racetrack. i dominated that race. like being held up in a salad bowl for 500 laps. is hurting you, your eyes are burning. i get out of the car and i can't remember my daughters name. [laughter] so i'm trying really hard. sarah! caitlin, she had a lot of names. when i left the hospital, we hadn't decided exactly what her name was going to be. it took a little time, but it came to me. [laughter] she has never let me forget that. one story for dell earnhardt senior. i don't know if you remember the old intimidator. we were frenemies. we were friends on the racetrack, but not so much off the racetrack. this beautiful redhead here, she

loved dale, and he loved her. in 1994, neil bonnett lost his life in a practice race. sunday morning stevie at a we put scriptures on my race car on a note card. not good luck charms, just encouragement. whatever happened that week, the scriptures would fit the events of that week. we are standing on the road, praying with some of the chaplains, and dale walks by. dale is one of those guys who is tough. for him to pray or acknowledge that he may have a relationship with the lord is pretty hard. he walks by, stevie grabs him and says, come and pray with us. we all hold up on the road. when we finished, stevie hands me a note with the scripture. tale grabs it and says, what is that? he looks at stevie and says,

where is mine? oh my gosh, she ran to the pit box got a note card wrote a scripture, put it on the note card, and ran to dale's car. and he put it on his --. from that day until 2001 when he lost his life in daytona, he had a scripture in his car just like i had in my car. and this guy, we were fierce competitors. he didn't like me and i didn't like him when we were on the racetrack. that woman would make us pray together. [laughter] stevie would grant him and me and say, i want you to pray together. [mumble] [laughter] and then, to make it worse, she would say, tell him you love him. [laughter]

[applause] as he was walking away -- the hardest thing about being here this morning was looking back and remembering how i was. the good news this morning is, i am not that way anymore. [applause] you don't have to walk alone. you don't have to carry all of those burdens. like it is you against the world. you have to do what i did.

you have to get off your high horse, on your knees, and ask for forgiveness. he is waiting for you. he was there all the time. i just didn't know it or acknowledge it. i told you when i got appear, i wasn't running for anything. but i will tell you this, i am running to something. the lord is a strong tower. the righteous will run to it and be safe. god bless you. got bless america. . bless our president and thank you for letting me share with you this morning. [applause]

>> terrell, thank you for that great message. darrell, i want to ask your permission, but i will do this pretending. your birthday is today? it is the same as my mother, so i just scored big points. seven thanks darrell. it is now my honor to introduce

the president. we are honored you are with us honored by your presence. a have been here every year. we are grateful to have them back. president obama, go ahead. [applause] president obama is a person of faith. who has spoken often about his faith journey. his life has been and continues to be a life of service. public service. and the pursuit of justice here, at home, and around the world. my mother, ellen casey, always told us when we were growing up over and over again she would say count your blessings. count your blessings. and i have tried to do that.

i probably don't do enough of it. but i noticed the president is one who follows my mother's advice. especially about the blessings of his family. so today, as we gather to pray and to express gratitude for so much on a morning like today, i count as one of our th blessings, your good work as president, and your abiding litman to your commitment to your faith, family, and country. ladies and gentlemen, the 45th president of the united states barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. thank you so much. thank you very much.

good morning. giving all praise and honor to god, it is wonderful to be back with you here. i want to thank our cochairs, bob and rogers. these two don't always agree in the senate, but in coming together in uniting us all in prayer they embody the spirit of our gathering today. i also want to thank everybody who helped organize this breakfast. is wonderful to see so many friends and faith leaders dignitaries, michelle and i are truly honored to be joining you here today. i want to offer a special welcome to a good friend. his holiness, the dalai lama, who is a powerful example of what it means to practice compassion. tohe inspires us to speak up

for the dignity of all human beings. i'm pleased to welcome him to the white house. [applause] there are not that many occasions that bring his holiness under the same roof as nascar. [laughter] this may be the first. but god works in mysterious ways. [laughter] so i want to thank darrell for that wonderful presentation. darrell knows that when you're going to hundred miles per hour --200 miles per hour, a little prayer cannot hurt. he probably had the same process as we had in our lives. , jesus, take the wheel.

[laughter] although i hope you kept your hands on the wheel when you are thinking that. he and i share something. we are so grateful to stevie for the incredible work that they have done together to build a ministry where the fastest drivers can slow down a little bit. and spend time in prayer and reflection and things. and we certainly want to wish darrell a happy birthday. [applause] happy birthday. although darrell, when you are reading that list of things people said about you i said, you are a piker. [laughter] if you really want a list, come talk to me. [laughter]

is that ain't nothing. is that the best they can do in a nascar? slowing down and pausing for fellowship and prayer, that is what this breakfast is about. washington moves a lot slower than nascar. certainly, my agenda does. [laughter] but still, it is easier to be caught up in the rush of our lives and the political act and forth. we get sidetracked with distractions, large and small. we can't go 10 minutes without checking our smartphones. for my staff, that is every 10 seconds. for 63 years, this prayer tradition has brought us together, giving us the opportunity to come together in

humility before the almighty. and to be reminded of what it is that we share as shoulder and of god. -- childre of godn. this is a chance to reflect on my own a journey. as president, i have been reminded of a line that eleanor roosevelt was fond of. she said, keep us at tasks too hard for us that we may be driven to be for strength. i wondered at times is god was answering that prayer a little too literally. but no matter the challenge, he has been there. for all of us. he has certainly strengthened me with the power through his spirit. i have thought his guidance.

not just in my own life, but in the life of the nation. over the last few months, we have seen a number of challenges. certainly over the last six years. part of what i want to touch on today is the degree to which we have seen professions of faith used both as an instrument of great good, but also twisted and misused in the name of evil. as we speak, around the world we see faith inspiring people to lift up one another. to feed the hungry, care for the poor comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. we heard the good work that the sisters have done in philadelphia. the incredible work that dr.

bradway and his colleagues have done. we have seen faith driving this right. but we have also seen faith twisted. sometimes used as a weapon. from a school in pakistan to the streets of paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up to faith. they profess to stand up for islam, but instead are betraying it. we see iso isil, a brutal, vicious death cult, that in the name of religion terrorizes religious minorities like that usese

yazidis. by raping women and claiming religious authority for such action. we see the murder of muslims and christians in nigeria. the religious war in the central african republic. and trying semitismanti-semitism and he crimes in europe, so often perpetrated in the name of religion. how do we, as people of faith recognize these realities? of profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that flows from all of our faiths. operating along those who seek to hijack religions for their own murders aends.

humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout history. unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, the member that during the crusades and inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of christ. in our home country come a slavery and jim crow all too often was justified in the name of christ. michelle and i returned from india, and incredible, beautiful country. full of magnificent diversity. but, a place where last few years, they have been targeted by other peoples of faith simply due to their heritage and police.

that is the kind of intolerant that would have shocked gandhi the person who worked to liberate the nation. this is not unique to one group or religion. there is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency, that can pervert and distort our faith. in today's world, where hate groups have the twitter accounts in hidden places in cyberspace it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. god compels us to try. in this mission, i believe there are a few principals that can guide us. particularly, those of us who profess belief. burst, we should start with some basic melodyhumility.

i believe that the starting point of faith is doubt. not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that god speaks only to us. and it does not speak to other. that god only cares about us and not others. that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth. our job is not to ask that god respond to our notion of the truth, our job is to be true to him. his word and his commandments. we should assume humbly that we are confused and do not always know what we are doing. we are staggering and stumbling towards him.

