circumstances of providing suboptimal treatment to an increasingly ill population. it is not fair to the doctors, nurses or detainees. thank you for the privilege of speaking to you. >> we'll hear from our next he is the host of secure freedom radio, a syndicated radio program and in the 19 80 policies served as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy and deputy assistant secretary for nuclear forces and arms control policy. he received a bachelor's degree from georgetown and a masters in international study from johns

hopkins school of advanced international studies. the floor is yours. served in this body for senator jackson, who many of you had a non-and memorable memory of, i'm sure. >> i recognize i am in the distinct minority on this panel, but i take comfort that i represent the vast majority of americans and certainly the vast majority of those of you in congress on this question. should gitmo be closed? the answer is resoundingly no there is a- unless better alternative available. i would like to put this into context if i may. it is to explain why we have gitmo in the first place. it is because we are at war.

is seemingly lost on a lot of us as we talk about this in an abstract context. removed fromhow be this overarching problem. we are not just at warp. we are at war because others attacked us and, in your wisdom wisdom, and the congress you gave the to fight back. we have lost sight as to who we are fighting with. it bears directly on the .uestion before you all today we are fighting against those who would adhere to a doctrine they call sharia. not all muslims do, but those who are engaged -- >> please, no outbursts of approbation or disapprobation.

>> those who do it here believe it is their obligation to destroy us, to force us to submit to their will. and bears down directly to the question of what happens when they are allowed to return to the battlefield. recidivismall agree, of those two are released from gitmo is a problem. it is not as bad as recidivism and the federal resin system, that's a sobering thought. we don't want to put them into the federal prison system. it's even worse than it is at gitmo. if the commitment these prisoners have, should they be jihadd out to wage this until we submit? to what senator

cruise asked. how do you prevent that from happening? i find it unconvincing the idea that many of these problems are made for truck the bull by simply moving these people into the united states. for one thing, it does raise the question as to whether the cost we are paying, and several of you have alluded to this excessive, wasteful, inefficient , but how much has it meant that not a single one of these people or any of their friends because of their proximity to a federal detention facility in the united states, how many lives have been spared as a result? there's no way to know. are you feeling lucky? do you want to take a chance?

much more violence inside the federal prison system, not least because these individuals will be engaged in proselytizing their form of islam, sharia, inside the prison system. beyond that, their colleagues was be trying to do what done in iraq yesterday by al inflictich is to try to harm on american community that of the misfortune incarcerating these people. is much to set aside the numbers that you may or may not feel you can safely push out and there are a number, an you cannumber, that never try. do you honestly think that the peoplebehind me in the

in telling this hearing will for the release of these prisoners because they are now in the united states? you know better than i. federal judges inside this ,ountry will almost certainly at least some of them, look with sympathy on the claim that these prisoners, once inside the united states, once they are entitled to constitutional rights they may not otherwise that would perhaps result in their release inside the united states. beyond malfeasance were we to go down that road. it is dereliction of duty. i hope my testimony will encourage you not to close gitmo. gaffney.k you, mr. our next witness is lieutenant y.sh fryda

in addition to his legal today's -- duties, he served in the disaster relief effort following the synonymy and nuclear disaster in japan. the navy, heing worked in the san francisco district attorney's office and the northern district of illinois and he received his ba from the university of california at berkeley where he graduated phi beta kappa. and thank yous jd for being here. please proceed. >> thank you, chairman derman -- other, senator cruz, and members. is aware i'm testifying today, but my statements are based on my own personal experience and knowledge and does not reflect the views of my office, the navy, or the department of

defense. have beenast year, i assigned to serve as military defense counsel for individuals detained in guantanamo bay, cuba. are 160 six there remaining and i represent one of them. people often ask me if it is difficult representing a detainee in guantánamo and i am proud to live in a country where my commander-in-chief can order me to perform such challenging missions. my colleagues are patriots who love their country. we are caught -- we are talked a perform her duties with honor, courage, and commitment. i am here today doing my duty to talk to you about my indefinite detention in guantánamo bay. my client has now been detained for over 10 years. after five years of detention, he was charged with material

support for terrorism and in 2009, the military commission process was halted and the charges against him dismissed. a recent d.c. circuit court that material support for terrorism is now no longer a crime that he or anyone can neverrior to 2006 be detained for. i am not here today to ask for sympathy for a man i was ordered to represent but i would like to tell you a bit about him. he is an afghan citizen with a third grade education received in a pakistan refugee camp after fleeing the russian invasion. he was 22 years old when detained although he does not know his exact age. he had a son six months old when he last saw him in 2003 and he withever been charged harming anyone either afghan north american. had my client and brought to

federal court instead of guantánamo, he could have and what had been tried years ago. nearly 500 terrorists have been convicted in federal courts. in the guantánamo military commission, six. now, after a decade of detention with no crime he can be charged of, he sits in guantánamo imprisoned indefinitely. how it isasks possible for my government to detain him for without proving he committed no crime and i told them there are people who believe under the laws of war that we are able to detain people indefinitely until the war is over. he then asks me, you will no longer be at war with afghanistan after 2014. can i go home then? or does this war never and? a service member and an attorney sworn to uphold the

constitution and our strong legal conditions, i don't have good answers for him. client is guilty of a crime, you should be tried and given his day in court. i thank the committee for your willingness to listen to a story today. as long as he is in guantánamo, no judge or jury ever will. nation of laws and a people of principles. denying my client a trial and detaining him indefinitely is at odds with our oldest values. on the eve of our revolutionary war we held trials for british shoulders -- soldiers. john adams served as one of the defense lawyers. but today? process andue guantanamo is denied including the opportunity to confront your accusers, be presented with evidence against you, and have access to counsel.

our threats are real. criminals and terrorists should be prosecuted and jailed. willnemies must know we bring them to justice no matter what. the people guided by principle we can doe of law, better than indefinite detention. or centuries, service members have and paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the fundamental values that define our nation. we should always be faithful to those values especially when it is most challenging to do so. >> thank you, lieutenant. the last witness for the panel massimino, and adjunct professor and one of the leading human rights advocacy groups and they have been great partners

with this subcommittee working on our human rights agenda. privatea litigator in practice and talked philosophy earning her jd from michigan, a master of arts and philosophy and phi beta kappa from trinity in san antonio. you have testified before the committee before and i welcome you back. please proceed. chairman, ranking members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the importance of closing guantánamo and how we can do so in a way that protect our country on the national security, and our values. is the president of an rights,tion to advance i focus on ensuring that we remain a beacon for freedom seeking people around the world and continue to lead by the power of example. the terrorister attacks on our country we joined forces with more than 50 retired led bys and admirals

many who believe the values and assets and note liabilities. i've been to guantánamo and met the dedicated people serving their. we have been observers to every military commission convened there since its inception. we know and have great respect for the service members and civilian lawyer struggling to navigate this jerryrigged system to bring some form of justice. some would have you believe that guantánamo critics are a handful of human rights activists, foreigners, and defense lawyers, but it's not true. the largest and most persistent calls come from within our own enforcement,e, law and others who have a cost- benefit book and have it serveded that it is best by closing. president bush said he wanted to close. henry kissinger called it a blot on our reputation.

said it had given us a very, very bad name. thai --d it "a rally in cried for terrorist recruitment. major-general michael leonard in charge of standing up guantánamo said it cost us the moral high ground. mullen says it has been a recruiting symbol for our enemies. general colin powell said he would close if not tomorrow but this afternoon and senator mccain suggests it would be an act of moral curler which batch -- it would be an act of moral courage. there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we no longer needed. reasonsing catalogs the why it is imperative to catalog this into action. we heard of the astronomical costs at a time when the pentagon is furloughing half a

million employees and the general reminded us the impending and of combat operations will require a change in authority. they described the deterioration of morale and the deteriorated state of many prisoners which is leading to a tipping point. do tenant showed us how they have worked in system of justice. in many ways, the struggle is a war of ideals. that is the valid grounds on which we should have the greatest advantage. sometimes when we lose our way, outsiders can remind us who we are and what we stand for. family members have written letters to you in advance of this hearing and i want to quote from them. algerian who has been detained for more than one decade and cleared for release said, when i was told that he was detained by the americans, i thought at least he would have the right for a fair trial. i thought his right to be respected and justice would prevail. but i feel today is mostly in

comprehension. how can this nation that prides itself on human rights close the eyes to the foundations of its founding principles? more thann held for one decade without charge and he has been cleared for transfer. his mother wrote them a i do not understand why my son is still in guantánamo after all these years when we know he has been cleared. we never thought the united states was a type of place where people could be held like this. we talk about who we are as a nation but sooner or later he cannot be separated from what we do. war, we mustwn the expunge the legacy of guantanamo and restore our reputation for justice and the rule of law. or ifestion is not why but how. human rights has published a comprehensive exit strategy with a detailed plan for closing the prison and among the challenges facing the prison, closing guantánamo is far from the most complex. politically be

complicated, senator mccain recently said it's not rocket science. the risk is manageable. with leadership, the president, and congress we can get this done. thank you for convening this hearing. we are deeply grateful for your leadership on this and so many other human rights issues. a round ofhave questioning, seven minutes per senator. i will ask about the senators try to stick with the time limits. i thank the panel. let me start at the beginning. marion, illinois, is a small city in southern illinois. prison. federal incarcerated in the federal prison are convicted terrorists. i've never heard one word from a about living in illinois the fear associated with those terrorists being in that prison. other federalre

prisons exists is that they are pretty good. people don't escape from them. them feelsty around pretty safe. mr. gaffney, the notion of sending the worst of the worst to the super max prison 30 miles away from any city in the middle of nowhere where they will have little to no communication with the outside world, why does that frighten you? my testimonyd in testimony, i'm concerned about many things. there will be more violence inside the prisons and secondly, we cannot be sure, but it's a safe bet on the basis also where -- >> have you been inside a super max prison? >> i have not had the privilege of being inside a super max prison. >> please. i have visited a similar facility and most of them are in a very restricted, lockdown condition. >> as they should be. >> more than one hour a day

