if you're referring to the assessments that were done by gtmo back in the last decade, my impression is, knowing the population of that which we've 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. 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 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 plan 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. 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 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 motivated -- 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?

1983 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 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 them 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 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, 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 reengaged. does that number include the taliban five member 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 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. in 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 will not reengage. i think that's basic information that the american people need to know. thank you. >> 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 the recidivism danger and i'm going to get to that in 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 unconstrained 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 recidivism 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 violent activity against the united states or any u.s. personnel

when they were imprisoned at guantanamo. 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 publicly, so i'm assuming it's no longer classified, but i want to submit that question. >> let me check that for you sir. i am not aware of the quotation from the secretary. >> finally, with an important point for us, we're all concerned about the ongoing

viability and efforts in dialogue with the white house to determine whether that should be revised. and i just wanted to underline the continued legal 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 mentioned that 556 people have been tried on terrorism or terrorism -related charges in the federal courts of this country since september of '01 and not a single individual convicted has

escaped. am i correct that the military commissions have only conducted eight trials since '01? >> that sounds right, but we can confirm that for you. it's been very few. >> 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 data. 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 committee that have served this nation as you do and senator cotton has been a warrior. he has been a warrior on the ground in iraq.

i have been a lodge is tigs on -- logistician 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, 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 cotton's. 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 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 today. 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 also under trial in the military commission. the terrorist, the people who are at guantanamo have engaged in a range of activities from being active on the battlefield to providing support functions

to terrorist leadership. it runs the gamut. nick may have more detail. >> i think brian has it just right. it runs the gamut from known senior leader terrorist figures exercising leadership figures in 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. -- to the taliban as well. >> 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 iraq. 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. they will do that. 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 open. 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 reed. >> three quick questions. first, falling off this discussion of guantanamo as an accelerator of terrorist activity or deterrents, mr. rasmussen, you mentioned in your testimony, guantanamo is consciously used by a host of terrorist organizations, to recruit and propagandize. is that a fact? >> purely just judging by anecdotal 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 anecdotal evidence and what we can say with more precision about recruitment efforts. but i would say this. 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, -- messaging activity that goes on from terrorist organizations uses many, many factors and guantanamo is one 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 feature terrorist propaganda. we do owe the committee a better understanding of the direct connection. >> 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 country that might insist much more on the classification of our own purposes as a cooperation then the united states? is that a fair judgment? >> that's a fair statement, yes, sir. >> 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 that hostilities

-- any other individual is being held, if hostilities come to an end legally, than our ability to hold combatants ceases. so, we would have the address this question regardless of whether guantanamo was open and closed. is that fair? >> that's correct. >> senator rounds. >> 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? individuals held as enemy beligerants 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 some time. 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 -- 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. that's all i have, mr. chairman. >> i thank the witnesses for being 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. to be high or medium risk, we couldn't be told 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 qaeda or isil. the detainees assessed to be 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? go ahead. >> thank you. as we look at the taliban five i think the point made clearly they were top commanders in the taliban. 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 in west virginia. 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? 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 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, incarcerated. we released them. do you believe they should ever 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 diazed? >> 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? >> in sight, in c2, where we pick them up. >> after that. >> or we could do it in another place. we've done it with mr. warsami on a u.s. ship. >> so, a ship. and you can only keep someone on a ship for so long because it's temporary. 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 do 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 zawahari 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 p 3-case, we would ultimately bring them to the united states in new york or virginia where these kinds of cases are normally prosecuted. if not, we would look at whether we could prosecute them through the military commissions process. we would certainly interrogate them for a time.

>> except you know of course once they go into an article 3 court, 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 or isis would know. >> please answer. >> yes. senator. i don't think there has 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 federal court system, mr. warsami gave us plenty of information. federal prosecutors have a lot of tools in encouraging 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 americans soldiers? 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 motherload 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 perspectives 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. mckeon. 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 those, too. 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. >> 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 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 as 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 p.o.w.s. >> you also don't consider them as a difference between civilian

prosecution and military detention and military commission trials either. in which case, has -- 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 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 article 3 court today, we will. >> under considerable success

and a lot faster pace than military commissions. >> if i'm prosecuting in federal court. >> senator ayotte is correct. if 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 rights and told not the answer questions. >> 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 mirandaized. >> and if they have a lawyer the lawyer is going to tell them not to cooperate unless he tells

them 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. >> he's deceased, sir. >> he was taken from the ship after how many days?

