force going to be updating their o.r.d. or >> i have not heard that they are. >> right. >> all i know is about the existing operational acquire men's. requirements. the f-35 willay , and we are in6 the same situation. we have the same gap or capabilities that will be degraded, which is why it is so important we have this buyout. . >> i don't know if these will be degraded, that is what the testing is supposed to do. that is why we were planning it to be absolutely fair. we are going to consider all of the conditions, all the

different kinds of threats. we are also looking at threats, like the one the a-10 is being used in today. buildings vehicle personnel, different kind of control, different types of control and direction. all the different types of things that are done in support missions. use those twol aircraft to the best of their capabilities. they're certainly not been a specify how the mission is done. , toill do matched pairs compare how well every set of pilots choose to do those missions. >> it seems like there are

different things coming out of the pentagon. free determining of the outcome of the set. we are trying to get some consistency. i highlighted this to the secretary. it seems even but between the air force and the secretary of defense they have different things going on here. let's have a test, get the results of the test, and make it decision afterwards after whether we will be increasing risk. i appreciate the additional time, mr. chairman. >> gentlemen, this is one of our most important and largest programs. i want to thank each of you for your diligence in ensuring this program reaches all of the capabilities that are obviously going to be necessary. turner: because of that, before we conclude, i want to give you an opportunity if you have anything to put on a record or raise before the committee as we consider this, knowing that your

input is incredibly important. know we have your opening statements and continue to have your vice and counsel. thank you. -- advice and counsel. thank you. [indiscriminate chatter]

>> for this year's student cam process, they talk about the issues they would like the candidates to discuss during the 2016 presidential campaign. they tell us the economy, equality, and immigration are all top issues. thank you to all the students and teachers that have competed this year. in april, starting

on the first, each of the 21 winning entries will air at 6:50 a.m. on c-span. you can also check out the website. >> today was the first congressional budget hearing for smithsonian secretary, david skorton. team's 27 budget request is 922 million dollars, an increase of almost 10%. says thatngton post," such an increase was unrealistic. it is just under an hour. [indiscriminate chatter] >> the committee will come to order. toid skorton, i would like welcome you to today's hearing. i appreciate you joining us this

morning to share your vision for the future of the smithsonian and to discuss your budget priorities for the fiscal year 2017. the members and staff are also grateful you brought some interesting historical items for show and tell. it is going to one of the highlights of our hearing season. you clearly have one of the most interesting jobs in town. i think most of us around this table would love to trade places with you, but something tells me it would not be in the best interests of the smithsonian. so we will all keep our jobs. the smithsonian's mission is to increase the diffusion of knowledge. as the 13th secretary of the smithsonian, you are interested with the challenging sponsored abilities of operating and managing one of our countries most revered institutions. the smithsonian is often referred to as america's attic. no wonder you are the steward of more than 38 million objects in the national collection that

reflects america's cultural and scientific heritage. smithsonian provides education, outreach programs in art, culture, history, and science for visitors. president, nine private citizens, and six members of congress, including our good friend tom, who serves on the subcommittee. overall, the proposed funding level of the fiscal year 2017 million,is $922.2 which is about 10% above the fiscal year 2016. compared with other major accounts under the subcommittee's jurisdiction, your request is one of the most ambitious, as measured on a percentage basis. organizations, the smithsonian faces enormous challenges which we will discuss at length today. we recently learned of the need

for enormously costly repairs to the national air museum. if approved, this effort will place extraordinarily dass extraordinary burdens on the budget for the foreseeable future. the subcommittee congratulates the smithsonian on the news of the opening of the national museum of african american history and culture on september 24 of this year. the committee has met its funding commitment, one half the total cost for construction of the museum. we are pleased that this extraordinary public-private partnership, enabling the museum to be built has proved successful. the construction is now nearly complete. construction of the african american museum and the proposed repairs to the national air and space museum are illustrate -- illustrative of the very real challenges the subcommittee faces. both increasing demand for and thinking supply of federal dollars to address many

legitimate priorities. for this reason, it is essential that the smithsonian outlined and clearly communicate its highest and greatest priorities. every member of the subcommittee would like to support the 10% increase for funding for the smithsonian. but, given the incredible demands, it is probably not realistic. difficult funding decisions will have to be made. the subcommittee will do its very best to adjust the smithsonian's most urgent priorities. i look forward to your testimony and continuing to work together. in closing, i want to commend you for the smithsonian's efforts to improve the display and storage of your vast collections. based on the input this committee received from members on both sides of the aisle, it is very clear, that the preservation and care of these lifeless and irreplaceable collections remain a high priority of this committee and this congress. i am happy to yield my good

for anymrs. mccallum opening remarks you would like to make. welcomeld also like to you here. this will be your first budget hearing before the subcommittee. appointed the secretary of the smithsonian this october. i am pleased that an opportunity to learn more about this institution and how you plan on working through some of the challenges as the chairman pointed out. forsmithsonian was treated an infusion of knowledge. it has the ability to capture the imagination, a both children and adults. it has something for everyone. in particular, the unique imagination. it is truly a delight for families, the interactive craft, exploratory learning that is there. i have to tell you, it is a destination for some children i know well whenever they come to

town. i also want to applaud you for the triumphant opening, which is a -- providing joy for a record number of visitors. i got to be there for the opening exhibit, it was fabulous. institution, the budget request is $922 million, an increase of $82 million over the 2016 enacted level. these increases will help support the smithsonian's research program, their diverse collections, and make essential investments for both the facility and the workforce. in regards to your collection, i would note that the administration has not proposed funding for the american treasures program. the park service began in 1999. joiningnstrumental in with others to preserve national

historic collections. some of which are housed in your museum at the smithsonian. for example, the star-spangled banner flag. i hope it is given an opportunity, if smithsonian will support efforts to restore the program which has a direct connection between reserving your collections. other committees within the jurisdiction, smithsonian is facing challenges with the maintenance backlog. many are operating with equipment more than 50 years old. currently, the smithsonian's index rating is considered poor. in order to achieve acceptable facilities condition index score and ensure safe -- health and safety for guests and employees, the budget requests $163 million.

majormount will continue renovations at the national zoo and other priority areas, including the national museum of american history, and natural history. -- $50 provides a 50 million increase to the air museum. it is one of the most visited museums in the world. unfortunately, it is facing significant challenges with a deteriorating facade which allows moisture into the building. the first ofis several significant increases the smithsonian will be requesting to address issues that the air and other museums. construction of off-site storage, also. while they are big investments, there in the long-term interests of the nations. it is also the federal government's responsibility to provide necessary funding to ensure the 28 million visitors to the smithsonian have a safe

and enriching experience. i am pleased that the national american -- history of african-american history will be opening this fall great it is a chance to learn about the rich cultural achievements of americans of african descent. it will also be the first digital museum. that means anyone can share the experience. people in minnesota are so excited that they will be able to be there as part of the opening. virtual collections provide amazing educational opportunities for millions of children. and, you are bringing the museum right into customs. work thatreciate the you and all your employees do at the smithsonian. you provide scientific and artistic light to this nation. i yield back to mr. chair and thank you for your time. and with that i

yield to you dr. sport in. dr. skorton: thank you for this opportunity to testify. entirelf of the smithsonian institution, we appreciate the continuous, generous support of congress. this support makes for a huge and very collections of national treasures accessible to the american public. of thesplay star-spangled banner, to research on the evolution of the koran a source wrecks, we take take ourex, we obligation to the american public very seriously. public-private partnership is working well. bejuly, i was privileged to a part of this great institution. today, i would like to share a few of our recent achievements, and touch on the two major

objectives. strengthening ou intellectual foundation, and strengthening our physical infrastructure. support advances the civic, educational, scientific, and artistic life of our nation. just a few recent highlights. our new museum of african american history opens on the mall this november. smithsonian scientists use our collections to provide important and practical insights on a variety of topics during consider the zika virus. the department of defense is working with us to map the outbreak. at how it might spread through non-human factors. the smithsonian institute in panama is studying the zika- carrying mosquitoes genetic makeup. s offerional museum

insight into our nation's leaders. our diverse music collections would comprise the largest in the world if they were all in one place. now, they are, at a new website called "smithsonian music." gallery reopened in november, following a two-year renovation. wonder, hasvision, attracted more than 368,000 visitors in just the first four months. and we welcomed a new panda to the zoo. represents our extensive work in a species biodiversity. in addition to the nearly 30 million visits to our museums in washington and new york are the, we are extending access and education across the country. affiliatee 208

museums. serviceeling exhibition reaches millions annually. we offer online educational materials in the k-12 to students of all ages, and teachers with more than 2000 learning resources available online. free. them for our science education center has been helping to transform formal science education on the k-12 level for more than 30 years. this curriculum is used in every state in the country, and in 25 other countries around the world. one at a 38 than million objects in our collection. to expand access, we have traded millions of electronic images and records, and become leaders in the field of three-dimensional scanning. i was recently at the national air and based museum as her climbed intoully

the apollo 11 command module to create a three-dimensional scan of its interior. revealing for the first time, notes, and a calendar written inside by american astronauts. what a discovery. willf this information we offer online this summer for everyone to explore for free. such treasures explain why the air and space museum is among the top three most visited museums in the world. and we're gearing up to transform it so it will be there for generations to come. this is a perfect example of one of our major objectives strengthening our physical infrastructure. our request also includes construction of the air and space needs the m's collections module at the center in virginia. funds for revitalization's projects, and for planning and design of future projects. these funds will enable the institution to continue major revitalization work at the

national history museum, the zoo, and the national museum of american history. our other priority is strengthening our intellectual programs. curators have shrunk substantially, especially in some of our museums. we need to reverse this long-term trend in the loss of territorial and research staff. we need new experts who can continue to acquire and exhibit our unique collections while also ensuring the availability of the collections for critical research. the smithsonian does face a future that holds exciting opportunities and imposing challenges. working with the congress and the administration, we will aggressively address these challenges and take full advantage of many new opportunities. again, i think for the opportunity of testifying. thank you mr. chairman. as you mention in

your opening statement, the national air and space museum which is the most visited museum in the united states, and the second most visited in the re in, behind only the louv paris, is in need of major repair work. seen,ojection i have projects the cost to be extraordinary, nearly $600 million. this exceeds the total cost of a new museum of african american history and culture. can you explain in some detail, the nature of the repairs needed, and why the estimated cost to address them is so high? thank you, mr. chairman. the museum is 40 years old. we have projected for a long time the need to update mechanical systems in the building. that accounts for something on the order of magnitude of $200 million in projected costs. much of it is due to an unanticipated problem found in the clay of the exterior of the

building. bywill require replacement new materials for the safety of the public going into the building and for the building's own integrity. it will also be necessary, from my perspective, to keep as much of the museum open during the revitalization as possible, given the in norm the american public has to visit the museums and gain from the collections. some of the funding will go to the necessity to move items to off-site storage, while a particular part of the museum is being moved -- worked on, and then moved back. thingsu add all these up, it does come to an extraordinary number. funding is to continue for this project for another

year. and to directly do the construction over a five-year. , until fiscal year 2022. mr. calvert: what were the replacement costs to just tear the existing museum down and rebuild it? dr. skorton: this was the very first question i asked when i was wrought on board. they told me about the very challenging price tag on repairing this building. counterintuitive, but first you would think it would be much more parsimonious to replace the building, but it turned out to be much more expensive, on the magnitude of $2 billion. please bear with me why i explain why that would be. we would have to have a place to move the entire collection. such an enormous building, with such an enormous collection, all the objects in there, including very large projects, we have to rent or build a massive storage facility. we would have to shut the missed -- museum down for years.

in addition to the generous, steadfast support congress has given us, we have been able to raise some funds through retail operations, imax theater, shops, and so on. of course, we would lose that revenue. when you add it all up, although i say it is counterintuitive, given the very expensive project to replace it while keeping say, have to museum open throughout the project, is actually much less expensive than it would be to replace the entire building. but i thank you for the question. mr. calvert: and of the $600 million, how much do you anticipate would be funded through appropriations, and how would it be a just through non-federally funded sources? i would have to ask that the entire amount is funded through federal means, and may i please expand on that? i had a great opportunity in my career to participate in

fundraising for a variety of distinguished, nonprofit institutions. the smithsonian uses the leverage that you supply, by providing steadfast support. in my experience, it is difficult to build philanthropic funds for repair, as opposed to something new. that inasten to add planning for the future of the national air and space museum, we have plans for approximately two and $250 million of changes to the way we show exhibits to the public. interactive and electronic technology, a whole different approach. in addition to raise those funds, we already on our way to do that. but the actual reconstruction of the building itself, i am asking be completely done through federal funds. before i asked

betty to take over and ask questions, what are you explain some of the items you have us, and toe to show show everyone. dr. skorton: thank you, mr. chairman. although i gave you an amateur's rundown before, i will give you some professionals to give you a succinctore spacing -- discussion. i want to thank you for letting us share the collection today. from the national history by abrahams was used lincoln to sign the emancipation proclamation. also, the cracked plate portrait of abraham lincoln taken by the president's favorite photographer. from the astrological observatory has brought prototypes from a protected heatshield, part of nasa's solar probe spacecraft.

dr. eleanor harvey from the art museum has brought thomas moran's beautiful watercolor of the excelsior geiser at yellowstone national park. i have been warned to stay out of this. [laughter] >> it is above my pay grade. >> whatever you say, i agree with completely. >> my name is harry rubenstein, i am the chair of political history at the museum of national history. that sat onkstand the desk of major thomas accor at the telegraph office. as you know, abraham lincoln would go to the telegraph office to keep tabs on what was

happening during the civil war. in the summer of 1862, rather than swapping stories and jokes, he sat quietly at major eckh ert's desk, at what became the emancipation proclamation. and eventually saved it and presented it to the government. it will be in the opening of the african american museum, and will then move back to american history for our exhibition on american democracy. ink you. -- thank you. you can see that these are part of the stand, but these are little ink wells, with little figures of griphons. ns.grypho

>> hello, im the senior curator of photographs of the national portrait gallery. one of our genuine treasures. it is a portrait of abraham lincoln taken by gardner at his studio here in washington, d.c., which was located at the corners streets.h and d it was taken at 5, 1865. at the time that picture was taken, there was the expectation there would be many opportunities to photograph the president during his upcoming second term. the large glass plate negatives that was used to produce this print cracked, probably when a varnish was applied to it after developed. was made from this large glass negative before the negative was discarded. it was irreparably damaged.

what makes this image so evocative, is the expression we have on lincoln . face.coln's he hasn't seen it so much trial and tragedy, but you can see hope in his faint smile. a nation torn asunder is a drawing to a close. and there is hope for the future. the portrait came into our collection in 1981. it is one of the true treasures of our holding. >> high, i am dr. kelly clark and i have brought with me a prototype. this will fly in 2018 on nasa's probe mission to actually touch the sun.

it is not just a scientific enterprise, it is also somewhat practical. understanding the sun will help us save -- understand space and better.-- weather these instruments will all fly in 2018. >> good morning. my name is eleanor harbin, i am the curator at the american art museum. as a former geologist and art historian, i bring to you thomas painting of an excelsior geiser, painted in 1873 after congress set aside yellowstone is the first national park area the park behind you, yosemite, was set aside by abraham lincoln as a protected preserve in the middle of the civil war. was a sanctuary recognizing

the power of nature as something we hold dear, as part of america's cultural infrastructure. this watercolor was reproduced along with a fleet of others to help promote visitor ship to yellowstone. proposals based on a northern pacific railroad campaign, call see europe, but see america first, in order to get people out to places like yellowstone. they created both of the railroads and infrastructures so you can go watch old faithful and excelsior geiser erect in full display. it was a patriotic moment in america when we recognize we have such unique features in instill a kindat of civic pride and make people want to explore the vastness of the country that we have here. >> i want to be quick to indicate that the coverage on that, the first one was a historical, not a political -- [laughter]