outside and then usually by themselves, so how do you believe they will be able to euite problems within the super max building? >> i'm glad you asked one thing concerns me is what we are prisons wrone in the proselytization. we have imams brought in for the purpose of catering to the muslim population but also converting and promoting this doctrine which does conduce to violence. no getting around it. it is supremacist in character. you have to assume there will be opportunities especially if we start, as we have done with the shoe bomber, relieving them of the limitations on their freedom of movement area and then i think you will get more violence. if i may come to the question -- >> i have a limited amount of time. we have now incarcerated the

suspectederson me it them part of 9/11 being held with no hint of a problem within the prison or outside. i also want to make something very clear for the record. there are some very patriotic muslim americans who don't want to be characterized as part of an extremist movement. there are people that we have met and work with every day. [applause] the notion that bringing in an ima or someone associated with their religion presumes the prison authorities will pay no attention and prisms that everyone brought in as a danger and i think that is -- >> may i respond? the fellow who started the muslim chaplains for the federal prisons is in it prison now himself. he is a terrorist and he created for promotingure sharia through the muslim brotherhood. be atarion, indiana,

risk? i'm concerned they might be. couldapart whether they actually spring people, it makes it a target for terrorism. it's an opportunity to create a spectacular incident and that's what it is about. click there are domestic gang members and leaders of extremist groups incarcerated in these prisons and they are handled very professionally and securely so communities beg for the opportunity to have a federal prison constructed near them. let me move to the question for ms. massimino. congress has made it difficult for the president to continue with his promise to close guantánamo in terms of the transfer of these detainees. would you comment on those restrictions? say one wordke to about the federal prisons. i had some of the same questions

and i understand that many people have these anxiety so i reached out to the american correctional association and asked what they thought about whether they could handle these types of prisoners and they ask, do you know who is in there now? these are not nice people. we know how to handle this. it'snator graham said, absurd to think that her corrections officials cannot handle these populations. you are absolutely right, senator, the congress has made closing guantánamo more difficult because of the transfer restrictions and i was happy to

>> we are talking about the risk of future acts of terrorism. let me say more broadly that the outset that i thought was the most difficult question is that it is easy to say to close guantánamo and to get applause from various audiences. the harder question is what to do with these terrorists. this seems to me there are one of two options. you either send them to u.s. facilities. they have suggested illinois to host these terrorists. i do not know what the citizens of illinois would think about that. i have confidence of what citizens of texas would feel about them coming to texas. we have multiple instances of

federal prisons engaging in -- directing terrorist act from federal prisons. one was convicted for aiding terrorism or individuals in federal prison. alternative is to send it to foreign locations. it could be nations like yemen with enormous instability or other allies. given the escape we saw, it is hard to have any confidence that these individuals sent to a foreign facility will be released and in of course commit future acts terrorism and take the lives of innocent americans. question close with a -- it has been reported that the obama administration approximately 395 people have been killed by drone strikes. are you aware of any reasonable

argument that it is somehow more protective of human rights, more protective of civil liberties you fire a missile as someone from a drone and killed them that it would be to detain them and interrogate them and determine if they are guilty or innocence and what intelligence might be derived from that individual. >> mr. chairman, one high ski being adam -- when has keeping out of -- one housekeeping item i would like to add to the record. senator cruz, i'm probably not the best arbiter of what is humane. have people on the panel who have spent a lot of their time welding on that. i try to focus on national security. this is a human being. that isill people typically less humane than incarcerating them.

letting them starve to death is less humane than feeding them involuntarily if necessary. this is not my specialty. i would defer to others who might have a higher claim on knowledge in this. we have no intelligence from someone who has been killed. >> that is where the national security piece comes in. obtaining and interrogating a realis i would suggest impediment to our ability to prosecute a war like the one that has been thrust upon us by people who operate with a very high regard for operational security. to the extent that we deny ourselves unilaterally this ability by essentially for closing putting them in place where we can have those kinds of interrogations i think is a girl action of duty on the part of

the commander-in-chief. duty on theon of part of the commander-in-chief. thank you. >> it is certainly a reasonable concern in the criminal context. guantanamohat 28% of detainees has rejoined the fight is highly misleading. officialspartment have said that many detainees included in that category are well havethey very not been in and activities that threaten our national security will stop that does not mean all of the prisoners are somehow innocent farmers and that there is no risk. as iteve it is a question relates to what our overall objective is. a lot of the people at guantánamo are precisely

declined to target that al qaeda looks for -- some of them could cause harm if they are released. that does not make them any different from the hundreds of thousands of other angry young men throughout the muslim world who believe in the same cause. there are sadly no shortage of potential suicide bombers. guantanamo does nothing to solve the problem. it probably makes it worse. >> senator feinstein. you, mr. chairman. i want to ask a question. in your past, did you serve as an intern in my san francisco office perchance? [laughter] >> proudly, ma'am. >> well, i am very proud of you. [laughter] true that some of the detainees have not been cleared for transfer?

they can only be prosecuted in federal criminal court because the charges of conspiracy and material support of terrorism are no longer available in the military mission? is that not correct? >> that is correct. saying ift we are there is no alternative prosecution in the federal court, they remain without charge or trial until the end of time. >> let me clarify, ma'am. the --erial for conspiracy is a can be charged in federal crime. it is a charge that is available in the federal court. atif you will keep them guantánamo, they cannot be tried by military commission. is that correct? >> correct. they cannot be tried. >> the hope is that they would have to be transferred out and tried in a federal court. >> either that or go through a

aaningful process or have visa set up where the country determines that they are no longer a threat in which they can be transferred. >> let's talk. i have believed from the days of kernel will -- general davis that the commission is an ineffective instrument. hominy the cases have they actually tried? -- how many cases have actually tried? explain what those six convictions are and who is still serving. convictions were for -- the names are -- [reading names] i did not serve in those trials. i do not know the details of each case.

the charge that one was charged was -- >> maybe i could give them to you. one received a five-month sentence. he was sent back to his home in yemen to serve time before being released in 2009. 2012, the d c circuit vacated his can -- in 2012, the d.c. circuit vacated his -- hicks was the first person convicted in a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on material support on terrorism charges in march of '07. he was given a nine-month sentence. he mostly served back home in australia. another flight guilty to conspiracy and material support also a military jury delivered

his sentence. the final sentence handed down in february of '11 was two years in pursuant to his plea agreement. he has returned to sudan. plead guilty to conspiracy and material support will stop the sentence will be less than three years pursuant to his plea agreement. because of credit time served, you could be eligible for release to sudan in december of this year. one last one. he pled guilty in a military commission to murder military and spy him. he was sentenced to eight years, but was transferred to a canadian resident where he will serve out his remaining sentence and be eligible for parole after he served a third of the sentence. there are a couple of more.

one of them is your client. here is my point -- the sacrifices were few and low. here over the years and wondered what we are doing? why are we maintaining this sparse of a military commission which really doesn't work? we have different people down there trying to make it work. to the best of my knowledge, no one has been successful. last month when i was down there, i saw a court room with nothing scheduled to go forward. it seems to me that everything down there is so deceiving and is really a kind of untruth thet the american way and american judicial system and about america's humanitarian treatment of prisoners.

on.oes on and on and there is no end to this war that we know of. unless the facility is closed on it will continue to go on. do you have any other comment you would like to make? senator, could i make a quick comment? >> sure. >> this question of whether it will go on and on was back to the point i was trying to make earlier. that is not up to us. the president is saying it has to end is only possible if we surrender and submit. this question of will there be recruiting if we leave it open, that begs the question compared to what? does it get worse if you have ts inspiredse jihadis

by our submission? that is what i am concerned about. >> i know what is happening. i also know that guantanamo contributes nothing positively. he contributes nothing that a federal prison would not do better post at the contributes nothing that a federal court could not do better. >> but if we close it, that could be seen negatively. it would inspire our enemy. disagree. it would send a signal that we have learned something. i saw the people there. the doctor is right. different take sure that people imagine. dr., do you not agree? >> yes, ma'am. look at the prisoners coming out .f israel

they are inspired. , mr.want to say thank you chairman. i appreciate being here. whoe have two house members are unfortunately delayed. i have never seen this happen in the senate before. we will let house members testify. how about that? [laughter] we are honored to have congressman smith and his ninth term. anda very lengthy impressive bio that i will not read. i hope you understand boast up and we have another congressman who is enrolled at west point and graduated first in his class. i'm not sure how long you have been in congress. >> 30 months. >> we will ask each of them to make a statement.

if the panel will not mind for a few moments. five minutes. if there any further questions, senator cruz and senator feinstein. >> thank you. i'm honored. i wish we could work together more often will stop -- more often. we should close -- and number of issues have been raised. i'm not here to argue that we should stop detaining and interrogating suspects were that we should release the number of suspects that are at guantánamo. those are difficult questions. we havethe 84 inmates visited it for release is being acceptable risks, but that is a separate question from where we hold him. the argument i make is that guantánamo bay coming up to balance the costs and the benefits. tore is literally no benefit

keeping guantanamo bay open. all of the arguments i have heard about the necessity to detain and interrogate and fight the war -- which i agree with completely -- the necessity to protect ourselves from our enemies, all of that can be accomplish by holding them within the u.s. it has been stupefying in the last two years the degree of which people have been unaware of the fact that we have hold hundreds of terrorists inside blinds., including a and many notorious operatives. we continue to do that right here in the u.s. safely and efficiently. number one, the average cost of an inmate is estimated 1.5 million per year at guantanamo. there will be transition costs to shut down guantánamo. in the long run, there is no question that it is cheaper to

hold them in the u.s. than it is in guantánamo. keepingthe benefit of that prison open? there is none. there have been arguments made about more constitutional rights will apply as they come to the u.s.. the supreme court has ruled that guantánamo is treated like the u.s. there are no greater constitutional rights here in the u.s. there is no benefit. what is the costs? number one is the cost and the money to maintain the facility. understand how the international community looks at guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as an effort to get around the u.s. constitution. it was hoped that it we help them outside the u.s. at we would not have to abide by the pesky constitutional values and rules that we hold so dearly in this country. the world knows that. it is an international eyesore as a result.