and to have some humility in that process. that means we have to speak up against those who would misuse his name to justify oppression or violence or hatred with that fierce certainty. no god condones terror. no grievance justifies the taking of innocent lives or the oppression of those who are weaker. as people of faith we are summoned to push back against those who try to distort our religion. any religion, for their own nihilistic ends. here at home and around the world we constantly reaffirm that fundamental freedom freedom of religion, to practice our faith how we choose, to practice no faith at all if we choose and to do so free of

persecution and fear. there is wisdom in our founders. writing in those documents that helped found this nation the notion of freedom of religion. they understood the need for humility. they also understood the need to uphold the freedom of speech, that there was a connection between freedom of speech and freedom of religion. for to infringe on one right to protect others is a betrayal of both. part of humanity is also recognizing the modern, complicated diverse societies the functioning of these rights calls for each of us to exercise civility and restraint and judgment.

if we defend the legal rights of the person to insult another's religion, we are equally obligated to our free speech to condemn such insults. and to stand shoulder to shoulder with religious communities, particularly religious minorities who are targets of such attacks. [applause] just because you have the right to say something does not mean the rest of us shouldn't question those who would insult others in the name of free speech. because we know that our nations are stronger when people of all faiths feel that they are welcome, that they too are full and equal numbers of the country. humility i think is needed. the second thing is to

uphold the dissension between faith and our governments. between church and between state. the united states is one of the most religious country's in the ries in the world. far more religious than western developed countries. one of the region is that our founders wisely embraced separation of church and state. how government does not sponsor a religion, nor does it pressure anyone to practice a faith or anything at all. the result is a culture where people of all background can freely worship without fear of coercion. when you listen to darrell talk about his faith journey, you know it is real. you know it is not saying it because it helps in advance or because somebody told him to. it is from the heart. that is not the case in the

upper sees that restrict people's -- theocracies that restrict people's faith. the freedom of religion as a value we will continue to protect at home and around the world. it is one that we guarded vigilantly here in the united states. last year, we joined together to pray for the release of christine missionary kenneth held in north korea. today we give thanks that he is home where he belongs, with his family. [applause]

detained in iran since 2012. i was recently in boise, idaho and had the opportunity to meet his beautiful wife and children. i conveyed to them that our country has not forgot about said and will do everything we can to bring him home. [applause] then i received an extraordinary letter from him. in it, he describes his captivity and expresses attitude for my visit with his family. he thinks assault for standing in solidarity with him during his captivity. the pastor wrote nothing is more valuable than the body of christ moves ahead of countries and leadership's through united

prayer. he closed his letter by describing himself as " a prisoner for christ was proud to be part of this great nation the united states of america that cares for religious freedom around the world." [applause] we are going to keep this work. the pastor and all of those around the world who are unjustly held or persecuted because of their faith. we are grateful to our new and faster for international religious freedom, who has hit the ground running and is headed to iraq to help religious communities there. where is david, i know he is here somewhere? thank you david for all the great work you are doing. humility, a suspicion of

government getting between us and our faith or trying to dictate our faith or elevate one faith over another. and finally, let's remember that if there is one law we can all be most certain of that seems to bind people of all faiths and people who are still fighting their way towards faith, that have a sense of ethics and morality. that golden rule, treat others the way you wish to be treated. in islam, there's the heidi that adith which states, none

loves his brother until he loves himself. whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be an instrument of peace and bringing light where there is darkness. and so in love where there is hatred. this is the message of his holiness, pope francis. like so many people around the world, i have been touched by his call to relieve suffering and show mercy and compassion to the vulnerable. to walk with the lord and ask who am i to judge? to challenge us to press on in what he calls the march of living hope. like millions of americans, i very much look forward to what pope francis in the united states later this year. [applause]

his holiness expresses that basic law -- treat my neighbor as yourself. the dalai lama, who has had an opportunity to be with him senses that same spirit. can't brabrantley expresses that same spirit. can't was with patients -- kent was with patients in liberia when he was infected himself. with god's help kent survived. [applause] and by donating his plasma, he helped other survivors as well. he continues to advocate for a global response in west africa. reminding us that our efforts need to be loving the people

there. i could not be prouder to welcome jebtkent and his wife to the oval office. he reminds us what it means to love thy neighbor as thyself. not just words but deeds. each of us has a role in fulfilling our common and greater purpose. not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depth so we find the strength to love more fully. this is perhaps our greatest challenge, to see a reflection in each other. to be our sisters keepers. to keep faith with one another. as children of god, let's make that our work together. as children of god, let's work to end injustice. the injustice of poverty and hunger.

no one should ever suffer from such want to such plenty. let's work to eliminate homelessness. none of us are home until all of us are home. none of us are home until all of us are home. as children of god let's send up to the value of every woman man, and child because we are all equal in his eyes in work to end the sin of human trafficking and set the oppressed free. [applause] if we are humble, if we drop to our knees on occasion, we will acknowledge we never fully know god's purpose. we can never fully fathom his amazing grace.

we see through a glass darkly. rap wing with the expanse of his awesome love. -- grapping with the expanse of his awesome love. even with our limits, we can heed that which is required. to do justice and love kindness and walk-on glee with our god. i pray that we will and as we journey together on this march of living hope i pray in his name we will run and not be weary, walk-in and not be faint and we will heed those words. may the lord bless you and keep you and may he bless this precious country. thank you very much. [applause]

>> mr. president, thank you for your message. we are honored by your presence here today. we close our program with one song and one prayer. our last song this morning will be sung by a remarkable young man and those words don't do justice to who this person is. a young man from tennessee.

if you are a fan of the television show "america's got talent," you might recognize him as one of last year's finalists. but today singing at the national prayer breakfast in front of more than 3,000 or 3500, the number is getting bigger, at the age of 13 just imagine that, that is going to be hard to top. now to sing the lord's prayer please welcome quintavius johnson. thy kingdom come and thy will be which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] our father which art in heaven hallowed be thy name thy kingdom come and thy will be

done on earth as it is in heaven and give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors and lead us not into temptation deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom and the power and glory forever

amen [applause] >> wow. thank you so much. wow. thank you for your great performance. we are grateful you are with us this morning. finally this morning, our last prayer at this breakfast will be offered by an extraordinary public servant who also happens to be a minister. he's a former member of congress, ambassador to the united nations, the mayor of

atlanta and recipient of the presidential medal of freedom, a well-known civil rights leader and friend of doctor martin luther king jr. the next speaker was instrumental in civil rights campaigns in selma and birmingham that ultimately led to the passage of the civil rights act of 1964 into and the voting rights act of 1965. [applause] of all of his titles and accomplishments, he's most proud of his role of husband, father and grandfather. ladies and gentlemen, the honorable andrew young. [applause]

>> this morning i woke up to the hearings of the senate committee on the new appointment of secretary of defense. and as they went around talking about all the dangers and problems that he must confront and you must face every day, i realized that's why we need prayer. and i wondered, has the world ever been this bad of shape? and i remembered when i was about the age of quintavius maybe even a little earlier that japanese pearl harbor and the japanese sinking ships and america was far weaker. we still have the same conflicts in congress. we still have the same differences racially and emotionally and religiously. but somehow we pulled together.