>> since we have the portrait of abraham lincoln here, who wisely designated yosemite to be the first designated -- acquired national park, that was very wise of him. >> yes, it was. say, theairman, i must smithsonian family values every single part of the park services. the park services themselves are celebrating their anniversary. we have some great ones in minnesota. to take an opportunity. we met in the office and i have been doing more and more homework. i want to understand how to where you see yourself going in the future, because now surprisesve all these

for the air science museum renovation. last january, they gave us permission to explore creating exhibit space in london. it is my understanding that such a venture would be done completely using private funds. but you have been talking about leveraging a lot of private funds here today for current collections and current buildings. i am concerned that congress has not been a full part of the discussion. i bring this up because at a minimum, the smithsonian is an establishment of the united states and their funds are held in the united states treasury. lawsuit, they are represented by the department of justice. so we are intertwined here. in 2006, the smithsonian entered into a business venture with showtime network, to the eye or of congress because there was no

consultation. secretary revealed that in hindsight, the smithsonian should have consulted with the congress. we willtell us when know more about smithsonian's finance regarding london? when you plan on consulting with congress. as you address the problems as i said earlier, to domestic facilities like the national zoo, can you really rely on having enough private contributions to assist you with the deferred maintenance operations? we have to come back and asked the federal government to address some of these problems. can you give us an update on where you are in london and elsewhere, and if time permits, i have a question about the industry building as well. thank you mr. chair. i would like to try

to answer what i heard were three questions. extremelyll, in the important matter of consultation with congress, not only do we get two thirds of our funding because of your generosity and foresight, but we are an organization in the public trust. i cannot agree with you more. look hard for me to backward on what might or might not have happened in earlier consultation, but i pledge to you and the entire subcommittee, that we'll make consultation and transparency a hallmark of our administration. it is very important for all the reasons that you stated, including, but not limited to issues you brought up. secondly, i heard you raise a very important issue of leveraging federal funds in other ways. i will be very quick about this. we do that in two ways. roughly business or retail operations, like the shops in

the museums, the imax theaters, the magazine, other things you or derive a benefit. secondly, philanthropy, outright gifts. the smithsonian has been very effective in both retail and philanthropic sides. but as you mentioned and as the chairman mentioned, the needs are very challenging. it is going to take everything to keep pace with the very strong support you have given us, and with those who purchase things from us, and those who give philanthropic donations. i take it very seriously. i believe as a personal observation, i am still new at the smithsonian and washington, i believe part of the reason my were so successful in raising philanthropic funds, is because of these -- the

congressional support. it is my experience, that when there is solid public funding, other people will also join in. much fork you very that because you made philanthropy possible. now to the main focus of your question about london, it ties together a lot of these issues you raise. i think the opportunity for the united states to tell a story overseas in a time of, today is one of those terrible days where we are thinking so much about the international situation, to be able to tell the story of america overseas would be a good thing for the smithsonian and a good thing for the country. however, given the pressure on federal funds, and the pressure indicated, you have we have to make sure, and iparty pledged earlier and will pledge again today, we will not use the federal funds for this and not

do the project unless the finances can stand completely on their own. including not interrupting other flows of funds that we have to do. can't tell you today whether the project will come to fruition. i hope to have an answer for you and/or board of regents on the second week in april at our next meeting. but i think it is an exciting prospect. we have to have it stand completely on its own bottom. real quick, the smithsonian art and industry building is an icon. it is right next to the castle, an important role in the history of the smithsonian. at one time it was included by , one of the trust most endangered historic sites me united states. it was closed in 2004 for

renovation, and it was spring, almost 10 years later that they mentioned they would use it for short-term exhibits. could you update the committee on how you see the arts and industry buildings on your campus. the current condition of the building, and when will you finally be able to host events? is the challenge still adequate systems there?ac and i hope you also talk to congress about renovating the gardens there, too. they are adjacent to the building. i will talk specifically about the arts industries building, and if you have more specific questions about the gardens are the areas surrounding i will answer those as well. i have one of these dream jobs. i have a tree office that looks right at the capital. site, the of sat --

carousel room, watching a lot of young people enjoy, i often focus on the art industries building and asked myself the first time i came for interviews nearly two years ago, what are we going to do with this beautiful victorian building? the second oldest in the smithsonian universe. buildingntly has the been reopened. the systems you mentioned are up and running now. it to be their last october. think you for recognizing that. it was a beautiful chance to use the building. and so it is ready for those occasional uses right now. we are opening it for those kinds of uses this year. we are beginning to plan and are now at the point where i have something concrete and intelligent to share with you about more strategic uses of the building going forward. it is another one of those areas where we need to stay in touch

with this and the other subcommittees to oversee the funds for the smithsonian. year wherell be the you will see more use made of that building. thank you, i will follow-up with your staff on other questions. >> wonderful exhibits. >> thank you for all you do for us. >> thank you, mr. chair. thank you to everybody who brought such interesting exhibits for us to see. that was really a pleasure. we are very appreciative of the work that you do. i echo all the things that they said earlier. i want to talk a little about to thengs you say you do smithsonian, outside of d.c..

we have been fortunate to work with you on a variety of things. recently, the portland museum of art had a retrospective on realism, which we were able to do with the cooperation of the smithsonian. that is really important for , that dotes like maine not have the resources, and can access your resources. abouted to talk to you the program that is growing within the smithsonian. it is an important part of what you do in research. a lot of coastal communities interested in things like climate change, but we do not have a marine geode site in maine. to expand the number of partner sites? have you thought about how you more narrowlyh focused organizations interested in becoming research sites, either by allowing additional resources to expand research, or

allow them to contribute? thank you very much. i hear two important questions embedded in what you asked me. let me take a moment to talk about our activities outside of d.c.. it is really important. it is a lucky subset of the united states that can get to them all. it is expensive to get here. began ay predecessors vigorous thrust on digitization. access to the internet, most but not all, can review major parts of the collection. being inap, -- also, the public sector, where the taxpayers are paying for it in every corner of the country, it is extremely important that we are responsive to their appetite to taste the smithsonian. the traveling exhibition

service, embedded in your comments about the portland projectse have other on the research and, that touch the nation and the world. our mission, which was part of the letter to establish the endowment, 107 years ago, our mission is to increase and diffusion of knowledge. we talk a lot about the diffusion of knowledge, the interface between the public in these unbelievable collections. but the research part is unbelievably important, whether we are talking about zika, climate change, you name it. consortio were set up for the research thinking of the smithsonian touching communities everywhere and help improve knowledge. notso, for those who are

familiar with it, the marine geode examines coastal waterways. coastal waterways are very important because that is where there is a tremendous concentration of life forms. tremendoustry, a population. the interaction between the human population in the wildlife that lives at the edge of the coastal areas is very important to study. we do not have enough funding so far to expand to the extent that i would like to expand. we do have a request as part of this to continue staffing and planning for marine geode. it was made possible for a combination of your support and oferous contributions individuals from the national board. leverage the to funds through true philanthropy

so we can begin to think more broadly about bringing more partners on. we have very good intentions in that regard. and i need to because us and what i promised because we do need to raise more funds. but i think, spending my whole life and science, but it is very important that that scientific research touches parts of the country, but scientists and people who want to participate, access areas far spread. i am with you in intention, and will work my best to make it a reality. >> thank you very much. >> thank you mr. chairman, and thank you for being here today. come by my office and talk to me. i would like to talk to you about some of the things -- panama, what is going on in panama, and what the smithsonian does there is very important.

the same thing that happened with the national art gallery, it needs to be replaced, the exterior of it. in a sense yes, and a sense know. isn't that a hopeful answer? >> i get that answer all the time. out, thatn: it turns when the exterior was cut, it was cut to a thickness about twice as thick as the thickness tting of the air and space museum. it was to speed along construction at a time when we were trying to get the building done for the bicentennial. of the gallery of art, it was possible to reuse thicker clatting.

response, that is why it is such an expensive project. >> at the same issue, relative to what caused the necessity for replacing it? dr. skorton: in part, it is. >> the other thing i would like to talk you about is, are you pressure on the arts and industries building down there to use it as the hispanic museum? or is that a question you don't want to answer? dr. skorton: i want to answer any question you have, i want to give you the right answer. of ourf all, part charge, part of what you expect us to do, is tell the story of america in all its completeness and beauty. the story of the american latino is a very important part of telling the story. as you know, a new museum for the smithsonian is always established by an act of congress.

that act has not occurred. however, my predecessors have already begun some years ago, to begin to gear up our efforts to tell the story of latinos in america. the two secretaries that preceded me, we have a project that you have been very generous in funding for a latino fund that allows us to fund some projects that have been very effective. we also have been hiring coming even though we don't have a specific museum, we have been hiring curators with expertise in telling the story of latinos in america. they are working in various places throughout the smithsonian. exhibits, fivee or six in the last year, touching on some of those areas. to it will be in your hands decide, should we have a national museum of the american latino esther mark in the continuing toe --

tell the story of the american latino. >> i got a tell you, it is not fair that you bring in all this neat stuff that distracts us so we can even your testimony. you have an advantage that others don't. true, then: it is world is not fair. but i am so glad to be on my side of it. >> thank you for your work in bringing these treasures. talk about your comments on the value of that region education. i think we are in environment in this country where we are -- institutions across our social spectrum. part of that i believe, is a lack of civic engagement. we justthat, is because

don't teach civics anymore in our classrooms and in our schools. a missed quiz circulating that when you ask a certain age cohort who won the civil war, the majority will say the british. that is a function of just not having access to history or the traditional civics lessons that we all were taught when we were growing up. so i would like you to amplify in your comments the importance of education, not just in washington. haswhether the smithsonian a mission, or would consider having a mission, with respect to greater civic engagement and civic education across the country. dr. skorton: thank you very much. , before when i quoted the mission statement of the increase and diffusion of knowledge, it is incredibly

important that it involves not thresholds crossing of our beautiful museums here in new york city and elsewhere, we need to go out and help people where they live. as i mentioned very briefly in the opening remarks, the education work of the smithsonian, for example, in stem disciplines, is very well established throughout the country. as people wish to use it. as you know, our k-12 system is a local phenomenon, largely. we are therefore for people who want to use it. that use occurs in every state of the united states. however, i think we could be doing even more in terms of outreach. i think that outreach could and should have occurred in two directions. it is one thing for us to offer educational services and arts and culture and history and

to partner with people who want to do scientific research as the congressman burr -- brought up. it is another to get their input. one of the hallmarks i hope to bring to the smithsonian, which is already been a part, but i hope to strengthen it, is to listen more to the public about what they want. the first thing i will do is start small and close to home. i think we also focus on the city of washington, the city of washington is where our home base is. with the help of mayor bowser, i am establishing a youth advisory council to meet from high school students in washington, d.c. i am hoping those high school students will be able to tell me what they're interested in, what they believe they need. and i want to go directly to the place where we would like to education to occur. the first meeting of this group i hope will be the very next month. and i hope to ask them the very question you're asking me indirectly, and that is, what

you think we need that we could do for you? in terms of a direct answer to your question about the lack of focus on civics, i am sure you know because it is an area of interest of yours, and everyone on the subcommittee, there is a where consternation about american youth are in terms of their knowledge of american history and civics. there are other organizations, nonprofit, that have been brought up to deal specifically with the citrix problem. what we can do is treat things that the smithsonian. we can offer exposure to the history of the united states and through the collections themselves. secondly, these museums already offer enormous numbers and are very effective types of public programs, public outreach programs. some are doing through smithsonian associates, some are done individually in different ways. again, all the can do is offer and hope they will come.

outtionally, i want to find what the public would like from us. in asking us questions, asked what we can do to be helpful in broadening your perspectives. thing, when i have a few minutes and my daily schedule, i walked from my office and go to the museums and talk to the visitors. i talked to the families and tourists who come in. one of the things they ask most consistently, not a scientific sample, but just in my nine months of asking them, parents will ask, what can you do to help my parents understand a fast-moving world? if they don't specifically ask about civics, they want to bring our kids along. so i appreciate your question. >> if you would find some time

to visit with me in my office, i would love to follow up and discuss valerie's you have for teachers across america and how it can be helpful. >> thank you, and we would love to spend the day with you doctor, but unfortunately we have to go vote. i would like to get into more depth somewhere down the road. i will visit the air and space museum with you, that is a huge number, as you know. we can find out how we are going to do this. i know it has to be done, a visible museum and a national treasure. with that, we are adjourned. dr. skorton: thank you very much. [indiscriminate chatter]

[chatter]

>> coming up tonight, speaker paul ryan on the state of american politics. followed by hillary clinton on homeland security and counterterrorism. the house foreign affairs committee hearing on clothing -- on closing guantanamo bay in cuba. a hearing on threats to the u.s. border. student camyear's contest, students talked about issues they want candidates to discuss during the 2016 campaigns. they told us the economy, equality, education, and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all the students and teachers that competed, congratulations to all the winners. every weekday in april on the,

first one of the top 21 winning entries will air at 6:50 a.m. eastern on c-span. all the winning entries are available for viewing online at studentcam.org. "washington journal" live with policy issues that impact you. thursday morning, executive director at the mccain institute for international leadership and michael green, president and ceo of the treatment national rumanity project -- fhte t national security project. they will examine how migration and immigration policies here and abroad play a role in the conflict. alicia caldwell, associated press homeland security reporter, talks about the west security posture in the wake of the belgium attacks. also the status of syrian refugees already in the u.s., and those that wants to come here. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. thursday

morning. join the discussion. house speaker paul ryan spoke today on the state of american politics. he talked about his desire for policy to prevail over politics. speaker ryan was introduced by new york congresswoman and the youngest serving member of congress. . this is about 35 minutes .

>> thank you for your patience. we are a bit late. thank you everyone for being here today. it's great to see so many young people in the audience. i am proud to represent new york's 21st district in congress. today it is truly an honor for me to introduce my friend, speaker paul ryan. i first got to know speaker ryan as paul in 2012 when he was selected to be the republican mice presidential nominee. my job was to help prepare then-congressman ryan for his upcoming debate. as you might imagine, a national campaign takes you to far-flung corners of this country. the first debate prep session with paul and his team was in oregon. i have prepared reams of first draft materials. after paul reviewed my work, he said "we need to dig deeper on the policy." those prizes there.

-- no surprises there. i have the honor over the weeks of watching how paul would encourage his entire team to understand the power of ideas and to raise our game and to work towards a writer american future. after the 2012 election, which was disappointing to our team, i went back home to upstate new york, discouraged. about our country i thought about my time working with paul, and how at the age of 28, paul decided to run for congress. it struck me that someone so young could make such an impact on the discourse in public policy. i was 29 years old at the time. instead of complaining about the state of american politics from the sidelines, i started the process of running for congress. when the odds were stacked against me 100 to 1, paul encouraged, stood by, and supported me. still the best piece of advice i received is from speaker ryan, who told me "you have 2 ears and

one mouth, use them in that ratio." he was highlighting the power of listening to the ideals within our communities. in my first year in congress, i did not anticipate that paul would become speaker. this is a choppy did not ask for, but he answered -- a job he did not ask for, but answered. when i talked to my constituents in new york about qualities that personify a public servant. they have to be hard-working, integrity, and political courage to put forth innovative solutions. speaker ryan and bodies each of these qualities. he is a happy warrior who understands the power of an idea. the power of the american idea and the american dream. so please join me in welcoming my friend and our speaker, paul ryan. [applause]

speaker ryan: let's hear it. [applause] vote.forget to go [laughter] thank you for your indulgence and patience. we have votes on the floor right now. i want to thank elise stefanik. she is inspiring. i want to thank all of you for coming here today. i want to thank kevin brady, my friend, the chairman of the ways and means committee for posting this today. i had the privilege of joining this committee in my second term. my seat was right behind these flags. it is a perfect setting for what i want to talk with you today about. because it is here in this committee that we debate the biggest most consequential issues,. we debate our tax code, health care, trade, entitlement reform, welfare reform.

this is a big deal to be on this committee. people strive to get on this committee. understanding the privilege and responsibility that came along with it, we took our jobs seriously. we always held ourselves to a higher standard of decorum. we treated each other with respect. we disagreed often, fiercely so. but we disagreed without being disagreeable. i speak of this in the past tense only because i no longer serve your in the ways and means committee. -- serve here in the ways and means committee. but it sounds like a speaking of a different time, doesn't it? it sounds like a scene unfamiliar to your in generation. looking around politics today, it is so easy to get disheartened. how many of you find yourselves shaking her head at what you see from both sides of the aisle these days? i see myself in each and every

one of you. io came here as a curious college intern, trying to get a sense of everything. trying to figure out where to take my own life. i would always ask older and more experienced people, what do you know now that you wish you knew when you were my age? well, here is my answer to that question. here's what i know now that i want you to know. that you cannot maybe see yourself today. this is not just a lesson for young minds, but a message for all americans. our political discourse, both the kind that we see on tv, and the kind that we experience among each other, it did not used to be this bad. it does not have to be this way. a little skepticism is healthy. but when people distrust politics, they come to distrust

institutions. they lose faith in government. they lose faith in our future. we can acknowledge this. but we don't have to accept this. in we can't enable it either. my dad used to always say, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. one for the other. so i have made up my mission as speaker to raise our gaze and aim for a brighter horizon. instead of talking about what politics is today, i want to talk about. what politics candy -- about what politics can be. what our founders envisioned it would be. america is the only nation on and on an idea, not identity. idea.dea is a beautiful

the condition of your birth does not determine the outcome of your life. our rights are natural, they are god-given. they don't come from government. it was a beautiful idea, it had never been tried before. fought toour founders establish a suitable order. they decided we were not maintain this idea by force. in the first federalist paper, alexander hamilton wrote that " absurd to aimt is by fire or sword. instead we will govern with the people's consent." there was no manual how to do this. that is why we call this the american experiment. it is still the american experiment. so they made each other, and they made those who came after take an old to uphold the constitution. -- take an oath to uphold the

constitution. every generation since has inherited this responsibility. leaders with different visions and ideas have come and gone. parties have risen and fallen. majorities and white houses won and lost. but the way we govern indoors -- govern endures through debate, not disorder. this is the one thing about our country. this is the most important thing about our country that makes it the greatest on earth.i must admit , i didn't always find this idea so exciting when i was young. as i said, i came to washington i'm sure what i would do with my life. i ended up working for a guy named jack kemp, you may have heard of him. he represented those from western new york. but he was a quarterback for the buffalo bills, one of the great quarterbacks of his time. then he were presented the buffalo area in congress in the 1970's and 1980's. he served in the cabinet under

president h w bush. and like me, he was one of our party's nominees for vice president. i first met jack kemp exactly where you would expect, at 40 a coast. [laughter] -- at tortilla coast. i had loans coming out of school, i had a few jobs. and i was waiting on jack kemp. i did not bother him that day. but i told a friend, when day i would love to work for that matter. as luck would have it, such an opening came up. the thing about jack was that he was an optimist all the way. he refused to accept that any part of america were idea could ever be written off. here was a conservative willing, no, eager to go into america's biggest communities and talk about how free enterprise would lift people out of poverty. these were the areas of the country that had not seen a republican leader in years, if ever.

