless release of terrorists from guantanamo. since we say reckless release, it sounds like the people's minds are made up and i want to make sure all of the facts are on the table. i think there is plenty of blame to go all around. i think the chairman raises legitimate issues but i do think there is plenty of blame to go around. first, the vast majority of guantanamo detainees are transferred out of the prison before president obama took office, a total of 780 detainees have been held in guantanamo during the bush administration. 500 were transferred out compared to 159 detainees under president obama. secondly, let's look at the number of transferred detainees that returned to the battle field. the figure 30% gets thrown around a lot but what goes into that number? it includes the total number of transferred detainees we know

for sure have returned to the fight as well as those suspected of reengagement of the entire life of the guantanamo prison 2001 to present. during the bush years, 2001 through 2008, the rate of suspected and confirmed cases of reengagement was higher than that. 35% with 21% of the cases confirmed and 14% suspected so let me say that again. more than 1/3 of the terrorists that president bush's administration transferred may have return to the fight. let's contrast with the obama administration under president obama. that number totaling suspected and confirmed cases drops to 13%. 8% suspected and 5% confirmed. i know one person escaping is one person too much but i just want to have a balanced hearing

here because if we've made up our minds in talking about the administration being reckless, it doesn't seem to me like we're really here to learn anything more. i reiterate, at most. 13% of those transferred since january of 2009 have reengaged compared to as much as 35% during the previous administration. contrast is striking but let's not get lost in the numbers. this is perhaps the most important point. the transferred detainees who returned to the battle field and killed americans were let out during the bush administration, not during the obama administration so if we are going to paint with a broad brush and say 30% of transferred detainees may be going back to the fight, we have to take the whole story and put it in perspective. the bush administration racked up the average and then some. ed obama administration helped bring it back down. the closure plan would not transfer any person who would

not meet the pro stringent criteria. i heard these are the worst of the worst and the administration wants to turn them loose. among them 2rks 2 are from yemen, the administration isn't transferring them yet as a matter of policy we transfer detainees to the home countries but in the case of yemen, the government can't provide adequate security assurances so they pumped the brakes. we have to find countries that can provide adequate assurances before the 22 are transferred. that leaves 50. some are really bad guys. ten of them will stand trial. another 40 are legitimately held as prisoners of war but under no circumstances, in my opinion is that obama administration simply opening the gate and releasing dangerous terrorists onto the street. guantanamo is a mess and it always has not about. no one is blameless. anyone can cherry pick single

cases. but i think the facts and statistics speak for themselves and i think that what we should do after this, instead of having the witnesses come and tell us that they can only tell us things in a classified briefing is to spend our time with them after this hearing in a few weeks where we could be in a closed setting, getting to the bottom of this matter. now, the foreign affairs committee, obviously has over sight on this issue. the hearing last march and today's hearing are the only two times the committee has taken up this issue in the nearly 15 years of guantanamo prison has been open. since we have our top guantanamo experts with us today, i hope you can give us your opinions on some of the interesting ideas we've recently heard about the

prison. i'm going to read you a few quotes. i'll give you a hint. it is one of the candidates running for president. this morning i watched president obama talking about gitmo, guantanamo bay, which by the way we're keeping open and we'll load it up with bad dudes, we're going to load it up, end quote. and the second, quote, torture works, okay folks, believe me, it works and water boarding is a minor form. some say it is not actually torture. let's assume it is, but they ask me the question, what do you think of water boarding, absolutely fine but we should go much stronger than water boarding. we should go much stronger because our country is in trouble. end quote. so i just want to say, i read that because you know, some people say they want to expand the guantanamo prison and torture. i can't think of a worse proposal for the national