the supreme court said, nice try. you are in control of them so the constitution does the fact apply. george bush and john mccain, and many hard-core republicans who i --nk would take a backseat said we need to close this prison because it is hurting us with our allies and inspiring our enemies. i'm not naïve. and when i say the only reason al qaeda attacked us is because of guantanamo bay. far from it. it is unnecessary. orderly way to close it. the president has also put out a plan. i know he is accused of not having one. is -- there are arguments that you can have separate. it is not about whether or not we should hold them. it is about

where we should hold them. holding them in guantánamo bay hampers our efforts to successfully prosecute the war against al qaeda. he continues to be a piece of evidence that our allies used to say we do not want to cooperate with the u.s. because we do not like the way they treat prisoners. the hampers our ability to successfully prosecute this war. the only argument left hanging out there is somehow we cannot safely hold these people in the u.s. i find the argument to be ridiculous. we are safely holding hundreds of terrorists. not to mention mass murderers and pedophiles and some of the most dangerous people in the world will stop at the u.s. is incapable of successfully holding a dangerous inmate and we are all in a world of hurt. i hope we understand that. and there is the notion that this will somehow inspire all cater more, i hate to tell you

but they are sufficiently inspired right now. inspire al qaeda more, i hate to tell you, but they are sufficiently inspired right now. we have maybe 484 in the u.s.. -- but that is ridiculous. around to closing guantánamo as soon as he can. >> thank you. mr. chairman. i agree with mr. smith to say only as far that al qaeda is very much inspired. i was at guantánamo bay this past may. i want to have some facts right up front about the situation. every american should be proud of integrity shown at the u.s. military personnel caring for these detainees. their work is difficult, but they bring the highest connor -- honor to the work they do their.

second, there are no human rights violations occurring at guantánamo bay. there is no doubt that the detainees are held in conditions that may or -- [gavel] >> thank you. given the safe and secure environment that it provides, they have freedom of movement activity than they would in a maximum u.s. prison. they have access to jim education and dental care and equipment andgym dental care and recreation. this is a political stunt. rewarded.d not be the messages used by military personnel to feed feed detainees who wish not to be themselves

are carefully monitored by medical personnel and those in command. it is right to continue to provide detainees nutrition. want to talk about the cost additionality. some people question it. we continue to be at war with al daily seek to kill americans. as long as they fight us, we remain at war. of --apture and detainee -- dilemma stock about the merits. -- let's talk about the merits. detainees have been off the battlefield for some time. they may continue to provide vital intelligence to u.s. intelligence collection is that we now focus on those who are there today. they're still engage in the counterterrorism battle all around the globe. we need to have a secure location in which to detain

captured enemy combatants. intelligence collection that occurs at this location is enormous to our efforts to continue to identify and capture additional enemy combatants and defeat our enemy. i just returned from a trip to afghanistan as well. i can insure you there are many folks there that would either be to kill or capture. google search our national security far better if you are able to capture them. we talked about options. what our alternatives? we could release them to third- party countries. we have a very high rate. and percent or 15% or one quarter of those detainees, i can assure you that we will have american service members killed as a result of releasing detainees from guantánamo bay. just within this past week, i cannot perform image or tap into facilities in iraq. warriors.500 al qaeda they were transferred -- transfer to third-party is not a

solution to keeping america safe. right risk that the nations to which we send those detainees will torture those folks. we cannot permit that. second, the other option is to bring them back to the u.s. twice within the last 48 hours. there have been amendments offered. twice the bills have been defeated host of the american people and their representatives understand that bringing these detainees back to the united states is not a workable solution. i want to talk about the damage do to thaten done to rhetoric surrounding guantánamo bay. after four years in office, the president continues to insist we pursue a political goal later figure out a way to meet the real mission. the president knows full well indeed and has spoken about not all of those prisoners are transferable or returnable, including the 9/11 five.

no one believes they will come back, including this president, but uses the red of guantanamo bay closing. -- but he continues to use the rhetoric of guantanamo pay closing. bay closing.g -- the president continues to do great harm to america's national security interest. thank you for the time. i yield back the stock -- i yield back. for the a question panel. i grew up the son of a foreign service family and spend a certain amount of time in africa and southeast asia. beneficiary of the goodwill and good example that

the country are presented around the world. it is never able to articulate it very clearly until i heard president clinton who was a master articulate or say -- ar c say the power of our example as americans has always been more important in the world than any example of our power. across daniel fromer's first bunker hill 1825 where he said the last hope of mankind rest with us. meaning americans. if it should be proclaimed that our example had become an argument against the experiment, the experiment being our democracy, he continued popular liberty would

be -- throughout the earth. i'd like those of you who represent our country overseas to react to those thoughts and explain where in the range of military power and soft economic power and diplomatic persuasion thathink of the example america represents to the world wends in the outset that bring to bear in support and have our support around the world. >> senator, thank you. has stenciledirst on their wall a quote from one of my favorite presidents, dwight eisenhower. whatever folks bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the hearts of americans. to bewant americans young man whoth a

-- or do we want america to be hadesented by a man who just built a large and actual chicken farm in an african country? betterldier, i would far one representation by a man who knows how to bring agricultural expertise than my sons and daughters with rifles overseas. we are far better served by our economic prowess and diplomatic prowess them by our extraordinarily fine military. thank you. senator, i'm not sure if they qualify as labour candidates for answering this, but if i may -- >> you may. >> ok.

thank you. what he just described is certainly commendable. but it has to be

to thank the human rights organization reprieve for ensuring that these individuals were allowed to share their perspective. without objection, i want to put these in the record. the hearing record will be open for one week. written questions for the witnesses will also be submitted to the close of business one week from today. we will ask them to respond promptly if they can. if there are no further comments from the panel or colleagues, thank you for attending and thank you for participating. there is a difference of opinion obviously expressed today. that is what this system of government is all about, that we become together with differences of opinion opinion in a peaceful gathering and debate on important policy relative to our values and our security.

i think this subcommittee has the responsibility to do with issues dealing with the constitution, human rights, and to raise theses issues and i'm sorry that it's been five years since we have had a hearing on guantánamo. i can guarantee you that if they can can use to be open there will be another very soon. at this point, the meeting of the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] at this point the subcommittee stands adjourned every member of congress. go down. >> excuse me mr. representative. >> every member of congress.

go down. keep your promise. and be honest. remember. he is risen. you have to be honest.

>> the senate passed a student loan bill that tied student loan --.s to those voting against the bill included 16 democrats and bernie sanders. mike lee of utah also voted against it. ratesill would return the to 3.9%.

several live events to tell you about. we have a political forum on the health insurance exchanges set up by the affordable care act. that is on c-span two. that is 8:00 a.m. a.m.,pan3 at 11:00 homeland security committee considers the nomination of the homeland security deputy secretary. later, a senate energy and natural resources subcommittee holds a hearing on water infrastructure. witnesses include representatives at the interior department and the army corps of engineers. that is at 2:30 p.m.. -- p.m. >> the first lady becomes the chief confidant. she's the only only one you can trust. he unloads.

he talks to her. there are strong woman. ere is.mpanies a strong man to hisuld say that that is main role -- that is their main role. >> our original series examines the public and private lives of these women and their influence on the presidency. watch the encore presentation of first ladies from martha washington to id. mckinley. starting august 5 on c-span the houses approved a defense spending bill. during late afternoon debate members considered to amendments . this portion of the debate is 40 minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. the amendment i offer clarifies and confirms the scope of two

programs that mr. snowden exposed while sitting in a hotel room in communist china. no u.s. citizen can be targeted. u.s. person can be targeted under section 702 by the u.s. government. the u.s. person may be subject to an investigation. they may not do so under section 702. that is what this amendment intends to clarify. the second part of the amendment clarifies section 215. this is also known as section 501 of fisa. be storedcation can or collected by the national security agency. that is no e-mail, no video clips, no skype. no record of the actual conversation can be collected by the national security agency. i cannot repeat that enough. i want to make clear that the

nsa has not been acting outside the scope of its authorities. the metadata authority is set up with oversight by all three branches of government. this is how our government ought to operate. within article one, article two, and article three of the constitution. it is our duty to make sure that the nsa stays with in the legal bounds here in congress. these amendments will make that clear. thehould not mislead american people into thinking that the nsa has been acting illegally. there's no program that is carefully monitored and overseeing as the program of this amendment attempts to clarify. to the extent that some want to have more protection or control on these programs, we should carefully proceed so that the full of locations for our security arc -- are clearly

understood. >> the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman of indiana rise. gentleman rising in opposition? >> i rise to claim the time. is the gentleman opposed? >> i am not opposed. >> does the gentleman from new >> i ask unanimous consent. >> i claim time in opposition. the gentleman from indiana is recognized to claim time in opposition. progress, i will

recognize the gentleman from new york for one point five minutes. >> this amendment has been to the as an alternative mosh amendment that we will consider next. it is not not. this amendment restates the original bands in 70 two. it also puts into law the obama administration's ban on collecting information on people. i agree with those propositions. they had nothing to do with the misuse of 215 to engage in dragnet collection. reveals call information. including all numbers dialed. all incoming phone numbers and call duration. not the content of communications. this amendment would have no impact on this misuse of section

215. metadata reveals highly data information. by tracing the pattern of calls, the government can take a detailed picture of anyone's professional activities. congress never authorizes this check of the citizens. need toproblem that we fix right now. the a mosh-conyers amendment does so. it reestablishes the reasonable relationship between specific persons under 215. considers that it is not ignored. this amendment does not fix the problem to 15. the other amendment does. in favor of it. it is imperative that we vote in favor of the other amendment.