i had the chance to a company jack on these visits. i saw people took to him. how he listened, how he took lessons from the experience. he found common cause with poverty fighters on the ground. instead of a sense of drift, i began to feel a sense of purpose. jack inspired me to develop my professional life to public policy. it became integration to me. --a vocation to me. ideas put to the test, that is what politics means. that is what our country can be. america we covenant have faith in our leaders. that sounds like a long-distance from where we are today, doesn't it? it can be a place where we have earned that faith, all of us as leaders. all of us as leaders can hold ourselves to the highest standards of integrity and decency.

instead of playing to your anxieties, we can appeal to your aspirations. instead of playing the identity politics of our base versus they are base, we unite people around ideas and principles. instead of being timid, we go bold. we don't just resort to scaring you. we dare to inspire you. we don't just oppose someone or something, we propose a clear and compelling alternative. and we don't just win your support, we win the argument. we win your enthusiasm. we win hearts and minds. we win a mandate to do what needs to be done to protect the american idea. a a covenant america -- confident america, we have faith in one another. we question each other's ideas vigorously. but we don't question each other's motives. if someone has a bad idea, we

don't think they are a bad person. we just think they have a bad idea. people with different ideas are not traders. they are not our enemies. -- are not traitors. they are our fellow citizens. sometimes they are even our own flesh and blood, right? we all know someone who we love who disagrees with us politically. but in the confident america, we are not afraid to disagree with each other. we don't look ourselves or lock ourselves into an echo chamber. we don't just tell us what we want to hear, where we take comfort with the dogmas we already hold. we don't shut down on people. and we don't shut people down. if someone has a. idea -- has a bad idea, why don't we told them our idea is better? we don't insult them into doing

agreeing with us. we test their assumptions. while we're at it, we test our own assumptions too. i certainly won't tell you i have always met this standard myself. there was time when i would talk about the difference beten makers and takers, referring to people who accepted government benefits. but as i spend more time listening, really learning the root causes of poverty, i realized something. i realized that i was wrong. takers wasn't how to refer to a single mom stuck in a poverty trap trying to take care of her own family. those people don't want to be dependent. and to label whole group of americans that way was wrong. i shouldn't castigate a large of americans just to make a point. talking and thinking about it that way. but i did not say this to be politically correct, because i was just wrong.

there are still going to be signs where i and you and we savings we wish we hadn't. there will be times when i follow the wrong impulse. governing ourselves was never meant to be easy. this has always been a tough business. when passions flare, ugliness is sometimes inevitable. but we shouldn't accept ugliness as the norm. we should demand better from ourselves. we should demand better from one another. we should think about the great leaders that have bestowed upon us the opportunity to live the american idea. we should honor their legacy. we should build that more confident america. , this as much as anything, is what makes me an optimist. in knowing that ideas can inspire a country and help people. long before i worked for him, jack kemp had a tax plan he was passionate about. jack kemp wasn't even on the ways and means committee that

rights the tax laws. -- that writes that tax laws. the odds of it going anywhere seemed remotely low. but he was like a dog with a bone. he believed passionately and his ideas, even though the odds were stacked against him. he took that plan to any audience he could get in front of. he pushed it so hard that he eventually inspired our party's nominee, ronald reagan, to adopt it as his own. in 1981, the kemp tax bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions back to work. all it took was someone to put policy on paper, someone willing to put an idea on paper and promote it passionately. this is a basic concept behind the policy agenda that hous republicans are building nowe. as leaders, we have an obligation to put our best ideas forward no matter the consequences. with so much at stake, the american people deserve a very

clear picture of what we believe, of what we would do. personalities come and go. but principles endure. ideas endure. that's the thing about politics. we think in politics in terms of this vote or this election. but it can be so much more than that. politics can be a battle of ideas, not of insults. it can be about solutions. it can be about making a difference. it can be about always striving to do better. that is what it can be. and that is what it should be. this is a system our founders envisioned. it is messy. i'ts complicated. it is infuriating at times. but it's a beautiful thing, too. thank you all for being here today, i really appreciate it. [applause]

for the young folks in the audience, i would love to answer some questions. go ahead. i can repeat it if you can't get it out. >> first of all, thank you for having this. this is an awesome thing. you talk about introducing stability --civility in politics. who is that more incumbent upon? the institutions, the candidates? speaker ryan: the founders created this american idea, an amazing thing, unprecedented, never been done before. guess what? it is our job to

preserve it. sometimes today we see a politics that is degrading, that is going to the base, bassist of our emotions -- b asest of our emotions. here is our job as leaders, we need to raise our gaze and raise our game and talk about ideas about how to unite us, not prey on people's separations or identities. your job as a young person finding your way in life is not impugn another person's motives, it's to listen and to try and persuade. it's to accept that people think differently. they may have different ideas.they are not bad people . that is unfortunately what is occurring all to often today. your job in each and every one of our jobs as citizens is to respect other people's opinions, be passionate about our intervals, and advocate for them without impugning another person's motives. our job as leaders is to offer a

clear and compelling agenda. to talk about ideas, not trade insults. [chatter] speaker ryan: yeah, you need a mic. >> i am from congressman greg walden's office. thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. you talked about confidence and optimism. i'm not going to ask you to name names or be specific about the presidential election. how can we be confident that after this election, that our generation can enter into an optimistic america, politically? speaker ryan: this is what inspired me to get into public service as a vocation. i lost my dimon i was young, so

i grew up with mentors. -- my dad when i was young, so i grew up with mentors. jack kemp and his sense of passion for good ideas had a meaning. that is what politics should be. that is what it can be. that is what it has been. that is what, if we all work together, it can be again. the point i'm trying to make here is that right now our sense of politics -- and this isn't just the right or left, this is happening all across the country -- we are slipping into being a divisive country. we are speaking to you cover in a coach numbers -- to each child in echo chambers where we think there is something wrong with the people that don't agree with us. we question and impugn motives. that is where it doesn't need to be and where it wasn't and where it shouldn't be. the whole point i would make is if we are going to keep this

beautiful american experiment going, we have to stay unified. that does not mean we have to agree with the same ideas or policies or candidates. but it means we need to raise our respect for one another, our public discourse so that we can get a better outcome. our founders were clear about this. they made this people system. the system only works if we participate in it with mutual respect. anybody on this side? >> thank you for being with us today, speaker ryan. i currently in turn -- intern. my question is one of leadership, certainly with the most recent leadership role confirms a lot of responsibly on you.

i think a true mark of leadership is learning from failure. you speak of a willingness to be persuaded when your idea is perhaps not the best idea or the ability to persuade someone when you think yours is the better idea. my question is, when has that been a moment in your career that you have been persuaded that one of your ideas perhaps wasn't the best idea? speaker ryan: i can give two examples. one in a speech i mentioned, which is i traveled talking about makers and takers in the wrong way. i was callous and i over simple provide and i castigated people in a broad brush. that is wrong. there is a lot of that happening in america today. i myself made that mistake.

one of the policy examples of your question is, i spent the last few years touring on poor communities in america. rural areas, inner cities, learning about how people are trying to struggle with poverty. one of the things i learned was there were a lot of those who had been imprisoned who committed crimes that were not violent crimes,a nd who, once they have that blight on the record, their future is bleak. and in the 1990's, i cam here and overcompensated on some of our criminal justice clauses. i think we overcompensated on laws where we had so many mandatory minimums, three strikes you are out. we ended up putting people for long prison terms, which ends up ruining their lives and hurting their communities. we could've had alternative means of incarceration. better means of dealing with the actual problem than destroying a person's life.

that is why i have become more of a late convert to criminal justice reform. reform is something i never thought about when i was younger while in congress. it's something i thought, just be tough on crime. and we as republicans overcompensated on this in the 1990's. now that we see the past of a pathology that has come from it, we have to go back and fix that. we are why, as speaker, going to bring criminal justice bills to the house floor. is,use what we are learning redemption is a beautiful thing. it's a great thing. redemption is what makes this place work, this place being america. we need to honor redemption. we need to make a redemption something that is valued in our culture and society, and in our laws. that is why i think criminal

justice reform, something that i changed my position on from learning about the power of redemption, and the fact that our laws. this wrong -- laws got this wrong. so that when a young man, and on violent person -- a nonviolent person who really needed addiction counseling, maybe mentoring or faith, to be a productive member of society. be a good husband and father, make a difference, reach his potential. that's something we want to see more of. our laws need to reflect that. i was a good lesson over that over the past few years. tie.uy with the bow a the way, if you are michigan state fan -- yeah, so what happened? i fixed them to win the whole darn thing in my bracket. it's now destroyed because of that.

good grief. [laughter] >> i am with representative steve king. my question to you -- you talk about poverty and helping people rise up. i've heard you say that before. how does your faith impact your role as speaker, and when you how did that come about? was it your faith that said yes, i should do this. speaker ryan: catholic guilt had a part in this, to be very clear. [laughter] separate, in my mind, your faith from your daily walk in life, from your personal and private life. it is one and the same. i am a christian who chooses to practice christianity as a catholic. we have certain principles that i think are important that apply

well to what we do in public life. that is the principles of solidarity, option for the poor icallyy sleep -- bas people are the solutions. it's one of the reasons i am a conservative and believe in federalism. the tenants of my faith, whether ors fighting poverty, whether it's making sure that we don't have a big arrogant paternalistic condescending government that is taking power from our lives, our communities and displacing. it gives me a sense of philosophy grounded in my faith, but also how i should conduct myself, both personally and publicly. i think they are inseparable. you are always going to fail.

when and after you fail, you ask for forgiveness and improve yourself going forward. to me, it's an inseparable thing. first, i'm a husband and father, then public servant. that is how i ordered these things in my mind. i think these principles give me a sense how to conduct myself. i'm going to do a bad job all the time and will try and improve upon the mistakes i have made. any ladies? right there. thinkt role do you members of congress have in bringing our nation together? speaker ryan: how we conduct ourselves personally is important. i think we set the example and lead by example. you have to understand who we are, especially in the house. we are the part of government closest to the people. we are the part of government up for election every other year, closest to the people.

as representatives of the people, we are also leaders. that means members of congress need to be a part of the solution and not the problem. this is what we are laboring to do in the house of the republican conference. we see problems in america. we think the country is headed in the wrong direction. as members of congress, we believe most people agree with us by virtue of us being here. the polls say seven out of 10 americans thinks america is headed in the wrong direction. okay, then as a member of congress, it is not our job to simply say, we are just as angry as everybody else. it's not our job to put gas in the fire. it's our job to channel this concern, this fear into solutions. into ideas on how to fix it. this is what our job as members of congress is. if we don't like the direction the country is going, what are we going to do to fix it?

how will we be part of the solution? if we in congress can't get that right, how can we expect the people we represent to do it as well? if we can't raise our gaze and tone of our rhetoric, the tenor of debate, and offer real concrete ideas to fix our country's problems, then how can we expect anybody to do the same? that is why through leadership, i think members of congress need to be part of the solution by putting agenda that says we have problems we can fix. we need to do this together. we need to unify. what bothers me the most these days is this notion of identity politics. that we are going to win an election by dividing people, by talking to people in ways that divide them from other people rhather than inspiring people on our comment you minute he and -- common humanity. we all want to be prosperous. we want everybody to succeed.

we want people to reach their potential in their lives. what do we do to get policies to achieve that? liberals and conservatives disagree with one another on that. no problem. that is what this is all about. let's have a battle of ideas, whose ideas are better and why. and have that kind of debate. that is what we are trying to do. how about over there with the sweater? from changing people's approach on how they approach different opinions, what other institutional changes can we make to minimize legislative gridlock? speaker ryan: legislative gridlock is opening up -- when i became speaker, i made a couple decisions, which was not to have the leadership predetermine the

outcome of everything. that is what ended up happening. i came here in 1998. it was a different system. more members of congress could bring more amendments to the floor. you weren't sure the outcome of something. when we lost the majority, i think the democrats consolidated power greatly. i remember commiserating with my fellow democrats about how the committee lost its power. when we return of the majority, i don't think we decentralized power enough. i think we kept a bit about consolidation. what i am laboring to do is change the culture of this institution to decentralize the power so that ideas are done in the committee's and brought to the floor. that cultural change, i believe, is going to hold get a better result. perhaps a less predictable

result, but a better result. i came in this job differently than most. most people that become speaker work up the leadership ladder, which is a fine path to take. i never saw myself doing that. i saw myself as a policy maker, hoping to be a german of this committee -- a chairman of this committee. i was chairman of this committee and the budget committee. you spend your time focusing. if you are a jack of all trades in congress, you make yourself a mile wide and an inch deep. that is not an effective way to be a policy maker. you nee dot focus and specialize. what do you do? you go on the committee in the area that you care about, the policy. that is why i think these committees should be the ones making the policy. committee,ot on this you should have an amendment on the floor. but if leadership consolidates

power and short-circuits the process, then i feel like this institution is short-circuited. this institution does not function at its full potential. that is one of the reasons why took this job.i wanted to see that kind of leadership change occur. it's not easy to do. the change in culture is hard. but we made a great deal of progress. the last five months, we got the biggest transportation bill since the mid-1990's. the most comprehensive rewrite of our k-12 lost. -- k-12 laws. we wrote our customs and border laws that we were trying to write for decades. we worked on tax policies that we've made permanent. a big medicare problem that was 17 times, we kept patching this problem. one year, one month at a time, wefinally permanently fixed it. by loosening control, letting policymakers right policy, we

have gotten a better result. 120 amendments to the highway bill. i had no idea what the outcome of the highway bill. i was very partisan for a while. we ended up with over 300 votes. by loosening control, letting people do their jobs, i think you get a better outcome. the quality of debate improves as well. [applause] they are telling me i have to go. thank you very much everybody. enjoy your time here. i hope you have learned a good lesson. thank you so much, appreciate it. [applause]

[chatter] c-spanng campaign 2016, takes you on the road to the white house. as we follow the candidates on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. ♪ >> i think the most important issue for candidates to focus on is the refugee crisis in the middle east and europe. this is the largest humanitarian crisis since world war ii. it is our duty as a first world nation and privileged people to help those in need. >> i think the most important issue my personal candidate -- my presidential candidate should address is the national debt. that it's theink first election i'm voting in, so i'm excited. i'm not sure who i like yet.

i'm anxious to see what will happen. following the terror attacks in brussels, democratic president of candidate hillary clinton gave a speech on homeland security and counterterrorism at stanford university in california. she denounced tuesday's attacks and reformed her support for nato. this is about 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome to the stage director of this freemen stokely institute, michael mcfaul and hillary clinton. [applause]

>> welcome everyone. stanford's nonpartisan, interdisciplinary institute. for researching and finding solutions to the world's most important policy issues. tragically, as we were reminded in brussels yesterday, countering terrorism remains one of the biggest security challenges of our era. for america, our allies, and the world. dedicated to expanding the dialogue on this issue. that is why we are delighted to have secretary clinton's your today few stop. i first met secretary clinton as a parent, when she delivered her daughter to the farm, that is

what we call it here, as a freshman. she will remember, but i told her to tell her daughter to take my course on russian politics. [laughter] i joked that it was an easy a. chelsea never did take my course. [laughter] but years later, i had the opportunity many times to discuss all things russian, with her mother. in washington, moscow, st. petersburg, and even lovable self -- our last trip together in the government. when i have a great privilege to work as a u.s. ambassador to the russian federation. it is a true honor to welcome back to stanford university secretary hillary clinton. [applause] sec. clinton: thank you very much, mike, thank you for the introduction and your service to our country and our partnership

during the four years i served as secretary of state. what happens in vladivostok stays in vladivostok. [laughter] i am delighted to be back here at stanford, and i will never forget the day we first brought chelsea here. i brought her to visit when she was thinking about schools but i knew as soon as she saw stanford that this is where, if she were fortunate enough to be admitted, she would certainly choose to come. and then, of course, i remember when bill and i brought her here to begin her freshman year and then the dinner for parents that mike was referring to, so it's a great treat to be back. now that my daughter is a mother herself, you can imagine there's

already talk -- at least among one or two members of our family, since her husband is also an alum of stanford, how good charlotte would look one day in cardinal red. [laughter] i am delighted to be here with some very distinguished guests. secretary schultz, secretary perry thank you, both, for being , here with us. lanny, thank you. and marcos, thank you. and others. it's really a great treat to be not only at the university but at this particular institute as well. you have really made stanford a center for national security scholarship and that is the principal reason why i am here today. yesterday's attack in brussels was the latest brutal reminder that our fight against isis and

radical jihadist terrorism is far from finished. more than 30 innocent people are dead. men and women hurrying to catch a plane, waiting for a train or meeting a loved one. hundreds more are wounded, including three mormon missionaries from utah. a u.s. air force officer, his wife and four children, and other americans. it's understandable that americans here at home are worried. the threat we face from terrorism is real, it's urgent and it knows no boundaries. even as brussels grieves, the memories of paris and san bernardino are painfully fresh as well. on saturday, a bombing in istanbul killed four people, including two u.s.-israeli dual citizens. many other places have been targeted in the past year alone.

hotels in west africa, beaches in tunisia, a market in lebanon, a russian passenger jet in the sinai. isis is attempting a genocide of religious and ethnic minorities. it beheads civilians. it enslaves, tortures and rapes women and girls. walls will not protect us from this threat. we cannot contain isis. we must defeat isis. it this will be one of the most important challenges facing the next president who takes office on january 20. our new commander in chief will walk into the oval office and find a world of hard choices and complex problems. that president will sit down at the desk and start making decisions that will affect the lives and livelihoods of every american and people around the world.

