>> 122 remain. >> so of the rest of them, would you agree they are high risk? >> several of them are under prosecution, so definitely in those cases. >> take them off the table right? >> the remainder have previously been determined to be held and should be held under law or detention and we didn't have a prosecution option but those are going through the prb process to take another look. >> we have 50 people no place to send them and the rest of them are either going to be prosecutor prosecuted or represent a high risk to the country. >> like i said, we're taking a new look at the prb process. >> the previous prbs concluded they had a high risk, right or they wouldn't still be there. the only thing is are you going to create a new prb process politically motivated to let these guys out or go with past judgments. because i don't think these guys are getting any better. do you agree with the obama administration we're at the end of hostilities and that

justified the release of the taliban 5? >> we're not at the end of hostilities in afghanistan. >> they said the reason we transferred the taliban 5 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 taliban. i agree the end of hostilities that justice the transfer of these five is ridiculous. so i don't know why the administration would say that. do you? >> well, i said -- i agree with you, sir, hostilities are not over. >> great. >> i couldn't agree with -- >> let's go for it as a committee. no one should be transferred because of the concept of end of hostilities. second, if you have any deficiency and 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 will have a deficient sin the near future? >> in afghanistan, not in the near future. in a couple of years, we may. >> well, the couple of 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 and not always play catch-up. thank you very much for your service. >> thank you, chairman. >> i actually want to return to this point and 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. at some point if we want to

close guantanamo we need to do something with them and if you don't have statutory authority to insure their detention, should they be transferred to some sort of high secure facility in the continental united states, i suggest 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 this press of 30%, 33% residcidivismrecidivism. i want to make sure i understand and you're very clear about the data. if i understand your testimony, that since the inner agency review process was put in place, since that time the recidivism data suggests you

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. that is the assessment of the community that of the 620 overall detainees regardless when, who have been transferred from guantanamo, a little over 17% of them have been confirmed by the intelligence committee having reengaged in terrorist activities. 17% confirmed. a little over 12% fall into the suspected of re-engagement category i stated earlier. in aggregate, that would be 30% of the total population of folks --

>> if you just look at post interagency review. >> if you break out just the number of detainees transferred since the 2009 interagency process in which the dni director of national intelligence played a role, that number is 6.8% confirmed with 1.1% or one detainee suspected. that's an ongoing number and we owe you and the congress an update on that in the next report snow obviously any level of recidivism is unacceptable but that is immense progress. i want to touch on the cost of this facility, 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. and compare that with about $78,000 it costs to house a prisoner at colorado super max prison. i would ask either of you given the austere budget 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 way that gets us the maximum security return for our investment? mr. rasmussen, i would ask your opinion on that as well. >> i think i'm probably better referring to my defense colleagues on that because that falls squarely in dod's budget lane. >> it goes back to the relative risks we were talking about before senator keen brought up. >> the number i have is $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 we could secure these prisoners for much less. we're not focused primarily on the costs, we're focused more on the national security view that it's a risk to our security to keep guantanamo open but the cost issue is accurate. >> thank you. >> senator cotton. >> mr. mccain, -- mckeon, in early december senator hagel sent a letter about the classified five. it's been almost two months now. we would 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.

i know the answer should be coming shortly, for reasons that are not clear to me, although the letter was dated in early december, i think we only received it in the department about 3 1/2 weeks ago. >> mr. rasmussen, you said in your opening statement anti-american incite mentment or statements does not necessarily equal resid virms or re-engagement. does it violate the memorandum of understandings we have with the receiving countries? >> i can't speak in this session about the specific understandings we have with the partners with whom -- the countries with whom we have worked to transfer detainees but one of the key features of any of those agreements is monitoring ongoing activity by the detainee covering a wide threshold constitute reengagement for the purposes of a threat assessment.

>> we consider anti-american by islamic terrorists pretty serious business, don't we? >> absolutely. >> and al-awlaki would say we consider it serious business wouldn't he? >> absolutely. senator graham that the united states, the administration has barred from bringing detainees to the united states mainland. also barred from releasing detainees without 30 days of notification. why should the american people believe that obligation will be any more respected than the prior notification obligation was last year? >> the lack of notification in the bergdahl case -- >> all laws are created equal. there was a law that created prior notification. a law that prohibits detainees from coming to guantanamo bay. what assurance can we receive

that there will not be a detainee on our shores tomorrow morning. >> senator, what i can say as to the 30-day notice issue, our lawyers believe we had a valid legal reason we took, on the issue we're asking, we are focused on transfers in the process. i'm not aware of any conversations not to follow the current steps. >> i now want to explore the so-called risk balance of resit viz m and the propaganda. >> i'm not sure if i follow the question. >> engaging in terrorism or anti-american excitement. because they're detained. they only engage in that overseas. now, let's look at the propaganda value. how many were at guantanamo bay september 11th, 2001.

>> zero. >> how many in october 2000 when al-qaeda bombed the u.s.s. cole? >> zero. >> what about in 1998? >> the facility was not opened before 2002. >> first world trade center bombing. >> same. >> 1983 when hezbollah bombed lebanon? the answer is zero. >> correct. >> islamic terrorists don't need an excuse to attack the united states. they attack us for who we are. it is not a security decision. it is a political decision based on promise the president made on his campaign. to say that is a security decision based on propaganda value is a pretext, a justified political decision and my opinion, the only problem of guantanamo bay is there are too many empty beds and cells there right now. we should be sending more cells there to keep this country safe.

as far as i'm concerned, every last one of them can rot in hell, but slons they don't do that, they can rot in guantanamo bay. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and on that happy note, i had really the same feeling senator cotton had for a lot a lot a years, then i went to guantanamo with some other senators. and i came back changed and i asked my chairman here who gave me some insight he had and i know everybody's trying to form their own direction and thought process on this. if your child was in the military and a guard and that detail, i would not ask anybody's children to be in that position.