this amendment, although doing no harm, does not solve the problems that has been articulated, with respect to the misuse of the page. i yield back. >> the gentleman reserves his time. the demo from kansas. >> i will reserve as well. the gentleman reserves. >> the gentleman from indiana. >> i will be happy to yields time to the gentleman from texas. i will make an inquiry as to how much time you would like. give thed be happy to gentleman in three minutes. >> the dumb is recognized for three minutes. >> i thank them gentleman for

yielding. at they did to him and for because this amendment it focuses on what concerns most americans. a clarifies on what is it is not happening. it is a problem for those of us on the intelligence committee to talk about these problems. this amendment makes a clear and reassures americans about some of the things that they may have read or heard is occurring with the nsa. this is not an overreaction. increase the danger that people face from terrorism around the world. this amendment says that the nsa can not acquire information for the purpose of targeting americans. it says that the nsa cannot store the communications of americans. the key point that a member -- that members need to know is that there are multiple layers of safeguards to make sure that

these programs operate in the way that the fisa court has laid them out. the intelligence committee of both the house and senate do a considerable of oversight. even if somebody punches a two versus 83, we a report. so far as, members of the intelligence committee can go and sit next to analysts and see what they're doing. the fisa court has oversight. the same sorts of reports. they can change the guidelines that it operates under. in addition to that, there are internal. inspector general monitoring. you have every branch of government involved in making sure that that the safeguards are in place. and, that those same safeguards will be in place to ensure the gentleman'sf the amendment. some, however, would do away

with these. no amount of safeguards are good for them. they never say what would replace them. they'd never say what would fill the gap. defendponsibility is to americans. they would have them go away. they assumed that, somehow or another, americans can be made safe. the truth is, you have to be successful and lucky. that is because of the work in the military and intelligence professionals. and, as i say, a fair amount of luck. aese programs have made crucial contribution to that success over the last decade. it seems to me that it would be forwarded to toss them away, as some would want to do. this amendment strikes the right approach.

the wall street journal makes a , thepoint where it said last thing congress should do is kill a program in a rush to honor the reckless claims of mr. snowden and his apologists. >> does the tillman from indiana which any time? >> i'm happy to yield three minutes or as much time. >> the dome is recognized for three minutes. i rise in support of the pompeo amendment. amendment reaffirms that privacy and security must coexist together. this amendment states that the government cannot use section 702 of the fisa act to

intentionally targeted an american for surveillance. this amendment also reaffirms that the phone conversations cannot be collected in section 215 of the patriot act. it makes the intentions of congress very clear. i believe that the amendment makes a powerful statement. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. understand the concerns of the american people in congress when it comes to these programs. on the house intelligence committee, we were reviewing and evaluating ways to change the fisa act. protect privacy and civil liberties. we are committed to having this important discussion. i've concerns about the amendment that we will debate next. amash amendment is an on/off

switch for the patriot act. on a new yorkck city subway system was stopped because of section 215. this amendment passes this authority and ends it. far, too fast, on the wrong legislative vehicle. we need to debate the scope of the program. this is a knee-jerk reaction. this program has been reauthorized by congress. it is a vital tool to our intelligence community to protect our nation. remember, 9/11. what are the critical tools we have and use to connect those dots is 215. this is just phone records. just phone numbers. amash a no vote on the

amendment and i vote a yes vote on the pompeo amendment. >> thank you. thank you. i urge a no vote. why? it misstates current law. interpretedhas been by the administration in a way that is, frankly, contrary to the crafters of the patriot act. section 215 of the patriot act says that you can obtain information that is relevant to national security investigations. what has happened since that has been enacted? it is a low bar.

the nsa's interpretation, it is no bar at all. they're collecting information about every phone call made by every american. clearly, that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation. to note thatnt business records that are the subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. records, credit card records, medical records, are these things we give up to the government? no. they are sensitive. that is why they are being sought. this amendment does not and the ability to pursue terrorism. we're all for that. we require that the government adheres to the law.

that requires relevance to a terrorist investigation. -- i do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who is offered this amendment. think that if you think this provides a remedy, you are wrong. this is a fig leaf. we should vote against it. i hope will move on to the amash amendment and solve the problem. >> the gentleman from kansas. >> i reserve. >> i yield back my time. >> the gentleman from kansas is recognized. >> i would like to correct a couple of things. >> this is not a fig leaf. this is going to clarify believes that are held about what section 215 authorizes.

it is designed to make clear the boundaries of these two important national security programs. these have been interpreted by multiple administrations in the same way. there's been no change in this law. we should support these programs regardless of who is commander- in-chief of the united states. supportmy colleagues to this amendment. >> the gentleman yield at this time. all time on this debate has ceased. --.e in favor, in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. days -- yea's and nay's.

>> further amendments will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment 100. does thepurpose gentleman from michigan seek recognition. >> ivan amendment at the desk. >> amendment 100. printed in house report 113 -- 170. >> pursuant to house resolution 312, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed will control 7.5 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. >> i i yield myself one minute. >> we are here today for a simple reason.

to defend the fourth amendment. to defend the privacy of each and every american. of nationalr intelligence is made clear, the government collects phone records, without suspicion, every single american in the united states united states. my amendment makes a simple but important change. it limits the government collection of those records to those records that pertain to a person was a subject of investigation, pursuant to 215.on 215. opponents of this amendment we use the same tactic that every government throughout history has used to justify its violation of of rights. fear. they will tell you that the government must violate the rights of the american people. there isell you that no expectation of privacy in the documents that are stored with a

third-party. tell that to the american people. tell that to our constituents back home. we're here to answer one question the people we represent. do we oppose the suspicionless collection of every american's phone records? >> the gentleman reserves reserves. who seeks recognition? >> i reserve the balance. >> florida seeks recognition. >> i rise to claim time. >> the gentleman is recognized or 7.5 minutes. minutesappy yield three to the gentleman, the very distinguished chairman of the house intelligence committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. rogers. people,nk the american some well intentioned members in this chamber have legitimate

concerns. they should be addressed. we should have time and education about what actually happens in these particular programs. i'll pledged each and every one of you today that this fall, will we do the intelligence authorization bill, we will work to find additional privacy protections with this program that has no e-mails, no calls, addresses.d no 14 federal judges have said yes, this comports with the constitution. and nows between 1979 have confirmed the legality of this. 14 judges are wrong. 800 different case the wrong. the legislators of both intelligence committees are wrong. why is it that people of both parties came together and looked ourhis program, a time when those whounder siege,

know him best support the program. we spent so much time to get it right. to make sure the oversight is right. no other program, no other a legislative, judicial, and executive branch doing oversight. if we had this and other agencies, we not have problems. have 12 years gone by and our gotten so bad that we forgot 9/11. 9/11. does not stop so- called spying. that is not with happening. it is not a surveillance surveillance bill. is not moderate. after september 11, we did not know at september 10, passing this amendment takes us back to september 10.

after that, we say there is a scene or a gap. a terrorist overseas call the us inist living amongst the united states. we missed it because we did not have this capability. what if. the good news is, we do not have to what if. 54 times, they said the other program stopped terrorist attacks. saving real lives. this is not a game. this is real. it has real consequences. this is war. madison. lincoln. ok. the issues they dealt with. the politics of "big." mandatethe article one that we must provide the general defense of the united states. think of the challenges.

think of those challenges. are we so small that we can only look at our facebook in this chamber? the politicsck to of protecting america and moving america forward. soundly reject this amendment. >> i reserve my time. >> thank you. i yield 60 seconds to mr. conyers. >> i think the gentleman for yielding to mate. ladies and gentlemen of the house, this amendment will not proper use of the patriot act and fisa authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations. block that.r all this amendment is intending to do is to curtail the ongoing

dragnet collection and storage ofthe personal records innocent americans. it does not defund the nsa. themuld continue to allow to conduct full-fledged , as long as it relates to actual investigation. i joined together on this bipartisan amendment to demonstrate our joint commitment to ensure that our fight against terrorism and espionage follows the rule of law. adheres to the statutes passed by this congress. i urge my colleagues on both sides of this aisle to to vote for this amendment. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> magellan from florida. >> i'm happy to yield 2.5

the gentlelady from minnesota, ms. bachmann. >> i thank the gentleman from florida. >> this is an important issue that we are taking up. the number one duty of the federal government is the safety i haveamerican people, our constituents and own skins. know all too well, national security is a real and present danger. it is something we must take seriously. we cannot deal and false false narratives. -- ise narrative has an not true. a false narrative has emerged. the federal government is taking in the content of the american people's e-mails. we need to deal in facts.

the facts are these. the people would've benefited from the revelation of classified information by someone who works for this government who intentionally unauthorized declassified sensitive national security isormation, the only result that those who engaged in jihad have benefited. those we seek to protect have not. this, there's more more information contained in the phone book about each one of us that is information the nsa database that we are talking about today. your name and address is in the phonebook. your name and address is not in the national security database. . hasther nation in the world

the advantage the united states has a national security. no other nation. by this amendment, we would agree to handcuff ourselves and our allies by restricting ourselves. let it not be. let us not deal in false narratives. let us deal in facts that will keep the american people safe. when you look at an envelope, when a letter is put in the mail , is there a privacy rights? no. the privacy rights is what is inside that envelope. is there a fourth amendment rights. poor the minute right to what is in that phone call. let's deal with a reality and not in false narratives.