we heard the president say the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. and then a little while later, the people with whom we have gone to war became our friends and trading partners into this country of ours helped unite the world and as a thanks for that president eisenhower asked that we come together at this breakfast to thank god for the spirit of jesus to forgive as we forgave. can reconcile enemies to each

other. and that same jesus that walked with president eisenhower and all the presidents since are with you mr. president and when i look at these young people from mississippi, we have overcome so much. [applause] and we thank you and we thank all of you, and we thank god may we pray. be with us, dear father, as we take on the challenges of life not just as government but as business, private sector and nonprofit sector, religious leaders, community leaders volunteers, fathers and mothers,

brothers and sisters, mothers and sons and fathers and daughters. bind us together, heal our wounds, calm our spirits and make us mindful that you came into the world to say all things are new but you would be with us always. as we go through the dangers and toils and snares by your amazing grace, make us always mindful that your presence is in the midst of us. that each of us because of you know that we are your children and that our father loves us forgives us, saves us by the mercy that we must share with

each other and the world in which we live in the name of jesus we pray, amen. [applause] >> thank you, ambassador young. would you please remain in your places while the president and first lady are given an opportunity to exit the building. thank you, mr. president. and as we conclude the 63rd annual national prayer breakfast with the support of god from the book of numbers the lord bless you and keep you, keep his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you, the lord lift

his countenance upon you and give you peace, amen. you are dismissed. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the house and senate were in session today. the house passed a measure requiring agencies to assess the economic effect of regulation on small businesses while

considering possible alternatives. the house returns tuesday for speeches and 2:00 p.m. for legislative work. you can see it on c-span. in the senate failed to move forward on the homeland security bill it needed 60 votes with the final tally of 52-47 with no democrat voting to advance the measure. senator dean heller voted no, and so did mitch mcconnell for procedural reasons only. the legislation would have blocks the president's executive order on immigration. president obama has said he will veto the legislation if it reaches his desk. you can follow the senate right now on c-span2. tomorrow on "washington journal," donna edwards looks at the 2016 budget and then john

fleming discusses his membership in the freedom caucus, designed to challenge the republican study group and we will take your phone calls, facebook comments, and tweets. friday at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs on the c-span networks. on book tv saturday night at 10:00, toby harnden on the british efforts to stop the taliban and advance in afghanistan while awaiting u.s. marines. and sunday at 10:00, the senior editor on the torture report and why his company decided to publish it. and on c-span3 interviews with former korean war pow's.

and an army sergeant captured by the chinese and held until 1953 and just after 9:00, a look back at selma and the voting rights act with eleanor holmes norton and bill plante. you can find our complete schedule at c-span.org. let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> earlier today, the defense department testified on the future of guantanamo bay prison and overall u.s. detention policy. held in front the armed service committee, this is two hours.

>> the chairman is currently at the national prayer breakfast. that is not finishing as promptly as they anticipated. as such, what i'm going to do is ask consent centered mccain's opening statement be submitted and my statement be submitted to the record and at this time, call on the panel for their testimony. then we will begin a round of questioning. with that, mr. rasmussen, are you prepared to go first? go ahead, mr. secretary. >> members of the committee

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the detention center on guantanamo bay. on retaining detainees and related issues. in 2009, president obama signed executive order 13492, which ordered the closure of the detention center of guantanamo bay, cuba. pursuant to that order a task force was set to discuss the detainees and determine the possibility of their release. through that rigorous effort, a certain number of detainees were approved for transfer and review and a certain number for detention. since then, pursuant to the executive order signed on march 2011 for fiscal 2012 a periodic review board has begun to review the status of those detainees

not currently eligible for transfer except for whom charges are pending or judgment of conviction has been entered. when the president came into office six years ago, there were 242 detainees at guantanamo bay. today, because of the task force and subsequent efforts, 122 detainees remain. of these, 54 are eligible for transfer. 10 are being prosecuted or have been sentenced and 58 reviewed by the periodic review process. in his nearly two years as secretary, secretary hagel has approved the transfer of detainees, 11 of whom were transferred, 28 transferred last year and five transferred this year. the great majority of these transfers authorized by the secretary occurred under the authorities of section 1035 of the nda for fiscal 14. we urge you to maintain these authorities. mr. chairman, members of the

committee, i want to make a fundamental point regarding the detention facility at guantanamo. the president has determined that closing it is a national security imperative. the president, and his national security team believe that the continued operation of the security weakens our national security by draining resources damaging our relationships with key allies and used by violent extremists to incite local populations. it is no coincidence the recent isis videos showing the barbaric burning of a jordan pilot and savage execution of a japanese hostage each show the victims clothed in an orange jumpsuit believed by many to be the symbol of a guantanamo detention facility. 40 military leaders, all retired flag officers wrote this to the committee last week and stated, it is hard to oversay it how the continuing existence of the detention facility at guantanamo has been and continues to be. it is a critical national security issue. many of us have been told by countries around the world the

greatest action the united states can take to fight terrorism is to" on them obey. this letter is signed by retired -- is to close guantanamo bay. this letter is signed by retired general charles kulak, retired of the marine corps and the first commanding general of the task force at guantanamo. many leaders encourage closing of the facility including general dempsey and admiral mullen. in 2010 general petraeus stated i've been on the record well over a year stating guantanamo should be closed. i think when ever we have taken expedient measures, it has turned around and beaten us on the backside. senior figures across the political spectrum have made clear guantanamo should be closed.

former secretary gates and pennetta and current secretary all support closure of guantanamo. finally, president george w. bush concluded the guantanamo closure was a proper tool for enemies and distraction for our allies. i will address some of the letters raised by the letter of invitation. 27 detainees have been transferred since november 2014. these detainees have been transferred to nine different countries. key features of the process that leads to a decision to transfer include a comprehensive inner agency review and rigorous examination of information regarding the detainee and the security situation of the host country and willingness to maintain appropriate compliance of security measures. those reviews were conducted by career professionals across the government. next, any transfer decision requires assessment of the receiving country and willingness and capability of that country to comply with

security assurances. we also have the ic look at that issue. finally each has been subject to unanimous agreement of six principles, secretary of state secretary of homeland security director of national intelligence, attorney general chairman of the joint chiefs and finally secretary of defense. under section 1035 of the nda they decide if it is in the action of the united states and if actions plan to be taken to substantial substantially reduce the risk of the terrorist engaging in terrorist or host ile activity that threatens the united states or u.s. primary interests. the primary interest of a potential transfer is whether the detainee will return to the fight. we take the possible of re-engagement very seriously. the most recent public data on re-engagement of former detainees was released last

september and the data is current as of july 2014. there is a lag in the public reporting. i know you may have seen a more recent classified report on this matter. the office of the director of national intelligence categories the figures in three ways. the totals for before 22nd january 2009, when president obama signed the executive order and total after january 22nd 2009 referring to detainees who departed after that date. this is how the data break down. the total number is 17.3% confirmed of re-engaging, 12.4% suspected of re-engaging for a total of 29.7% confirmed or suspected. before january 2009, that is those transferred in the last administration the numbers show 19% confirmed. 14.3% suspected re-engageing for a total of 33%.

the data after january 2009 shows 6.8% confirmed of re-engaging. 6 out of 88 transfers. 1.1% suspected for a total of 7.9. in other words, the rate of re-engagement has been much lower for those transferred since 2009 which attests to the rigor of this new process. of the detainees transferred during this administration, over 90% are confirmed or suspected of not having re-engaged. this speaks to the scrutiny given to the transfer of the review process and security measures the refugee government intends to take pursuant to its domestic laws and determinations to mitigate the threat. one additional point. of the 107 confirmed of reengaininging the vast majority transferred before 2009. 48 are either dead or in custody.