i'd like to see a few of them in the prison just to see if they changed their attitude. so, all i've heard about propaganda, i have to agree with senator cotton on that. i don't think they need a new excuse to attack america and that's me that doesn't hold water. what does is $3 million for detainee and 80,000 to the hardened prisoners we have. we have nobody escaping. we don't have any ones escaping from america. i'm to form my own opinion on this if we hadn't a vote -- are held for crimes and things of this sort. fls got to be a way to do it where they don't scheme and plan

and plot. the have you all looked at should we house them here? could we imprison them here and do it and feel secured and safe? keep them on the island prison that's fine, but what i saw there did not, it's not an atmosphere that our guards should be in or our military people should put their talent should be used and wasted on those lines, what i saw. so, someone can comment to that, could we do it here? have we spoke in detail? can it be done safely and what do you do with the detainees. right there, over in that part of the world, we're paying

someone else to take care of them and a lot of them are going back into the fight. if one goes back into the fight, that's one too many. if we could have kept them off the battlefield, endangering soldiers and anybody else over there. so, any comment on that. >> give them a rights of the prisoner at war. >> your time to speak, honey i've got to get to this first if you can admiral myers. >> senator, i'm happy to respond first -- >> war -- >> on the guard force, i've seen them in action as well -- >> i just want to say that back on this country, they lost their rights as far as attack inging this country, so, with that being said, that's how i feel. >> the men and the women of the guard force, many are national guards and peace specialists. in the first term, senator graham made efforts, the

possibility, the government purchasing a state prison in illinois that was underutilizing in 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 detention authority. >> that's the detainees. >> yes, sir. >> so, we would still hold them under some kind of military guard whether we were to bring them in the united states, unless we were to prosecute them in federal court and put them into the bureau system, but there are a number of these detainees that we will not be able to prosecute in federal court. >> how about the ones that are waiting, that we have charges against waiting for prosecution? could they be dispersed in prison systems, maximum security prison prison systems? >> sir, the ones that are

currently facing charges and trial are in the office of military commission system which we have a courtroom set up there. >> probably say when you were there. so, it would be the same situation in the sense that they were still on trial. the 9/11 would have gone 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 and they would not be in the bureau of prison. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> 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's killed a united states or nato coalition service

member? >> senator, i don't know all those who have reengaged, there are over 100. >> well, i think that's very important for people to understand. if any of these detainees have been are suspected of confirmed for having been involved in killing us, our nato allies or a coalition service member, i'm surprised you don't know the answer to that. one thing that had been reported, it was reported in "the washington post," that ben kumo, who's alleged to have been involved on the attack on our consulate in benghazi, former guantanamo detainee, but i'd like to get your answer to that. what i'd like to understand is the 6.8% of the administration is touting that they're doipg so well. those are only the cases of confirmed detainees that have reengaged. does that number include the taliban five member that has been now reported to have engaged in additional

activity that would be reengagement for terrorism? >> predates the reengagement status of the members you're talking about. the next report due out, updating the numbers on this, is due out in early march. we should in a position to assess whether reengagement has taken place. >> of course, on may 31st, the administration, of the five they transferred, they transported fazel, a member of the the taliban five. he commanded main force opposing the u.s. backed northern alliance in 2001. served as chief of staff for the army under the taliban and accused of war crimes. one of the taliban commanders on the ground said it was the best news he had heard in 12 years. he said his return is is like pouring 10,000 taliban vit fighters into the battle on the jihad. now, they have the right lion to

lead them in the right moltment in victory. i think the american people deserve to know whether any of the taliban five have reengageded. i'm glad you've confirmed today there are -- returning after the year to afghanistan. in other words, there aren't additional information on the release unless you're telling me they are. that's my question for the people who have been released in the last months by the administration and i'd just like to ask you, with some of them, on november 5th 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 being an afail yat of -- the most infamous jihady recruit in the uk. were there any

conditions put on this individual's release. was he transferred to kuwait from another prison? or was he like a -- >> senator, there are security assurances provided with every transfer. can't get into the specifics. we could do it in closed session. >> i think the american people have a right to know. >> why is this information classified? secretary? why should the american people know the conditions under 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 are out where they can pose a risk to others. 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 posed threat to the united states. one was assessed to be involved in ied attacks against the u.s. and coalition forces. one believed to have been affiliated with al-qaeda at a high level and in fact, one is described by the dia previously as among the top 52 enemy combatants at jtf gitmo who pose the most significant threats of terrorism if released. i could go on and on about each of the backgrounds of each of the individuals 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 enengage 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 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 of assurances that we generally get are travel restrictions, some kind of monitoring, information sharing from the government on what they are seeing and monitoring the detainees themselves. if terms of the five transferred to qatar, what i can say is none have returneded to the battlefield. they are still in qatar.

they're under a travel restriction. what i said about i think it may have been before you came in senator, after one year, we have said -- what happens after one year, we'd like to talk to you in a classified setting. >> i know my time is up, but i do not understand why the american people can't be told a basic question when you're transferring someone who's been previously designated as one of the top enemy combatants, posing risk to the united states of america, members of al-qaeda when they're being transferred how do you assure the american people if they're not being incarcerated again, that they won't reengage. i think that's basic information that the american people need to know. >> well, senator, since we are going to mark up legislation on this issue next week declassification of that

information, i think could be a part of that legislation. the american people need to know the conditions under which a vowed enemies of the united states of america are, the conditions and restraints that may or may not be placed on them. senator kane. >> thank you, mr. chairman and i agree. the american people knowing more is a helpful thing. this is a balancing act question. i take seriously recidivism. and i'm going to get to that many a minute. but i think to say that the concern about the propaganda value of guantanamo is just a

political argument that the president has cooked up, ignores a lot of facts and an awful lot of opinions by very talented national security individuals. the cia open source center study in january, released in january, says there have been at least 30 occasions since 2010 in which al-qaeda and affiliates have referred to gitmo as justification for recruitment and violent jihad. dni clapper sent us a note to the intelligence committee 2013 arguing closing gitmo would quote deny al-qaeda leaders to the -- further their global narrative and cited the al-qaeda magazines in inspire promoting the boston bombing and highlighting the ongoing detention of prisoners of gitmo as a reason to engage in jihad. 42 former generals signed a letter on january 29 to this committee stating the abuses that occurred at guantanamo have made the facility a symbol to the world of the united states that is unstrained by constitutional values. it strikes me that the propaganda value is not something that the president cooked up out of thin air. it's something our security professionals are telling us. and they're telling us loud and clear, so we have to balance a risk. let me ask you this.

federal courts have convicted 556 people on terrorism related charges. from september 1 to december 13. 44 of those cases were tried in my state. has anyone convicted of a terrorism charge in a federal court in the united states ever escaped? >> sir, i'm not the expert on that, but i do believe nobody ever escapes from super max prisons. >> if we are concerned about recidivism, i would like to know for the record whether anyone convicted of the 556 terrorism convictions since 9/11 that have been done in the federal court

system of the united states has anyone ever escaped? i'll submit that one for the record. let me ask another question. >> i'm told by somebody with more knowledge, the answer is no. >> i want it in record. i want it answered in writing and i want all committee members to have it. with respect to the taliban five, we were briefed in a classified setting about some information. i then saw it in public. stated be i the secretary of defense in newspapers, he was quoted. and i want to ask this question for the record. was there any evidence that any member of the taliban five had ever been engaged in vie leapt activity against the united states or any u.s. personnel when they were in prison at one time. secretary hagel has said there is no -- do you know? >> no, while they were at guantanamo, no, sir. >> when they were in prison, was there any evidence that any of the taliban five had been engaged in any activity or planning to target u.s. or u.s. personnel? >> sir, i'm told that information on this classified and we'd have to talk to you about it in that setting or provide you an answer. >> i'm upset about this for the same reason the chairman said we