>> the gentleman from florida reserve system i'm. minute to the gentleman from wisconsin. >> the gem it realized for one minute. of these in support amendments. i do so as the person who is the principal author of the patriot act in 2001. who got that through after 9/11. who supported and managed the 2006 reauthorization. let me make this clear, unlike what we've for the speakers and the other side, this amendment does not stop the collection of data under to 15. the people who are subject to an investigation of an authorized terrorist plots.

what it does is prevent the from peoplef data who are not subject to an investigation. relevance is required in a grand jury subpoena or a criminal collection of data. this goes beyond that. come to stop it. the way we stop is to to approve this amendment. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i continue to reserve. seconds to the gentleman from colorado. >> i think gilman for michigan. nsa programs have brought and far-reaching

consequences. many americans feel that our constitutional rights are threatened. and is hurt our reputation abroad. at his or our trade relationships. it is threatened american jobs as a result. is put us in danger. our cooperative security relationships that we need for the war on terror. the responsible thing to do is to pass this amendment. let's make sure we have a practical broach that says that protecting our liberty and securities are consistent and critical for the ad states of. i urge yes vote. >> the children for michigan. >> i reserve. >> the dome and from florida >> i reserve. .uestioned him in florida >> a question of balancing. it is a question beyond that. it is a question of who will do

the balancing. the balancing is being done by people we do not know and not elect. somebody wasrt, by admitted to lying. that is wrong. we should between the balancing. we should be doing that. we need to pass this amendment so that we can be doing balancing. >> gentleman yield back. the balance my time. >> i continue to reserve. >> the gentleman from michigan. >> med. -- nine ask how much time remains? >> three .5 minutes. . >> i yield 30 seconds. i want talk about the oversight. every year there's a report to the oversight committee. an annual report on section 215.

this year, the report was eight sentences. less than a full page. do think that congress has oversight of this program is incorrect. i did not match the brilliant remarks that were just sad. i do agree that when we wrote the patriot act, the relevance had a meeting. -- meaning. the department of justice says that 300 inquiries were made and the record of every single american became relevant. that is a joke. >> mr. barton. ms. --k you nana

unanimous consent to revise. >> is is not about how sincere the nsa people are in this technique. it is not about how careful they are. it is about whether or not they have a right to collect the data on every phone call on every american every day. the patriot act did not specifically authorize it. 215 talks about tangible things ant are relevant to authorized security investigation. relevant is all data all the time? that is simply wrong. we should support the amendment and vote for it. >> i yield 15 seconds to jump in >>m south carolina will stop the right of the people to be secure in their peoples, papers, and things against unreasonable

search and seizures shall not be violated. those who choose to trade liberty for security will find they have neither. the gentleman from texas is recognized 30 seconds. to be particular and specific about the place to be searched and the items to be ceased. no judge would sign a general search warrant like the british dead. that allowed the police to search every house on the block much less sees every phone records. the government has gone too far in the name of security. the fourth amendment has been bruised. rein in government invasion. no more dragnet innovations.

or, stay out of our lives. and that's, is way it is! -- and that is the way it is! changes thedment use of 215 to engage in the use of all of our records. amendment restores requirement that we have an authorized investigation. no administration should be permitted to operate above or beyond the law as they have done in this respect. i urge all of my colleagues to vote favor of this amendment. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from virginia.

warrants, writs, that is what we're looking at. the founding fathers found that to be anathema. which again owed to the constitution. and we're supposed to deal with the secret agency that the season record the details of the secret secret agents -- secret intelligence committee. folks, we have a job to do. how much time remains? >> 45 seconds remaining. >> the gentleman from florida has two minutes. >> i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from life. and women fromn hawaii and across the country have wore their uniform and protected our freedoms and

i cannot vote to take a single dollar from pockets of hard-working taxpayers to pay for programs which infringe upon the very liberties and freedoms that our troops have fought and died for. ben franklin said that those who gave up liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. >> the gentleman from michigan. here to answer one question for the people theesents, do we oppose suspicionless collection of every american's phone records. when you have the chance to stand up for america's privacy privacy, did you? please support this amendment. >> i yield two minutes for the

closing argument to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. cotton. >> the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. opposition. urge this program has stopped dozens of attacks. it is saved dozens of lives. this amendment is not simple. it does not limit or modify the program, it ends the program. it blows it up. some of you over the analogy aat if you want to search for needle in haystack, you you have to have the haystack. this blows away the hair sac. blows awayt -- this the haystack. it does so, despite all the safeguards that you've heard. this program is constitutional.

a precedent that goes back to 1979. this program was approved by a bipartisan majority. overseen by three judges who've been confirmed by the senate. is reviewed by the intelligence committee. as executed by military officers. majors and kernels will been fighting and bleeding for this country for 12 years. what is it? metadata. it sounds kind of scary. call two, call from, date time durationdate, time, will stop picking up the searched unless you have aspicious activity from terrorist. only then to they go into that database and run a search.

why do you need it? verizon, at&t, other companies will not keep this data. secondly, you need it quickly. if we rolled up the bad guy and found his cell phone, we would immediately upload that data so that intelligence professionals we're at war. we're at war. we're at war. >> those in favor, say aye. >> further proceedings on the amendments offered by the

dillman from michigan will be prose poem. after defeating the amendment, the house approved the $512 billion bill. the next washington journal, will be joined by republican representative, marsha blackburn. she's a member of the budget and energy committee. we'll get a reaction from president obama's speech on the economy. will also speak to senator ben cardin. he will focus on this weeks top stories. including the the economy and budget negotiations in the senate. washington journal is live on c- span.

in the first of a series of speeches on the economy, president obama said that the key to a strong economy our retirement savings and health care. these spokes -- he spoke for more than an hour. >> hello.] well. is good to be home in illinois. it is good to be back. be back.d to thank you. thank you so much everybody. thank you so much. thank you. thank you. thank you so much.

thank you. everybody, have a seat. have a seat. it is good to be back. i want to thank the college. i want to thank the college and your president for having me here today. give her a big round of applause. i had to think your congresswoman who is here. there she is. we have got governor quinn near. lieutenant have

governor, sheila, here. general, lisa madigan, is here. bunch of my former colleagues and some folks wed not seen in years that i am looking forward to saying i'm hi two. -- to. john was one of my early supporters when i was running for the u.s. senate. he has 10 brothers and his wife has 10 brothers and sisters. they have this precinct in this family. they all look like john. not have to go to every event. he sends one of his brothers. it is good to see them.

dick durbin sends his best. we love. he is doing a great job. one of my favorite neighbors. the senator from missouri. to missouri later this afternoon. here it is great to see you. i hope everyone is having a wonderful summer. the weather is perfect. whoever was in charge of that, good job. so, eight years ago, i came here to deliver the commencement address for the class of 2005. things were different back then.

for example, i had no gray hair. or, a motorcade. didn't even have a problem. my printer didn't work. it was my first big speech as your new center. on the way here, i talked about how important this area was. one of the areas that i spent time in outside of chicago. what'sh this represented best in america. folks who are willing to work hard and do right by their families. i came here to talk about what a cheesy economy was doing to the middle class. tot we as antry needed do to give every american a chance to get ahead in the 21st century.

see, i had just spent a year traveling. i was listing to your stories. proud maytag workers losing their jobs and the planets move down to mexico. and folks here remember that. teachers whose salaries were not keeping up with the cost of groceries. people who had the drive and energy, but not the energy to afford -- but not the money to afford a college education. these were stories of families that have worked hard, believed in the american dream, but fell like the odds were increasingly stacked against them. they were right. things change.

it appeared after world war ii, a growing middle class was the engine of our prosperity. this country offered you a basic bargain. a sense that your hard work will be rewarded with fair wages and decent benefits. the chance to buy a home, a chanceire meant, and a to hand out a better life to your kids. stalled., the engine a lot of folks sought. .hat bargain made some jobs obsolete. global competition sent a lot of jobs overseas. it became harder for unions to fight with the -- fight for the middle class. washington doled out bigger tax

and to the very wealthy there were smaller minimum-wage increases for the working poor. that the linkwas between higher productivity and people's wages and salaries was broken. it used to be that as companies did better, as profits went higher, workers got a better deal. that started changing. the income of the top one fromnt nearly quadrupled 1979 to 2000. the typical family's income barely budged. towards the end of those three a housing bubble, credit cards, a financial

sector, was keeping the economy artificially boosted up.

. .

>> after abu ghraib it came up often. some of our closest allies refused to send us detainees because of guantanamo bay. we are losing intelligence opportunities. detainees does not change our national security. basedis soldier the fear- argument to keep it open is hard to understand. the detainees pose no threat to security.al the 86 men who have been for transfer should be transferred.

further, guantanamo bay places our soldier is a nation at risk. makesly because it america look hypocritical as we butmote the rule of law, it makes the detainees look like the warriors they are not. our leaders in iraq would pose the question, "did we create more terrorists today than we managed to take off the street?" -uantanamo bay is a terrorist creating institution and is a facilitator in filling out the ranks of al qaeda that would attack our country and our interest. in military terms is a combat power generator for the enemy. are strongestn when we uphold the constitution, the bill of rights, the geneva conventions and the other laws and treaties to which we subscribe. when we stray

from the rule of law. we have an opportunity and an imperative to close guantanamo bay now as we wind down combat operations in afghanistan. there is no national security reason to keep guantanamo baope. in the words of one of my colleagues, "they do not win unless they change us." thank you very much, mr. chairman. the brigadier general served in the u.s. army as a medical corps officer for 28 years before retiring. a psychiatrist with an active practice, the general is an adjunct professor at the uniformed services university of health sciences and the military medical department. founder of center for translational medicine developing treatments and conducting test on brain related conditions affecting soldiers and veterans. served asl previously

the senior adviser to the department of defense on issues relating to the care and support of service members and their fromies, graduated princeton, university of maryland school of medicine. they keep for your service and please proceed. >> thank you, sir. thek you members of subcommittee and senator feinstein. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. a boardid i'm certified in psychiatry. i have extensive experience in treatment, research teaching, retiredration, commo in medical centers and medical regions. the federal courts in the office of the military commissions have qualified me as a psychiatric and medical expert. i have had multiple interviews with detainees, advised attorneys and spent cumulative three months in guantanamo ba or the past four and a half years. i provide consultation and

expert testimony if needed on seven former detainees. i have reviewed medical intelligence and military files of 50. the treatment of hunger strikers compromises the core ethical values of our medical profession. ama has long endorsed the principle that every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention. medical association and the international red cross have determined that for speeding through the use of restraints does not -- is not violation butl contravenes article three of the geneva convention. force-feeding undermines the position-patient relationship by destroying the trust that is essential for all clinical treatment, including medical issues unrelated to force- feeding. it engages physicians in the use of force. at guantanamo bay, physicians

and nurses have become part of the command apparatus. toy use painful methods break hunger strikes. and use of restraint chairs, dry denial of communal privileges. the plain truth is that force- feeding violates medical ethics and the international legal obligation. and nothing claimed in the name of defending our country can andify cruel, inhuman degrading treatment of another man or woman. the detention facilities at quan thanh amo diminish america's standing -- at guantanamo bay put into question our values. the underlying issues that contribute to hunger strikes must be addressed, including and in a confinement that have been put into place this year. statements in the medium leave the impression that the detainees are highly trained soldiers eager to get back on the battlefield. the vast majority of these men do not fit that picture.