so the stakes could not be higher. today, i want to emphasize three points. first, we face an adversary that is constantly adapting and operating across multiple theaters, so our response must be just as nimble and far reaching. second, to defeat this transnational threat, we need to reinforce the alliances that have been core pillars of american power for decades. and third, we need to rely on what actually works, not bluster that alienates our partners and doesn't make us any safer. let's begin by being clear about what we are facing. isis controls a shrinking but still sizeable territory in iraq and syria.

it leads a far-flung network that includes affiliates across the middle east and north africa and cells in europe, asia and even here in north america. it's also part of a broader ideological movement that includes other terrorist groups. we need to do battle on all these fronts. last year, in speeches in new york and minneapolis, i laid out a three-part plan to defeat isis in the middle east, around the world, and here at home. recent events have only reinforced the urgency of this mission. first, we do have to take out isis' stronghold in iraq and syria. we should intensify the coalition air campaign against its fighters, leaders and infrastructure. step up support for local arab and kurdish forces on the ground, and coalition efforts to protect civilians.

and pursue a diplomatic strategy aimed at achieving political resolutions to syria's civil war and iraq's sectarian divide. second, we must dismantle the global network of terror that supplies money, arms, propaganda and fighters. this means targeted efforts to deal with isis' affiliates from libya to afghanistan. it means going after the key enablers who facilitate illicit financial transactions and help jihadists to arrange travel, forge documents and evade detections. it means waging online battles with extremists to discredit their ideology, expose their lies and counter their appeals to potential recruits in the west and around the world. third, we must harden our defenses and build our resilience here at home. we need to counter each step in

the process that can lead to an attack. deterring would-be terrorists and discovering and disrupting plots before they're carried out. our enemies are constantly adapting, so we have to do the same. for example, brussels demonstrated clearly we need to take a harder look at security protocols at airports and other sensitive so-called soft sites, especially areas outside guarded perimeters. to do all this, we need an intelligence surge and so do our allies. we also have to stay ahead of the curve technologically. that does mean work can go with the brightest minds here in silicon valley to more effectively track and analyze isis' social media posts and map jihadist networks online.

when other candidates talk about building walls around america, i want to ask them -- how high does the wall have to be to keep the internet out? and we also have to tackle a thorny challenge that is top of mind here in the bay area. navigating the security and civil liberties' concerns surrounding the encryption of mobile devices and communications. impenetrable encryption provides significant cybersecurity advantages, but may also make it harder for law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals to investigate plots and prevent future attacks. isis knows this too. at the same time, there are legitimate worries about privacy, netwo security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors, including terrorists, can exploit. there may be no quick or magic fix. in the apple case, the f.b.i.

may have found a work-around. there may be different be challenges. so the tech community and the federal government has to stop seeing each other as adversaries and work together to protect our safety and our privacy. a national commission on encryption, like senator mark warner and congressman mike mccaul are proposing could help. and our security professionals could use the advice and talents of technology professionals to help us figure out how we do stay ahead of the terrorists. our fight against radical jihadist terrorists will be long, and there is very real risk of future attacks here at home. but pursuing this comprehensive strategy will put us in the best position to defeat isis and keep our families and communities safe. you know, this is a very

personal issue for me. having served as a senator from new york on 9/11, having seen the horrors that were produced by a well-planned and executed attack on our country, knowing how important it is that we do stay ahead of those who wish to do us great harm without panic, without paranoia but with resolve, not to give in to the very behaviors that the terrorists are hoping to engender. we can't let fear stop us from doing what's necessary to keep us safe, nor can we let it push us into reckless actions that end up making us less safe. for example, it would be a serious mistake to stumble into another costly ground war in the middle east. if we've learned anything from iraq and afghanistan, it's that

people and nations have to secure their own communities. we can and i argue must support them, but we can't substitute for them. it would also be a serious mistake to begin carpet bombing populated areas into oblivion. proposing that doesn't make you sound tough. loose cannons tend to misfire. what america needs is strong, smart, steady leadership to wage and win this struggle. to do that we need to strengthen america's alliances in europe, asia and around the world, and that is the second point i want to emphasize. on 9/11, nato treated an attack against one as an attack against all. on september 12, headlines

across europe, most notably in limon, proclaimed we are all americans. there were very few planes in the air that day but one was a british jet carrying the u.k.'s top national security leaders to washington to offer any help they could. now it's our turn to stand with europe. we cherish the same values and face the same adversaries, so we must share the same determination. this is especially true at a time when europe faces multiple overlapping crises. we can't risk letting it fall apart now. for decades, republican and

democratic administrations have understood that america's alliances make us stronger. secretary schultz compared the slow, steady work of building diplomatic relationships to gardening. he knew that when you cultivate effective partners you can harvest real rewards. allies extend our reach, sharing intelligence, provide troops in conflicts like afghanistan, offer bases and staging areas around the world for our military and serve as a partner against competitors like russia and china. and by the way, both moscow and beijing know our global network of alliances is a significant strategic advantage they can't match. nato, in particular, is one of the best investments america has ever made, from the balkans to afghanistan and beyond, nato allies have fought alongside the

united states, sharing the burdens and the sacrifices. in the 1990's, secretary perry helped guide nato's expansion based on the alliance's core tenants of collective defense, democracy, consensus and cooperative security. they became known as the perry principles, and they're still at the heart of what makes nato the most successful alliance in history. turning our back on our alliances or turning our alliance into a protection racket would reverse decades of bipartisan american leadership and send a dangerous signal to friend and foe alike. putin already hopes to divide europe. if mr. trump gets his way, it will be like christmas in the kremlin. it will make america less safe and the world more dangerous. when it comes to the struggle

against isis, we need our allies as much as ever. we need them to be strong and engaged for they are increasingly on the front lines. london, paris, madrid, brussels, istanbul, they've all been hit by terrorism. and as we saw when a terrorist cell in hamburg carried out the 9/11 attacks, what happens in europe has a way of making it to america. so it's essential that we have strong partners who can work with us to disrupt plots and dismantle networks in their own countries before they lead to attacks in ours. america needs european intelligence services working hand in hand with our own, including where they may have better reach and expertise, like in north africa. we need european banks to stop terrorist financing. we need european planes flying missions over iraq and syria, and european special forces

helping train and equip local anti-isis forces on the ground. we need european diplomats and development experts working to improve governance and reduce the appeal of extremism across the wide arc of instability that stretches from west africa all the way to asia. together we can do more and more urgently to support moderate voices and stand with tunisians, libyans, kurds and others in the region who are trying to do the right thing. and as we should, of course, be closely consulting with israel, our strongest ally in the middle east, we also have to extend our consultation to arab partners as well. there's much we can do to support our european partners, helping them improve intelligence and law enforcement, facilitating in information sharing, working more closely at every level.

there's also more they can do to share the burden with us. we'd like to see more european countries investing in defense and security, following the example germany and others have set during the obama the most urgent task is stopping the flow of foreign fighters to and from the middle east. haveands of young recruits flocked to syria from france, germany and belgium and the united kingdom. their european passports make it easy for them to cross borders and eventually return home. radicalized and battle hardened. we need to know the identities of every fighter who makes that trip and start revoking passports and visas. stemming is tied require coordination among every country along the way. right now, many european nations do not elect each other when they turn away a suspected

jihadist at the border, or when a passport is stolen, and turkey, a nato ally still has more work to do to control the border or most foreign fighters cross into syria. after the paris attack, paris and belgium pledged to move forward on reform, but that is difficult without the european union. announced athe eu new integrated terrorism center, but intelligence cooperation still lagged and the european union continues to delight about to share traveler information between member states. it is actually easier for the united states to get flight manifest from eu nations than it is for eu nations to get them from their own neighbors. that is thanks to an agreement that the united states negotiated when i was secretary of state. there also has to be a special

emphasis on identifying and investing in the hotspots. the specific, neighborhood prisons in schools where recruitment happens in clusters as we have seen in brussels. it is time to make it on the promise of establishing a new unified european border and coast guard to strengthen the continent's external borders which are under unprecedented pressure from refugees and migrants. this is a heartbreaking crisis. last year, the world was horrified by the photo of a drowned toddler lying on a turkish beach. in the months since then, hundreds of children have died trying to reach safety. we have seen it europe and syria's neighbors in the middle east struggle under the weight of this challenge. it is too big for anyone country or even continent to handle alone. i am glad that the eu and turkey are now working closely

together. the united states should do whatever we can to support that. the only truly effective answer is to go to the source, and the conflict that is displacing all of these people. we have to support and maintain the cease-fire in syria and we should also work with our coalition partners in opposition forces on the ground to create safe areas for syrians to remain in the country rather than fleeing toward europe. in the meantime, it would be wrong to shut our doors to orphans or apply religious tests . that is not who we are, but of course we have to be vigilant in screening and vetting everyone. we cannot allow terrorists to intimidate us and abandon our values of humanitarian obligations, but we also have to be smart and vigilant about how we process people into our country. it would be doubly cruel if isis

cannot only force families from their homes but also prevent them from ever finding new ones. that brings me to my third point. in our fight against radical jihadists and, we have to do what actually works. one thing we know that does not work is offensive, inflammatory rhetoric that demonizes all muslims. there are millions of peaceloving muslims living, working, raising families and paying taxes in this country. these americans are a crucial line of defense against terrorism. they are the most likely to recognize the warning signs of radicalization before it is too late, and the best position to block it. i metear in minneapolis, parents, teachers, moms and others from the somali american community who are working with law enforcement and metal health professionals to intervene with

young people at risk of being radicalized. efforts like that deserve more local and national support. , law enforcement has worked hard to build trustful strong relationships with the muslim community. anything that the roads that trust makes their job more difficult. we need every american community invested in this fight, not fearful and sitting on the sidelines. when republican candidates like ted cruz call for treating american muslims like criminals and for racially profiling predominantly muslim neighborhoods, it is wrong, counterproductive. it is dangerous. as a spokesman for the europe police department pointed out last night, that kind of blanket bigotry would treat the city's

nearly 1000 muslim police officers as threats. it is hard to imagine a more incendiary, foolish statement, he said. commissioner bill bratton at the nypd was even more blunt this morning. he said senator cruz does not know what the hell he is talking about. alsoizing muslims alienates partners and undermines moderates we need around the world in the fight against isis. there has been a lot of talk from both republicans and democrats about the importance of building coalitions with muslim nations. having actually done this, i can tell you insulting allies and partners is not a good way to start. another thing me know that does not work, based on lots of imperial evidence is torture. many intelligence, military and law enforcement experts have

attested to this fact. it also puts our own troops and increasingly our own civilians at greater risk. i am proud to have been part of the administration that banned torture. after too many years in which we have lost our way, and it i am president, the united states will not condone or practice torture anywhere in the world, even when we are up against opponents who did not respect human life or human rights, torture is not the right choice. said,ator john mccain has the high standard to which we hold ourselves is not about our enemies. it is about us. it is about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. america is a great nation. this is time for american leadership, smart, strong, steady leadership.

no other country can rally allies and partners to defeat isis and when the generational struggle against radical jihadists. only we can mobilize action on a global scale in defense of our people and values. america does not cower in fear or hide behind walls. .e lead and we succeed throughout our history, we have stared into the face of evil and refused to, whether it was fascism, the cold war, or hunting down osama bin laden. we will defeat isis as well. no enemy or adversary should ever underestimate the determination of the american people. i will never forget what it was like to arrive in brussels for the first time as secretary of state in march of 2009. i was on my way to nato.

nato headquarters was busing hundreds of young people of the european parliament had stood and cheered, not for me, but for the idea of american leadership, for the promise of an alliance that delivered unprecedented peace and prosperity on both sides of the atlantic. that is what we need to remember today. believe, cannot, and i will not turn on each other, our allies or turn away from our principles. we are in it for the long haul and that means we are going to work together and we are going to prevail. this may be another one of the long struggles that we have confronted from time to time in our history, but like all of the ast of those, if we can forge bipartisan consensus, if we can bring our people to understand us, this struggle means to

if we can maintain our alliances and our partnerships, we will be successful. that will benefit not only our country but the world, and that, when you boil it down is what american leadership has to be about. thank you all very much. [applause]

♪ >> this year's student can contest, students produced documentaries they wanted the candidates to discuss areas students told us the economy, equality, education and immigration were all top issues. thanks to all of the students and teachers who competed this year and congratulations to all of our winners. every weekday in april one of the top winning entries will air at 6:00 eastern on c-span. all of the entries are available online. tomorrow, it is russian activist and politician on russia and the putin regime at a talk hosted by the atlantic council in washington. live coverage at noon eastern tomorrow on c-span3. vice president joe biden delivers a speech on his support

of supreme court nominee merrick garland at georgetown law in washington dc tomorrow. we will have live coverage at 12:30 eastern on c-span and c-span radio. the supreme court heard oral argument today in a case challenging the health care law's contraception coverage mandate. advocates on both sides gathered outside of the court. we will hear from them. [applause] >> i am reverend rob schenk, s-c-h-e-n-k, president of the national clergy council. thousands of catholic evangelical orthodox, church leaders. we signed onto a petition supporting father frank pallone and priest for life because two questions are at stake here. religious freedom and the right

of conscience are at stake in this case and father pavone will make comments of what we observed in the courtroom. >> i am the national director of priest for life of the 37 petitioners in this morning's case. we were the first ones to issue a legal challenge to the h.h.s. mandate. and part of our case is dr. alvina king, the niece of martin luther king jr. she is a petitioner this morning because this is about freedom. this is not about us imposing any kind of restrictions on our employees. this is not about us denying them anything. this is about insisting that the government not impose its pressure on us to violate our faith. a believer should not be forced by the government to have to choose between following its faith and following the law. i was very encouraged by what i heard inside. the chief justice pressed very hard, acknowledging that what we're saying is that the

government is hijacking our insurance plans. it would be the very same plan that we are offering our employees now that would become the vehicle for the contraceptive and abortion coverage. that's the point. it's our plan. it's not a different plan, and the chief justice pressed that point very hard. even justice kennedy referred to as the word "hijacking." he said, is this not hijacking the plan of those who object to these services? it's very important to understand, it is not the government that is the judge of whether our religious beliefs are accurate or valid. this court has said that many times. we're the believer who is the judge of that. our listeners and our people now enter into a period of prayer and we launched a major prayer campaign, supremecourtvictory.com and we're going to be following up on this. bottom line, we will not obey this mandate no matter how this

court rules but we believe, based on what we just heard, it's going to be a split 4-4 decision. thank you very much. i'm father frank pavone of priests for life. >> i'm with the beckett fund for religious liberty and we represent the little sisters of the poor. right now we'll have mother loraine mcgwire give a statement. it is l-0-r-a-i-n-e, maguire, m-a-g-u-i-r-e. thank you. >> hello. my name is sister loraine marie claire. the lord has given me a beautiful calling, and that is being a little sister of the poor. we little sisters of the poor are a group of women who make religious vows to god, and we dedicate ourselves to serve the themly, poor, caring for regardless of race or religion,

offering them a home where they're welcomed as christ, they're cared for as our own family and we accompany them until god calls him home to himself. you know, we've done this work for over 175 years. so, you know, now we find ourselves in a situation where the government is requiring us to make changes in our health care -- our religious health care plan to include services that really violate our deepest held religious beliefs as sisters. you know, it's hard for us to understand why the government is doing this. there are 1/3 of americans in our country that are not covered by this mandate, and, you know, there is large corporations such as visa and exxon, pepsi that are fully exempt from the mandate but yet we are

threatened. the government is threatening us with fines of over $70 million a year. so you know, it's such a privilege. it's a privilege for us to care for the most vulnerable members of our society, serving them, comforting them, just being a loving and healing presence in their everyday lives, just being their little sister every day is our joy. and really that's all we want to continue to do. that's our motive is to continue our work as we've always done it. so, after hearing today's hearing, the case, we are hopeful for a positive outcome today. and you know, our mother's -- mother founders taught us and said the work is god's. he will help us. so we put our trust in him. he'll be there for us as he's always been for 175 years. so thank you very much. thank you. god bless you.

>> i am, gretchen, vice president for reproductive rights and health with the national women's law center. we filed a brief in this case on behalf of 68 organizations. women deserve insurance coverage of birth control no matter where they work. this birth control benefit has been a game changer for women. it has advanced women's health, advanced women's equality and saved women over $1 billion in one year alone. these employers want to take that benefit away from their employees. the alternatives that they proposed in court today are unworkable and frankly insulting. if their view prevails, they'll return their employees to the battle days of sex discrimination in health care. if the supreme court follows its own logic in the hobby lobby decision, the outcome is clear. no boss' religious beliefs will trump a woman's access to essential health care. thank you.