ring gauge meant -- re- engagement is not a free pass. we take it seriously and work with partners to mitigate re-engagement or follow-up action. i cannot discuss the specific discussions with foreign governments with specification. i can tell you, among the types of measures we see is the ability to restrict travel monitor, reintigration and rehabilitation programs. before transfer we had details specific conversations with receiveing countries about the threat they pose for transfer and what the receiving countries will take to mitigate the risk . and we review the ability of that country and security and track record adhering to private agreements. let me talk about the periodic review process briefly. the interagency process established to review whether continued detention of detainees in guantanamo is a continuing

threat to security and we will maintain the step of -- provide your staff detainee risk assessment. to date, 10 full hearings of the naming -- detainees have been made public and six eligible for security assurances pursuant to this process. two eligible by this process already been transferred, one to kuwait and the other to saudi arabia. the other three detainees remain subject to law of detention. efforts are being made to expedite this process and prioritize hearings. you asked us to address legislation introduced by senator ayotte and several other members i understand may be marked up by the committee next week. in our view this legislation would effectively ban most transfers from guantanamo for two years and reverts to the previous regime for fiscal 12

and 13 which resulted in only court ordered transfers, transfers pursuant to plea agreements and use of only a few national security waivers. in addition, it adds a proposal to limit transfers based on jtf gitmo threat assessments that may be outdated or not include all available information. we believe any decisions on transfers should be based on current information and individual assessments of current detainees. because this legislation if enacted would effectively block progress towards the goal of closing the guantanamo bay detention center the administration will oppose it. the posed legislation bars transfers for any detainees for two years. 76 yemeni nationals remain. 47 eligible for transfer. 26 for prb review and two have charges referred and one is serving presentence confinement. a ban on transfers is unnecessary because we are not at the present time seeking to transfer any of them to yemen,

especially in light of the recent further deterioration in the security situation there. since the president's moratorium on detainees transfers to yemen was lifted two years ago in favor of a case by case analysis , not a single detainee have been transferred to yemen. the 12 who have been transferred have been transferred to five other countries. we are currently seeking other countries to take additional yemenis. let's may briefly talk about what our plan is. our plan to close guantanamo has three main elements. first, we continue the process of responsibly transferring 54 detainees eligible for transfer. second, we will continue the prosecution of the detainees in the military commission's process and if possible in federal court. third, we will continue and expedite the prb process. when we have concluded, it is likely several detainees cannot

be prosecuted because they are too dangerous and will remain in our custody. ultimately closing the detention center at guantanamo bay will warrant us to consider other options including secure facility in the united states. the department of justice has concluded in the event the detainees are located to the united states, existing statutory safeguards and executive and congressional authorities provide robust protection of national security. we understand such transfers are >> the president has consistently opposed these restrictions, which curtail options for reducing the detainee population. you asked us to address what happens if someone is captured on the battlefield. the disposition of an individual

captured in the future will be handled on a case-by-case basis. when a nation is engaged in hostilities, as we are detaining the enemy to keep him off the battlefield is permissible and as an alternative to lethal action. in some cases, they will be transferred to the united states for federal prosecution after appropriate interrogation has occurred in the cases. some cases may be appropriate for detention. the president has made clear, we will not add to the population of the detention center at guantanamo bay. in closing, i would note that president bush worked toward closing guantanamo and many officials in his administration worked hard to achieve that objective. we are closer to this goal than many people may think. of the nearly 800 detainees to have been held at guantanamo since it opened in 2002, the vast majority have already been transferred, including more than

500 detainees transferred by the previous administration. the president and national security experts of this administration believe it should be closed, as do the senior military leaders and civilian leadership of the department of defense. we leave the issue is not whether to close guantanamo. the issue is how to do it. thank you very much for listening. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much, mr. secretary. let me do something i neglected to do prior to asking for your testimony. that is introduce the witnesses. i'm a little rusty at this. sectorsecretary mckeon, nicholas rasmussen is the directer of national intelligence center. mr. rasmussen, do you have a statement? >> i believe i'm next.

>> mr. rasmussen please. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today for this discussion concerning guantanamo detainees. i'll begin by discussing the intelligence community's support for the process that brian outlined in some detail specifically the analysis that the intelligence community provides. the community provides a range of tailored intelligence -- >> would you adjust your mic? >> the intelligence community produces a range of assessments aimed at helping policy makers make decisions about the transfer of detainees from the guantanamo detention facility. these include profiles that examine factors relevant to whether individual detainees pose continuing threats to the united states or to our allies. and to echo brian's remarks, we take the risk of reengagement very seriously. the community is continuously evaluating the global threat environment and works to keep decision makers, including the congress, informed of developments, especially with respect to threats to the united states. as you know, we continue to face threats from a wide range of

actors, from al-qaeda and its affiliates, as well as from isil. the full force and brutality of these groups, such as isil and isis is felt most acutely in the middle east and north africa. in western countries the threat environment is largely characterized by smaller-scale attacks. the majority of attacks conducted in the west in the last eight months were in fact conducted by individual terrorists. accordingaccordingaccordingterrorists. accordingly, it focuses most closely on the potential for these detainees to threaten the u.s. and its interests overseas after they leave guantanamo. these assessments aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the detainee's background, the current mind set and any links to individuals or groups that pose a terrorist threat to our interests. those assessments also take into account the evolving terrorist threat to the united states as

well as security developments overseas, including in the detainee's home country, in conflict zones and potential transfer destinations. intelligence community products do not state whether a detainee poses a high, medium or low risk of reengagement, because we assess that the likelihood for a detainee to reengage is shaped be i a combination or a -- shaped by a combination of factors. in addition to this individually focused analysis, we also provide assessments about potential destination countries their capabilities and their willingness to mitigate a potential detainee's threat. brian also mentioned reengagement. i'd like to discuss our roles more monitoring. once a detainee is transferred from guantanamo, the ic continuously monitors for indications of reengagement and we work very closely with liaison partners to ensure the fullest understanding of a

detainee's activities. through formal and structured intelligence community coordination process that draws on the assessments of eight different intelligence agencies, we determine whether to designate a former detainee as reengaged. now, we determine that a former detainee is confirmed as having reengaged in terrorism when a preponderance of information identifies that individual as directly involved in terrorist activities. we determine that a former detainee is suspected of reengaging in terrorism when we assess that plausible but unverified or even in some cases single-source reporting that indicates an individual is directly involved in such activities. it's important to note, for the purpose of these definitions engagement in anti-u.s. statements or engagement in propaganda activities does not by itself qualify as terrorist activity. and it's also the case that some former detainees have been added to this list of suspected reengagement candidates and then later removed after information

came to light suggesting that the individual had not, after all, reengaged. and just to quickly run through the numbers that brian cited again, 107 or 17.3% of the 620 detainees who have been transferred from guantanamo have been confirmed of reengagement in terrorist activities as of september 2014. at the same time, an additional 77 former former detainees, approximately 12% were suspected of reengagement. of the 88 transfers that have occurred since the inner agency process, implemented in 2009 6.8% of those transferred during that time have been confirmed of reengagement with another 1% suspected of reengagement. the next unclassified report that the intelligence community will put out on those reengagement numbers is expected in early march.

we will update those numbers. i can't say where that report will come out, but i would expect those numbers will largely be in line with the trends i've just outlined. and i'll stop there, senator reed, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you very much. admiral, do you have any comments? >> thank you for having me here today to discuss this important topic. as the joint staffs representative in the capacity of current operations, i appreciate all your efforts and focus on this matter. may i also extend my personal thanks for your unwavering dedication and support to the men and women of the armed forces. i look forward to answering your questions. thank you very much. >> thank you for your statement admiral. it's succinct and to the point. let me first ask -- there was a letter referenced from 42 officers addressed to senator mccain and myself.