need information. i was told this in a setting that was classified, then i saw secretary hagel talking about it, so i'm assuming it's no longer classified, but i want to submit that question. >> let me check that for you sir. >> finally, with an important point for us, we're all concerned about the -- efforts in dialogue with the white house to determine whether that should be revised. in some way and i just wanted to underline, the continued league ability to detain at guantanamo does hinge upon the continuing viability of that aumf and so, if it were to sunset or be repealed, a legal status of the guantanamo detainees would be at least questionable. am i correct about this? >> that's correct. >> in terms of our own work, it's pretty important as we look

at that. we need to take into account the effect of remaining detainees. the last thing i want to on the numbers, i mentioned that 556 people have been tried on terrorism or terrorism related charges in the federal courts of am i correct that the military commissions have only conducted eight trials since 2001? >> that number sound right but we can confirm that for you.

>> those who would argue this is something that cannot be dealt with through the article 3 courts of the united states since 1787 are clearly in my view not looking at this thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you for being here today. this is a very, very tough issue and i would like to commend senator cotton for his passion on this subject. there are a number of members of this community that have served this nation. as you do and senator cotton has been a warrior. on the ground in iraq. i have been a lodge is tigs on the

ground in iraq and all of us face uncertainty when we serve our country. senator cotton most certainly deserves kudos for serving his nation in a very difficult time and difficult situation when we are looking at terrorists. so, his perspective is slightly different than my own, but i think we feel the same way. that whether it's someone who is kicking in doors and looking for terrorists and facing the threat of the enemy at close range or whether it's somebody that's driving trucks up and down the roads delivering supplies and worrying about ieds that are planted by these terrorists. drivers drivers, just driving by, doing what they can do to support our warriors, taken out by terrorists. whether it's innocent civilians here in the united states. al baghdadi, before he was released in iraq, had stated, i'll see you guys in new york. and i don't know, i don't have a doubt that either al baghdadi or one of his extreme terrorists will find their way back to new york or somewhere in this great country. they have an amazing network that reaches all around the globe. and what i do not want to see and all of us should be able to agree on this, that we do not want to see detainees from gitmo being released and returning to the fight. my sentiments are exactly like

senator cottons. i could care less. they really should not be out there where they can threaten american lives or our nato allies, their lives, so, i would like to hear from you, generally, the types of activity activities that our detainees, just so everybody understands, the types of activities, our gitmo detainees were involved in before they were taken to guantanamo. please explain to me so i know many people will watch this testimony. they will hear the testimony. i would like to know what types of activities they were engaged in before they were detained. anybody, please. >> senator. of the detainees remaining at guantanamo, they have been involved in a range of terrorist activities. the worst are the names like khalid shaikh

mohammed, who planned several attacks including the 9/11 attacks. that's the trial he is facing at the military commission. the one of the protagonists in the bombing of the u.s.s. cole is is also under trial in the military commission. the terrorist, the people who are at began tanguantanamo have from being active on the battlefield to providing support functions to terrorist leadership. it runs the gamut. >> i think brian has it just right. it runs the gamut from known senior leader terrorist figures exercising leadership figures in some of terrorist organizations. some of the names he mentioned, but also including the full range of individuals who have played a role in al-qaeda plotting or in providing support activities or support to the taliban taliban. >> so, these are individuals who have murdered thousands of americans, been involved with the planning of murdering thousands of americans, service

members, whether they're here on united states soil as with the 9/11 attacks, the u.s.s. cole, where they killed many of our service members, whether it's innocent civilians in syria and they did not need guantanamo bay to be imboldened to do those activities, so i push back on the president and this administration in that they will kill regardless of whether they are at guantanamo or not. that they are driven, they are terrorists. do you agree with that? >> senator, i agree that terrorists are driven. what i would say about guantanamo in general and the view of the administration is there is certainly a risk to release and we try to mitigate the risk and i think we've had some success in doing that, but we believe there's a risk in keeping guantanamo the military leadership of the country has

said that, you have the letter from three dozen former military leaders who think it is a propaganda tool, that inspires recruitment of additional terrorists. i agree with senator cotton. there's plenty of terrorists out there who don't need guantanamo to attack the united states or u.s. interests, but we believe it serves as a tool that leads to greater recruitment of terrorist organizations. >> well, that is the administration's point of view. i would beg to differ. i think they are going to do what they are going to do regardless of guantanamo bay and their imprisonment there. my time is expired. thank you, gentlemen, very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator reid. >> three quick questions. first, falling off this discussion of guantanamo as

a accelerator of terrorist activity or deterrents, mr. rasmussen, you mentioned in your testimony, guantanamo is consciously used by a host of terrorist organizations, to prop -- two cap again dies -- to propagandize. is that a fact? >> purely just judging by an ek doe tall evidence and looking at the material the terrorist organizations put out. we see something in english language, we assess they are trying to reach potential terrorists or extremists here in the united states or western european countries and we see the issue of guantanamo featured in that propaganda. senator king asked a good question. we need to draw the line more tightly between an ek doe tall evidence and what we can say with more precision about recruitment efforts. but i would say this area the terrorist landscape we face right now is increasingly characterized by actors who are not necessarily affiliated or tied to terrorist hierchy or

leadership. they operate on their own in many cases. in many cases, they radicalize and mobilize themselves for violence on their own, so that particular type of prop, -- of messaging activity that goes on from terrorist organizations, uses many, many factors and guantanamo is one of of them. certainly not the only one. other aspects of u.s. foreign policy feature that as well. but i just would have to, it's indisputable that this material does not future terrorist propaganda. we do owe the committee a better understanding of the direct connection, because audi. >> thank you and quickly, miss secretary. there's a discussion of the classification of the arrangement of the countries. is it fair to say that it's the other coup tri that might insist much more on the classification of our own purposes as a

corporation than the united states? is that a fair assessment? >> laissez-faire statement, yes, sir. wax thank you. >> and finally, mr. secretary the issue, about the status of enemy combatants at the succession of hostilities. that would affect guantanamo and any other place than an individual is being held, if hostilities come to an end legally, than our ability to hold combatants is -- so, we would have the address this question regardless of whether guantanamo was open and closed. is that fair? >> that's correct. ask senator around. >> thank you, mr. chairman. senator reed hits exactly on the question i was going to ask. my question would be and if you've answered it already i will defer.