>> before you leave, a question. one of the arguments they give is they can get this insurance through the state exchanges. why isn't that a less offensive alternative? >> i think there's two things. one, there isn't an insurance plan expressly for contraception and secondly, that's treating women different than anyone that has a service. that's in essence saying other health care insurance is through this one plan but if you want contraception, you have to go out separately and buy a separate plan. that's like saying women have to go through the back door in order to get the care we want. it's offering an alternative that's fostering discrimination in response to something that is meant to address discrimination. >> and you are, ma'am? >> i am -- i'm louise from the aclu. i'm the deputy legal director of the american civil liberties union. we filed a brief in this case in support of the government. you all know we stand up, we defend religious exercise, but

the arguments in this case are arguments we can't abide. we're just focused on one thing that justice breyer said in the case. justice breyer was asking over and over, how do we think about the line, the line between religion and its intersection in secular society? he talked about how quakers have to pay taxes even though they're opposed to war. how jehovah witnesses have to get health care for their children even though they're opposed. he talked about people having to clear a sidewalk outside abortion clinics even if they're opposed to abortion and said, what's the line we should draw here? i think we can look to hobby lobby and we can look to other sources to say the line is to say that religious liberty doesn't mean the right to impose your views on others or the right to discriminate. if the court takes away the court says this accommodation is permissible, the court will say -- have a result that fosters

discrimination. thank you. more at this friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. book tv has 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are programs to watch for. this weekend, join us for the 22nd annual virginia festival of the book in charlottesville, starting saturday at noon eastern, programs including , how nazisan scientists believe lennar changed the course of history. , professorll scott of american studies at the university of georgia on her friendship,it of a eleanor roosevelt in the struggle for justice. first lady eleanor

roosevelt. she speaks with author and historian at roosevelt house in new york city. on sunday beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern more from the virginia festival of the book, including george carlin's daughter who talked about her life growing up at the comedian. sunday night at 10:00, afterwards with historian nancy:, autho cohen. she looks at women u-local leaders and the advances she is making in the political arena. she is interviewed by acorn a law professor. >> for a woman to be at the head of the most powerful country in the world when one of our key allies does not allow women to our most significant enemy at this time, isis is

literally executing women and girls simply for being women and girls, i think this sends a powerful message from the bully pulpit about what america stands for. >> go to book tv. for the complete we can schedule. drug policy is the agenda for the national lieutenant governors association this weekend. they take part in panels on the relationship between their states and the federal government. live coverage begins at 9:00 a.m. eastern tomorrow on c-span2 . coming up tonight, a house foreign affairs committee on closing the u.s. detention facility in guantanamo bay, cuba followed by a house oversight committee on the border. later, hillary on homeland

security and counterterrorism. >> the state and defense department special envoys for osureanamo detention cl testified today. president obama announces plan to close the facility in cuba. this is one hour 25 minutes. mr. royce: this committee will come to order.

president obama's race to empty the guantanamo bay detention facility is on. in recent weeks and months, many hardened terrorists have been released. many of them have been sent abroad, and according to the president's closure plan sent to congress last month, another 35 are set to be transferred this summer. unfortunately, we know many of the recipient countries don't have the desire or commitment or even ability to monitor these dangerous individuals and prevent them from returning to the battlefield. countries like ghana and uruguay aren't typical security and intelligence partners but they are being asked to shoulder a heavy burden and a heavy responsibility. and there are real concerns about the administration setting aside intelligence assessments to deceive countries about the threat posed by the militants they are being asked to take in.

that was certainly a finding of this committee, our investigation into the release of six detainees to uruguay in december of 2014, and i want to thank mr. jeff duncan of south carolina, the chairman of our subcommittee that focuses on the western hemisphere. the top state department official overseeing guantanamo at the time wrote to the president of uruguay that there was no information about these six that -- that no information that they were involved in conducting or facilitating terrorist activities against the united states or its partners or allies. no information? they were known to have been hardened al qaeda fighters involved in forging documents, trained as suicide bombers,

fighting at tora bora, committing mayhem, committing murders in afghanistan. and although the law clearly states that steps must be taken to substantially mitigate the risk of released individuals from, again, threatening the united states, senior uruguayan officials asserted before these six arrived they will not impose or accept any conditions to receive these former detainees. indeed, these six terrorists were housed just blocks from the u.s. embassy without the prior knowledge of u.s. officials and frankly were often seen outside of the embassy. the administration often talks of detainees cleared for release as if they are no longer a threat. but just over 30% of the detainees that have been released are either confirmed or suspected to have returned to

the battlefield. several of the senior leaders of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula are alums of guantanamo. the administration is emptying guantanamo with the flimsy claim that it is a terrorist recruiting tool. let me explain that i don't think that if you're standing in line in raqqah to recruit into isis you say, oh, guantanamo bay is going to be closed. no need -- no need to enlist here. what raqqah is about, what isis is about is the establishment of the caliphate. that's what's driving recruitment and frankly the success of isis on the battlefield is driving recruitment. closing this detention facility has been opposed by bipartisan majorities in congress and even members of the president's own cabinet. it is no secret that former secretary of defense hagel was

pushed out in part because he was not certifying releases fast enough for the white house. yet, president obama remains determined to push out as many terrorists as he can to other countries. 45 or so other law of war detainees would be moved to u.s. soil. doing so could open a pandora's box of legal issues, impairing our anti-terrorism efforts. effort toy, in the bring guantanamo bay detainees to u.s. soil would be, according to the secretary of defense, against the law and that's also according to the attorney general. i see no interest in changing that law. certainly not by the american people, and our laws must be honored. the white house, meanwhile, has no solid plans to detain and interrogate terrorists captured today. that's a problem.

indeed, the administration admits that its proposed domestic guantanamo would not take in any new terrorists captured on the battlefield. if the administration was spending as much time working to capture and detain isis fighters, as it was trying to close down this facility at guantanamo bay, we would be more secure. isis is continuing to threaten and expand in libya and in afghanistan and elsewhere across the globe. europe is under siege by jihadists. we are under attack, so unfortunately we are going to need a detention facility for fanatical terrorists who's processing in the u.s. legal system is unwarranted and simply is n feasible.

and we're going to need that for some time to come. and we'll now go to an introduction of our panel. this morning we are pleased to be joined by special envoy lee wolosky. he is the special envoy for guantanamo csure at the u.s. department of state. previously he also served as the director for transnational threats at the national security council under president clinton. and we also have special envoy paul lewis for guantanamo detention closure at the u.s. department of defense and previously mr. lewis served as both the general counsel and minority general counsel at the house armed services committee. and we welcome them both to the committee. we appreciate that our two witnesses, along with the intelligence community, have already agreed to meet with the committee in april in closed session on necessary classified issues. and without objection, the witnesses' full prepared

statements will be made part of the record and members here will have five calendar days to submit any questions or any statements or extraneous material for the record. and at this time i would like to go to mr. eliot engel of new york who is the ranking member of this committee for his opening statement here today. mr. engel: thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for calling this hearing and, gentlemen, mr. wolosky, mr. lewis, welcome to the foreign affairs committee and thank you for your service. we're reminded today of the terrible cost of violent extremism. i was just on the floor of the house speaking on a resolution , declaring our solidarity with the people of belgium. so that's why i just got here. came here right from the floor. the dark shadow of a terrorist attack has fallen over another

of europe's great cities and we're standing alongside the belgium people today as they mourn the dead, heal the wounded, rebuild what's been broken and seek justice. in these situations, it's important to look at what more we can be doing to enhance cooperation with our partners and prevent this type of violence. it's also important to reflect on where our policies have gone astray and maybe make the situation worse. so it's appropriate today we're taking a hard look at one of the most troubling and divisive symbols of our counterterrorism effort, the guantanamo bay detention facility. the subtitle of today's hearing is what are the foreign policy and national security cost of closing the guantanamo facility, but as policymakers, legislators and experts have been saying almost since the facility was opened, the question is, what are the costs of keeping it open? for starters, the prison's drain on military resources. it costs nearly $5 million a

year to keep the person detained at guantanamo versus $78,000 a year in our most secured federal prisons. closing gitmo and transferring detainees would free up $85 million a year. resources we could put to better use elsewhere combating terrorism. the argument against this goes, we need to spend whatever it costs. these guys are too dangerous to bring here. let's look at that. today 91 detainees remain at gitmo. since the prison opened, 644 individuals have been transferred out. 144 under president obama. 500 under president bush. as of today, more than a third of the current detainees have been cleared for release after a thorough review process. under no circumstances will these people be released onto american soil. like all others, they will be transferred directly to other countries. prior to 2009, more than one in five released detainees returned to the battlefield. improved procedures under the obama administration, nearly

eliminated this problem. if the president plans to close the guantanamo detention -- if the president's plan to close the guantanamo detention facility goes forward, only a handful of detainees would ever be brought to the united states and those who are would be held in supermax prisons. they're called supermax prisons for a reason. no one has ever escaped from one. and who are some of the current residents of these incredibly secure facilities? terrorists. zacarias moussaoui, who helped plot september 11, 2001, as a new yorker something i will never forget. richard reid, the so-called shoe bomber. the boston their money bomber. four men behind the 1993 world trade center bombing. six terrorists responsible for bombing our embassies in kenya and tanzania. all these men will call a.d.x. florence in colorado home for the rest of their days.

for the very few prisoners still in the military commission process, we should try them in federal court and get justice for their victims. if there's any doubt that our justice system can handle the terrorists, ask any people i just listed. this is not a question of what rights guantanamo detainees should be or should not be accorded. it's the simple fact that the federal justice system has tried and punished terrorists much more effectively than military commissions. but beyond the dollars and cents, beyond our safety here at home, we need to consider the harm gitmo has inflicted on our security interests around the world and just as importantly on our values. the terrorists seeking to recruit more fighters into their ranks, the guantanamo facility is a gift that keeps on giving. this prison has become so infamous and so reviled that our enemies no longer even need to call it by name. instead, as we've seen again and again, terrorists flip on a camera so the whole world can see, parade out some innocent prisoner dressed in an orange jumpsuit and cut off his head or

light him on fire. notorange jumpsuits were selected by accident. everyone knows that they symbolize. these prisoners have helped strengthen our enemies. it's become a stumbling block on our relationship with coalition partners. after all, it's not just americans that isis is dressing in those orange jumpsuits and it's created deep division here at home and that's because gitmo has long strained some of our country's most important values. it's become synonymous with torture and indefinite detention. when we were going to school and learned all about rights and constitution, this was never allowed under american law. so i want to quote retired major general michael leonard, the first commander of the detention facility after 9/11. this is a quote from him. he said, " guantanamo was a mistake. history will reflect that. it was created in the early days of consequence, fear and political expediency. it ignored centuries of international law.

it does not make us safer and it shows us who we are as a nation. i ask unanimous consent that major general leonard's full statement be included in the record. mr. royce: without objection. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. so coming back to our question. what are the costs of closing guantanamo? to me the answers are clear. the cost of closing the facility are far, far less than the cost of keeping it open. i'm not alone in this view. president george w. bush was very clear that he wanted to close gitmo. john mccain made a campaign promise to do the same. an overwhelming majority of national security and military experts, including former secretaries of state and defense, c.i.a. directors, national security advisors and chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff think it should be shuttered. as i pointed out, the arguments against closing it just don't hold up. at the end of the day, my opinion, the only justification for keeping the prison open is fear, fear of violent extremism, fear our justice system or prison system cannot get the job done despite all the evidence of

the contrary and fear is precisely what our enemies want to instill on us. i don't want them to win. we shouldn't allow that we should clean up the stain on america's commitment to justice and democracy. we should take away this propaganda tool for terrorists. we should work to implement the president's plan and shut down this prison. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. everyone who knows me knows that i take a very hard line on this, but i think that we are far better off closing this facility for our interests, no other interests, our american interests than if we leave it open. so i look forward to hearing our witnesses. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. mr. royce: thank you, mr. engel. lee. mr. wolosky: thank you. german royce, ranking member angle, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the important matter of closing guantanamo bay, cuba's detention facility.

i'm honored to be joined by my colleague, paul lewis, special envoy for guantanamo detention closure at the department of defense. today i'll describe the rigorous processes that determine whether a detainee should be approved for transfer and the extensive interagency efforts that ensure compliance with applicable statutory requirements before each transfer takes place. at the outset, let me emphasize that president obama concluded that the continued operation of the guantanamo detention facility damages our national security for many of the same reasons that led president george w. bush to the same conclusion. according to president bush, by his second term, and i quote,

"the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies." it remains though when president obama took office and remains so today. -- so when president obama took office and it remains so today. the bipartisan view that guantanamo should be closed is not limited to presidents bush and obama. senator john mccain has said he is in favor of closing guantanamo. likewise, former secretaries of state clinton, rice, powell, albright, christopher, baker and kissinger have all advocating closing guantanamo. have former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staffs and 42 generals and admirals. the list goes on. in addition to leading democrats and republicans, world leaders and international organizations from the pope to the organization for american states consistently call on the united states to close guantanamo. today, there are 91 individuals detained at guantanamo, down from a peek population of 680. altogether, a total of 779 detainees have passed through guantanamo and of those 688 have departed.

the vast majority of detainees transferred out of guantanamo to other countries, some 532, were transferred before president obama took office on january 20, 2009. prior to the implementation of rigorous interagency procedures that were implemented by this administration and are described more fully in my written testimony. my written testimony describes at length the two processes by which this administration has approved detainees for transfer. what they have in common is rigorous review and analysis of all available information in the possession of the u.s. government and the unanimous agreement of six agencies and departments before a detainee may be approved for transfer. after a detainee is approved for transfer, the department of state leads negotiations with foreign governments about possible transfer.

we're joined in our efforts by colleagues from the department of defense, justice and homeland security as well as by those in the intelligence community and on the joint staff. the decision as to whether, when and where to transfer a detainee is the culmination of a rigorous interagency process similar to the initial decision to approve a detainee for transfer. this process, including the process by which we negotiate security assurances with our foreign partners, is described at length in my written testimony. i look forward to your questions about it. once we arrive at a satisfactory security framework with a foreign government, the secretary of defense seeks concurrence in the transfer from the secretary -- in a specific transfer from the secretaries of state and homeland security, the attorney general, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. only after he receives the views

of those principles and only after he is satisfied that requirements of the national defense authorization act are satisfied, does the secretary of defense sign and transmit a certification to the congress conveying his intent to transfer a guantanamo detainee. the rigorous approval and negotiation process i've described have contributed to the dramatic reduction in the confirmed or engagement for a detainee's transfer during this administration. thank you, again, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. i greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak before you about this important issue, and i look forward to your questions. mr. royce: mr. lewis. mr. lewis: chairman royce, ranking member engel, distinguish members of the committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i'm honored to join my colleague, lee wolosky. mr. chairman, i particularly appreciate your continued and sustained interest in this

extremely important issue. at the outset, i want to echo special envoy wolosky's statement and make one fundamental point regarding the detention facility at guantanamo bay. the president and his national security team have determined closing this detention facility is a bipartisan national security imperative. the president has repeatedly stated that the continued operation of the detention facility at guantanamo weakens our national security by damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, draining resources and providing violent extremists with a propaganda tool. in january of last year, 42 retired military leaders, all retired general officers or flag officers, wrote the leadership of the senate armed services committee and force flee argued -- forcefully argued for the closure of this facility, saying

what to do with guantanamo is not a political issue. there is near unanimous agreement from our nation's top military and law enforcement leaders that guantanamo should be closed. this letter was signed by general charles c. krulak, a retired commandant of the marine corps. major general michael leonard, the first general of the joint task force at guantanamo. general joseph hoar. general david maddox, the former commander of the u.s. army in europe. and many other leaders. many of these leaders reaffirmed this letter this month. as lee noted, in addition, former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral michael mullen and dempsey supports closure. it is the opinion of many others and our military. envoy wolosky has supported gitmo closure but i think it's important to highlight this broad conclusion. this conclusion shared by two presidents, four former secretaries of defense, eight former secretaries of state and it demonstrates this bipartisan

support at the highest level of our national security leadership. as envoy wolosky noted, in his memoirs, president george w. bush himself concluded that the guantanamo detention facity was a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies. the president himself made this statement. and as president obama recently noted, by 2008, it was widely recognized that this facility needed to close. this was not my opinion. this is the bipartisan support to close it. as the special envoy for guantanamo detention closure, my primary focus is on the transfer process. 16 detainees have been transferred to date in 2016. these transfers have reduced the guantanamo detention facility's population to fewer than 100 for the first time since 2002. overall, 27 nations since 2009 have accepted guantanamo

detainees who are not from that perspective country. in addition, 13 other countries or territories have accepted repatriation of their own citizens since 2009. as with our military leaders, foreign leaders regularly cite the guantanamo detention facility as an obstacle to counterterrorism efforts. in my written statement, i cite several statements. cliff sloan, envoy wolosky's predecessor, noted an example. as a highly ranking security official from one of our staunchest allies on counterterrorism once told me, the greatest single action the united states can take to fight terrorism is to close guantanamo. and i note highlights by our -- other counterterrorism experts from the previous administration. john bellinger and matt waxman who both worked for the department of state noted the counterterrorism effects of not closing gitmo. and i describe them in more

detail in my opening statement. mr. chairman, i'm also prepared to address the plan to close guantanamo detention facility. the president announcing the plan stated that it has four main elements. we'll continue to transfer, we'll accelerate the p.r.b. process, we'll look for individual dispositions and most importantly, we'll work with congress to find a location to transfer everybody from guantanamo safely and securely. as far as the transfer process, i just want to state that secretary carter has forcefully stated that safety is his number one priority. he does not transfer a detainee unless he's confident that the threat is substantially mitigated and it's in the national security interests of the united states. finally, i'd like to take a moment to recognize the military service members conducting detention operations at guantanamo bay. too often in the course of considering the future of this facility we lose sight of the

remarkable men and women who serve honorably under extraordinarily difficult conditions. they have the deepest appreciation for their service and their professionalism which they display each and every day on behalf of our nation. gentlemen, president bush worked towards closing guantanamo. many officials in his administration worked hard towards that objection. we are closer to it than many people realize. of the nearly 800 detainees that have been held at guantanamo since the facility opened, over 85% have been transferred. including more than 500 that were transferred by the previous administration. the president, his national security experts and this administration believe it should be closed. the senior military leaders of this country and the leaders of the department of defense concur. as indicated in the letter by the retired military leaders, many believe that closure of this facility is the single most important counterterrorism effort the united states can undertake. we believe the issue is not whether to close the guantanamo

detention facility, it's how to do it. thank you and i look forward to your questions. mr. royce: let me ask both our witnesses. secretary of defense carter and attorney general lynch have both stated that transfers of guantanamo detainees to the united states are legally prohibited. is that your understanding of the law as well? mr. wolosky: it's my understanding of the law that the statute in its current form prohibits transfers to the united states, which is why we are working at this time with the congress or seeking to work with the congress to modify the law in order to be able to bring into the united states a small, irreducible, minimum number of detainees as described in the

president's closure plan. mr. royce: is it correct, then, that under current law the department of defense is prohibited from expecting any u.s. site or making any preparations for transfer of detainees to the u.s.? mr. wolosky: frankly, i have no idea. that is a legal question that is most appropriately directed to the department of defense. mr. royce: mr. lewis. mr. lewis: mr. chairman, we believe detainees can be safely and securely and humanely detained in the united states. we believe -- i believe that current statute does prohibit it -- prohibit us from doing that. we are working towards doing that. the plan that was sent up, we gave a look at locations. military facilities and federal and state facilities that could do that. we believe detainees, as i said, can be detained. we did not pick a specific location. mr. royce: the -- one of the concerns that congress clearly

has here is that in terms of our experience with those who have left guantanamo bay over the long haul, those that returned to the fight or those who are suspected of having returned to the fight is a little over 30%. i understand the argument that the administration's making that recent individuals released, they haven't returned -- lower percentage that returned to the fight but, of course, there's a continuum in terms of collecting the information and monitoring and transitioning as people end up -- i'm just looking at the overall number. the overall number is in the neighborhood of 31%. and if we begin to focus on some of the recent examples of those who did.