>> i don't know how long he was on the ship. >> mr. rasmussen? >> 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 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 period of months. and isn't it true that a person held in that condition is not entitled to a lawyer?

>> i understand that. if you move to a trial and actually put them in a status of being prosecuted 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 powers to encourage cooperation. >> they don't have any more powers than the military process has. that's just a myth you guys have been talking about. all the powers you have is a plea bargaining. 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 promptly taken to civilian court to be tried in civilian court rather 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 ongoing at guantanamo. and what i would say in terms of

-- >> under this president, and in 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 statutory framework, these cases are dragging on, whereas in the civilian 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 judge is taking everything in the first impressions. i'm sure they take more time. 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 -- they were product of an -- campaign based on lack of understanding of the lack of reality of guantanamo. a perfectly humane and good place to keep people. we set up procedures 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, who are more knowledgeable 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 meeting is adjourned.

>> next, a hearing on the state of human rights in cuba. witnesses included activists and former political prisoners who outlined human rights violations and the need for political change in the caribbean nation. this committee hearing is 2 hours, 35 minutes.

>> we are here to examine the human rights this is a timely time. whether the obama administration used the leverage it wields or whether it was squandered in its haste to achieve a diplomatic breakthrough and create a legacy for the president. thus this is not only about cast row regime accountability but also the obama administration's accountability with congress exercising its

role of both oversight and as a gully bull pitt in reminding the world that cuba remains a communist dictatorship. i would underscore an estimated 178 political dissidents in the last month alone, one who is caled yo, rall castro has declared, would not change even in response to the obama administration's concession. this cast row regime continues to harbor fugetiffs from justice such as joe an chezz mar who was convicted in the 1973 murder of a state trooper in new jersey. officer forester was gunned down gangland style after she escaped from prison. indeed, just yesterday we had the assistant secretary for state for the western hemisphere jacobson appear before the full committee on foreign affairs. i asked her what the response of the cuban government was

when she raised the issue of the return of joe an chezzmar to justice. she replied that the cuban government stated that it was not interested in discussing her return. that is absolutely unacceptable. i have in my hand a statement which i ask to be submitted to the record from christopher burgos the president of the state troopers fraternal organization of new jersey, wrn he states, on behalf of our jersey state troopers that we are shocked and very disappointed that returning a convicted killer of a state trooper was not already demanded and accomplished in the context of the steps of the white house regarding this dictatorship. i would also point out that, as an aside, that both president burgos and the lieutenant both wanted to be here and we will have another hearing to hear from them and i look forward to

that followup hearing. fortunately, it is it is a tremendous honor to have with us today three extraordinarily brave and uniquely qualified witnesses to the brutality of the cuban dictatorship. three human rights activist whose at great personal cost to themselves and their families have and continue to stand up for human dickty. we will hear about the deplorable state of human rights in cuba. just read the state department report on human rights as well as the other reporting that has been done and it couldn't be more clear that human rights are violated with impunity by the castro brothers and their regime. i would note parenthetically that years ago during the reagan administration i met with armando who spent two decades in the cuban ghouling a system.

and i will never forget when he -- i read his book, he led a delegation. we went time and again to that commission asking them to look at the deplorable stated of human rights in cuba. when i was with him, i was in awe of his courage as well. he was able to get the u.n. to look at, pass a resolution condemning the deplorable situation in cuba and to deploy a team to go to the prison and investigate these terrible abuses of human rights. there were promises made by fidel castro that there would be no retaliation whatsoever against those who spoke in prison and the family members who came forward and friends to bear witness to a terrible truth. everybody was retaliated against. the people in the prisons as well as their families. and regrettably the u.n. was unable -- perhaps unwilling -- to mitigate or stop that