these detainees pale in comparison to the violent prisoners accused of serious felonies or murders that i have seen and evaluated in this country. as any detainees committed a crime, i strongly believe they should be charged, prosecuted, and convicted, punished accordingly. the fact is, however, most detainees have not been charged. restrictive and oppressive conditions undermine our national security object this. force-feeding must and. it is unethical, an affront to human dignity, a form of cruel and in human and degrading treatment. my recommendations include -- first, the underlying issues that contributed to the hunger strikes must be resolved, release. expeditious second, detainee should not be punished. third, all directives, orders thatrotocols provide

health professionals act as adjuncts of security officials must be rescinded. in the medical staff by detainees has been so deeply compromised. independent doctors and nurses should be brought in. th, aging detainees require more sophisticated medical care. clinicalar rotation of staff in pete's continuity of care, diagnosis, and treatment. it places medical clinicians in poor positions. it is not fair to the doctors, nurses, or detainees. thank you for the privilege of speaking to you. >> thank you. we will now hear from frank gaffney. he is the founder and president of the center for security policy, a think tank. he is a weekly columnist

"the washington times." he is a host of secure freedom radio. in the 1980s, he served in the reagan administration as assistant secretary of defense. and deputy assistant secretary for nuclear forces and arms control policy. his work in the department of defense, he was also a staff member of the armed services committee. he received a bachelor's degree from georgetown, a masters from johns hopkins, school of it advanced international studies. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one addendum. i had the privilege of serving for senator scoop jackson. i appreciate the chance to testify in this issue. on thisa minority panel. i take comfort from the fact that i think you represent the vast majority of americans and certainly the vast majority of those of you in congress on this question. should gitmo be closed?

and i think the answer is resoundingly no unless there is a better alternative available to us. i would like to describe why i think there is not a better alternative available by putting this into context if i may. and that is to describe why we have gitmo in the first place. it is because we are at war. this is a point that is seemingly lost on a lot of us who talk about this in an abstract concept, that somehow this detention facility can be removed from that overarching problem. we are not just at war. we are at war because others attacked us. in your wisdom, you in the congress gave the authority to fight back. increasingly,t however, we have lost sight as to who it is we are fighting

with. again, i think that bears directly on the question before all of you today. we are fighting, i would suggest, against people who adhere to a doctrine they call sharia. do, but thoses that are engaged at this point in, excuse me -- out bursts., no adhere to thiso doctrine believe it is their obligation to destroy us, to force us to submit to their well. that bears directly upon this question of what happens if they are allowed to return to the battlefield. -- i think we all agree recidivism among those who are released from gitmo is a problem. yourself,s you said mr. chairman, not as bad as in

the federal's prison system. that is a sobering thought, which again, i would argue suggest we do not want to put these listeners into the federal prison system if it is even worse than at gitmo. if the commitments these prisoners have should they be jihadd it is to wagae against us until we submit. it adds urgency to the question that senator curruz asked, which is, how do you prevent that from happening? i find unconvincing the idea that any of these problems are made more tractable i simply moving these people into the united states. for one thing, it does raise a question as to whether the cost that we are paying, and several of you have alluded to this excessive, wasteful, inefficient

cost, but how much has it meant single one of these people are any of their friends have been able to attack us because of their proximity to a federal attention facility inside united states? how many american lives have been spared as a result? there is no way to know for sure, but are you feeling lucky? my guess is he will find much more violence inside the federal prison system, not least because these individuals will be engaged in proselytizing their form of islam inside the prison system. haveeyond that, you will almost certainly their colleagues trying to do what was done in iraq yesterday by al qaeda, which is to try to spring them, or at the least inflict harm on an american

community that has the misfortune of incarcerating these people. just cern is that, let's set aside the numbers that you might or might not feel you can safely push out, there are a nu number, unknown that you can never try. do you honestly think that the people behind me and the people who are impelling this hearing will stop caveling for the release of those prisoners because they are in the united states? inally, you know better than -- federal judges inside this country will almost certainly some of them,ast with sympathy on the claim that these prisoners once they are inside the united states and

entitled to constitutional t would tha perhaps result in their release inside the united states. i find that beyond malfeasance were we to go down that road. it is dereliction of duty. i pray you will not close gitmo . and i hope that your testament -- my testimony will encourage you not to do that. >> lieutenant friday is a member of the judge advocate corps. he is at the chief defense counsel for military commissions. he served in the navy's disasterian aid and relief efforts following the sioux nominee in japan. -- the tsunami in japan. he worked in the u.s. attorneys office for the northern district of illinois. he received his bachelor's and political science the university of california berkeley where he graduated with phi beta kappa.

lieutenant friday, thank you for being here today and please proceed. thehank you, members of committee, for inviting me today to testify. i am grateful for the opportunity. while the office of the chief defense counsel for the military commission is aware that i am testifying today, my statement is based on my personal experience and knowledge. it does not reflect the views of my office, the navy, or the department of defense. over the past year, i have been assigned under military orders to serve as counsel for individuals detained in guantanamo bay, cuba. 156ou know, there are remaining. i represent one of them. people often ask me if it is difficult representing a detainee. live in a country where my commander-in-chief can order me to perform this

challenging mission. andolleagues, prosecutors defense lawyers alike, are patriots who love their country. toare taught in the military perform our duties with honor, courage, and commitment. and i am here today doing my duty to talk to you about my clients indefinite detention in guantanamo bay. has now been detained by our government for over 10 years. after five years, in 2008, he was charged with material support for terrorism. in 2009, the military commission process halted and the charges were dismissed. decisioncircuit court held that material support for terrorism is now no longer a crime that he or anyone detained prior to 2006 can ever be tried for in a military commission. i am not here today to ask for sympathy for amanda was ordered to represent, but i would like

to tell you about him. a is an afghan citizen with third grade education. 22 years old when he was detained. was six monthso old when he last saw him in 2003, and he has never been charged with harming anyone, afghan or american. had my client been brought to federal court instead of guantanamo ba, he could have and would have been tried years ago. 500e 9/11, nearly terrorists have been convicted in federal courts. in the guantánamo military commission, six. a decade of detention with no crime he can be charged of, he sits in guantánamo imprisoned indefinitely. asked me how it is

possible for my government to detain him for over 10 years without proving he committed a crime. i try my best to explain that there are people in our government who believe under the laws of war that we are allowed to detain people indefinitely until the war is over. "you will no me, longer be at war with afghanistan after 2014. can i go home and? then?" and anrvice member attorney sworn to uphold the constitution and our strong legal conditions, i do not have good answers for him. guilty of a is crime, he should be tried and given his day in court. committee forhis your willingness to listen to his story today. for as long as he is in guantanamo bay no judge or jury ever will. and the nation of laws people of principle. denying my client the trial and detaining them indefinitely is

at odds with our oldest values fared on ee of our revolutionary war, we held trials for british soldiers as possible for the boston massacre. ams served as one of the british soldiers defense lawyers. but today, even basic due process in guantanamo bais denied, including the opportunity to confront your accusers, be presented with evidence against you, and have access to counsel. eal, criminalse r and terrorists should be prosecuted and jailed. our enemies must know that we will bring them to justice the matter what. but as a people guided by principle and the rule of law, we can do better than indefinite detention. for centuries, american service members have fought and paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect the fundamental values that define our nation.

we should strive to be faithful to those values, especially when it is most challenging to do so. >> thank you, lieutenant. the last witness on the panel is the president and ceo of human rights first, an adjunct professor at georgetown university. she is one of the leading human rights advocacy groups. she has been a great partner with the subcommittee working on a human rights agenda. before joining, she earned her j.d. from the university of michigan, a master of arts from johns hopkins. testified before the subcommittee before and i welcome you back. please proceed. >> thank you. committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the importance of closing guantanamo bay and how we can do so in a

way that protects our country, our national security, and our values. of an president organization whose central mission is to advance american global leadership on human rights, i focus on ensuring that our country remains of the can to freedom seeking people around the world and that it can continue to lead by the power of example. that is why after the terrorist attacks on our countries, we joined forces with more than 50 retired generals and admirals who believe that our values and institutions are assets in the fight against terrorism, not liabilities. i have been to guantánamo and met the dedicated people serving their under difficult circumstances. we have been observers to every military commission convened at guantánamo since its inception. we have great respect for the service members and civilian defense lawyers who are struggling to navigate this untested and jerryrigged system of justicee form

from it. some would have you believe that the critics are a handful of human rights activists, foreigners, and defense lawyers. that is not true. the loudest and most persistent calls to close the prison come from our senior defense law- enforcement intelligence and diplomatic officials, people view and have concluded our national security is best served by closing it. president bush said he wanted to close guantánamo. henry kissinger called it a blot on our national represent -- reputation. jim baker said he gave america a bad name. secretary gates told president bush that -- and advised him to it down. it cost usnard said the moral high ground. the former chairman of the joint chiefs says guantánamo has been a recruiting symbol for our