it is pretty concerning that ibrahim qosi, he was one of the high-risk detainees transferred by this administration and by 2014 he had joined al qaeda in the arabian peninsula. and now he is in their leadership. and last month, we saw video urging a takeover in saudi arabia. now, he would not be out doing his propaganda if he were housed in guantanamo. and one of the concerns i have about the rap sheet on those inside, as we make the argument -- we've been through these discussions, but we make the argument about the necessity of releasing them, but the fact is, the bottom line is they end up, a certain percentage of them, pulling stunts like this.

calling for the overthrow of the government in saudi arabia and very engaged in that process. and so in terms of -- i understand the theory that it's a recruitment tool, that thesis, but the fact is that a significant percentage return to the fight and we have an unclassified letter to congress last month from the director of national intelligence writing that the intelligence community lacks reporting that guantanamo propaganda has motivated recent isis recruits to join the group. so there is a debate. i certainly talked to former administration high ranking officers and officials who have the opposite view of the view you laid out today, who tell me, no, they don't think it has to do with recruitment. we understand your theory on it,

but there is the fact and the fact is that we do have this process. so let me ask you this question. we do have this challenge because of the way this process is releasing individuals to countries that don't have the capabilities. so here's my question. mr. lewis lists in his testimony some of the countries that the administration has transferred detainees to since 2009. so, mr. lewis, el salvador, kazakhstan, ghana -- and i would just ask lee, have you been to ghana? this is one of the countries that i've been to. are you fully confident that it has the capability and motivation to monitor and track these detainees? mr. wolosky: mr. chairman, yes, we are. as you know, no transfer occurs unless we are confident in the security assurances that we have

received and the secretary of defense makes the requisite certifications to the congress. to date -- and we only have admittedly several months of experience -- what i can tell to you in this open forum, and we are happy to brief you in a closed session, is we are very pleased by the implementations by the government of ghana of the security assurances that have been agreed to. mr. royce: as i say, i've been to ghana and across west africa. ghana is a wonderful place. it's a wonderful country, but the fact is that it doesn't have top-notch intelligence or law enforcement services to deal with this kind of problem. the g.d.p. per capita is like $4,000. it's 175th in the world. the fact is that their leaders have many, many challenges in ghana facing them every day. so i'm going to guess the tracking and monitoring former guantanamo detainees isn't a

priority, just as it wasn't in other examples that i've laid for you -- laid out for you like uruguay. it just wasn't a high -- you know, up there and if they weren't returning or if 31% of them hadn't returned to the fight, this wouldn't be a concern, lee. but this is a very real concern. i'll go to mr. engel for his questioning. mr. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. you know, emotionally because of terrorism and the attacks on 9/11 and the attacks in brussels and things that we're hearing, emotionally you just want to say, well, you know, throw them all in jail and put them all in jail and throw away the key. but that's not how we're supposed to work as a nation. that's not what we stand for and i don't believe we should

abandon our principles if we can still be safe. i would say that things are a tradeoff. i wouldn't be for abandoning our principles if it meant there was going to be a larger chance of being unsafe as a result of releasing or transferring some of these people. but when you read the facts and you look at the facts, you see that it's really worse by keeping them there. to have a balance sheet. now, i'm not for releasing anybody who was guilty, but i'm also not for keeping people in prison year after year after year after year with no trial. that's not what i learned when i was in grade school about one of the reasons why this country is so great. opponents of closing the guantanamo detention facility often say that the people currently in the prison are the worst of the worst or the most

dangerous and that's why we should not release them at all. some critics point to risk assessments from the previous administration, from the bush administration, in support of this claim. what's your view of how risk assessments have been conducted by the interagency task force and the periodic review boards compared with previous risk assessments? and given what you know about detainees currently held at guantanamo, are they really the most dangerous? and if not, why have they been in guantanamo for so long? is it because we've already transferred all the easy cases? explain how these people have been adjudicated? mr. wolosky: thank you, congressman, for the questions. it is certainly the case that there are some extremely dangerous people that remain in guantanamo, but it's also the case there are individuals in guantanamo who are not extremely dangerous.

of the 36 that are currently approved for transfer, 29 are yemeni nationals and, of course, we've been unable to return them to yemen. returning them to the country of origin is always our first choice in removing a guantanamo detainee from guantanamo. so there's a significant component of country of origin that goes into the remaining detainee population and why they are still there. with respect to your first question, it sort of bleeds into the re-engagement issues that the chairman raised which i appreciate the opportunity to address because we actually do have hard data on re-engagement and i'd like to refer you to the numbers in the report issued by the office of director of national intelligence earlier this month on re-engagement. the actual numbers are in this administration seven confirmed re-engagement former detainees.

in the previous administration, 111. seven in this administration out of 144 transferred. that translateinto 4.9%. the number for the previous administration is 111 out of 532 which translates into 20.9%. we believe that this data affirms that the procedures that we have put in place during this administration have worked to substantially reduce any re-engagement concerns. and i also think that you're exactly right when you indicated in your opening statement that

the risks of transferring detainees and we've acknowledged that there are risks, must be weighed against the risks of keeping the facility open. there has been, until recently, a bipartisan consens that there are signal security and foreign policy risks associated with keeping the facility open. that was articulated by the previous president who transferred over 500 detainees out of guantanamo and furtherance of his efforts to close guantanamo because he recognized it was a propaganda tool. the conclusion was also reached by nonpartisan military leaders across the services. so i think that when we talk -- i'll stop speaking in a moment. when we talk about

re-engagement, it is important to refer to the actual data that has been put forward by the director of national intelligence. mr. engel: well, let me ask you. who's left at guantanamo? is it correct that 91 individuals -- of the 91 individuals who remain at guantanamo, 81 are now facing criminal charges, is that true? -- are not facing criminal charges, is that true? and is it also correct that 35 individuals have been cleared for transfer out of guantanamo? so what does that mean to be transferred out? who decides? how long have they been cleared for transfer? why are they still waiting to leave? mr. wolosky: thank you for your question. there are 91 detainees in guantanamo. 36 have been approved for transfer. some of them have been approved for transfer since 2010. some of them more recently. 10 have been -- are in some

portion, some stage of the military commission process. either facing charges or serving sentences. and the remainder, 40-some-odd detainees, are neither approved for transfer nor currently facing charges. mr. engel: mr. chairman, if you can indulge me, i want to ask a federal court question because the administration's plan calls for some guantanamo detainees to be tried in the u.s. federal courts, and congress has imposed a ban on transferring any guantanamo detainees to the u.s. for any reason, including for trial. but from what i can see, federal courts have been extremely effective at trying terrorists, terrorism cases. since 9/11, federal courts have convicted over 500 people on terrorism-related offenses, and by contrast, the 9/11 military

commission trial has been in pretrial hearings since 2012. so the trial itself is not expected to start until 2020. so why have the federal courts, in your opinion, been so much more effective at bringing these terrorists to justice? mr. wolosky: well, the federal courts are a proven mechanism for both convicting, and then making sure that convicted felons serve time safely and responsibly. you're right, there are numerous terrorists who have been effectively convicted and are now serving time in the federal prison system. the times square bombers, richard reid, the shoe bomber, mr. tsarnaev, the boston marathon bomber. moussaoui. the list goes on. they all have been held safely and securely. back to the point the chairman raised about mr. al kosi, he was released from the custody of the united states after serving his military commission sentence.

so he is an example of someone who went through the military commission system, was -- pled guilty to material support and conspiracy, and then after he served his sentence in that system, he was released. if he were put through the article 3 system, he would probably still be serving his sentence and not be off doing what he's been doing. >> if i could, we were talking about two sets of numbers so if i could address that quickly before we go to the next member. mr. royce: in terms of the administration's numbers they released. the administration's claim is 7.9% of those released by the president are confirmed or suspected of terrorism.

-- of the re-engaging in terrorism. you're using the number confirm the administration released the figure, overall the rate is 31%. investigators tell us it takes four years to confirm. so there is a question in terms of the trendline on detainees' recidivism, but the overall rate i'm quoting here is the rate on confirmed or suspected. we'll go now to mr. chris smith of new jersey. mr. smith: thank you very much, mr. chairman. welcome both of you to the committee. yesterday, i chaired an oversight committee focusing on the 14 countries that reuters found after a series of investigative reports. i want this on the record and i hope the press takes note of

this, because i think it is an egregious flaw in the implementation of the trafficking victims protection act, which i am the author of. i'm deeply concerned that cuba's tier 3 state department ranking, which is the worst, it was designated in the bush administration, and then in the obama administration and then manipulated politically for nonhuman trafficking in anticipation of the rapprochement. i find absurd. the report should be absolutely accurate, and speak truth to power -- are you bored with this? >> no, sir. mr. smith: when it comes to sex trafficking and child sex tourism which is rampant and the castro regime gleans enormous profits from it, as they do it labor trafficking. we have an upgrade which takes them off the sanctions list which i find to be appalling.

yesterday, one of our witnesses pointed out that the cuban government is likely one of the largest and most profitable trafficking promoters in the entire world. so my hope is that this year and yesterday's title of our hearing was next time get it right, that there will be no political manipulation of the trafficking tiers. if you read the report itself, it reads inescapably to a tier 3 sanctions rating, but when it got to another level, there was a manipulation there for political reasons, and i find that appalling and deeply, deeply saddening. let me ask you a question on point. the point man in uruguay as we all know for overseeing the guantanamo detainees is the minister of the interior, minister bonami. are you confident in his ability and commitment to ensuring that the former detainees do not link up with terrorist networks, or

these six individuals don't threaten our embassy personnel or american nationals in uruguay. in other words, do you trust eduardo bonami and believe he's a man of honorable character? mr. wolosky: thank you for your question, congressman. i don't know him, but what i can say is that we are confident. there's never no risk associated with transferring a detainee. the appropriate calculus, we believe, is the one essentially congressman engel put forward, weighing the risks of transferring versus the risks which have been recognized across the spectrum of maintaining the facility. but we are confident, to your question, that the government of uruguay is taking appropriate steps to substantially mitigate the risk associated with each of the six detainees that have been transferred to its custody. mr. smith: again, is it your view that this particular minister, an avowed left itself,

trustworthy?s he's the guardian. mr. wolosky: i don't agree with that necessarily. when we look at countries to resettle detainees in, we do not base it on personality well, we base it on the government as a whole, the capabilities of the government as a whole, and the willingness of the government. and then of course the specific security assurances that have been negotiated and our assessment of whether or not those security assurances can and will be implemented. mr. smith: he's likely to be the point man or is the point man, could you provide for the record your analysis as to his trustworthiness? mr. wolosky: i can't because i don't know him. again, when we look at transfer opportunities, we base our conclusions on the capabilities of a government. mr. smith: but he's the point person for the government. mr. wolosky: he may be now but may not be tomorrow. we don't rely on particular

personalities is the bottom line. mr. smith: i understand but with all due respect, personnel is policy. if a government has a person walking point on a particular issue like this one, and it happens to be this minister of interior, we want to know if he's a person who can be trusted, particularly with such people who have committed terrorism and may recommit. mr. wolosky: again, i have not met him so i feel uncomfortable offering a personal assessment , and what we do do is we base our decisions on governments as a whole. mr. smith: that's why for the record, if you can provide additional amplification of those who analyze the situation, and you'll comfortable enough to proceed with this, vis-a-vis this particular minister. mr. wolosky: the department of state felt comfortable. mr. smith: could you provide us that analysis in followup answer. mr. wolosky: to be clear, the analysis of -- mr. royce: we can do that

through followup answers, we need to go to mr. david cicilline. we need to get through a lot of members here. mr. cicilline: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses. title of this hearing refers to the foreign policy and national security costs of the plan to close guantanamo bay. however, the vast majority of national security leaders, as you both indicated, as well as leaders on both sides of the political term, save -- spectrum, say that the real foreign policy and national security costs come as a result of keeping the prison open and describe it as the closing of guantanamo bay detention facility as a national security imperative. i'd like you to speak to how the administration's plan to close guantanamo bay detention facility will impact our ability to work with our coalition partners in the fight against terror and how that failure to close it is providing a real impediment to that critical work.

mr. lewis: thank you, sir. as i noted in my opening statement, continuously, countries across the world and allies tell us that gitmo hurts so. we work with those countries, , we addressng gitmo a concern with the rest of the world. the united states needs to lead. we can't do this alone. and when our allies are -- in counterterrorism are telling us that gitmo needs to be closed, we take an issue off the table. we don't remove the risk completely, it's always going to be a propaganda issue, but we take that issue off the table. mr. cicilline: does the presence of guantanamo bay have an impact on our ability to use diplomacy power topowered -- press other countries to uphold human rights, things we speak about with other countries and has our credibility been harmed

by the continued indefinite detentions at guantanamo bay and the opening of this facility? mr. lewis: yes, sir, i believe it does. the president noted in his statement last month, leaders he meets with continuously raise the issue of gitmo and specific detainees. lee's predecessor, cliff sloan, mentioned how he's been told by foreign leaders that closing gitmo would be the single greatest issue to help our counterterrorism efforts and repeated leaders from both this administration and the previous administration have said the same. so i think it does hurt us. mr. cicilline: with respect to the 36 detainees approved for transfer, some since 2010, what is taking so long for that to be completed? mr. lewis: as lee said, most of them are yemenis, so we can't confidently send them to yemen right now. we have to go look at the list

of 27 other countries that have stepped up to find a fit for that detainee, find a fit for security situation in the country, their willingness and their capacity. so it's a mixture of sequencing, it's a mixture of the domestic issues in the country, but 27 countries demonstrates there are countries that want to help us and are willing to step up and we are confident that the majority of these 36 can be transferred the next several months. mr. cicilline: with respect to issues with re-engagement, office of director of national intelligence categorizing these re-engagements in three different ways for purposes of this hearing. 17.5% of detainees have re-engaged but if you break that number down, prior to this president prior to january of 2009, the number was 20.9%. but since president obama, the figure is 4.9%. will you explain, are those figures accurate? what do they represent?

and how do you account for the dramatic reduction in re-engagement which is critical. those are obviously any reengagements is alarming, but the fact that it has been brought from 4.9% from 20% didn't happen just by magic. it has to have been some change in process. would you speak to that? mr. wolosky: sure. there have been many changes in process that have been put in place in this administration, from the actual decision to approve someone for transfer, which is a complicated, time consuming, very thorough and rigorous interagency process, and only moves forward with the consent of each of six agency and departments, to then the actual decision to transfer and approve for transfer detainee to a specific country which again is a rigorous interagency process that entails the negotiation of details and quite specific security assurances

with the specific country and then ultimately input from the same six agencies and departments and then congressional notification by the secretary of defense. so our process is very thorough, it's very rigorous, very time consuming, further to your question about why things have taken so long, and we believe that again there's never no risk. but we believe that the relative -- there is never no risk, but we believe the relative success of our processes are reflected in the re-engagement figures when you look at the figure, the small figure in this administration, and a larger failure in the previous administration. mr. cicilline: thank you. i yield back and thank you, mr. chairman. mr. royce: mr. rohrabacher.

mr. rohrabacher: the first question i'd like to ask, i think it can be answered with a yes or no. has the defense department ever knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit an ability to substantially mitigate the risk or maintain control of that individual? i think a yes or no could be -- that's a very straightforward question. no? has the defense department ever sent someone to a country knowing that that country was unable to keep control of that person? mr. lewis: no. mr. wolosky: i'm not with the defense department, but i am assuming your question relates to this administration, while that was the statutory standard. mr. rohrabacher: actually i'm -- it doesn't. do you know of any examples? mr. wolosky: i can't speak to the previous administration. rohrabacher: what about this

administration? is there some reason you can't say yes or no? mr. lewis: i represented department of defense. bacher:t -- mr. mohr let's leave it at knowingly. do you know of a case where the defense department has knowingly transferred a detainee to a country that did not exhibit the ability to substantially mitigate the risk by maintaining control of the individual? do you know of a case like that? mr. lewis: i do not. the statutory standard -- mr. rohrabacher: it's all right, you made your answer. let me suggest that this idea that people throughout the world are going to be so -- are so upset with us for keeping a significant number of people who are captured as part of terrorist units incarcerating them in guantanamo, that is such

a horror story that it's a recruitment vehicle, that's what the president is telling us, that's what the administration is telling us. let me suggest if that is true that our european allies and some others believe that taking these hardened murderers, who murder men, women, and children, and incarcerating them on cuba or anywhere else, let me suggest that that attitude of our european friends may well be changing in the next six months or so when they realize that the slaughter that's taking place in paris and now in brussels is part of an international movement to destroy western civilization and replace it with a caliphate. and when they understand that, my guess is that view that it's so bad to keep these people in prison will change as well. let me ask you this.