retaliation. i have pushed for years to go to cuba. i have been denied a visa for two decades or so. i want to go to the prisons. of course i will meet with fidel if i am able to lead a delegation or even go on my own with my staff. we can't get that visa. both frank wolf and i tried a number of times and it got so bad at at one point fast ro said we are provock tours. i want to meet with the dissidents. frank wolf and i got in the prison of the soviet union, the place where prisoners were tortured. when the president of east timor, i went and saw him when he was in jakarta and went to prisons all over the world. we can't get into cuba. we even got into bedgening prsen number 42 where activists were being forced to do ghouling a labor, head shaves,

looked like concentration camp victims. and yet wolf and i, mr. wolf and i could not and i can't get into those prisons. so i will be asking the government again, i've asked our government to help facilitate it, to go to the prison. and even on the icrc, yesterday the red cross, i asked the secretary, much has been made that the icrc might be able to get into the country. that is unacceptable, can't get into the prison. and there has to be no retaliation against those who speak out. i would point out that after testifying here today in public -- and i thank c-span especially and the journalists for taking this story and making americans aware of what is actually happening in cuba. right now as we meet they will be returning to cuba and this committee and i know the entire congress will be watching, to

ensure that their safety and well being and health is not further jeopardized. but the courage to come forward to a congressional hearing -- hearings. over on the senate side our friends received compelling testimony as well -- and to bear witness to an ugly truth of torture. i would ask everyone to go back and reread "against all hope," the famous book. he talked about tortures that i don't even want to mention in public they are so despicable, of putting dissidents in vats of excrement so bad that it went into their ears and nose and they got infections. he told me that when he and his wife when they finally got to the united states and got asylum that he couldn't even change his children's diapers because the smell of excrement brought back like ptsd rememberances of that kind of degrading and cruelty imposed

upon them. the castro brothers and many in this regime ought to be at the hague for crimes against humidity. that's how -- humanity. that's how bad it is. so again, i want to welcome our brave and courageous witnesses. i want to thank ileana ros-lehtinen and mario deezeblart. she has been such a leader for so long in raising the truth of what is going on in this ghoul ag island. i have much more to say but i will put the rest of it into the record. but i do want to thank our witnesses again and i look forward to hearing --. >> mr. chairman, i just want to take a brief moment before we

turn to the very serious topic to respond to a statement from this subcommittee's last hearing that had troubling interpretations. while discussing your position on marriage equality you made comments that some understood as suggesting that lesbian, gay, bye sexual and transgender people do not have basic human rights. after exchanging letters to you i think it's important to note that while we have very different opinions, we both agree that unequivocally lgbt people have the same rights as all other people to live lives freeve free from violence and persecution. in your letter and your public statement you said that you "unequivocally oppose acts of violence against anyone and believe that human rights apply to all. " and that -- and i quote again "all individuals including lgbt persons should be treated with respect and compassion. " i thank you for the opportunity to clear up the

confusion and to reaffirm our shared passion for protecting the human rights of all people. the policies of the united states is absolutely clear. lgbt rights are human rights. and lgbt people are free to live lights free from violence, intimidation and harm. >> i would say we do have a fundamental difference. i don't support homosexual marriage. i know you do. and i certainly respect your views. and i do want to point out that i am for universally recognized human rights for all. and there is no treaty that recognizes the right to marriage for homosexuals. but again i am glad we were able to work together. ok. why don't you go. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i do appreciate the clarification of that because i know with your long record on human rights that you would never be ok with the egregious

human rights violations that are taking place around the world in the lgbt community, and that there is a fundamental difference between marriage which many people have a difference around, but i know that there is no difference around lgbt rights and the violence, and oppose the violence against lgbt people. so thank you for that. today's hearing on human rights in cuba in the context of president obama's recent announcement i said yesterday in our foreign affairs committee that sometimes in talking about cuba it's difficult because my colleagues, and two of my colleagues are on the other side of the aisle right now in this hearing, have family history and personal situations that make it very difficult if one does have a difference of opinion i want to, one respect and acknowledge what my