enemies. powell, said he would close if not tomorrow but this afternoon. about theone thinks initial benefits of detaining prisoners at guantánamo, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that we no longer need it. today's hearing catalog the reasons why it is imperative to transform this consensus into action. we heard about the astronomical costs at guantanamo at a time of furloughs. eaton reminded us that in and of combat operations will require a change. lieutenant friday told us how guantánamo has warped our system of justice. in many ways, the struggle with witheda is a war ideals. sometimes when we lose our way,

outsiders who admire our values can remind us of who we are and what we stand for. some family members of detainees have written letters to you in advance of this hearing and i want to quote from them. algerian who has been detained for more than a decade without charges wrote, wasn i was told that he detained by the americans i thought that at least you have the right to a fair trial. i thought his right to be respected and justice would prevail. what i feel today is in comprehension. nation, one that prides itself on defending human rights, close its eyes to its violations?" another has been held for more than a decade without charge. he has been cleared for transfer. his mother wrote, "i do not understand why my son is still in guantanamo bay after all these years. we never thought the united states was the kind of place where people could be held like this." we have talked about who we are

as a nation, but sooner or later who we are cannot be separated from what we do. war inind down the afghanistan, we must expunge the legacy of guantanamo bay and restore america's a quotation for justice. the question is not why or if but how. first human rights question exit strategy with a detailed plan for closing the prison. among the challenges facing our country today -- closing guantánamo is far from the most complex. as senator john mccain said, it is not rocket science. it is a risk management exercise and the risk is manageable. with leadership from the president and congress, we can get this done. thank you again for convening this hearing. we are deeply grateful for your leadership, mr. chairman, on this and so many other human rights issues. >> thanks. we are going to have rounds of questions, seven minutes per senator. i as,kk each senator to stick wh

those time limits. i thank the panel. let me start at the beginning. marion, illinois, is a small town in southern illinois. in a rural setting. it has a federal prison. incarcerated there are convicted terrorist. i have never heard one word from a person living in marion, illinois, about fear associated with those terrorists being in that prison. the notion at places where federal prisons exist is that our federal prisons are pretty good. people do not escape from them. the community around them feel safe. so mr. gaffney the notion of sending the worst of the worst to the florence super max priso n, 30 miles away from any city, in the middle of nowhere where they could have no communication with the outside world, why does that frighten you? >> senator, i am concerned about several things. i think it will be more violence

the prisons. secondly, i think that we cannot be sure, but i think it is a safe bet on the basis of experience elsewhere. >> have you been inside a super max prison? >> i have not personally had the privilege. visited a similar facility. most of them are in a very restrictive, lock down condition. >> as they should be. rare for them to have more than one hour a day outside. how do you believe they will be able to incite problems with in the florence super max? >> i am so glad you asked that. one of the things that concerns me is what we are seeing done in prisons writ large, but i think it includes super max and that is proselytization. catering to the muslim population, and

converting and promoting this doctrine which does -- incraasease violence. will be to assume there opportunities, especially for we start relieving them of some of the limitations on their freedom of movement, then you will get more violence. let me come to the question -- >> i just want to say, we have incarcerated in federal prisons, person being held with no hints of problems within the prison or outside of it. i want to make something very clear -- there are some very patriotic muslim americans who do not want to be characterized as part of an extremist movement. they are people who we met and work with everyday day, and the notion that bringing in an imam violenceitation to

presumes the prison authorities will pay no attention, and pursues perhaps that everyone brought in is the danger. >> may i respond? the fellow who started the muslim chaplains in federal prison is in the federal prison himself. he is a terrorist. amonga man who created other things and infrastructure inside the united states for promoting sharia through the muslim brotherhood. it is critically important, will marion be at risk if they take prisoners from gitmo? i'm concerned they might be. not least because, quite apart whether they could spring people from the prison, it makes it a target for terrorism. it is an opportunity to create a spectacular incident. ey, there are domestic gang members and leaders of extremist groups from all over the united states incarcerated in these prisons, and they are handled very

professionally and securely so that communities beg for the opportunity to have a federal prison constructed near them. let me move to the question -- i believe the president should move according to his promise to close guantanamo, but i believe that congress has made that difficult with restrictions that we put in place in terms of the transfer of these detainees. would you comment on those restrictions? >> i would happy to do that. i would like to say one word about the federal prisons because i had some of the same questions and i understand that many people have these anxieties. so i reached out to the american correctional association and asked them what they thought about whether they could handle these kinds of prisoners, and they asked me, "do you iknknow who's in there now? we've got this." it is absurd to think that our corrections officials cannot handle this population. ou're absolutely right, senator, that congress has made

closing guantánamo more difficult because of these transfer restrictions. i was happy to see that the senate defense authorization bill has included some provisions that would give greater authority to the commander in chief to dispose of at guantánamo in a way that he thinkis best fits our national security. we break down the population at guantánamo. we have 166 people. the majority of those have been cleared for transfer. the president has appointed a leader at the state department to take on this challenge, and we are awaiting the appointment of a leader at the defense department to do the same. there is renewed urgency about this, as you heard from senator feinstein, about what is going on down there with the hunger strikes. so this is something on which

the president and congress have to work together. presidential leadership is essential, but congress needs to trust the commander-in-chief to make these decisions. lieutenant friday, thank you for your service to our country, thanks for reminding us what we are all about this country when it comes to the rule of law, that reference to john adams is one that stands out in this man's biography before he was elected president. he was assigned to defend british soldiers who were accused of massacring american colonists. is an indication of where we started as a nation. you had a foot in both camps. you have been a prosecutor and the criminal justice system at the federal level. now you have been defense counsel when it comes to military commissions. some in congress argue we cannot trust our article iii courts. recordthers point to the that over 500 accused terrorists have been successfully courtsuted in article iii

and before military commissions. what is your view about the proper tribunal for these trials? you, sir, for the question in your comments. i do not believe it is my job to provide a recommendation. it is not what i had been assigned to do and ordered to do. i can say, having been in guantánamo and having seen the commission up close, it's been 9/11, and we're still litigating what kind of whates people can wear and kind of notes lawyers can take in meetings and what rights apply. it is very slow, inefficient system. slower system than the federal courts. there are still a lot of barriers in place for counsel, issues of attorney-client privilege, issues of classification that are

thatsing. hearsay rules are relaxed. there are a lot of differences that still need to be worked out as we move forward. >> thank you very much. you, mr. chairman, i would like to thank each of the witnesses for coming here for your testimony. it seems to me this is an issue that inspires a great deal of passion, great deal of emotion, seems to me that our national security policy should frome derived simply bumper sticker ideology, but rather from careful, hard decisions about how to protect the national security of the united states. there are two facts in particular that i think are hard facts that i have heard very little discussion of in the panel today. is as of january 2013, the director of national intelligence in the obama

administration has confirmed or suspects that 28% of former wonton would detainees reengaged in terrorism. inconvenient fact for any argument that would leave a substantial risk of these individuals that are currently in guantánamo released. the second fact is underscored week, which is on monday of this week, about 500 prisoners including senior members of al qaeda escaped from the abu ghraib prison which is now controlled by the iraqi security forces. i think that likewise inerscores the inherent risk relying on foreign facilities to detain known terrorists, particularly terrorists for whom

there is a substantial risk of their re-engaging terrorism if they find themselves at large. the first question i would like to ask is to general eaton. i thank you for your many years of leadership her. there are 166 detainees in guantánamo. is there any reason to believe that it is though -- if those individuals released, their recidivism would be any less than the detainees who have artie been released to every engaged in terrorism at a rate o f 28%? thank you cruz, for the question. i spent a career managing risk. soldiers never get all of the assets they need to buy risk to zero. believe, could

also be posed, is the existence of guantánamo a higher risk than the release of the prisoners we have there now? we have a terrific system. our intelligence architecture provided 28%, if we except 28%, then we have that same intelligence architecture that will help us buy down the risk those individuals back in the care of countries that will take care of them, which is a requirement that this body has imposed upon the secretary of defense. a certification process. about releasing the 86 that are cleared for release, under conditions that expectations that the secretary of defense has to certify, then i think it is appropriate and i think the risk associated with that is indeed relatively low. it is not zero.

but i live in a world, a military world that accounts for downand you buy the risk with every factor available. and america has a great deal to buy it down. eaton, if i understood your answer correctly, it was that if detainees are released, we can act to mitigate the risk of their re-engaging in terrorism. ituld note that the -- seems to me you did not dispute the premise of my question, that these individuals if released, we can expect to reengage in terrorism at least the same rate. surely, it was not the case that the people we released initially were the most dangerous. under any rational system, presumably the first people released were those we deem to be the least dangerous. and so the rational inference

would be those remaining would if anything returned to terrorism at a higher rate, not a lower rate than 28%. id, fortor, as yogi sa addictions are hard, especially if it is about the future we have got a population that is unknowable to 100% prediction rate. so again, we mitigate risk. we buy it down. it will not go to zero. but i cannot put a figure on it. >> with respect, it will go to zero if they remain detained. we're talking talking about the risk of future acts of terrorism. let me say more broadly that the outset that i thought was the most difficult question is that it is easy to say to close guant?namo and to get applause from various audiences.