what happens at the end of hostilities? what is the plan for taking care of the issues revolving that may still be there? combatants combatants. held as enemy blinlgelligerents and may have to be released. what is the plan to take care of the issue? >> what we're working on now, i went through in my opening statement, but you were still at the prayer breakfast. to transfer those approved about 50 or so, those will take sometime. and we have a periodic review board process that is re-examine re-examining several who were first looked at and determined to be held under law or detention authority. there is some number that we are unlikely to be able to release at the end of the day as we run through this process.

following the president's charge that he wants to close guantanamo we've got to look at , all options. one would be the possibility of bringing remaining detainees back to the united states. we can't do that now because of the stat chur bands, so we would have to come to the congress to -- because of the statutory ban so we would have to come to the congress to talk to you about that, repeal that and we were at the end of hostilities and the question of our authority, our ability to hold them was in question, we would, part of that conversation would be what is the authority we need from the congress to continue to hold those people. >> can you give us some kind of a time frame as to when you would be making those requests? >> i cannot give you a time frame right now, no. >> thank you. >> i thank the witnesses for thing here today. for the record, in 2009, legal

council of the white house came to my office and met with me and senator graham and said they wanted to close guantanamo. i said fine. i do, too. give us a plan. in the intervening years, there has never been a plan forthcoming from the white house and there isn't today. yemen is descending into chaos. we don't know what to do with the present population. how many are capability. what do we want to do with the remaining 70. how many of the remaining detainees with assessed. we hire medium risk, we couldn't be told today -- could be that today. where would we send the detainees governed by state sponsors of terrorism or currently beset by instability or insurgency of groups like al data or i so -- al qaeda or

isil. too dangerous to release, but incapable of prosecution. we have no plan for that. the administration, we hope will seek additional authorities to detain elsewhere such as the united states. and we don't know how to ensure there will not be a court marshall release of a dangerous terrorist that is in long-term detention in the united states which is the reason we need legislation. so, here we are, six years into the obama administration and we still haven't complied with requirements of the ndaa. nor do we have a concrete plan as to how to address the issues that i just described. that's why six years later, we are having this hearing. and i again, urge the administration who just responded to senator rounds, you don't know when you're going to come forth with a proposal. we need a proposal and in its absence over six years, congress has acted. and we will continue to act. unless we can work in close

coordination with the administration to come up with a plan and one of those plans that is for us to make sure that these individuals who are judged too dangerous to return, are not allowed to. and accommodation is made for the continued incarceration of those individuals. i thank the witnesses for being here today. and senator ayotte, i'd like to make a final comment. >> mr. chairman, with permission, can i have a follow up questions? i don't know if anyone else is but i'm willing to direct that. i know you have to go. >> senator manchin? >> thank you. as we look at the taliban five

i think the point made clearly they were top commanders in the tele than. i read you the quote about what one of the commanders on the ground said in helmand province. like pouring 10,000 jihadists back into the fight, so you can't say they weren't directly involved because they themselves only issued the commands to kill americans and didn't kill the americans themselves, the leaders are often more important than the foot soldiers asked to carry this out, so i don't understand the argument made with all respect from my college -- my colleague from virginia. the american people need to understand that these were top taliban leaders who themselves made many orders that were involved in killing us and our allies in afghanistan. i would like to ask admiral myers, we had general mat is before the committee the other day, i'm sure you know the

general. and one thing he said when he talked about our detention policy and he said that he did not understand he was perplexed by our lack of detention policy. and in fact, when i asked him about it, he said that ma'am first and foremost, i believe this, we go into a fight, we've not seen certain of ourselves not to hold prisoners. the people we've taken in the fight, do we take on the troops on p.o.w. camps in texas, let them go back and get another shot in normandy? we cap them until the war was over. we didn't stop -- we didn't start this war and, if an enemy wants to fight or be a truck driver, we didn't say to his radio operators could he be released because he didn't have a significant role.

if you sign up with the enemy, they should know, we're coming after you. if the president and commander in chief sends us out, you'll be prisoner until the war is over. this is pretty much war fighting or -- not war fighting 3010 or advanced war. this is kind of 10, ma'am. my biggest concern if our troops find they are taking someone prisoner, a second time, they will just and they have just scraped one of their buddies off the pavement and zipped him into a bag, the potential for maintaining the imperative we expect of our armed forces is going to be undercut if in fact the integrity does not take these people off the battlefield permanently. in other words, they will take things into their own hands and under the pressures of warfare. admiral, do you share general madison's concerns? we we captured someone on the battlefield, then our men and women in uniform encounter them again after having seen their brothers and sisters in arms

killed by this enemy, don't you think that's real concern and our men and women in uniform should never been forced to confront someone we had previously captured? >> i do not believe the moral of the men and women on the combat forces field have my impact whether it's the same person the first, second time. i do not believe it is impacting the moral as far as those engaging in combat operations. >> okay, but if we captured someone in battle, do you think our men and women in uniform should ever have to confront them

again? yes or no. we had them. we had them captured. we had them incarcerated. we released them. do you believe they should ever have to intend her -- have to confront them again? >> i do not believe anyone should have to confront them however, as you have seen through history, that's not always the case and people have re-entered the battlefield through the history of time. >> they're going to when they're being transferred to third party countries where they're not even being incarcerated again and where there are few conditions on their confinement if any. i think this is something that is atrocious that in of our allies or anyone working with us should ever be force edd the problems we face here, the other question i would like to ask, if we get al -- or baghdadi, the head of isis where, what will we do with them, where will we put them? i

understand what my colleague from virginia said about article 3 courts. will they be told they have a right to remain silent, miran -- will they be mirandized? >> senator ayotte, our policy, if we detain new people on the battlefield is to examine them and follow a case by case basis depending on all the circumstances. we would certainly interrogate them. if we had an article 3 case that we could build against them, we would pursue that. >> so, i guess where, where, where would you put al baghdadi? do you know the answer? do you know? >> in the first instance, we would interrogate them --

>> where? >> insight, in sea to come up where we pick them up. >> after that your >> or we could do it in another place we've warsami on a u.s. ship. sfl so ship, and you can only keep someone on a ship for so long because it's temporary when we . when we get the leaders of these terrorist groups, this is the problem i've been asking since i got in this is that the and i've been asking top levels of this administration for years, if we catch the head of al-qaeda tomorrow, what do we do with them and you know what i've heard? we're working on our detention policy, we'll get back to you. it's been years and what worries me as we sit here to the chairman's point, so many questions remain unanswered, including having baghdadi or sa wary on the ship is not long enough to interrogate them to find out what they know about al-qaeda, isis, to protect americans and there seems to be no plan for that.