security. these schemes would only harm us with our allies and provide ammunition to the adversaries. mr. wolosky, mr. lewis, maybe we'll hear your views on what would happen if we went in that direction. i do think it is not really fair to blame the administration forl all of the frustrations we have about guantanamo when we see that there were problems and wrong things done in the previous administration as well, so i look forward to listening to you and hearing your thoughts. thank mr. chairman. >> we are pleased to be joined by lee wolosky, special envoy for guantanamo closure at the u.s. department of state, previously mr. wolosky served as the director for transnational threats on the national security

council under president clinton and mr. paul lewis is joining us. we're pleased he is there. special envoy closure at the department of defense. previously he served as both the general council and minority general council on the u.s. armed services committee. without objection, the witness's full prepared statements will be made part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit any statements or questions or any extraneous material they might want to submit for the record and i would like to remind everyone, including our witnesses that willful miss representation or false statements by a witness is a criminal offense under 18 u.s. code section 1001. indeed, that is the case for all of the hearings and special envoy wolosky, please summarize your remarks.

>> thank you very much, mr. chairman, ranking member engel, distinguished members of the committee, good morning, i appreciate your inviting me once again to appear before this committee. i look forward to continuing our discussion in closed session either late later today as we have or as soon as possible so we can have a fuller discussion of some of the classified topics we know are of interest to the committee. all together, a total of 779 detainees have passed through guantanamo and of those, 700 have departed. the vast majority of detainees transferred to other countries, some 532, were transferred by the administration of george w. bush. under president obama, a total of 159 detainees have been transferred. today, 79 remain. president bush acted to widdle the detainee population because he understood that, and i quote,

the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for the allies. closed quote. president obama has continued detainees transferred for many of the same reasons. the 79 detainees, 29 are approved for transfer. detainees are approved for transfer during the administration through one of two rigorous interagency processes. first, soon after taking office, president obama ordered the first ever comprehensive interagency review of all of the 242 detainees then in u.s. custody. in 2009 and 2010, the guantanamo review task force, sometimes also called the executive order task force, which was compromised of more than 16 national security professionals from across the government assembled all reasonably available information relevant to determining an appropriate disposition for each detainee.

then, based on the task force's recommendations, the departments of defense, state, justice, and home land security, the office of the director for national intelligence, and the joint chiefs of staff unanimously determined the appropriate disposition for each detainee. transfer, referral for prosecution or continued law for detention. pursue surnt to executive order 13567, detainees not approved for transfer nr 2009 and 2010 could be subject to additional review by the periodic review board. the prb is compromised of senior representatives from six agencies and departments, none of the prb representatives are political appointees. having described how guantanamo detainees are approved for transfer, i would like to briefly describe the process for transferring detainees. decisions regarding whether when and where to transfer a detainee

are the culmination of another rigorous interagency process. the department of state leads diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments regarding the transfer of guantanamo detainees. we're typically joined in our discussions by senior career officials from the department of defense, justice, and home land security as well as those in the intelligence committee and on the joint staff. generally, transfer negotiations occur in two steps. first, the u.s. government obtains or reconfirms a political commitment that the potential receiving country is willing in principle to impose various measures that will substantially mitigate the threat the detainees may pose after transfer. second, we engage in technical discussions with foreign officials responsible for implementing these measures. these technical discussions offer the opportunity to tailor

the integration and security measures to specific circumstances under consideration, and perhaps most importantly, to determine, based on an individualized assessment of the specific circumstances whether the statutory standard in the neaa governing the foreign transfer of the detainees can be met. once we conclude that the diplomatic negotiations will result in a security framework we assess will substantially mitigate the threat a detainee may pose after transfer, the secretary of defense consults with the secretaries of state, home land security, and the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on the transfer. only after the secretary of defense receives the views of those principles and only if he is satisfied that the requirements of the ndaa are satisfied does the secretary of

defense sign and transmit a certification to the congress conveying his intention to transfer detainees. ladies and gentlemen of the committee, let me close by saying although we would obviously prefer that no former detainees engage in terrorist and insurgent activity following their transfer, we believe that the low rate of confirmed reengagement for detainees transferred since january of 2009 under 5%, is testament to the rigorous interagency approach the administration has taken to both approving detainees for transfer and negotiating and vetting detainee transfer frameworks. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. mr. lewis? >> chairman royce, ranking member engle, representative donovan, thank you for the opportunity to testify again regarding the administration's guantanamo detainee transfer