i would ask that be made part of the record. hearing no objection so ordered, with the presumption that when the chairman arrives he will be immediately recognized. let me ask a few questions then begin to recognize my colleagues. you both testified that the trend line is going down significantly, and mckeon, you see this continuing, in terms of recidivism, which is a critical issue. is that your conclusion? >> senator reed, that is certainly what we're seeing in the data. we've transferred a number of people recently, probably too soon to say whether they've reengaged or not because they're still getting settled. but we don't have any indications for -- we feel good about where we are with those that's correct. >> let me also ask both you and mr. rasmussen. as you analyze these individual cases of recidivism, are you using it to inform your

judgments going forward, ie the circumstances of the individual, the country which he or -- presumably he, but in some cases perhaps she, goes back to? anything like that? so this is a continuing learning experience, and you feel you're getting more capable of making judgments about the usefulness of the individual? >> the answer to that is yes, sir. we take a very close look, not just at the individual who may be transferred but the assurances that the country agrees to sign up to and the capability of its own security services to uphold the agreement. and the ic and the embassy help us with that kind of assessment. >> and there is a check on the assurances that are given by these various countries so that we are confident that they have

both the capacity and the will and are actually keeping up their end of the bargain? is that accurate? >> we continue to monitor compliance with the agreements through various means including the u.s. embassy and, where appropriate, liaison services and our own capabilities. >> one of the major points that you made is -- and specifically mr. rasmussen -- that the continued operation of guantanamo gives some of our adversaries propaganda points with respect to recruitment retention, magnifying their operations. is that the assessment of the intelligence community? >> yes, senator. from the director of national intelligence's perspective, who has asked to weigh in on these transfer decisions, from the perspective of intelligence what underpins all of his

decision making in this regard is an analytical judgment that the community has made that the benefits to national security, from closing guantanamo, in some cases, in many cases, outweigh the risks that are incurred by releasing if individual detainees. it's precisely because of that continued featuring of guantanamo in the terrorist narrative that he's made that calculation, the fact that guantanamo features in terrorist propaganda, it features in terrorist recruitment. and we assessed that it has continued significant resonance in the population that our terroristed a adversaries are trying to recruit among. isil has used guantanamo in its english language propaganda, including their online english language language. al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, operating in yemen has used guantanamo in their propaganda. and it's also noteworthy that al-qaeda's senior leader continues to reference guantanamo in his communications

with al-qaeda members around the world. so yes, senator. >> thank you. this is a specific issue which we're going to have to face. general kelly, the commander has voiced concern about the medical facilities there. you have an asian population of individuals, and last year in the senate version of the defense authorization bill we put in language that will allow for a temporary transfer, because of the medical condition, of an individual to a more appropriate facility, on a temporary basis in the united states. this was not ultimately adopted. but is that something that concerns you going forward just in terms of a population that obviously is going to be -- if closure is delayed, more and more need of specialized care? >> it does, senator.

there are certain members of the population who have acute health care issues, and as they get older, those will continue to get worse. and so i was down to visit a couple of months ago and had a conversation with the commander about this. and his concern is it's quite expensive. they have to bring in special i-s --specialists to treat these individuals from the states. and i think we would prefer, if we could, on a short-term basis, as you indicated in your legislation, bring them to the united states for said specialist care as needed. >> thank you very much. senator tillis please. >> thank you senator reed. gentlemen, thank you for being here today. i have a question about the five taliban members who were released. i think we got notified through the press, back in may of last year, and my question for anyone on the panel would be, were the

five talibanis who were released subject to the periodic review? >> they were not, sir. >> they were not. if not why? >> i was not in the department at that time sir. i would have to go back and ask that question. as you know, it was part of an exchange for sergeant bergdahl. >> so the assessment of their risk level didn't go through the processes that were established? >> no. i didn't want to leaf you with that -- leave you with that impression. the periodic review board process makes a determination whether detention of the individual is still permissible. the statute that you have given us requires the secretary still to make the determine prior to any transfer of the national security interests and mitigation of the risks. and that sir, was undertaken. >> i don't believe you were there at the time, but why do you think that the department

decided not to notify congress as per the statutes? >> sir, i believe -- >> perhaps what's the legal basis for that as well? >> sir, i used to be -- well, i'm still a lawyer technically and was counsel in the foreign relations committee for 12 years, but they've stopped paying me to give legal judgments and it would be malpractice for me to try to opine on it. my understanding is the department of justice and mr. presston general counsel of the department interpreted the president's powers because of the security risks and safety of sergeant berg bergdahl, necessitated proceeding without the 30-day notice. but i'm happy to give you the more refined legal answer, because i'm not the person to do that for the department. >> another release for afghanistan nationals, i believe back in december, why did the

administration not require continued detention of these four detainees? >> sir these individuals had, i believe, been approved for transfer in 2009 by the -- >> did that go through the periodic review? >> no. they were already cleared -- approved for transfer by the 2009 task force, sir. >> another question i had was with respect to the process. i noted that a detainee is entitled to having counsel which presumably means the information that the periodic review board uses to determine or to make a determination is available to that counsel. is that same information available to the public, or to the congress, on the periodic review cases that have gone through? >> sir, with the periodic review board, the detainee has a right to a personal representative who is a military officer.

he can employ private counsel and if that person is given clearance, we can share certain classified information. we have tried to have some measure of transparency with the prb process in releasing information about the hearings on the department website. we are not able to share everything that's available to the prb, because some of the information is classified. >> thank you. >> thank you senator reed. >> thank you very much. senator king, please. >> thank you. mr. rasmussen, it seems to me the key question here is weighing the risk of individual recidivism versus what i would call a rep reputational risk or the recruiting risk of the facility itself. could you elaborate on what the director of national intelligence -- i mean, that's what this is all about, it seems to me. is it more dangerous for the

national interest to keep guantanamo open because of its use as a recruiting tool, or is there a greater risk of the people being released reengaging? give me your thinking on that. is that the question? >> sure. happy to answer that, senator king. because the director of national intelligence does have a voice in the process to approve a transfer he does look at as i said earlier, all of the relevant information related to the detainee's specific background. background before going to guantanamo background during the course of detention at guantanamo and anything we know as i said, about the environment into which he might be transferred. at the same time, though, as i said earlier, he has that underlying analytic judgment that the director of national intelligence has made -- has been very clear about, that there is a cost in terms of our national security that we're bearing because of the continued operation of guantanamo, in the context of recruitment and potential radicalization of future terrorist adversaries.

so the weighing process that he goes through looks at both factors. that does not mean in all cases he will look at detainees and say, ah, continuing to operate guantanamo creates too big an obstacle for him to oppose a transfer. it is still the case that there are some detainees that he would consider too dangerous to return in a transfer -- almost -- unless there were extraordinary arrangements made for their monitoring and disposition overseas. so that callus that has -- calculus that has been made is not a sing singular cookie cutter calculus. >> if this is one of the key questions, and it sounds like it is, i would appreciate it if you or some of the witnesses could supply to this committee data supporting evidence of this recruiting factor, just rather

than a reference to what somebody said or something but a real set of materials, written materials, the way it's being used, because it seems to me that's one of the most important questions we have. and if we're going to decide to close the facility or collectively, the united states government is going to decide to close the facility based upon that we better know it's real and not just a perceived threat. is the administration contemplating further executive order to close the facility beyond what the current process -- how the current process operates? >> i am unaware of any contemplation of an additional executive order. we're working on the three lines of effort, transfers prb

process. and i'm blanking out on the third one. >> but there's no further -- you don't know of any other contemplation of additional executive -- exercise of executive authority to simply close the facility? >> i am not, sir. we are operating under the president's executive order from 2009. >> the question that bothers me is okay, if we decide it's in the national interest to close it there still are people there that are very dangerous. can we hold these people in the united states under the law of war? and the second question is, how does the law of war analysis work if the war, which was the war in afghanistan, is officially over? does that undermine the legal analysis? in other words, we could bring some very bad guys here, put them in max security prisons and then suddenly find that they are subject to habeas and we don't have enough evidence to convict them in a federal court. you understand where i'm going with the legal question?