we say that about 30% or whatever that figure is that have been released have been -- have returned to terrorist activities. how many lives have been lost by those terrorists who went back to their terrorist activities? how many lives? mr. lewis: i can talk about that in a classified setting. mr. rohrabacher: classified? so is it over 10? mr. lewis: what i can tell you is, unfortunately, there have been americans that have died because of gitmo detainees. mr. rohrabacher: how many americans have to die, how many people in brussels or paris have to die, civilians, what's the threshold at that point maybe we will keep them under control in gitmo? mr. lewis: when anybody dies , it's a tragedy. we don't want anybody to die because we transferred detainees. however, it's the best judgment and the considered judgment of

this administration and the previous administration that the risk of keeping gitmo open is outweighed -- that we should close gitmo. mr. rohrabacher: so the innocent people who are going to lose their lives because of this are just part of the equation. i'm sorry, i want to tell you this much. as far as i'm concerned if one child is saved because she would have been blown up by someone who is being released, it's better to keep all 90 of those people in gitmo. and this idea that the people of the world, oh, they're so upset with us, that it's a recruiting vehicle, that we've kept terrorists who murder innocent people in gitmo, well you know what, i think that the bigger recruiting tool today is when our government, especially this administration, is perceived as being weak. i think terrorists are recruited not because we've held other

terrorists in prison, but because we look like we're weak and cannot deal with the challenge. this disgusts me. thank you very much. mr. royce: robin kelly of illinois. ms. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman. yesterday i returned from cuba with president obama's delegation, where we discussed the opening of u.s.-cuba relations. while we have made steps toward developing positive bilateral relations, president castro said relations with the united states will never be fully normal as long as the united states occupy the guantanamo bay facility. how do you imagine the continued use of the guantanamo bay facility would affect normalizing relationship between the united states and cuba? mr. wolosky: as the president said this administration has no plans to leave, to turn over the

base at guantanamo bay, cuba. we are in fact, as you know, to close the detention facility at that base, we would expect to continue to use the base for dealing with mass migration contingencies and also to support coast guard operations with respect to counterdrug operations in the region. ms. kelly: to what extent do you believe this local diplomatic security could contribute to advancing our national security efforts? mr. wolosky: president obama feels firmly that closing guantanamo is in the national security interests of the united states. no detainee is transferred from guantanamo absent a certification from the secretary of defense that the specific

transfer will further the national security of the united states and as i said in my opening statement, president obama was hardly the first u.s. president to conclude that closing guantanamo was in the national security and foreign policy interests of the united states. the first president to do that was a man who opened it up, george w. bush, who concluded that it was a propaganda tool and distraction to our allies. not only did he believe that, he acted on it. in transferring over 500 detainees from guantanamo to other countries. so -- from guantanamo to other countries system of believe as did president bush, as did numerous former secretaries of state of both parties, same for secretaries of defense, same for three chairmen, former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and numerous retired flag officers that closing guantanamo will on balance enhance our national security.

as we have said, you cannot live life without risk and the proper analysis as congressman engel suggested, we believe is balancing the risks of keeping it open versus the risks of closing it. and you know, we worked diligently to prevent re-engagement. we've been quite successful in this administration in preventing re-engagement and even one detainee returning to the fight is too many. but the proper analysis is balancing closure versus the risks of keeping it open. and i would point out that obviously our hearts go out to the people of belgium today. and our hearts went out to the people of paris just a few short months ago.

but the maintenance, the continued maintenance of the facility at guantanamo bay did not prevent either of those attacks. there are unfortunately going to be acts of terrorism, probably whether the facility is opened or closed. the proper analysis is what are the risks of keeping it open in light of the very obvious use of that facility as a propaganda tool, which frankly you should not have to question. isil, which has now claimed responsibility for the belgium attacks, uses guantanamo as a propaganda tool. there's no question about this. we have all seen images of prisoners taken by isil being executed wearing orange

jumpsuits that we believe are meant to mimic and evoke the guantanamo jumpsuits. there's no question it's being used as a propaganda tool as president bush himself concluded when he determined to close the facility. ms. kelly: i'm running out of time so thank you. i yield back. mr. royce: matt salmon. mr. salmon: as long as we're talking about cuba policy, i have something to get off my chest. i find the imagery of the president yukking it up with farc terrorists at a baseball game at yesterday when europe is under siege disgusting. absolutely disgusting. i believe that -- well, i'm not going to go on on that. i just think there are better things that i think the public should be seeing. one of the troubling aspects of the transfer of six detainees to

uruguay was the slow letter, the letter assuring the uruguay government that none of the detainees had been associated with terrorism. we know this isn't true. i know it was your predecessor who wrote the letter but can you walk us through how the administration could make such a misleading statement? how can you expect a host government to then take seriously the monitoring and mitigation of the detainee in uruguay's case the government stated ahead of time they would not monitor. and we still release them. does this speak to the administration's overall willingness to accept greater risk in pursuit of the president's political goal to empty the prison. mr. wolosky. mr. wolosky: sure, thank you. first, although we can't speak in open session about the specifics of the security assurances that have been agreed to with any one country, i can assure that any public statements you may have just referenced are not accurate and

we do have security assurances with uruguay. we briefed this committee in closed session on those security assurances. we are happy to come in brief you about what they are and how they are being implemented. as for the slow letter, what i can tell you is that the conclusion mirrored the conclusions reached by the executive in the process, the process put in place at the beginning of this administration to carefully review all recently available information to the u.s. government with respect to a particular detainee. that process is described in some detail in my written submission and involved dozens of national security professionals from all relevant agencies and departments of the government including the intelligence community.

many of them career professionals. and they reached certain conclusions about each detainee and the information available, then available to the united states about each detainee. so what the cliff sloan letter does is it attracts the conclusion -- it tracks the conclusion of the eotf report, a comprehensive interagency review conducted for the specific purpose of analyzing the available information in the u.s. government about each detainee and then making a disposition recommendation about that detainee. mr. salmon: whatever justification you're trying to make for why the letter, though in accurate, was sent, does not really provide a lot of comfort to most of us. the fact is, it was flat out wrong. it was an error and a gross error.

in an interview with, recently with npr, you said that after having visited guantanamo bay you felt the detention center was better certainly than any state or local correctional facility or prison you visited and better than many of the federal facilities. yet you're advising the president on the closure of this facility to build a new facility here? does that make any sense? would it not be better to tell the american people the real story, that it is a model detention city, that the international committee of red cross has regular access to it? wouldn't it be best to dispel the false narrative some use rather than close down what by your estimation is a great facility? mr. wolosky: i do think it's a professionally and humanely run facility, and in particular, the service men and women who serve there face enormous hardship in their service and do an outstanding job in running the

facility. general kelly did an amazing job, the admiral has taken over, they both do an incredible job top, what is aa very well run facility. that said we still think it , should be closed. mr. royce: we're going to greg meeks of new york and then mo brooks of alabama. mr. meeks: i want to get a couple of things first straight for the record. as i listened, my heart goes out to those who lost their lives recently in belgium as well as we talk about the paris attacks often. i want to make sure that everyone in the record is clear that this war is not just against the west. we don't talk about all the attacks that have taken place in various places, taken place and we should be just as concerned

in nigeria, in kenya, in turkey, so to think that these are all human lives, we have to be concerned about all those lives, not just in one area, not just against us, not just against christians. when you look at that, muslims have been killed also by these thugs. and that should be properly noted. and it should also be clear i think that the historical record is clear that in acts of fear when we act out of fear our , nation has made monumental mistakes in keeping gitmo in operation out of fear because that's what i'm hearing, folks are saying out of fear we need to keep gitmo open, would be yet another monumental mistake that one hurts america's interests rather than helps it. what comes straight to mind is we acted out of fear when we put the japanese into internment camps. so therefore i caution us and then after it happens we say,

oh, we try to not talk about what we did. history gives us a reminder of what we should or should not be doing in this place and calmer heads and better heads as opposed to acting out of fear and emotion. i think the record should be clear on that it should be clear that all kinds of lives are lost in all parts of the world. this is a threat to everybody, not just to the west. not just to the -- to christians but to everybody. that's why we've got to band together, and work together in a cooperative manner. that being said, let me ask a quick question. where do we go, if the guantanamo detention facility is closed, we closed them, what will the united states do then when we capture terrorist suspects in the future? do we have other adequate facilities for these individuals? and how would the administration approach the future capture, detention and interrogation of

high level isis commanders? mr. lewis: we do believe we have the facilities. future captures would be considered on a case-by-case basis and we'd consider whether the host nation could detain them or whether there'd be a disposition under prosecution, article 3, possibly military commissions, but we believe we have the ability as we've shown in one or two cases in iraq recently to detain people and then turn them over to the host country but it's on a case-by-case basis. mr. meeks: there is a clear and concrete plan on how we would do this? mr. lewis: yes, sir. mr. meeks: i was listening to debate earlier, there was a question about recidivism rates. in, i guess, according to the official report from the office of director of national intelligence that fewer than 5% of detainees transferred by the obama administration are confirm

-- confirmed to have had engaged in terrorist attack. i did hear, i think it was chairman royce, they used the re-engagement rate that is 30%. how -- can you describe how you make that determination? how are those rates determined? why is there such a disparity? mr. wolosky: i'll let the chairman speak for himself. mr. royce: because it's confirmed and suspected, you're leaving out suspected. mr. wolosky: the rate of suspected in this administration is 8.3%. mr. royce: that's the numbers i concur and the overall numbers are 30% overall. 8.9% confirmed and suspected and as explained to us the investigators say it takes about four years lead time in order to get the confirmation, all the confirmation. mr. wolosky: there are over 530

detainees transferred in the previous administration. obviously we can't speak to the , circumstances under which those detainees were transfer. first, how was the decision made to transfer them? second how was the decision made to transfer them to a specific country? third what assurance, if any, did the previous administration obtain from the third country to keep us and them safe? we can't speak to that. all we can do is speak to what we are doing. what we are doing in this administration at both stages of the process, first making a determination in principle that a detainee may be aproved for transfer and designated as such and transferring him to a second, specific country subject to specific and detailed security assurances. what we are doing is very thorough, it's interagency, very comprehensive, it takes a long time. it's described as length in my written testimony, i'm happy to answer questions about it. but the results of it as set

forth in the odni report from this month are clear. the results of it are first, confirmed re-engagement. seven out of 144. that's 4.9%. suspected, 12 out of 144. that's 8.3%. those are what the numbers are, sir, for this administration. i point out also that with respect to the standards that are applied in defining what it even means to be confirmed or suspected, it's important to point out first that confirmed is a preponderance of information standard. this is not a reasonable doubt. this is not that we are 100%. mr. royce: the gentleman's time has expired. if i could just go to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho for his questions and then maybe a question from mr. trout and mr. connolly. mr. yoho: i have more of a statement, i appreciate it. to start with, when we speak

about closing guantanamo, i'm glad to hear you say that they will not transfer the naval base back to cuba. we're talking about the detention center only, there's two entities there as we're all aware of. as far as the recruiting tool, guantanamo bay as a recruiting tool, i think that's a weak argument. if those people come to the united states is that not a recruiting tool, too? to say they're in guantanamo is going to be a stronger recruiting tool is sophistry at its finest. because the jihadis will look at them being here in the belly of the great satan. i think that argument is very weak and we shouldn't talk about that i disagree with your comments about the ewing way six. i met with their foreign minister, they don't have a clue of what the negotiation was when it was negotiated under president mojica. they don't know what the deals were, what the conditions were. they don't have a clue of monitoring and i think it's a

joke. but saying that, i think the overall success rate, if there were 780 total detainees, we're down to 94% have been processed. that leaves only 6% and of those 6%, there's -- that's taking out the 36% -- or the 36 that have been cleared, yet this administration hasn't found them a suitable place to go. i would encourage you to move a little bit quicker on that. of the remaining 52% if we take the 30% that we know will go into combat against our young men and women or suspected, that comes out to be 15.6 terrorists back fighting our young men and women. i don't think any american would want that or people around the world. i'm going to yield the rest of my time back to mr. trout. mr. royce: we're going to have one question from mr. trout and one from mr. connolly.

mr. trout: thank you, i thank the gentleman from florida. if we move detainees to u.s. soil that's not going to be used as a recruitment tool for isis? they are going to go silent and now that we have done right by our allies? mr. wolosky: it's still a tool view,om a legal point of we're taking away the issue our allies are asking us to do, they're saying close gitmo. trout: isn't there a chance they'll change their position in light of brussels, isn't there a chance they'll change their opinion? mr. wolosky: it's been a continuing position they want gitmo closed. that our leadership and the bush administration leadership said the costs of gitmo outweigh the benefits. mr. connolly: do you remember the c.i.a. incident a number of years ago in fairfax county? was the perpetrator of that terrorist incident caught and tried?

mr. lewis: it's my understanding yes. mr. connolly: was he tried in guantanamo or tried in u.s. district court right here in virginia? mr. lewis: it's my understanding, the u.s. district court in virginia. mr. connolly: was he sentenced? mr. lewis: he was. mr. connolly: he received the death penalty, did he not? mr. lewis: i don't know for sure. mr. connolly: but somehow our system of justice work. on virginian soil. we could handle a terrorist and did. i just, for the record, we have to take into account the consequences of the symbolism of guantanamo and frankly, the fact that the suggestion is planted that we're not all that competent in our own system of justice and handling terrorist cases. the fact of the matter is, we do have experience and our system worked. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. royce: thank you, mr. connolly.

we have votes on the floor, we appreciate the time of our witnesses this morning. and our witnesses have agreed to meet with us in april in closed session so we appreciate that. as you have heard there are many concerns with the president's plan, especially given the ever-growing terrorist threat as evidenced by what happened in brussels this week. the points made by mr. trout and mr. yoho bring to mind a conversation i had yesterday with the former n.s.a. and c.i.a. director about the concept that if you move them to u.s. soil, in fact, that will be a magnet for terrorists, the fact that jihadists are being held in the united states. and so i think the last two -- the last questions raised were also questions worth contemplating but we will adjourn at this time for the votes and thank our panel. thank you very much.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [indiscriminate chatter]

>> american history tv on

c-span3. saturday afternoon at 2:00 eastern, law professor jeffrey rosen talks about former chief justice. gift of john marshall to the people of the united states was the proudest act of my life. marshall has been widely praised for transforming the supreme court into what his biographer, john edwards smith calls, a dominant force in american life. >> and the 10:00 in railamerica -- in real america. the 1981 nasa documentary, space shuttle, a remarkable machine. sunday morning at 10:00 eastern. the campaign film for republican presidential candidate richard nixon. ♪ decided that i will

test my ability to win, and my ability to take of the issues in just in the and not smoke-filled rooms of miami. authors chronicling mexican civil rights from the 1930's to the 1970's. >> the coalition of labor unions, mexican civil rights leaders, and religious authorities, came together to protest the exploitation of the program, and in fact, accelerated congress's decision to terminate in the next year, in 1954. i think this was a moment of blossoming for the chicano movement. >> for the complete american history tv schedule, go to www.c-span.org. >> threats to the u.s. border with the subject at the subcommittee hearing today. we heard from the acting chief

andhe border patrol, advocates on the asylum system and how it can be strengthened. this is one hour 45 minutes. mr. desantis: to foreign nationals entering illegally, to enter unlawfully. yearcans borders, each tens of millions of cargo containers and unlawful travelers enter the country, while illegal entries are seized and unauthorized migrants are arrested or denied entry. at the same time, hundreds of thousands evade detection to

enter the united states unlawfully. thousands of kilograms of illegal drugs and other contraband are smuggled into the country. recent terrorist attacks the united states and europe and worldwide have highlighted the national security challenges that we face. the november terrorist attacks in paris transformed europe's migration into debate. they reevaluate their open borders policy. yesterday, terrorist attacks in brussels illustrated the strength of the islamic's day, and the policies of european nations that facilitated the establishment and growth within these countries that are parallel to, rather than integrated in western society. concerns about borders are not limited to europe. borderseports say that protection have apprehended known members of islamic terrorist organizations in recent years.