>> senator, if we were to get one of these people you mentioned and we could build an article 3 case we would bring them to the united states in new york or virginia where these kinds of cases are if not, we would look at whether normally prosecuted. we could prosecute them through the military commissions process. we would certainly interrogate them for some time. >> except you know of course once they go into an article 3 court, they're entitled to they're entitled to rights to a speedy trial, so we aren't going to get a chance. >> we would do the interrogation and if there was an option for federal court prosecution, we would bring in a separate fbi team that had not been privy to the prior military or ic investigation to then build the

case, so it would be a separate interrogation. >> we had them on ships because this administration is so adverse to putting anyone in guantanamo, they'd rather hold someone who's a terrorist on a temporary basis on a ship rather than make sure that we can have the opportunity for a lengthy interrogation as you know, sometimes, it takes a long time to gather all the information that someone like the head of al-qaeda orris is would know.

>> please answer. >> yes. senator, i don't think there have been any pressure on the intelligence professionals who do these interrogations to speed it up and i believe although i would double check this for the record, even after we went into the frafl court system, mr. warsami gave us plenty of information. federal prosecutors have a hot of tools in enkoushlging cooperation, so, we are not without tools to get the proper information. >> the senator's time really has expired. senator sessions and if you'll close it down. >> thank you. well, thank you for those questions. it goes to what i believe we need to think about here. mr. rasmussen was it al libi that was captured by a commando team in libya and taken to a ship ? >> that's correct.

>> and wasn't that a high risk thing for american solgss and they were sent in to capture him alive so that he could be interrogated because i believe the "new york times" referred to him as the mother load of intelligence possibilities since he was involved all the way back to the coheart towers activities of al qaeda. >> i defer to my pentagon colleagues. we assessed from intelligence per speck sieve is that a figure like al libi would have tremendous knowledge. >> thank you. i think that's why we put our people at risk to capture him. mr. mckeyon. isn't it true and i'll just try to be brief and we'll wrap up. isn't it true that a person connected with al-qaeda, a person connected with isil and other terrorists, i'll just say of those two. if captured, they qualify as prisoners of war?

>> if they meet the standard for law or detention aurnd the muf and laws of war, yes, sir. >> and certainly, mr. al libi would have qualified. as that would issue authorization against al qaeda. >> sir, i would say on the case of mr. al libi, there is a preference to capture for the intelligence gain, but the judgment is made primarily by our military colleagues, whether that is feasible. >> just trying to wrap up. >> i understand, sir i just want to give you the whole picture area >> we all know that. so, the question, so, under the laws of war, a person who's unlawful who is a prisoner of war, can be detained until the conflict is over on the general principles of lower -- principles of war. >> technically, sir, there are unlawful enemy combatants are

not considered pows. >> they could be both, could they not? and see, i don't know why there would be any difficulty in having them qualify them both. >> sir, this is where i'm getting out of my lane with the legal question. i ask somebody from our general counsel's office. generally, we don't consider them pows. >> you also don't consider them as a difference between civilian prosecution and military detention and military commission trials either. in which case, that is dead wrong. if they're taken for military trial, and testimony, if they can be prosecuted in an article 3 civilian court, they will be. is that the policy we're now operating under? >> what is the same is that all options are are on the table and we would look at prosecution in both article 3 court or military commissions, but if we can do it

in the article 3 process, i wouldn't say there's a preference, but we have a good ability to do that. >> you almost repeated what you said before, which is if we can prosecute them in 3 curtourt today, we will. that is what you are doing today, is it not? >> under considerable success and a lot faster pace than military commissions. >> if, i'm prosecuting in federal court. senator i out -- senator ayotte is correct. brought in federal civilian court. they are immediately pointed a lawyer. if they or allies or conspirators have money, they can hire their own lawyer, isn't that correct? >> that's correct. >> and before they can be asked any questions, they are give p

-- given their miranda rights and told not to answer the questions, is that right? >> once they are in that system but we've done the interrogations with our ic and military professionals before we put them into that system. they are not mirandized in that context. >> and if they have a lawyer the lawyer is going to tell them not to cooperate unless he tells them hymn to for some reason. isn't that correct? that's what good lawyers do. don't talk to the police until you and i talk and i approve of it. that's what goes on in the real world. then, the person charged in civilian court has a right to demand a speedy trial. he has a right to demand discovery of the government's case. he has a right to documents that could be relevant to his case. and he can ask for information

that frequently in my experience, implicated the issues of national security and intelligence and how it's gathered and that kind of thing. i'm sure mr. al libi is going to demand information about how he was captured and how you had information about him, some of which we don't want to give up. >> he was deceased before trial. >> he was taken from the ship after how many days? >> i don't know how long he was on the ship. >> mr. us mission? >> it was a small number of days, but driven by his rapidly deteriorating health status and -- >> he could have been taken to any doctor. any doctor could have been flown to guantanamo to treat him, but instead when he was

taken to a doctor in maryland as as i recall he didn't have to be put in civilian court. he could still be in military custody. so, if the person is taken to military custody and treated as an unlawful combatant or as a prisoner of war, they could be detained and interviewed over a . of months. -- period of months. and isn't it true that a person held in that condition is not entitled to a lawyer. if you move to a trial and actually put them in a status of being prosecuting for unlawful acts against laws of war, then they do have to have an attorney, but you can hold them for months could you not? and gradually build up a relationship with them and attempt to obtain more

information over time. >> that's correct, but that's not precluded in the criminal system and as you know as a prosecutor, sir, the federal prosecutors have a lot of towers to encourage cooperation. >> they don't have any more powers than the military pross have. that's just a myth you guys have been talking about. all the powers you have is a plea bargain. they can be plea bargaining military commissions, too, and if you don't know that, i'll tell you that. so, to me, i'll just wrap up. the vote is ongoing. there is absolutely no way that you can contend over a number of cases as a matter of policy, it's better for the national security of the united states that people be proptly taken to civilian court to be tried in civilian court ratter than be held in military commissions and tried at our will and as i understand it, if even after being detained in military detention, over a period of a year or more, they could still be sent to civilian court for trial.