process. secretary carter has approved the transfer of 43 detainees, 28 of whom have been transferred this year. secretary hagel approved the transfer of 44 detainees. secretary panetta, 7, and secretary gates, 65, during this administration, 159 detainees have been transferred. mr. chairman, we understand the importance of this issue to you and this committee and we appreciate the attention you have given to it. as i stated in march at the outset, i would like to reiterate one continuing fundamental point regarding this detention facility. the prelz and his national security committee have determined that closing this detention facility is a national security imperative. imperative is a strong term. the president and his leadership of the national security team believe that the continued operation of the detention facility weakens the national security. closing guantanamo is about protecting the country, not weakening it. as you know, the importance in

closing this detention facility is echoed by former president george w. bush and a long list of former secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, joint staff chair men and other former military leaders as representati representative engle noted, a letter was included by flag officers. transfers from gitmo are in the national security interest of the united states and are conducted in a safe and responsible manner. on march 23rd, 2016, i testified before this committee. during that hearing as the chairman noted, i was asked whether the department of defense had ever knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit an ability to substantially mitigate the risk or control the individual. in response to that question, i stated that the department of defense had not conducted such a transfer. i standby my response. we've addressed your concerns,

mr. chairman, in the letter we sent you this week and i again apologize for the late response but i want to briefly highlight several points. here is our statutory framework, the 2016 nda requires at least 30 days prior to any transfer and in addition to other requirements, the secretary of defense certify to congress that the receiving country has taken or agreed to take steps to substantially mitigate any risk the individual could attempt to reengage or otherwise threaten the united states. we have met that statutory requirement with each of our transfers. prior to the transfer of any detainee to a foreign country, the united states government receives security assurances from the receiving country regarding the actions that the receiving country has taken or a agrees to take to substantially mitigate the risk. after the assurances are negotiated, the secretary of defense and senior staff engage

in a review process that involves many factors including all of the intelligence the government has, regarding the threat posed by the individual detainee and the security assurances. importantly, updated intelligence, medical, and compliance information is provided to each country regarding the detainees under consideration for the transfer. many countries take the opportunity to travel to gitmo to interview transfer candidates. after full consideration of all of this information, including a full and update assessment from the intelligence committee, the secretary makes the determination that i told you about earlier. as secretary carter has testified and secretary hagel testified, they take this responsibility very seriously. secretary carter has said he will not transfer a detainee but he does not believe is in the security interest of the united states to do so. these transfers have not been conducted in a vacuum.

each is formally notified to congress and we regularly brief members and staff on transfers. with the notice of each transfer, we offer to brief congressional leadership and members and staff of all of the national security committees. i appreciate the opportunity we have had to regularly brief you and your staff regarding these transfers. briefly, i think it is important to put these recent transfer decisions and foreign policy context for this committee. many want to close gitmo and have stepped up to help us. specifically 40 countries since 2009 have accepted for resettlement of guantanamo detainees that are not nationals of the country. additionally, there is sustained support for the closure efforts from civil society organizations both domestic and abroad including the organization of american states. even the vatican expressed support for our closure efforts. in summary, each transfer is only approved after careful

scrutiny by the intensive inner agency review process and the negotiation of the security assurances sufficient to substantially mitigate any threat. finally, i would like to take a moment to again recognize the military service members who conduct detention operations at guantanamo. these men and women continue to have our deepest appreciation for their service and professionalism they display each and every day on behalf of our nation. thank you mr. chairman, i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. lewis. the last time you appeared before this committee, we asked specific questions about the transfer of detainees to countries ill equipped to handle them, specifically we asked whether the department of defense ever transferred a detainee to a country that it knew was incapable of maintaining control of that individual and keeping him from returning to the battle field.