>> i do, sir. on your second question, the detainees are already subject to habeas. they can file a habeas petition in the d.c. circuit pursuant to supreme court rulings. >> so there's no difference between guantanamo and someplace in the united states in that legal regard? >> that's correct. as to the question of the legal authority to continue to hold them, we are relying on the 2001 aumf. so if we did reach a point where the 2001aumf is either revealed by the congress or we decided it was no longer sustainable based on the situation in afghanistan then we would have an authority issued. no question about that. >> thank you, gentlemen. thank you for your testimony. mr. chair, welcome back. >> thank you.

there are other members that were in attendance at the national prayer day breakfast. they will be coming in. and that obviously is a reason for me being late. i want to thank the witnesses. thank you senator reid, for proceeding. and i'll withhold my questioning until senator sullivan. >> thank you mr. chair and thank you gentlemen. mr. rasmussen, congratulations on your recent appointment. so i want to follow up on senator king's questions. there's a lot of discussion here about guantanamo -- how it potentially weakens national security that you made in your system testimony. at the same time, i think we would all agree that allowing known terrorists back on the battlefield to engage our troops, our citizens, also

weakens our national security. and i think that that is one of the big concerns certainly of this committee and members of congress. and i'm certain also members of the administration. so from a broad perspective of the remaining gtmo detainees how many are currently assessed to be high or medium risk? >> senator, i don't have those numbers at my fingertips. if you're referring to the assessments that were done by gtmo back in the last decade, my impression is, snowing knowing the population of that which we've already transferred, using those categorize, i think we have -- categories, i think we have transferred most of those who are low-risk. but i don't know the precise data.

>> but i mean, of the current remaining detainees, we don't have a handle on who is high or medium risk right now? >> i don't have that at my fingertips. as both i and nicholas rasmussen explained sir, when we bring forward a case for possible transfer, we look at the totality of the evidence, what the detainee had done on the battlefield, how they have behaved at guantanamo, what their current -- what our assessment is of their intentions, so it's not just to look at the assessments that were done -- >> mr. secretary, you're not answering the question. if you don't have the information, then submit it. it's important for this committee to know who is low risk, medium risk and high risk. i would have expected you to come to this hearing with that information. >> yes, mr. chairman. i should add that these risk levels, in terms of who is in what category, is classified. we would be happy to have this

conversation with you in a classified context as well. i think it's safe to say many of them are in the medium to high risk category. >> well, it would be very important for us to know that as we move forward. >> yes sir. >> senator tillis touched on this issue of the notification of congress. and i think a lot of people were very disturbed by that. just by reading it in the paper. can you, again -- if you don't have it here, perhaps with the attorney general's help, provide a detailed, detailed legal reasoning of why a very simple statutory requirement for notification of congress on the release of the taliban five was not undertaken? because i think one of the things that is troubling is there's a lack of trust here. there's a lack of trust on the numbers. there's not certainty on what the end game is.

and when a simple question -- it's not a request. it's the law. one of the things i've been concerned more broadly with the administration is they view certain statutes as advisory. maybe they need to do them maybe they don't. this is a clear directive, from the congress in the law, that this administration violated. and as far as i can tell, there's been no good explanation. i read about them in the press. they seem to change. it would be very important to get a definitive explanation from this administration on why they violated that statute. to me, it seems like a clear violation of that statute. can we get that? >> certainly. you may already have it, sir. i believe they did a review on the legal issue in the department. and probably the department of justice provided a detailed explanation of our position. and i think we have provided it to the committee. but if we have not, we will submit it. >> one other thing. i understand there was an mou

between -- regarding the taliban five, that they have a -- my understanding is a one-year restriction with regard to their activities and movements. after a year, are they free to go and do whatever they want, return back to afghanistan? i think, again, that's a concern not only for this committee but for the american people. >> you're correct about the one-year matter, sir. the agreement between our two governments is classifieds. we briefed to your staff. and i think some of the members in closed session. i'd want to get into that in a closed session, about what happens after one year. >> senator donnelly. >> thank you mr. chairman. there are a number of statutory provisions that should render guantanamo detainees relocated to the u.s. inned inadmissible under

immigration laws. but one of the most difficult scenarios involves what happens if the judge orders a release of a detainee because the laws of war no longer permit their detention. in that case, if a detainee cannot be repatriated to their home country or a third country the u.s. could face the need to keep that detainee in the u.s. so where does that individual go? >> sir, if we come to that position, which i think we're some ways away from that day we will -- it's a very good question and we will have to plan for that possibility. we don't expect that would happen if we brought the detainees here. but -- >> but it can? i mean, we don't expect it but we can, so what do we do with that person? it has been suggested -- i heard

some say well, an immigration detention center. you know, i think the people of the country want a better answer than that, when you're talking about the people we're dealing with. >> if we were to bring them to the united states, we would make sure that we had some continued authority to keep them. i don't think we would roll the dice on losing the authority to detain them. >> and then additionally, what's your assessment of the risks involved in this situation? i mean, that's, i think -- you know, as we look through this whole process, this is one of those conundrums that we have to have an answer to. what's your assessment of the risks on that, sir? >> i'm not an immigration lawyer, sir. i'm probably not qualified to give you an answer on that. i do know, and i believe the department of justice report speaks in some -- and homeland security security analyzed all these issues in some detail. we are, of course, currently

barred from bringing the detainees to the united states. >> no. i understand. but if they do come here -- that's -- i was on a trip to guantanamo recently. and this is one of the subjects that we talked about, and said, you know, i think before you get all the answers on this, you need an answer on this, where if they're in the u.s. and this happens, what do you do with the person at that point? >> i understand. if and when we get to that point where we propose an option to bring them to the united states we will have an answer. >> i think we need an answer at that point. thank you. in terms of -- you know, other than the taliban five, how many 30-day congressional notifications meeting the requirement of the fy14 and daa has been sent to the committee in the past year? >> i don't know the number.

in all the other cases, the 30-day notice was provided. >> and there's some concern that the detainees that are being transferred -- it's on an assessment from more than four years ago, by the guantanamo review task force. as we look at this, the periodic review board process was created, in part, to regularly update this. do you know what has caused the slowness of this? do you find that to be true, and do you know what has caused the slowness of this? >> so i want to separate two things here, sir. if somebody has already been cleared by the 2009 task force and we find a place to which we can transfer them, and a package is brought to the secretary to make a determination, we have an updated assessment on the individual. we're not relying solely on the 2009 tire task force work. the prb is looking at people who were not previously cleared taking another look at whether we should continue to hold them

or they can be approved for transfer. we had -- it took some time to stand up to the prb process. and it's gone a little bit slowly but we're trying to pick up the pace. >> okay. and just to -- as i wrap up here from that trip, which was a little bit ago i mean, that's -- the question that i asked is the question that has stuck with me, is, what are we going to do with this person? we hope for the best but we lan forplan for the worst. and so i think that's something that has to be answered. and by the way, mr. secretary, i think you showed great wisdom in your choice of colleges when you were younger as well. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator graham. >> thank you. thank you, all three, for dealing with what i think is a very difficult issue. an issue of great national security importance. and so i know you've got a tough

portfolio to deal with. so i want to go into the questioning, with that understanding. now, to senator donnelly, i had this very conversation with president obama probably three years ago. i was supporting transferring the prisoners from guantanamo bay back to illinois in a max security setting controlled by the military. and we worked through, what would happen? all these people have had habeas hearings are entitled to habeas hearings. no one is at guantanamo bay today without a federal judge finding that the government's evidence is sufficient to hold them as an enemy combatant. so if you transfer them back to the united states, do you create new legal rights? we had a statute that would govern that, to make sure they just wouldn't walk out the door. we actually went through that process. but the problem is, you've got to admit that we're at war. you've got to tell our friends on the left that these are not just common criminals and they will be governed by the law. it's unfortunate we could not

close that discussion, because i think it would have been better for all of us. my goal ask to keep people in jail that represent a national security threat to the united states. common sense would tell us that if you're still in guantanamo bay, after all these years you're probably a high risk -- >> that's not the rule of law! those people! they were already cleared! this country is disgusting! you have the constitution! this -- we're the american people! what's wrong with you america? what's wrong with you! i don't care anymore! i don't care! >> i think he may get his wish. i am a military lawyer. i really want to conduct the war within the values of our country.