but i don't think we want to try them in military court. >> no, sir, i think we look at all options. >> have you in the last number of years, how many have been sent for trial in military commission? >> well, we have military commissions going -- ongoing at guantanamo and what i would say in terms of -- >> under this president, and the recent months, years, people have been captured, have any been sent to trial there? >> we have not added to the population at guantanamo bay that's correct. what i would say, sir, in terms of the efficacy of the two systems, because the military commission system is essentially new because of the new stat choir framework, these

cases are dragging on. where as in thesy sycivilian court system, we're getting convictions and putting these people in prison fairly quickly. >> well, they can be done that way in military commissions. the problems will be worked out. the judges taking everything in the first impressions. i'm sure they take more time at it. but had we been moving these cases forward for a long time, those issues would have been decided by now and they have different issues, so i'll wrap up. my time is up. i just want you to know i appreciate that you're advocating for the president's policies. they were the product of an improvident campaign promise based on lack of understanding of the lack of reality of guantanamo. a perfectly humane and good place to keep people. we set up proceedtures to try

them fairly and over time and in a way that we are in control of the situation. rather than a federal judge whose duty is to respond to moving cases trying to assist the government in obtaining intelligence. senator graham and others and ayotte and prosecutors see it as i do in a more knowledge abl than i, but i really strongly feel this is a mistake. it's not helpful to the national security of the united states. thank you all and the meet ging -- thank you all and the meeting is adjourned. >> next, president obama talks about religious freedom at the

national prayer breakfast. then a senate committee examines data security issues. later, a hearing on the guantanamo bay prison and attention center. >> susan rice is at the brookings institution friday for a speech on president obama's new national security strategy. live coverage of the event starts at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and we will join the president for a town hall meeting in indianapolis where he will discuss his proposal for free community college tuition. that's live it to: 10 p.m. eastern also here on c-span. >> the political landscape has changed with the 114th congress. but only are there would -- new republicans and 12 new republicans and one new democrat in the senate, there is also 108

women in congress, including the first african-american republican the house in the senate. keep track of the members of commerce using congressional chronicle on www.c-span.org. the congressional chronicle page has a lot of information including voting results and statistics about each session of congress. >> president obama spoke about freedom of religion around the world the annual national prayer breakfast. this is 25 minutes. [applause] >> thank you very much. giving all praise and honor to god, it is wonderful to be back

with you here. i want to thank our cochairs bob and roger. these two don't always agree the senate. but in coming together and uniting us all in prayer, they invite the spirit of our gathering here today. i also want to thank everybody who helped organize this breakfast. it's wonderful to see so many friends and faith leaders, dignitaries and 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 in what it means to practice compassion. he inspires us to speak of for the freedom and dignity of all human beings. i am pleased to welcome him to the white house. and i'm grateful he was able to

join us in this event. [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 thanks. 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. 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. -- children of god. 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 isil, a brutal, vicious death cult, that in the name of religion, terrorizes religious minorities like the 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. a rising tide of anti-semitism and hate 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 ends. 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 humility. 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 countries 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. our 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 theocracies that restrict people's faith.

that's not the case enough though torian -- in authoritarian governments where one person is elevated. 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 bay held in north korea. today we give thanks that he is home where he belongs, with his family. [applause] last your, we pray for pastor syed albanese 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. and thanks us all for standing in solidarity with him during his captivity. the pastor wrote, nothing is more valuable than the body of -- more valuable to the body of price than to see how the lord moves a head 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 -- our new ambassador at large 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 hadith which states, none loves his -- none of you truly believes until none loves for 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? he challenges 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. kent brantley expresses that same spirit. kent was with patients in liberia when he was infected himself. with world class medical care and deep reliance on faith, 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 kent and his wife to the oval office. we are blessed to have him here

today because 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 suffered from such want amidst such plenty. as children of god, let's work to and homelessness. -- to eliminate the scourge of

homelessness. as sister mary says, none of us are home until all of us are home. was told of the dignity of every man, woman and child, because we are all equal in his eyes. and work to end the scourge of modern-day human slavery and trafficking, and to set them free. [applause] if we are properly humble, if we go up to our knees on occasion we may acknowledge that we never fully know god's purpose. it is amazing grace. we see through a glass darkly. grappling with the expense of his awesome love.

but even with our limits, we can head for which is required, to walk humbly with god. i pray that we will and that as we journey together, in his name we will run and not be wary, walk and not be faint, and you those words -- head those words. may the lord bless you and keep you and bless his pressures come -- this pressures country. thank you very much. [applause] >> on the next "washington journal," donna edwards of maryland, cochair of the

steering and policy committee discusses how the federal budget affects the workforce. and then john fleming from louisiana is here to talk about his membership in the freedom caucus, a group designed to challenge the republican study committee. join the conversation with your calls and on facebook and twitter with comments. >> friday, at the washington institute for middle east policy, a discussion only fight isis and the role of syria and the conflict. former military personnel took part in the event starting at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span two. and then later, senior obama administration officials thought about policy is handled

nationally and internationally -- talk about how policy is handled nationally and internationally. >> your future programs for the weekend. -- here are the featured programs for the weekend. on c-span two, toby on british efforts to stop the taliban advanced in afghanistan. and then sunday at 10:00 p.m., they decided to publish the torturer or. interviews the torturer report -- cultural report. -- torture report. just after 9:00, a look back on xoma and the voting rights act with cbs news correspondent the plant -- bill plant.

let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us, e-mail us, or send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> usa today" reports that 80 million customers of anthem of her account information stolen on a cyber attack. on thursday, there was a hearing on data security breaches and citizen rights. >> i called the meeting to order. breaches and citizen rights. i will defer to my ranking member.

as i indicated, this is the first subcommittee i have shared in eight years in congress, and i was nervous, apparently nervous enough to not turn on the microphone. so we look forward to being educated and getting a good understanding. first i want to thank my colleagues and their level of interest in this important topic. i'd also like to thank our witnesses for joining us today. expertise is important to us as members of congress. and unfortunately, this is a very timely topic. the purpose of this hearing is in many ways somewhat narrow. it's to examine the merits of the federal data security standard and the need for preemptive and uniform federal data breach notification. we all know we live in a digital world where consumers have embraced online products and services. kansans, my folks at home, they know they can make purchases determine their credit score conduct banking and examine health care plans all from a mobile phone, computer or a

tablet. that is true of consumers across the country and increasingly around the globe. but this digital economy creates new risks. in a world where one bad actor can battle against a team of highly trained experts, we face challenges to make certain that consumers are protected and that businesses have the tools and incentives to protect their customers from harm. for more than a decade congress, the commerce committee in particular, has been contemplating issues surrounding data security and data breach notification. in 2004, the committee held its first congressional hearing to examine the high-profile breach of choice point, a data aggregation firm. this breach forced the first of many conversations here in congress, and today we continue that dialogue. a recent high-profile data breaches as well as the headline-grabbing sony cyber attack from late last year are the latest examples that highlight the ongoing and

serious cyber threats that face americans and businesses. and just this morning, we woke up to news of what experts are calling the largest health care breach to date. this time, the cyber criminals were able to infiltrate the nation's second largest health insurer, to steal names, birth dates, medical i.d., social security numbers, street addresses, email addresses and employment information including income data. these high-profile breaches are the most severe of what has become a common occurrence in our digital society. as of 2015, the privacy rights clearinghouse has estimated more than 4,400 breaches involving more than 932 million records that have been made public since 2005. the verizon 2014 data breach investigation report reviewed more than 63,000 security incidents and found 1,367 confirmed data breaches in 2013. so on average, that's just shy of four breaches every day.