colleagues have been through and what their families have been through. and with no disrespect or disregard for those histories want to take a few minutes and propose a different viewpoint. you know the president's policy of opening up relations with cuba i actually think is a very good thing, especially for people who are concerned about human rights. during the five decades that we have not had relations with the cuban government and the cuban people, the cuban economy did experience multiple economic shock, which really produced hardships for the people but none of it really produced the kind of popular uprisings or internal resistance that might have led to a change in government. i also think that the embargo prohibited diplomatic and economic engagement between the u.s. and cuba and i think that that many times is the way in

which societies become more open and accountable and democratic. and trade and cultural exchange becomes mutually beneficial. i think the embargo has impeded u.s. relations throughout the western hemisphere as many latin american nations view the embargo itself as a human rights violation against the human beingen people. i have to say that as a u.s. citizen i definitely consider it my human right to be able to travel to any nation on the earth and i have resented the fact that it has been difficult -- americans can go to cuba and i have been to cuba but it is very, very difficult to go there. and i don't believe -- and i might be wrong. but i don't believe that we have that restriction against any other nation in the world including iran, north korea and saudi arabia. all of which have extremely troubling human rights records. such travel restrictions as well as those of trade also violate the freedom of u.s. citizens in recent polling by

cbs, abc news, and the "washington post" reveal that a majority of americans are supportive of moving away from the policy of disengagement and toward reestablishing ties with cuba. i also think that engagement would be good for the cuban people as people to people exchanges and family travel would increase cultural engagement, assist in family reunification, and this opening of space will provide improved access to cuba for nongovernmental organization that is are focused on governance and human rights as well as facilitating technical assistance to cuban civil society groups concerned with improved standards of economic and personal freedom. i do have to say, mr. chair, you mentioned about visiting prizzbs in cuba. when i did go, i did visit alen gross and i visited him in prison. and i think that it was important that during the time

that mr. gross was incarcerated that a number of members of congress went over and visited him and pushed for his release. and i think that was a contributing factor. again, i just feel that you really can't change people and government whom you refuse to engage with. and so increased engagement, to me, seems like it would be a contributing factor to improving the human rights situation on the islanda. and i look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today. thank you. >> i would like to now yield to the chairman emeritus congresswoman ross leighton. >> thank you very much very much. and i also am glad that mr. gross is home. but if by visiting mr. gross you believe that you have been to a cuban jail, maybe these dissidents here could tell you what a cuban jail is really like. but we want -- we are thankful

that he is home but we could ask someone like mr. guzman, who is in the audience today, he served 22 years in castro's prison. and mr. smith, i would like to request unanimous consent to submit into the record a letter from the international committee of former cuban political prisoners based in new jersey documenting a list of the many cubans still languishing in castro's ghoul ag and thank you to mr. guzman for pointing that out. >> without objection. >> thank you so much very much for convening this important hearing for your unyielding and passionate commitment to human rights, to freedom. not just for the oppressed people of cuba but for all people everywhere who suffer under oppressive regimes and who continue to seek the most basic and fundamental rights for many people that they take for granted. everywhere there is an

oppressed person a political prison, there you will find mr. smith. so i thank you for that. i also want to welcome our wonderful witnesses. all champions of freedom on the island. and the face of what the democratic future of cuba will look like. look at those faces. that is the cuban now that is the free cuba of tomorrow. these are brave pro democrat sick activist whose have seen first-hand the brutality of the regime by the constant arrests and beatings that they have had to endure, the isolation that they have had to endure while in jail, they did not have food prepared especially for them. they were starved. and after this hearing they will be going back to cuba. amazingly enough, as you pointed out, mr. smith, to continue the fight for freedom and democracy.