the harder question is what to do with these terrorists. this seems to me there are one of two options. you either send them to u.s. facilities. they have suggested illinois to host these terrorists. i do not know what the citizens of illinois would think about that. i have confidence of what citizens of texas would feel about them coming to texas. we have multiple instances of federal prisons engaging in -- directing terrorist acts from federal prisons. one was convicted for aiding terrorism or individuals in federal prison. alternative is to send it to foreign locations. it could be nations like yemen with enormous instability or other allies. given the escape we saw, it is hard to have any confidence that these

individuals sent to a foreign facility will be released and in due course commit future acts of terrorism and take the lives of innocent americans. i want to close with a question it has been reported that the obama administration approximately 395 people have been killed by drone strikes. are you aware of any reasonable argument that it is somehow more protective of human rights, more protective of civil liberties you fire a missile as someone from a drone and killed them that it would be to detain them and interrogate them and determine if they are guilty or innocence and what intelligence might be derived from that

individual. >> mr. chairman, one housekeeping item i would like to add to the record. senator cruz, i'm probably not the best arbiter of what is humane. have people on the panel who have spent a lot of their time welding on that. i try to focus on national security. this is a human being. if you kill people that is typically less humane than incarcerating them. letting them starve to death is less humane than feeding them involuntarily if necessary. this is not my specialty. i would defer to others who might have a higher claim on knowledge in this. >> we have no intelligence from someone who has been killed. >> that is where the national security piece comes in. obtaining and interrogating

people is i would suggest a real impediment to our ability to prosecute a war like the one that has been thrust upon us by people who operate with a very high regard for operational security. to the extent that we deny ourselves unilaterally this ability by essentially for closing putting them in place where we can have those kinds of interrogations i think is a dereliction of duty on the part of the commander-in-chief. >> thank you. >> it is certainly a reasonable concern in the criminal context. the claim that 28% of guantanamo detainees has rejoined the fight is highly misleading. defense department officials have said that many detainees included in that category are nearly -- they very well have not been in activities that threaten our national security. that does not mean all of the

prisoners are somehow innocent farmers and that there is no risk. i believe it is a question as it relates to what our overall objective is. a lot of the people at guantanamo are precisely declined to target that al qaeda looks for -- some of them could cause harm if they are released. that does not make them any different from the hundreds of thousands of other angry young men throughout the muslim world who believe in the same cause. there are sadly no shortage of potential suicide bombers. guantanamo does nothing to solve the problem. it probably makes it worse. >> senator feinstein. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to ask a question.

in your past, did you serve as an intern in my san francisco office perchance? [laughter] >> proudly, ma'am. >> well, i am very proud of you. [laughter] isn't it true that some of the detainees have not been cleared for transfer? they can only be prosecuted in federal criminal court because the charges of conspiracy and material support of terrorism are no longer available in the military mission? is that not correct? >> that is correct. >> so, what we are saying if there is no alternative prosecution in the federal court, they remain without charge or trial until the end of time. >> let me clarify, ma'am. the material for conspiracy is a --

can be charged in federal crime. it is a charge that is available in the federal court. >> if you will keep them at guantanamo, they cannot be tried by military commission. is that correct? >> correct. they cannot be tried. >> the hope is that they would have to be transferred out and tried in a federal court. >> either that or go through a meaningful process or have a visa set up where the country determines that they are no longer a threat in which they can be transferred. >> let's talk. i have believed from the days of kernel will -- general davis that the commission is an ineffective instrument. hominy how many the cases have they actually tried? -- how many cases have actually tried? explain what those six

convictions are and who is still serving. >> the six convictions were for the names are -- [reading names] i did not serve in those trials. i do not know the details of each case. the charge that one was charged was -- >> maybe i could give them to you. one received a five-month sentence. he was sent back to his home in yemen to serve time before being released in 2009. in october 2012, the d c circuit vacated his can -- in 2012, the d.c. circuit vacated his --

hicks was the first person convicted in a military commission when he entered into a plea agreement on material support on terrorism charges in march of '07. he was given a nine-month sentence. he mostly served back home in australia. another flight guilty to conspiracy and material support also a military jury delivered his sentence. the final sentence handed down in february of '11 was two years in pursuant to his plea agreement. he has returned to sudan. mohammad pled guilty to conspiracy and material support. the sentence will be less than three years pursuant to his plea agreement. because of credit time served, you could be eligible for release to sudan in december of this year.

one last one. he pled guilty in a military commission to murder military and spy him. -- military support and spying. he was sentenced to eight years, but was transferred to a canadian resident where he will serve out his remaining sentence and be eligible for parole after he served a third of the sentence. there are a couple of more. one of them is your client. here is my point -- the sacrifices were few and low. i have sat here over the years and wondered what we are doing? why are we maintaining this sparse of a military commission which really doesn't work? we have different people down there trying to make it work. to the best of my knowledge, no one has been successful. last month when i was down

there, i saw a court room with nothing scheduled to go forward. it seems to me that everything down there is so deceiving and is really a kind of untruth about the american way and the american judicial system and about america's humanitarian treatment of prisoners. it goes on and on and on. there is no end to this war that we know of. unless the facility is closed on it will continue to go on. do you have any other comment you would like to make? >> senator, could i make a quick comment? >> sure. >> this question of whether it will go on and on was back to the point i was trying to make earlier.

that is not up to us. the president is saying it has to end is only possible if we surrender and submit. this question of will there be more, this recruiting if we leave it open, that begs the question compared to what? does it get worse if you have more of these jihadists inspired by our submission? that is what i am concerned about. >> i know what is happening. i also know that guantanamo contributes nothing positively. he contributes nothing that a federal prison would not do better post at the contributes nothing that a federal court could not do better. >> but if we close it, that could be seen negatively. it would inspire our enemy. >> i disagree. it would send a signal that we have learned something.

i saw the people there. the doctor is right. it is a very different take sure that people imagine. dr., do you not agree? >> yes, ma'am. look at the prisoners coming out of israel. they are inspired. >> i want to say thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate being here. >> we have two house members who are unfortunately delayed. i have never seen this happen in the senate before. we will let house members testify. how about that? [laughter] we are honored to have congressman smith and his ninth

term. has a very lengthy and impressive bio that i will not read. i hope you understand boast up and we have another congressman who is enrolled at west point and graduated first in his class. i'm not sure how long you have been in congress. >> 30 months. >> we will ask each of them to make a statement. if the panel will not mind for a few moments. five minutes. if there any further questions, senator cruz and senator feinstein. >> thank you. i'm honored. i wish we could work together more often. we should close -- a number of issues have been raised. i'm not here to argue that we should stop detaining and interrogating suspects were that we should release the number of

suspects that are at guantanamo. those are difficult questions. i think the 84 inmates we have visited it for release is being acceptable risks, but that is a separate question from where we hold him. the argument i make is that guant?namo bay coming up to balance the costs and the benefits. there is literally no benefit to keeping guantanamo bay open. all of the arguments i have heard about the necessity to detain and interrogate and fight the war -- which i agree with completely -- the necessity to protect ourselves from our enemies, all of that can be accomplish by holding them within the u.s. it has been stupefying in the last two years the degree of which people have been unaware of the fact that we have hold hundreds of terrorists inside the u.s., including a blind shiek and many notorious operatives.

we continue to do that right here in the u.s. safely and efficiently. number one, the average cost of an inmate is estimated 1.5 million per year at guantanamo. there will be transition costs to shut down guant?namo. in the long run, there is no question that it is cheaper to hold them in the u.s. than it is in guantanamo. what is the benefit of keeping that prison open? there is none. there have been arguments made about more constitutional rights will apply as they come to the u.s.. the supreme court has ruled that guantanamo is treated like the u.s. there are no greater constitutional rights here in the u.s. there is no benefit. what is the costs? number one is the cost and the money to maintain the facility.

understand how the international community looks at guantanamo. it was opened in the first place as an effort to get around the u.s. constitution. it was hoped that it we help them outside the u.s. at we would not have to abide by the pesky constitutional values and rules that we hold so dearly in this country. the world knows that. it is an international eyesore as a result. the supreme court said, nice try. you are in control of them so the constitution does the fact apply. george bush and john mccain, and many hard-core republicans who i think would take a backseat -- said we need to close this prison because it is hurting us with our allies and inspiring our enemies. i'm not na?ve. -- i'm not naive. and when i say the only reason

qaeda attacked us is because of guantanamo bay. far from it. it is unnecessary. i propose an orderly way to close it. the president has also put out a plan. i know he is accused of not having one. again, it it is -- there are arguments that you can have separate. it is not about whether or not we should hold them. it is about where we should hold them. holding them in guant?namo bay hampers our efforts to successfully prosecute the war against al qaeda. he continues to be a piece of evidence that our allies used to say we do not want to cooperate with the u.s. because we do not like the way they treat prisoners. the hampers our ability to successfully prosecute this war. the only argument left hanging out there is somehow we cannot safely hold these people in the u.s. i find the argument to be

ridiculous. we are safely holding hundreds of terrorists. not to mention mass murderers and pedophiles and some of the most dangerous people in the world. at the u.s. is incapable of successfully holding a dangerous inmate and we are all in a world of hurt. i hope we understand that. and there is the notion that this will somehow inspire al qaeda more, i hate to tell you, but they are sufficiently inspired right now. we have maybe 484 in the u.s. it brings them -- but that is ridiculous. let's get around to closing guantanamo as soon as we can. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i agree with mr. smith to say only as far that al qaeda is

very much inspired. i was at guantanamo bay this past may. i want to have some facts right up front about the situation. every american should be proud of integrity shown at the u.s. military personnel caring for these detainees. their work is difficult, but they bring the highest honor to the work they do their. second, there are no human rights violations occurring at guantanamo bay. there is no doubt that the detainees are held in conditions that may or -- [muffled interruption in background] [gavel] >> thank you. given the safe and secure environment that it provides, they have freedom of movement activity than they would in a maximum u.s. prison. they have access to gym equipment and dental care and recreation.

u.s. personnel.cal stunt. i would be remiss if i do not talk about the hunger strike there. this is a political stunt. they should not be rewarded. claims of the efforts of them currently refusing inhumane -- nutritionist and you main instantly wrong. the messages used by military personnel to feed detainees who wish not to be themselves are carefully monitored by medical personnel and those in command. it is right to continue to provide detainees nutrition. i want to talk about the cost additionally.-- the constitutionality. some people question it. we continue to be at war with al qaeda who daily seek to kill americans. as long as they fight us, we remain at war.as the supreme court has made clear, the capture and detention