mr. lewis stated no. mr. wolosky stated he was not aware of such an instance. upon further review of your own intelligence assessments, those answers appear to be false. in fact, it appears that the administration has released dangerous terrorists to ill-equipped countries on numerous occasions on may 16th i wrote to your departments asking you to correct the record. you did not. the committee asked the administration to halt all transferred until you explained your testimony. you did not. in fact, you completely ignored the letter until we called this hearing and that is why we are here today. and i'm going to ask you several simple questions and i would appreciate a simple yes or no answer. mr. lewis, mr. wolosky, in your roles, do you have access to intelligence assessments of detainees and transfer countries?

>> yes. >> yes. >> do you review those intelligence assessments prior to the transfer of detainees to the custody of foreign governments. >> yes, sir. >> we review the intelligence assessments that are material to the issue before us which is whether to transfer a detainee to a specific country under certain circumstances in order to be able to meet the statutory standard. >> right. and in my may 16th letter, i referenced three intelligence reports submitted to congress pursuant to section 1023 of the national defense authorization act. those reports are dated may 31th of 2013, july 15th of 2014; august 6th of 2015. are you familiar with the content of those reports? >> yes. >> yes. >> are you aware that those reports contains assessments of

each country to which the defense department has transferred detainees? >> yes. >> yes. >> and are you aware that those assessments indicate that some countries lack the ability to control those terrorists? >> we cannot, by law, discuss classified defense intelligence agency assessments in this session, mr. chairman. we're happy to do that in closed session. what i would point out to the committee is that in connection with each transfer, we do rely on intelligence reporting that is broader than just dia reporting and as i said, as tailored specifically to the issue of a transfer to a certain country at a particular point in time and is geared towards a determination or analysis on whether the relevant statutory requirements for transfer can be met.

>> they're one of many reports we look at. we look at all sorts of information from the intelligence community and as the envoy has stated, the secretary makes the determination looking at all of the evidence available. the updated evidence, and in particular, he makes his assessment after we over lay the security assurances to the country. so if the intelligence tells us there may be a gap in capableabiliti capableabilities, that is what we negotiate the assurances for, so, again, we look at the records recor records, mr. chairman. but we look at a greater array. >> that is not what you said here in march. all right? and in light, in light of your familiarity with the intelligence reports and what is in those reports, i'm just going to ask you again. has the administration ever transferred a detainee to a country it knew was incapable of monitoring that individual

preventing him from traveling outside of the country or otherwise keeping him from returning to the battlefield? >> sir, since i've worked for secretary hagel and secretary carter, every has met the statutory requirement and it is my understanding that the administration prior to my coming transferred pursuant to the process that envoy wolosky indicated and there were no transfers that i'm aware of that did not meet the statutory requirement. >> i don't think you can just wish away intelligence reports that raise grave concerns. reports that you chose to deny when asked about them in our last hearing. but if you're now saying that the intelligence reports are, i assume, the implication here, incomplete, then i have to say

from what we can tell, the president has made a political decision to close guantanamo no matter what the cost to national security. based upon our experience, based upon our discussions which go on for some considerable time now in terms of the warnings on this committee about the five individuals transferred to uruguay and their subsequent conduct and now the fact that one of them has been released, that can be the only reason why those intelligence assessments are being pushed aside in my judgment. and it appears that the assurances that you got from uruguay didn't account for anything.