beta, as a matter of fact, she will be marching with her sisters, the ladies in white this very sunday. and by the way while all these negotiation are going on, there were 13 detentions of the ladies in white just last sunday. so if you think everything is rosy and bright and terrific and all wonderful, just ask these three dissidents what life is like for them. very unlike what we hear from others. our witnesses are just three of the countless faces of cuba who represent the future, who the administration has shut out of the negotiations. and rarely are they invited to meet with visiting dignitaries. we are glad that they get the chance to get to go to cuba. rarely do they invite dissidents who disagree with this administration. these are the people who have to suffer the consequences of the administration's decisions. it's easy for the president to change this policy in his ivory

tower. these are the faces who must now suffer under a castro regime. the administration is now reenergized. the president's december 17th announcement serves to both embolden the regime by implying that it can continue its impressive machinery with impunity. rall castro said we will not change and we look the other way. it undercuts and immoralizes the brave fighters in cuba who rightly believe the united states has turned its back on them. but don't confuse the u.s. people with the administration just like we don't confuse the castro regime with the people of cuba. and for what are these negotiations? so that more americans can travel to cuba and see what the regime wants them to see? all the while the regime fills its coffers and we ignore the

truth. because who own it is hotels? the castro regime. who runs the hotels? the castro military. the truth about the cuban regime is that it is a regime that severely punishes dissidents even to this day. and a young rapper was just last week. did he commit a crime? no. his charge was dangerousness which could lead to a crime. it's a pre-cause of that movie. they predict that you're going to commit a crime so they arrest you that you are going to commit it. this regime forbids reform and will do anything to maintain its grip on power. the censorship apparatus, one of the most comprehensive in the world, it forbids cubans from listening to independent private or foreign broadcasts and sensors the propaganda. it is important that we understand the kind of

murderous regime we are dealing with in cuba and that president obama wants to normalize relations with. on november 4, 1999 the house committee on international relations convened a congressional hearing entitled the cuban program. torture of american prisoners by cuban agents. at that hearing you remember, mr. chairman, we heard testimony from american pow's, prisoners of war who were tortured at a prison camp in north vietnam known as the zoo during the period of august 67-august 68 according to reports 189 of those courageous service mep were psychologically tortured and beaten by cuban agents working under orders from hanoi. and while the state department led the negotiations la month in havana, its very own reports on human rights practices for 2013 states this. the following additional abuses continued. harsh prison conditions,

arbitrary arrests collective prosecution, denill of free trial. this is from the state department. our state department. they are still negotiating with castro while this is going on. authorities interveering with privacy, invasive monitoring of private conversations. the government did not respect freedom of speech and press, severely restricted internet access and maintained an on outlets, circumscribed academic freedom and religious groups to meet and worship. our own state department, the government refused to recognize independence human rights groups or permit them to function legal lifment they can tell you about that. in addition the government continued to prevent workers from forming independent unions. where are these voices who are so much for independence unions here in the united states? but not for you. you're not good enough. i'm sorry. no union for you.

the most human rights abuses were official acts committed at the direction of the government. our own state department says this. impunity for the perpetrators remain widespread. i could continue. mr. chairman, we cannot be the land of the free across the world if this administration doesn't defend democracy right here in our own hemisphere. we cannot call for democratic reform and values throughout the world if we abandon them 90 miles from our shores. thank you, mr. chairman, for this time. welcome to our panelists. >> thank you for that extraordinarily powerful statement and for your consistent support again not only of the cuban people but people who are dealing with tyranny all over the world. >> i hope you get your visa. don't hold your breath. >> i would like to now yield to my friend and colleague mr. sicily. >> thank you. i thank you and the ranking member for calling on today's hearing. i particularly want to thank the witness whose are here

today and thank you in advance for sharing your insight and your experiences. i know that some of you are bravely joining us today to share very personal stories of very difficult and painful experiences. and we are really indebted to you. as i discussed yesterday during our full committee hearing, i like many continue to have deep concerns about how the cuban government treats its citizens. but it's clear that the united states policy on cuba over the past several decades has not worked either. and i am hopeful that president obama's everts to engage in real substantive negotiations to a more cultural exchange economic trade and ties with cuba will ultimately benefit the united states and more importantly the cuban people. i hope the cuban government will come to the table to work with the united states for a more free tolerant and open society for the cuban people. it's very important for us to