while congress has developed sector-specific data security requirements for financial institutions and companies that handle health information congress has been unable to reach consensus of the development of a national data security and data breach notification standards. as a result, states have taken on this task by developing their own standards and as of today, businesses are subjected to a patchwork of over 50 different state, district, territory laws that determine how businesses must notify consumers in the event of a breach. in addition, 12 states enacted laws regarding data security practices. the need for federal action becomes clearer each day. last month president obama voiced his support for national data breach notification legislation with strong language in part because he recognizes the benefits to american consumers and businesses of a predictable uniform data breach notice. the president's support along

with bipartisan and bicameral congressional interest has renewed optimism among stake holders that congress can develop a balanced and thoughtful approach with legislation in the near term. today we'll focus our attention on some of the key questions and topics of this debate, including what are the benefits of a national data breach notification standard should , should congress implement a basic data security standard? to whom should that standard apply? should the federal standard preempt state standards? what should be the trigger for notification? the specific conditions that represent a potential harm to consumers. should there be exemptions and safe harbors? if so, for who? and what circumstances? within what time frame should a company be required to notify consumers? should congress enact new or stronger penalties for enforcement authorities and remedies? what lessons can we learn from states that have implemented their own data breach notification standards? i'm confident that our panel its expertise k.

-- its expertise can share valuable insight into those questions and others that the committee members may have. as we work and help us find a right balance to these issues. i'd like to recognize the subcommittee's ranking member , senator blumenthal, for him to deliver his opening statement. and i would indicate to him here in public as we have in private that i look forward to working very closely with you in a very thoughtful and bipartisan way to see that our subcommittee accomplishes good thing for the country. >> thank you. first of all, my than rks to senator moran for his leadership in a very bipartisan way reaching out to me and also convening this subcommittee on a critically important topic. and i really look forward to his continued insight and very thoughtful leadership on consumer protection issues. i'm proud to serve as the ranking member of this very important subcommittee. i have served on this subcommittee for two years now.

and it is critical to consumer issues that affect everyday americans. we have delved into the general motors recall, the deadly takata airbags and more. we have delved into the general and today, the issue of data breach is no less central to american lives, even if it seems somewhat less spectacular. 2014 was known as the year of the data breach. and the importance of this issue was brought home as senator moran said just this morning when we read about the anthem breach, which is absolutely breathtaking in its scope and scale. it is not only breathtaking but mind-bending in its extent and potential impact and potentially heartbreaking for consumers who may be affected. not only birthdays, addresses,

email and employment information, but also social security numbers, and income data were taken from anthem. and potentially, although the company has said it was not -- there's no evidence of it so far, critical health information. this breach comes after j.p. morgan indicated a loss of personal information to hackers of about 83 million households. of course, in november, hackers that the united states government has said had ties to the north korean government orchestrated a destructive attack on sony. the sony attack would be comedy, but it is literally no laughing matter. to other businesses, including financial institutions on wall street, health insurers, and others whose vital data may be to other businesses, including

taken. and to quote the f.b.i. agent in new york leo, who supervisors the cyber and special operations division, “we are losing ground." that's a quote. "we are losing ground in the battle with hackers." in december of 2013, we first learned about target's data breach, which affected credit card information and personal contact information for as many as 110 million consumers. the point here is that these losses of data are not only losses to these companies, they contact information for as many are potentially life-changing losses to consumers. target and j.p. morgan and anthem failed not only the companies, but they failed their customers and consumers when these data breaches occurred. this fact of life is more than the cost of doing business for these companies. it is an invasion of their privacy. it's an invasion of consumer privacy.

potentially theft of identity and personal assets. so the billions of dollars that could have been saved by consumers, creditors, banks and others toif companies and universities were collecting sensitive data, spent money and resources on better protecting that information is one of the facts that brings us here today. as attorney general, i brought a number of enforcement cases against companies that violated connecticut's data breach law,if companies and and i worked with my colleagues, including lisa mattigan, who is here today. and i express special appreciation for her great work in this area. but i worked with kelly iot who is now a colleague. so this issue is hardly a partisan one. in fact, it is distinctly bipartisan, involving stronger protections for sensitive consumer data, and we recognize

the states as laboratories of democracy and the great work that they've done in this area. so let me just conclude by saying i think that we have a lot of work that needs to be done, a lot of good work that should be done. but one guiding principle is , first, do no harm. that is, do no harm to the state protections and state enforcers who every day are seeking to protect their citizens from this scourge and spreading the problem of data threat. in order for consumers to trust retailers, banks and online sales, they need to know their data is secure, without abuse, whether they're shopping online or at bricks and mortar stores. consumers expect it. retailers collecting their sensitive information will do everything in their power to protect that data, and that's a reasonable expectation. they have a right to expect better than they're now receiving from retailers

companies, ininsurers, banks all of the institutions, including universities and nonprofits that increasingly have the coin of the realm which is data about consumers. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. we now will turn to our witnesses. with us today is ms. sherry f. mcgwire. she is vice president global government affairs in cyber security policy for system tech. mr. mallory duncan, general counsel, national retail federation. the chief information officer at brown university, but easier for me to say wichita state university, his previous employer. the vice president for information technology technology counsel. the honorable lisa madigan, the

attorney of the state of illinois. and finally, mr. doug johnson, senior vice president and senior advisor, chief economist of the american bankers association. let's begin with you. >> thank you very much. german moran, ranking member blumenthal -- share and moran ranking member -- chairman morag, ranking member blumenthal. thanks for the opportunity to testify today on this very important issue. as the largest security software company in the world, we are made up of millions of censors that give us a unique view of the entire internet threat landscape. we all have seen, even as of this morning, the recent headlines about cyber attacks have focused mostly on data breaches across the spectrum of industries. these network intrusions that result in stolen data have deep and profound impacts. for the individuals who must worry about and clean up their identities, for the organizations whose systems have been penetrated, and for the governments just trying to establish the right notification policies as well as deter and apprehend the perpetrators.