this fellow, jihad dhiab walked right out of uruguay. we have no idea where he is and if the country is telling you that they woent preven't preven travel, which is what i pointed out to you, we better listen. if they're not going to prevent their travel it is not a surprise what subsequently has occurred. mr. wolosky, you briefed this committee several times about uruguay. you told us repeatedly that the government of uruguay was capable of handling the terrorists. in fact, you testified on march 23rd that 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 transferred to its custody. that turned out to be wrong, as i pointed out. jihad dhiab has now escaped. the other point i would make to

you, and this also goes to some of the conversations he's had is that i'm aware this was the third time he left uruguay and nobody knows where he is. the media is reporting that he could be on his way to syria or yemen and i would just like to ask why did you provide false assurances to congress? why did you mislead us about uruguay's capabilities because i made it very clear to you. our concerns about uruguay's capabilities. they were pretty up front. >> mr. chairman, i strongly disagree with any suggestion that i misled this committee. in fact, i standby my testimony in march in which i affirmed that uruguay had committed to and is in fact taking steps to substantially mitigate the risk of the six detainees that were transferred to their custody in december of 2014. while we would have preferred

that mr. dhiab remain in uruguay, if in fact, he is not in uruguay currently, until the expiration of the two year resettlement program that was the subject of the agreement reached with uruguay and reached with him, frankly, the fact is is that the standard is not elimination of risk. it is mitigation of risk and there is no. we never represented to this committee that there was a travel prohibiton. what the president's program describes generally and i can't get into the specific assurances provided by the government of uruguay, but what the president's plan describes are travel restrictions. the president's plan describes specifically the withholding of international travel documents. now, there are a number of additional steps that we take

and our partners take to restrict travel and to monitor travel. i cannot go into those in an open session. i'm happy to describe them to you even in the specific context of uruguay in a closed session, but i cannot do it here. >> but let me explain this simple fact to you. when a country tells you that they won't prevent a terrorist from traveling, then you had better listen if your intention is to release that terrorist into that country. but my time has expired. i will go to mr. elliott engel of new york. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. lewis, let me start with you. in a hearing before this committee in march, you discussed the issue of former guantanamo detainees killing

americans. according to the white house press secretary josh earnest. none of the former detainees have harmed americans. to quote mr. earnest from march of this year, and i quote him. no one released from prison at guantanamo bay on president obama's watch has been implicated in violence against americans, unquote. so i would like to ask both of you how is the obama administration changed the detainee process used before he took office or has he not changed it. i understand it has been changed. how have the changed help prevent former detainees from harming americans? why don't we start with you , m. wolosky. >> thank you, congressman engel. >> 540 detainees from guantanamo were released under the

administration of george w. bush. the fact is that we can't tell you much about the circumstances under which they were released. we can speak to what our administration has done and what we understand to have been the process in the previous administration. so first, we engage in a rigorous interagency evidence based process reliant predomesticantpr predominantly on career officials to see if one may be designated for approval for transfer out of the united states. that is the first step. this is an interagency process that includes many career professionals throughout the government and as i described in my testimony, this administration there, are actually two separate processes at various points in the administration to first determine whether in principle a detainee may be safely transferred, subject to security assurances.

second thing we do, very carefully, is we negotiate four detainees who have been approved for transfer, specific security assurance packages consistent with local law in the places that we transfer the detainees to and after obtaining a political commitment from the country in question, that, under those circumstances in question, the measures to be put in place by the country, monitoring, travel restrictions, information sharing, integration planning will mitigate substantially the risk that that particular detainee may pose. that is what we do and what we have done as i said in my opening statement has reduced the reengagement rate, the confirmed rate to under 5%. it is much higher in the previous administration. we believe that that reflects the fact that the things that i just described simply weren't

done in the previous administration. but that is what we have done. >> thank you. >> it is a more rigorous process. the process in the previous administration was only dod. primarily when the obama administration took office about 240 detainees -- we decided of three categories. those who are eligible to be transferred to the proper country and those they wanted you to refer for prosecutions to take a look at prosecution and those merited and continued with detention. i say with more regressive because as lee said there is a broader group of career professionals and sub politicals that are primary professionals and intelligence folks and career prosecutors who looked at these cases and they looked at a