pay close attention to make sure that any changes are implentied in a way that maintains our commitment to promoting basic valus and human rights. so i thank the witnesses again for being here and look forward to your perspective as the relationship between the united states and cuba begins to change. >> i yield to my good friend and colleague who has been a very powerful voice. mario deezeblart. and thank him for joining us. he is a member of the appropriations committee. and he does us the honor of being here. >> let me first thank you for the opportunity to sit in for a few minutes. i will not be able to stay for the entirety of the hearing because i have other meetings to go to. but i could not let this moment pass. without first thanking you, sir, for your just steadfast leadership and your consistent leadership. whether it's been fighting for freedom and supporting the opposition in vietnam and communist china and north korea, wherever there has been oppression mr. chairman you

have always been consistent. just like chairwoman emeritice i williana ross leighton. i want to thank both of you. i just want to make a couple of comments. and the ranking member who is very kind in her introduction mentioned about how some of us might have some family history. the issue of human rights has nothing to do with family history. because i for one am opposed to oppression in communist china, in north korea in vietnam. and i don't know i was a very young man when we had sarningses against south africa. and i supported the sanctions in south africa. i'm assuming that the ranking member was also opposed to sanctions in south africa because i'm assuming obviously that she is also as consistent as the chairman is on these issues. i supported as a young man those sanctions against south

africa. because doing business with the apart thide regime was not the help the folks who were struggling for freedom. all it did was help prop up that regime in south africa. so mr. chairman, i couldn't let this time slide by without being here. >> could i ask the gentleman to yield? >> of course. >> i really was only trying to acknowledge the fact that i realize people had personal situations. i wasn't trying to say that that's the only reason you're concerned about cuba. it's just hard, if you have a different opinion, -- i just wanted to respect what i knew you and i williana's family had been through. that was all. >> and i thank the ranking woman. and i said, for your kind statements. i took it as a kind statement. i want to make sure of that. i am just saying the issue of human rights and consistency is important. when we look at the folks that are here today i mentioned

south africa. in front of us today are the mandolas, are the haubles, are the future leaders of the free and democratic cuba. when folks talk about cuba they sometimes confuse the regime with cuba. no. this is cuba. in front of us today. they who have spent years in prison. 17 years in prison. ask him about the conditions of the prisons. ask others about how well the cuban people are treated. just go to the you tube and look at her videos to find out how respected and how well the cuban people who dared just speak out for freedom are treated. ask about what happens when you

just walk peacefully with a flower in your hand going to church and asking for freedom of their relatives. ask her how the cuban people are treated. so at a time when during the state of the union our president spoke about cuba -- and by the way, for the first time in my recollection did i see a president speak in the state of the union about cuba and not even mention -- not even mention human rights. not even mention democracy. not even mention -- not even give lip service to elections in cuba. i am grateful to you, mr. chairman, for bringing these heroes the future leaders -- them and others, the future leaders of cuba, to this, the united states congress, to testify.

because, again at a time when the president -- when our president has decided to ignore the repression, the arrests, heck even sending of arms to north korea from the castro regime, the house as it always has will continue to stand with you, with the future leaders of cuba with the people of cuba, and not with the regime. i am grateful for the opportunity mr. chairman to be able to sit in here for a few minutes. i yield back. >> thank you so much for your powerful statement. and which has been consistent throughout the world. i would like to now recognize the gentleman mr. emer. >> thank you, mr. chair, hithes difficult to follow that from a new colleague. so i won't. i won't try to follow that. all i will do is say thank you for this hearing. and especially in light of the

president's decision to somehow restart diplomacy with the regime currently in charge in cuba. they talk -- and there are still concerns for some of us about why the president would have used the process he used sidestepping the state department, having over a year of secret meetings that didn't involve normal process. but that part aside it really is all about the human rights and the cuban people. which is why it's so interesting to me. the discussion about normalization of the relationship is really what we are here about today. and i appreciate that you and the ranking member have decided that we are going to bring in some people to talk about some basic freedoms, the situation exercise the oversight that is the jurisdiction of this committee. because, thankfully, the president has acknowledged that he does not have the authority to dismantle, as he suggested the embargo and start to