i want to be tough on the enemy. but also follow principles that have guided us as well, like the geneva convention and treating people under the law of war consistently with the requirement -- consistent with the requirements of the law of war. but would you agree with me that anybody left in guantanamo bay today is probably a high risk threat? >> we wouldn't have kept them that long. just common sense tells you, if you're still in jail after all these years, you've had numerous review boards, that you're probably dangerous in the eyes of the people who say you still should be there. >> i would agree that all of them pose some risk. there are, however -- no. >> no. no. i'm not talking about some risk. i'm talking about obvious common sense. >> several of these were approved for transfer six years ago. we just have not found a place to send them. >> well, is that -- what

percentage of the population falls in that category? >> it's around 50. >> okay. so what percentage that were cleared six years ago, that you can't find a place to put them? >> 54. >> 54 out of how many? >> 122 remaining. >> so the rest of them, would you agree that they are high risk? >> several of them are under prosecution, so definitely in those cases. >> take them off the table right? >> and the remainder have previously been determined to be held and should be held under law of detention and we didn't have a prosecution option. but those are going through the prb process. >> right. okay. 50 people who we've got no place to send them. the rest of them are either going to be prosecutorred prosecuted or represent a high risk to the country. >> like i said we're taking a look at the --

>> the previous prb concluded they are high risk or they wouldn't still be there. are you going to create a politically moat vaitedpolitical -- do you agree that, with the obama administration, that we're at the end of hostilities and that justified the release of the taliban five? >> we're not at the end of hostilities in afghanistan. >> well, they said that the reason we transferred the taliban five is because you traditionally swap prisoners when hostilities are over. therefore, we get our guy back, because the war is basically over, and we release five of the commanders of the taliban. i agree with you. the concept that the end of hostilities justifies the transfer of these five is ridiculous. so i don't know why the administration would say that. do you? >> well, i agree with you, sir, that hostilities are not over. >> well, great.

so let's just -- let's go forward as a committee. no one should be transferred because of the concept of the end of hostilities. second, if you have any deficiency in legal authority to hold these people, would you please inform the congress of what you need that you don't have? and i bet you, in a bipartisan fashion, we can provide it to you. >> yes. >> do you feel like you have a deficiency today? >> not today. >> do you feel like you'll have a deficiency in the near future? >> in afghanistan, not in the near future. in a couple of years, we may. >> well, the couple years is in the near future. so i challenge you to send to us legislation that would deal with the problem that's two years away because i finally want to get ahead of the war on terror, not always play catch-up. thank you very much for your service. >> thank you chairman. and i actually want to return to

this point, return to the point that i think not only senator graham made but senator donnelly made. there are some of these folks who will never be transferred, never be released, that are clearly a real risk. and at some point, if we're going to close guantanamo, we need to do something with them. and so i would suggest to you that if you don't have adequate statutory authority to ensure their detention should they be transferred to some sort of a high-security facility in the continental united states, i would suggest that you spell out what kind of authority you need and ask this body for that authority, because at some point we're going to have to deal with that situation. i want to return to the statistics quickly, the data, and make sure i understand those correctly. i have heard repeatedly, again and again from not only colleagues but in the press of

30%, 33% recidivism. i want to make sure i understand and that you are very clear about the data. if i understand your testimony since the interagency review process was put into place, that since that time, the recidivism data suggests you've reduced that from 33% in the previous administration and now 6.8%, with another 1.1% potentially suspected. is that an accurate trend? is that what your testimony speaks to? >> sir, i'll let mr. rasmussen speak to this, because the data is owned by the intelligence community. >> senator, i think the 30% number comes from the two numbers, both brian and i cited in our prepared remarks. and that is the assessment of the community that, of the 620 overall detainees, regardless of when who had been transferred from guantanamo, a little over

17% of them have been confirmed by the intelligence community of having reengaged in terrorist activities. 17% confirmed. another 12%, a little over 12%, fall into these suspected of reengagement category that i mentioned earlier. in aggregate that would be 30% of the total population of folks. >> and if you just look at post-interagency review -- >> if you break out just the number of detainees who have been transferred since the 2009 interagency process, in which the director of national intelligence has played a role that number is 6.8%, confirmed with 1.1% or one detainee suspected. that's an ongoing number. we owe you and the rest of the congress a march update on that in our next report. >> we very much look forward to that. obviously any level of recidivism is unacceptable. but that is immense progress. i want to touch on the cost of

this facility, again the fiscal cost. we have spent about $5 billion on this facility since it opened in 2002, on average about $493 million each year for the last five years. and in 2014, the american taxpayer spent more than $3 million per guantanamo detainee. compare that with about $78,000 that it costs to house a prisoner at colorado super maximum prison. so i would ask either of you given the austere budget environment we are in today, and i hope we do something on this committee about that, and the myriad of very real threats are we spending those tax dollars in a way that gives us a maximum security return for our investment? mr. rasmussen, i would ask your opinion on that as well. >> i'm probably better deferring to my defense department

colleagues on that, because, again, in terms of operation of the facility and the costs associated, that falls squarely in d.o.d.'s budget lane. >> it goes back to the relative risks that we were talking about before, that senator king brought up. >> senator, the numbers sound right. the number i have for fiscal '14 is about $400 million on guantanamo and the number i've always heard about the cost of one person at super max is around $80,000. no. the president has taken the view that this drains our resources and that we could secure these prisoners for much less. we're not focused primarily on the costs. we're focused more on the national security. we view it is a risk to our security to keep guantanamo open but the cost issue is also there. >> thank you. senator cotton? >> mr. mccain, in early december the members of the intelligence committee sent secretary hagel a

classified letter about the guantanamo five. i can't discuss the contents of that letter here. but it's been almost two months now. we'd like to receive a response to that letter, before proceeding with mr. carter's confirmation. can you talk to the secretary and see about getting us a prompt response to that letter? >> sir certainly. and i know the answer should be coming shortly. for reasons that are not clear to me, though the letter was dated in early december, i think we only received it in the department about three and a half weeks ago. >> okay. mr. rasmussen, you said in your opening statement that anti-american statements does not necessarily equal recidivism or reengagement. does it violate the memorandum of understandings that we have, however, with the receiving countries? >> i can't speak in this session about the specific understandings we have with our -- with the partners, countries with whom we have worked to transfer detainees. but one of the key features of any of those agreements is, of

course monitoring ongoing activity by the detainees, which covers a wide range of factors and would certainly include all manner of their activities. my comments in my prepared statement just spoke to kind of a definitional threshold for what would constitute reengagement for the purpose of a threat assessment. >> we consider anti-american incitement by islamic terrorists pretty serious business, don't we? >> absolutely. >> and the leader would say we consider it very business, wouldn't he? >> absolutely. >> mr. mccain, you said earlier to senator graham, that the united states, the administration is barred from bringing guantanamo detainees to the united states mainland. it's also barred from releasing detainees without 30 days congressional notification. why should the american people believe that that obligation will be any more respective than the prior notification was last year? >> sir, the lack of notification in the bergdahl case has not

been repeated. i don't expect it to be repeated. >> but my point is that all laws are created equal. there's a law that prohibits detainees from coming to guantanamo bay. this administration has a habit of surprising the american people in national security matters. what assurance can we receive that there will not be a guantanamo detainee on our shores tomorrow morning? >> senator, what i can say, as to the 30-day notice issue, our lawyers believed we had a valid legal reason for the action we took, and we'll get you that explanation. on the issue that you are asking. we are focused on transfers and the prb process. i'm not aware of any conversations not to follow the current statutory bar. >> now i want to explore the so-called risk-balance between recidivism of released terrorists and the propaganda value that terrorists get from guantanamo bay. how many recidivists are there at guantanamo bay right now? >> i'm not sure i follow the