broader array of evidence. where the previous process was primarily, as we know congress weighed in and we have the story over lays that all transfers. it is a much more rigorous and intensive process. >> thank you, i think it is important to put it in imts context. even one prison escaping is one prisoner too much. we are not going to save in and if anything of small proof. i think that if we look and see what the administration has done, the safe guards they try to put in -- i feel that we are absolutely doing our best of the fact -- administration and so

let me ask you this, we heard a lot about the challenges closing. is it true? >> it is true that at some point -- the chairman is very upset about it. can you help put those cases into context? what are the cause of keep ting the facility opened and affecting terrorist recruitments and propaganda and defeating terrorist organizations. >> it drains our expenses and it is widely expensive. we can do it cheaper in the united states. more importantly of this committee, our allies wanted to be closed and it hurts of our international community. my opening statement and indications of members of previous administration that the department of state that says gitmo hurt us. it is a propaganda according to

president bush and many other haves said that. the bottom fundamental point is we want to protect the country and the national security leadership of this administrati administration, president bush and many people and the administration knew or secretary of defense and numerous secretary of states that we talked about -- just to remind the committee that the individuals that we are

talking about were held of the law detention by the united states. they were lawfully held. they were not convicted of crimes. when we transfer them to foreign countries, we transfer them subject to security assurance such as traveler's restrictions. this is what this administration does. the previous administration did not do this. there is a large number of detainees of the 532 transferred of the previous administration. it is not certainly subjected to the -- i want to make sure that we are getting terminology right because escapiing incarceration and when we transfer the individuals to the u.s. government including navy transfers and subject to security assurances -- at that

point, they are not prisoners. they are former detainees under supervision. >> i will stop now because i know my time has ran out >> the thing that hurts all of us is the fact that this person was sentenced to -- and does not have the ability to monitor this person who now has left the country. just briefly, could you talk a little bit about the case or do you need to do it in a classified settings? >> on the issue of foreign countries, surveillance capabilities, i would need to discuss that with you in closed

sessions and i welcome the opportunity to do so that you may be informed about what those capabilities are and what they are not and how they were used and applied in this instance. >> i echo the comments, we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss it in details. i can tell you that we talked to the authorities in a regular basis basis basis. secretary hagle, we know is a force full and careful person signed a congression that he felt uruguay -- again, we would be happy to discuss this in closed sessions. >> thank you, i would like to do that. we'll make arrangements to do that. at the end of the day, the

travel cards, travel card to travel. at the end of the day, we walk right out of there three times. this time -- nobody can locate him to get him back in to custo custody. he's in al-qaida and linked to terrorist. i will go to ariana of florida >> thank you chairman for calling this hearing for continuing to demand transparency and accountability from the administration regarding its plans for naval station and -- the reality is that of the situation is far different than what we have been told. i continue to ask myself why

does a nation like uruguay and so many others and synagogue, why do they want to take in these dangers of terrorists unless they believe the benefits out weighs the risks. we are talking about a high risk and high threat individual and and going to nation that limited intelligence that do not possess the most sophisticated monitoring system that was obvious of what the uruguay transfer and to believe that the terrorists will not use that to their advantage that they will be properly over seen and taken

one day to realize how lack of security is in uruguay for example. it is no surprise to any of us that one of these individuals managed to please uruguay, we know that his movement is not required to be restricted to brazil or who knows what the german says. i would ask you if it is possible to get a yes or no answer. has the administration promised any of these countries whether it is uruguay or synagogue or cash for taking in these individuals. if so, how much and how often and to which countries. >> congresswoman, we have provided resettlement assistance to certain countries to support expenditures such as language

training and vocational training and things of that sort. that's for a disclose to the congress and a congressional notification that you rereceive. >> if you can refresh my memory for uruguay of how much would that country have gotten for land and bridge and to the other -- >> i cannot tell you off the top of my head. >> i will get the notification, refresh my memory. had the add minuadministration offered my favorable agreements on other related matters in exchange or if so what kind of exchanges? >> nothing financial beyond what it is in the congressional notificatio notifications. anything related is a broad category, i can say generally in open session that is many of our