normalize relationships with cuba. that's up to congress. and hopefully it starts here today. we can talk about how people can have basic and fundamental rights to assemble with people that they want to speak freely on their own behalf, and god forbid even against their government. and that people can actually practice their faith in public and be proud of it. i am looking forward to being part of the process. and i thank you again for holding this hearing and for the witnesses i look forward to your testimony today and i yield back. >> thank you very much. i yield to mr. fitch. a leader on religious freedom especially in this congress and on chinese human rights. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i deeply appreciate being here. and forgive me for being late. but i want to come to pay tremendous respect to those who have come to testify today. each of us are still searching on the merits of why the

president would make unilateral decisions that he made to provide diplomatic relationship with cuba. against the wisdom of a dozen previous presidents. what he has done is elevate a terrorist state. along with cuba is syria sudan, iran who are terrorist states. and now they have -- he has declared to the world that this state is acceptable. to the united states. it's a very sad day. i work -- have worked for the last 30 years with missionaries in cuba. they tell me the plight of the religious inequities and the challenges that face and people living -- trying to live out their faith. so i am deeply concerned over the impact of what will happen.

the elevation we have given to the mar sist doctrine that will be encouraged throughout the world. we have dealt with cuba on an ongoing basis in the united nations as they sought to engage those to oppose the united states and those of our closest allies including israel. so i am here to pay respect to you and thank you for your commitment, and to clearly say to you that we stand with you fully engaged on behalf of the wonderful people of cuba. thank you. and god bless you. >> thank you. and it is now a very distinct honor and privilege to welcome our very distinguished witnesses. they are doing here today in washington which they would not be able to do in cuba, especially before that rogue congress where there is really no real elections, no free and

fair elections. let me begin first with mr. garcia-perez antunez. he was inspired early in life reading the human rights. he is a leader of a nonviolent movement to promote human rights democracy. he was arrested in 1990 for peacefully protesting the castro brothers' oppressive regime and spent the next 17 years in jail as a political prisoner. he endured horrific torture beatings solitary confinement and denial of needed medical care that almost cost him his life. since his release in 2007 he has continued to advance the cause of freedom and human rights in cuba. he also knows first-hand the discrimination suffered by affro cubans on a daily basis,

an under-focused-upon aggressive racism employed by the castro regime. we will then hear from ms. solar who has been the leader of the ladies in white movement since the death of the founder. the ladies in white are the wives of female prisoners -- political prisoners. she and fourth other members received the prize for freedom of thought by the european parliament in 2006. but the castro brothers barred them from attending the award ceremony. she and her husband has remained in cuba since his release rejecting an offer of immigration from spain in order to continue their struggle for human rights and democracy in cuba. i would also note that the ladies in white have been nominated by us and others in a joint request to the noble peace prize committee along

with dr. beshet, another affro cuban and medical doctor who has been tortured horrifically as well. he testified here as you know by way of a phone hookup and told us do not -- do not end the embargo. get the conditions first. get human rights endureable human rights before that embargo is lifted. and he said it at great risk to himself. he pointed out as many others have pointed out, that europeans have been trading with cuba for decades with no ameal ration whatsoever. and have been a lifeline to a dictatorship which russia first provided then venezuela, unfortunately trade coming in from europe and canada. then we will hear from sara who grew up in a household that opposed the system based on their principles and their deep religious beliefs. due to her family's faith she was denied the right to

complete her studies. in 2004 she came -- became a member of the pro human rights party affiliated with the andre sock rove foundation. in 2009 she joined the rosa parks civil rights human rights movement and became the dell galt for the city of havana. that same year she began participating with the ladies of white. she and her family have experienced numerous state organized mob attacks and her house has been vandalized and searched by government agents throughout the dressed in civilian clothes. as a result she has sought refugee status in the united states. then we will hear from mr. jeff asayo who overseas the office research and advocacy on human rights issues. along with a focus on specific countries, he has led the team that authored forging new ties for new direction in u.s. policy toward latin america

hfment he studied cuban issues and traveled to cuba more than a dozen times. i wish i could get that visa -- including he coordinates coalitions who favor lifting the general travel ban on cuba. >> honorable congressman christopher smith, good morning all honorable members. i'm a former political prisoner who spent 17 continuous years of political imprisonment for