the magnitude of thefts of personally identifiable information is unprecedented. over just the past two years alone, the number of identities exposed through network breaches is approaching one billion. and those are just the ones that we know about. while many assume that breaches are the result of sophisticated malware and will resort -- well resourced state outdoors, -- state actors, the reality is more troubling. according to a recent report 90% of last year's breaches could have been prevented if organizations implemented basic cyber security best practices. outdoors, while the focus on data breaches and the identifies put at risk is serntly warranted, he must not lose sight of the other attacks, that are equally concerning and can have dangerous consequences. there are a wide set of dr and

available to cyber attackers. the attackers run the gamut including criminal enterprises disgruntled employees activists , and state-sponsored groups. it while the onslaught is well-documented, what seems to get less attention to the causes of data breaches and what can be done to prevent them. it targeted attacks are the single largest cause, most of which rely on social engineering, tricking people into doing something they would not do it fully aware of the consequences. last year, 60% of data regions came because of network -- data breaches came because of network intrusions. well good security. that -- while good

security. most of these attacks which often seek to exploit older known vulnerability, many organizations do not have up-to-date security or patch systems, do not make full use of the security tools available to them or have security unevenly applied throughout their enterprise. so what can we do? cyber security is about managing risk. assessing one's risk and developing a plan is essential. for organizations, there are many guidelines, including, as you discussed yesterday, the cyber security framework, the f.c.c. guidelines for small businesses, the online trust alliance data protection and breach readiness guide and many others. for the individual, we provide resources for managing online security to our norton customers and the f.t.c. and others have many tips available on their websites. and, in fact, just this week the s.e.c. published best practices for individual investors to secure their online accounts. in short, there's no shortage of available resources. strong security should include intrusion protection reputation-based security, behavioral based blocking, data encryption backups. and data loss prevention tools. and while the criminal tactics

are evolving, basic cyber hygiene is still the most cost effective first step. but turning to the policy landscape, semantic supports, as you said, chairman moran, a balanced and thoughtful national standard for data breach notification built on three principles. first, the scope of any legislation should apply equally to all entities that collect maintain, or sell significant numbers of records containing sensitive personal information. this covers both the government and private sector. second, implementing prebreach security measures should be central to any legislation. new legislation should not simply require notification of consumers in the case of breach but should seek to minimize the likelihood of a breach in the first place. third, encryption or other proven measures that render data unreadable or unusable should be a key element to establish the risk-based threshold for notification. this limits the burden for both

consumers and for the breached organization. at symantec, we are committed to improving online security across the globe and we will continue to work collaboratively with our partners on ways to do so. thank you again for the opportunity to testify again today. i will look forward to your questions later. >> exactly five minutes. thank you very much. mr. duncan? mr. duncan? >> chairman moran and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. data breaches need to be correctly and forcibly addressed. very -- they fundamentally affect our economies push toward greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness. by way of context, there is a long history of interception by private individuals and governments from opening letters to tapping and telephone conversations. today, we had super computers and the internet.

together they're crating a , public network with no boundaries, far more versatile and efficient than all the technology that has gone before . governments entrust them with critical infrastructure, businesses with their most valuable intellectual property , and millions of people type their deepest secrets into google, all while knowing the system is vulnerable. two intrusion, both by governments and sophisticated data hackers. this technology is still in its infancy, having commercially begun just a quarter-century ago. so we are still discovering its capabilities and implementations -- limitations and risks. today, we are here to address one of the most significant risks to emerge, data breach. it is congress's challenged with -- it is congress's challengetoday, we are here to address to incentivize companies to manage this risk.

in ways that preserve the benefits this technology offers. how can congress do that? there are three essential elements. uniform that is, express preemption, the uniform notice, express preemption and strong , consensus law. let's recognize that data breaches affect everyone. the 2014 verizon report, retailers and suffered their share of breaches, 11%. government agencies incur a higher percentage. hotel in restaurants constitute 10% while financial institutes represent 34%. it is not because those with the most breaches have the weakest security. it is because bad actors are always looking for the biggest bang for the buck. no single set of data security standards is fully productive of any industry. in a complex economy, each type of business is vulnerable in a different way. be defective account numbers or cloud data or intellectual property -- be it the fact of account numbers or cloud data or intellectual property. congress needs to provide

incentives for companies to increase their security and nothing motivates like sunlight. requiring every company have the same public notice obligations will provide this needed light. uniform notice has two benefits. it can help individuals take steps to protect themselves. but equally important, the consequences of requiring all companies to publicly expose their data breaches is a powerful incentive for them to improve security. nrs members are some of the best retail companies in america. public breaches have engaged our members about -- members' most senior executives. our members are investing in unique and terry lundgren tailored solutions. our nation's economy is bigger than retail. congress needs to encourage disclosure and the incentive for security it brings across the board. preemption -- there are more than 50 jurisdictions with breach of notice loss. many have common elements but they are not the same.

some come with different data sets, require different officials to be notified, and so forth. midsized companies struggling with the consequences of a breach face conflicting loss. in the midst of a breach when a company should be focusing on securing its network and identifying affected customers very instant diver -- very instant diver -- very instant diver -- they instead divert their resources to paying law foirms. the law with simple fiify the process. it must be real preemption. finally, it would not be appropriate to preempt the states, only to adopt the weakest law. rather, for a federal standard, you should be looking well above

the median, not the most excessive, but language that reflects the strong consensus of the state lost. we urge you to go further. establish the same notice obligations for all entities handling sensitive data. congress should not permit notice holes where they are exempt from reporting their known breaches. if we want meaningful and incentives to increase data security, everyone needs a skin in the game. nrf believes those three elements enforced by federal authorities and the state ag's are essential steps to properly and forcefully addressing the data breach conundrum that is plaguing businesses and consumers. thank you. >> thank you, mr. duncan. >> good morning. ranking member blumenthal and distinguished members of the committee and my eminent analyst, -- eminent an

panalisy, thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today about the data breach and notification legislation. it is truly an honor. i want to commend you for investing your valuable time to discuss this important area of cyber infrastructure and protection. as younger citizens get online to learn and create knowledge, your work on this legislation will be critical to protect our youth. as the amount of data continues to increase exponentially, primarily driven by our highly connected lifestyle, your work on this legislation will be critical to protect our netizens. as the internet connected devices are increasing the number from 10 million to a predicted 50 billion by 2020 impacting our economy by as much as $19 trillion according to many experts, your work on this legislation will be a critical catalyst. to empower innovation and wealth generation. as connected robots and 3-d printing fundamentally change

how we manufacture goods and manage our supply chains, your work on this legislation will be critical to supporting next generation innovation and our leadership in the world. we are truly looking at exciting times. i have the privilege and honor to serve as vice president and chief information officer at brown university. i am a brown university cisco fellow. i'm also a faculty member in both computer science and engineering. my area of expertise and research is in the internet of things, cyber security and aviation network security. i take great pride in admitting that i am a nerd. the privacy rights clearinghouse, as the chairman pointed out, as reported that there has been over 932 million records compromised in over 4000 since 2005. just yesterday, as it was mentioned, anthem reported a

very large breach that may be impacting many people in this room. since many federal employees are covered by the program's anthem offers. we must maintain a laser focus currently seven seats including rhode island the district of columbia guam have enacted similar legislation. no two are exactly alike. as a university with students from all 50 states, we are affected by all of them. making it very difficult. this can create a value for small innovative organization lacking the expertise to understand the state laws. this type of burdens breach notification is a breach issue. so i