question. >> how many at guantanamo bay are engaging in terrorism or anti-american incitement? >> there are pretty locked down. >> because they are detained. because they only engage in that kind of recidivism overseas. now let's look at the propaganda value. how many detainees were at guantanamo bay on september 11, 2001? >> zero. >> how many were there in october,2000? >> zero. >> what about 1998 when they bombed our -- >> the facility was not open there. >> 1979 when iran took over our embassy? 198 3 when hezbollah bombed our embassy and marine barracks in lebanon? the answer is zero? >> correct. >> islamic terrorists don't need an excuse to attack the united states. they don't attack us for what we do. they attack us for who we are. is it a political decision based on promises the president made

in his campaign? to say it is a security decision based on propaganda value that our enemies get from it is a pretext to justify a political decision. in my opinion, the only problem with guantanamo bay is there are too many empties beds and cells there right now. we should be sending more terrorists there to keep this country safe. as far as i'm concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell. but as long as they don't do that, then they can rot in guantanamo bay. >> thank you mr. chairman. on that happy note -- [laughter] i had really the same feeling that senator cotnd cotton had, for a lot of other years. then i went to guantanamo with some other senators. and i came back changed. and i asked my chairman here and he gave me some insight that he

had. i know everybody is trying to form their own direction and thought process on this. i can only tell you what i saw. i would not ask, if your child was in the military, and a guard, in that detail, i would not ask anybody's children to be in that position guarding in that type of a condition there because i'm seeing that the abuse that our prisoners have on our guards. i couldn't believe it. and i -- i'd like to see a few of them in the united states hardened prison, to see if they'd change their attitude just a little bit. i know we could do a little different job on them here than they're doing over there. so all i've heard about propaganda, i have to agree with senator cotton on that. i don't think they need an excuse to attack america. to me, that doesn't hold water. what does is $3 million per detainee and $80,000 to the hardened prisoners we have here.

we have nobody escaping. maybe you all can help me with this, because i have to form my own opinion on where i would be on this if we had to vote. what do you do with the prisoners, the detainees, what do you do with the ones who are held for crimes and trials and things of this sort? i know there's a lot of legal things that are formulating these decisions. but there's got to be a way to do it to where you don't have this elm all in a cluster -- them all in a cluster to where they can scheme and talk and plan and plot and then go right back into the fight. so have you all looked at could we house them here? could we imprison them here and do it and feel secured and safe? because a lot of west west virginians and americans think, out of sight, out of mind. keep them on the isle, in prison, that's fine. but what i saw there, it's not an atmosphere that our guards should be in or our military.

people with their talents shouldn't be used along those lines. if someone can comment on that could we do it here? i'm sorry. i was at other committee meetings. can it be done safely? and what do you do with detainees? >> right now we're paying somebody else to take care of them and a lot of them are going back into the fight. i think that's a problem. if one goes back into the fight that's one too many, if we could have kept them off the battlefield, engaging any of our -- endangering any of our soldiers. >> prisoners of war, give them the rights of a prisoner of war! >> we're going to give you your time to speak, too, honey. i gotta get to this first. admiral mccain? >> on the guard force, as i've seen them in action as well. >> i just want to say that i think in their attack on this

country, they lost their rights. that's how i feel about it. >> the men and women of the guard force, who, as you know, many of them are national guards specialists, i they do a terrific job under -- >> under horrible conditions. >> on the issue of could we do it in the united states yes, we could. in the first term, senator graham made some reference to that there was an effort under way to explore a possibility of the government purchasing a state prison in illinois that was underutilized, and using one part of it for the bureau of prisons, and the other part for detainees that the united states military would hold. we would still have military guards, because we're holding them under law of war. >> that's the detainees? >> yes sir. so we would still hold them under some kind of military guard, were we to bring them into the united states, unless we were able to prosecute all of them in federal court and put them into the bureau of prison system. but there are a number of these

detainees we have already determined we would be very unlikely to prosecute in federal court. >> how about the ones that we have charges against, waiting for prosecution? could they be dispersed in the prison systems that we have, our maximum security prison systems? >> sir, the ones that are currently facing charges and trial are in the office of military commissions system, which we have a courtroom set up there on guantanamo bay that you probably saw when you were there. so it would be the same situation, in the sense that if they were still on trial -- >> it's been 13 years and the guantanamo five haven't been -- >> the nine on trial will probably go on for quite some time. if they are convicted and sentenced, they would still be in the military system. but the short answer is yes, we could do it here. it would still be a military guard system. they would not be in the bureau of prisons. >> my time has expired. thank you very much. >> thank you chairman. my question would be, yes or no.

, has any suspected or confirmed detainee that's been released from guantanamo been involved in an attack that has killed a united states, nato or coalition service member? >> senator, i don't know the data by heart, of all those who have reengaged. there are over 100. we'll have to get you that answer. >> well, i think that's very important for people to understand, if any of these detainees have been or are suspected or confirmed for having been involved in killing us, our nato allies or a coalition service member. one thing that was reported in the washington post, that bin cumo who is alleged to have been involved in the attack on our consulate in benghazi -- what i would like to understand

is the 6.8% that the administration is touting that they're doing so well, those are only in the cases of confirmed detainees that have regene i reengaged. does that number include the taliban five number that has now been reported to have engaged in additional activity that would be reengagement for terrorism? >> the number you're referring to, senator, the 6.8% number, predates any consideration of the reengagement status of taliban members you're talking about. the next report due out on that, updating the numbers on this is due out in early march. we should be in a position then to assess whether reengagement has taken place. >> of course, on may 31, the administration transferred -- of the five they transferred, they transferred a member of the taliban five. fossil was in the northern alliance back in 2001.

he served as chief of staff under the taliban and is accused of war crimes. one of the things that shocked me most is that one of the taliban members on the ground said it's the best news he had heard in 12 years. he said fossil's return is like pouring 10,000 taliban fighters in the battle on the side of the jihad. now the taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in afghanistan. i think the american people deserve to know whether any of the taliban five have reengaged? i'm glad that, as i understand, you've confirmed today that there are no conditions on them returning after the year, to afghanistan. in other words there aren't additional conditions on their release, unless you're telling me that there are. and that's my question i have for the people who have been released in the last month by the administration. and i would just like to ask you, with some of them so on november 5 of 2014, one of the detainees was transferred to

kuwait. what we know about him publicly, that i can speak about, is that he was arrested in 2002 for being a member of al-qaeda accused of participating in several militant trainings and of being an affiliate of the most infamous jihadi recruiter in the area. were there any conditions put on this individual's release? in other words was he transferred to kuwait to another prison or was he let go? >> senator, there are security assurances provided with every transfer. i can't get into the specifics of those in this setting. we could do it with you in closed session. >> i think the american people have a right to know whether someone -- >> why is this information classified mr. secretary? why shouldn't the american people know the conditions under which people are released? >> within our own criminal justice system, if we release someone from one facility to

another and we were releasing someone who was accused out in the public, why can't we know if they're being held again or if they're out where they can pose risk to other individuals? and i won't go -- my time will go through on all this. but if i went through, again in november, four transfers to georgia and just some of the background publicly of these individuals that have been transferred, one was assessed as a likely threat to the united states. one was assessed to have been involved in i.e.d. attacks against the u.s. and coalition forces. one is believed to have been affiliated with al-qaeda at a high level. and in fact, one is described by the die previously as among the top 52 enemy combatants at jtf gtmo who pose the most significant threat of reengagement acts of terrorism if released. i could go on and on about each of the backgrounds of the individuals that you've just released since november.

and in each of them, i would like to know, were they transferred to other jails where they can't get back out? or were they just transferred to their families so that they can reengage in terrorism? i think that we deserve to know from the administration, when they release someone, are they just releasing them back where it makes it very easy for them to reengage in terrorism activity? or are they putting them in another or are they putting them in another prison because the public reports about each of these individuals have been that they've been released not to other prisons, but to their families. >> senator, on your question and the chairman's, many of the agreements we have with foreign governments are classified. that's the short answer, sir, on why we can't get in the details. >> well -- >>they are somewhere in between open release and a prison. the kind