safetyartment of public have reported that border security agencies have arrested several somali immigrants crossing the southern border that are known members of a terrorist group that launched a deadly attack in nairobi, kenya, as well as other somali-based including one funded by osama bin laden. in recent years they have come in contact with special interest from countries with known ties to terrorists, or where terrorist groups thrive. groups throughout asia and the middle east have been arrested over the past years, trying to enter the united states illegally through the rio grande valley. customs and border patrol confirm that indians, and others have been arrested at our borders in 2014 and 2016. enterothers have tried to

illegally from afghanistan, turkey, and beyond. one potential vulnerability that such individuals could exploit is our nations a generous asylum system. aliens making asylum claims after their apprehended by border patrol for entering illegally are being released into american society by the obama administration. the number of aliens making credible claims has reached exponentially in recent years. according to numbers from the cif, the number of credible , twos increase from 4095 51,001, in fiscal year 2014, an increase of 921%. additionally, they are approving those claims the vast majority of the time. in fact, the approval rate is 87%. by claiming they have a credible process that can forestall their

removal, while allowing them to remain in the united states potentially for years. dangerous individuals such as gang members, cartel operators, and even supporters and members of terrorist groups could exploit this system. such individuals could attempt to enter illegally. if they evade border patrol they could remain in the united states. if they get caught, they can make a credible fear claimant likely be released. during a recent visit by staff at el paso, border patrol and ice confirm increased numbers of bangladeshis, somalis, and other nationals of countries coming across the southern border and claiming extraordinary fear. these anecdotal reports state that thousands of nationals of these other -- have claimed credible fears in recent years. texas has stated that an unsecure border with mexico is the state's most significant vulnerability. it provides criminal than would

be terrorist from around the reliableirable -- means to enter the nation unsuspected. this is important in light of the recent terrorist attacks. i think our witnesses for their will talktoday and we about related security threats at our border and what can be done to combat this growing problem. lynch, fornize mr. his opening statements. mr. lynch: thank you very much mr. chairman. i also want to thank the panelists. i would like to also thank chairman meadows and connolly for holding this hearing as well to examine border picture -- patrol and security. largestitnessing the global force displacement of people since world war ii. conflict, persecution, violence, and flagrant human rights violations have forcibly

displaced nearly 60 million people worldwide, including 19.5 million refugees, 38 million internally displaced persons, and 1.8 million asylum seekers. aat is a 60% increase from decade ago. the refugee population is now made up of children below 18 years of age. marking the highest child refugee figure in more than 10 years. in 2014, more than 34,000 asylum applications were submitted by other companies or separated children across 82 countries. the highest count on record since they began collecting the data in 2006. the war in syria and the rise of the islamic state have brought the unprecedented surge in global displacement. approximately 7.6 million people have been displaced within syria alone. more than 4 million refugees have fled the country since 2011.

the stock increase in global , coupled withment of the terrorist attacks in paris, san bernardino, beirut, -- ankara,nd cara, and brussels, have led to debates about how to tackle terrorists. this is a critical and necessary existingon of our immigration policies across the board. in the interests of national security, it must all be -- also undertaken in a matter to our international commitment to the 1951 geneva convention. protecting highly vulnerable individuals fleeing violence. and a letter signed by 22 u.s. national security leaders from interpol administrations, "we believe that america can and should provide refuge for those

persecution, without compromising the security and safety of our nation. to do otherwise, would undermine our core objective of combating terrorism." general, and former secretary of state under reagan, james,mer nato commander who is now at tufts university. in reviewing national security framework, russell of this committee, and i recently traveled to turkey, lebanon, to participate in vetting processes of settlements to get into the united states. after visiting refugee camps borders, andia meeting with various families, we discovered the vast majority, between 70% and 80% are not interested in resettlement at all.

they hope to stay in neighboring host countries, like lebanon and jordan, in the hopes of returning home. the overwhelming preference of these families is to stay close to syria. indicating that one of our prime security goals is to ensure that international humanitarian agencies have the resources necessary to provide dignified life for the refugee populations in place. process, the vetting prior to our oversight visit, i had my serious doubts about the effectiveness of the vetting war zone environments. and i supported both republican and democratic ventures to up the vetting process. only several months after a suicide bombing in beirut that killed over 40 people, we arrived in this town only four a bombing thatr killed 10 german tourists. it was processed only one day

before an attack hit a school in syria. seekf those that resettlement, what we found in our betting centers in all three host countries, was a multilayered vetting process that is extensive. it is conducted by specialized u.n. agencies and personnel trained to ensure the most thoroughly vetted and vulnerable 1% are allowed for resettlement. they are cautious in their work, and any misstep would pose a great danger to the american public, and effectively halts resettlement for millions of legitimate refugees. fact-basedtype of oversight that we review this immigration border patrol procedures across the board. it is imperative at a time when our federal agencies responsible for securing homeland security faced a real budgetary constraints, and every dollar must be allocated to the most

important risks. i think you for holding this hearing and look forward to discussing these with our witnesses. now recognize the chairman of the subcommittee of operations, mr. meadows. mr. meadows: thank you mr. chairman, thank you for your leadership. and thank you mr. lynch for your fax-based willingness to look at the record, and your willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to address the serious issues. from the surge of unaccompanied minors and family units from central america coming across our borders, into the ongoing syrian refugee crisis, and the fiancee visa erroneously issued to the san bernardino terrorists, there is no shortage of immigration issues that impact our national security. today's hearing takes a closer

look at the national security implications at our nations poorest borders. rous borders. there is more erratic and discussion that could go on -- rhetoric and discussion that could go on. but we want to look at border security and how it impacts national security. much discussion in recent months. the department of homeland security officials have often indicated that our borders are more secure today than they ever have been. i think many of us have heard that. they tout the low number of apprehensions as proof, which seems to be counterintuitive to me. fact, the gao, the government accountability office has indicated that the dhs has no official metric in place to

measure whether our border is secure or not. and so, those statements are very difficult to comprehend if there are no matrix in place. representatives from the border patrol tell us that the situation at the border is exactly the opposite of what the administration claims. undoubtedly, the united states of a proud history of providing refuge to victims of persecution, and will continue to be unwavering in our commitment to be that beacon of freedom and hope for those facing persecution around the world. but when this administration fails to enforce our immigration laws, or turns a blind eye to the rampant fraud and abuse while rubberstamping credible fear claims at a rate as high as 92%, the integrity of our system is undermined. -- generosity is taking

taken advantage of, and our national security is at risk. we should seek to protect the integrity of our immigration system from fraudulent claims from those seeking to do us harm or subvert our rule of law. individuals who seek to defraud the asylum process make a mockery of those who are truly persecuted, for those who are fleeing for fear. the united states is one of the most generous nations in the world. our asylum system is an extension of that generosity. yes, various organizations are coaching people to claim credible fear in order to avoid deportation. the credible fear claim, most aliens enter into a process by which they await proceedings before the immigration judge, which at the very least buys them more time in the united states. it often takes years, multiple

years, he for the court dates take place. in the meantime, the alien is allowed to obtain a work permit, go about their business in the united states, and indeed, could in that in our community. it seems to me that the word is out, that claiming credible fear is the way to go. the numbers sure say that much to me, and as we look at the credible fear claims that have grown exponentially in recent years as chairman the santos mentioned, one of the biggest concerns is that nefarious actors have taken advantage of our generosity. gang members, cartel operators, supporters of terrorist groups that game the system and make use of credible fear to remain here in the united states. even according to dhs, aliens with no known ties to drug cartels or terrorist groups have been apprehended along the -- with knownng

ties to drug cartels or terrorist groups have been apprehended along the border, claiming credible fear. egypt, iran, iraq, lebanon, pakistan, saudi arabia, somalia, and turkey -- and this is coming across our southern border. and these are just the individuals that were apprehended. whowhat about all of those were never seen by law enforcement at all, and make it into the interior of our country? i hope to hear from our witnesses today on their assessment of the current holds that might enable these bad actors to take advantage of our system. most importantly, i would like to hear what should be done to address these deficiencies, and help ensure the safety of the american public. mr. chairman, i would like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the following documents into the record.

one, a u.s. border patrol nationwide apprehensions for 2015 and 2016. of the other, the uscis nationality reports for fiscal 2016.014, 2015, datahe uscis credible fear and affirmative asylum case data. >> without objection. mr. meadows: with that, i yield back mr. chairman. open for hold it anyone who wants to have a statement. mr. pleased to welcome ronald vitello, mr. stephen mccraw, director of texas public safety, mr. brandon judd, professor ting at the beasley school of law, and senior

director of senior rights first. all witnesses will be sworn in before they testified. you can please rise and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear the testimony or about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? please be seated. all witnesses answer and affirmative. in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral testimony to five minutes. your entire written statement will be made part of the record. mr. vitello, you're up. five minutes. chairmanllo: thank you , and distinguished members of the subcommittee. it is an honor to appear before you today to discuss the role of the united states border patrol in defending against threats against our border. during my long force me career more than 30 years in the u.s. portal, the environment has

changed. not only the incentives, taxes, and capabilities of our adversaries, but also our ,esources, our capabilities and/or operational approach to securing the border. today we focus not only on responding to the complex and rapidly changing border conditions, but we also work to decrease the risk and potential threats. through strategic deployment of resources, and expanding in increasing our capabilities to intelligence, information sharing, and international collaboration. , air, and see, it is crucial to operations. providesrvice increased awareness of border activity. increasesechnology our ability to find changes in the border environment, which is important to emerging threats along our borders. detecting terrorists and taking the weapons will always be a

focus priority of our mission. also, illegal cross-border cross-borderolving trafficking of guns, currency, human smuggling, and drugs, pose a continued threat to border security and public safety. responding to the continuing flow of alien children and families is also a priority. the border regions of the united states are most secure when using a hold government approach. that leverages interdepartmental agencies and international help. the dhscipate in campaign, and have a leading role in the joint task or sciquest, and integrative operational approach against criminal organizations around the southwest border. we use resources in a collaborative fashion to approach a broad and complex range of threats and challenges including illegal immigration, smuggling drugs, human

trafficking, and the threat of terrorist exportation and border vulnerabilities. the creation of a task force is to increase information sharing between federal, state, local, and international law enforcement agencies. awareness,uational improve their abilities to counter transnational threats and associated violence. using a risk-based and intelligence driven approach, , will continueol to enhance our efforts and respond to threats and national security, and ensure the safety of the u.s. public. the continued focus on unity of effort in conjunction with intelligence and operational integration in deployment of advanced technology, enhances our situational awareness, better enables us to effectively and efficiently detect, respond to, and disrupt threats in the andon's border regions, approaches to secure the homeland. in closing, let me state the

obvious. it is the men and women of cbp and border patrol agents that face the threats we will discuss today. they deploy in all manner of weather and rough terrain, all day every day. i'm grateful for their professionalism. the nation is safer, and the communities they serve are better protected because of their efforts. ,hey have my unwavering support and i want them to do their jobs in the safest manner possible. for having me as a witness today, i look forward to the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. mccraw, five minutes. mr. mcgraw: thank you for the opportunity to testify today. want to echo a few comments the chief made that maybe we missed. two things. first, mention the governor's comments yesterday on the aftermath of the brussels attack

, the cowardly attack by terrorists. he pointed out that our hearts and prayers are with the victims, our minds must realize the consequences of open borders, and resolve must be security. including the governor of the texas state legislature, understand the scope and magnitude of the threat to texas and the rest of the nation. what happened on the texas-mexico border does not just affect texas, it affects the entire nation. whether it is transnational crime or a security threat. we recognize it, it is not a new phenomenon. -- we learned they were detaining african individuals with known al qaeda presence. it is no question why texans are can -- concern from a national security standpoint.

there been changes we have seen over the years. crime is remarkably different, it is more transitory, transnational, organized, discreet. it compromises and undermines national security. standpoint, it is been very clear in terms of the governor, our state legislature, two things. a sense of urgency and unity of effort. the chief over here, when he was the secretary chief of the rio grande valley, he was a team player. we had unity of effort. right now, if properly resourced, they have the type of people that can get the job done at the mexican border, and that is important. that theegic intent texas department of public safety is working with our local and other state partners, and game wardens, will provide

direct support to border patrol. deterrence, inn, ports of entry. and do so very aggressively. every day we deploy texas state troopers and rangers and special agents around the state down to whereo grande valley, right now, is the epicenter of drug and human smuggling into the united date. it is been our direction, until the border is secure. there are a number of things it certainly can be done if properly resourced, there is no doubt we can get it done. but we need the resources to do that. that concludes my comments at this point. >> thank you. mr. judd, five minutes. i appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the agents i represent. i am going to stick to my comments on the national

security threat at the border. and what the rhetoric might have led to it. what i will tell you, the obama administration have repeatedly told the american public the border is more secure today than it has ever been. as a border patrol agent, i will cut you the exact opposite. ae commissioner pointed to decrease in arrests over the past several years, but they failed to give the american public key indicators, such as the number of arrests, or from countries with known terrorists ties, or those that compete economically with our interest. 2015, theyiscal year arrested five from afghanistan, hundreds pakistan, and from the republic of china. this year, they arrested 18 from afghanistan. quarter, five all of last year. first quarter, 18 from

afghanistan. -- 619 from the people's republic of china. those numbers at should alarm everyone. and we're seeing a trend from albania, bangladesh, and brazil. a single factor from the litmus test is lower numbers, then compared to fiscal year 2015, one must conclude we are failing. as someone who is been involved in detection for more than 15 years, i can tell you the border is not secure, the condition -- situation is getting worse. arrests not always factor in whether the border is secure. we have to look at the totality of the situation, such as violence. the and of people even eating arrest, and whether they are turning a profit. also look at persons from countries that would do us harm or exploit our weaknesses, policies, or lack of manpower on the border. it is well documented that criminal cartels control the

borders the way many inmates control prison facilities. they are organized, and pathologically violent. in mexico, it is estimated that 150,000 people have been killed in cartel-related violence. they kill police officers, judges, and ordinary civilians that cross their path. this is the opponent they face daily. an opponent who controls all acts -- aspects of border crime, including illegal smuggling. one way to know if the cartels are winning, is to analyze arrests. ao weeks ago i was visiting region, during that week, that i of 157 knowntold entries came into united states in that area responsibility. arrested, 54were

were known to have evaded arrest, 17 were able to evade arrest and make it to mexico, and 12 were still outstanding and unaccounted for. that is a 47% arrest rate, that is not very good. is not the agent's, we are simply over manned. we don't have the resources necessary. in fact, yesterday i received an e-mail from agent in arizona. that e-mail said that there was a 10 mile stretch for two days, and this is documented on the reports from management. a 10 mile stretch of border, that was unmanned for two whole days. criminal cartels were able to go to the fence, cut a hole in the fence, drive to vehicles through that hole, and escape. they were then able to put the fence back up and try to hide the cuts they had made.

border patrol agent's were able to go down and see the vehicles tracks. there was actually camera the did catch the two vehicles on the border. the tracks clearly indicated it was, and there were no other vehicles coming from east, so it had to be those two vehicles across the border. the scariest part of those vehicles entering into the united states, is that we don't know what was in those vehicles. we have no idea. from those persons able to evade those 54 and a 12 outstanding, we don't know where they were from. that we areunate currently in this situation in invitet appears that we what we are currently experiencing. and because we are over manned, and it is not that we don't want to manned these areas in arizona , they just did not have the manpower to do it. and that is the unfortunate situation today.

i look forward to answering any and all of your questions. thank you very much. mr.ting: thank you to the two subcommittee chairman and all the members for inviting us here today. i also share the concerns over the statistical information that the members, particularly mr. meadows, have referred to here it and i share the concern that mr. judd has just expressed about the situation at our border. issuesto talk about two in particular, expedited removal and credible fear, that bear on the concerns that many of us here share. prior to 1996, we had no and arriving aliens could basically stay for a long time by making an asylum claim. there was an enormous backlog. and they were put in line and released on their own recognizance.

minutes," piece that showed people landing at kennedy airport every day without documentation and being released into the general population. in 1996 to congress enact expedited removal, which on its face, provides a way to turn arriving aliens around who lack any documentation. the problem is, as i discussed in my written comments, in one of the classic bipartisan compromises for which congress has alternately praised and condemned, congress enacted expedited removal in a way that , first of all they did two things. they determined that the first interview would be a credible fear interview. and in the end, even know they tried to take the immigration

judges out as i discussed in my written comments, the immigration judges get back into the process anyway. so while it looks good on its face, expedited removal in practice, has not worked up very well, even though it has been expanded, not just to arriving aliens, but within 100 miles of the border. so expedited removal is potentially a useful tool, but it is hobbled by this edible fear determination, and by the ultimate right to delay removal by an appeal to an immigration judge. there are two problems. i talked to my written comments about credible fear, and where did credible fear come from anyway? i have some knowledge of the because i know in 1991 in the midst of the haitian migrant crisis, when we had a lot of haitians headed to the united states, we were in a chaotic situation. we manage that flow, and provided asylum interviews for

people. it was very difficult. operatinge started the detention facilities at one .- at guantanamo bay and we invented credible fear on the fly as a way of screening out people who obviously were not entitled to asylum. they could not even present a story, which if true, would entitle them to asylum. we determined that if they could be turned around immediately and without theiti full-blown asylum interview. on the other hand, those who could articulate a coherent torry and see incredible, they would be allowed to advance to a full-blown asylum interview, recognizing there was a backlog for that, and would slow the process down. but for those people, they would get the full asylum. as it turns out, that credible fear practice was very short-lived.

enormous,s weren't so that president george h.w. bush determined that we could not continue processing migrants from haiti. he determination all be returned to haiti without any processing at all. obviously, that was challenged allany advocates and when the way to the supreme court of the united states, and the decisionourt in an 8-1 in a case called shale versus united states which i cited my written remarks, the supreme court of the united states held that, that was fine. the united states had no obligation under its own laws or international law to conduct asylum interviews on the high seas. credible fear was a temporary measure, probably not even necessary. in the end, it only lasted a few months. and i was startled to see credible fear. in the statute of the united states. -- as part of our expedited

removal process. up, whereear shows does that come from? while it was invented as a device to screen out migrants, as has been commented on, is being used now as a device to screen people in, so they don't have to actuate or approve their asylum claims. all they have to do is state credible fear, and they are basically in. e so they can queu make their claim in proceedings. as we know, that can sometimes take a long time. and the word is out, this is how you do it. make a good credible fear claim, and you are in. in this age of one -- modern, instantaneous communications, that word spreads quickly. so, i am very concerned about that. i have a number of proposals.

i am over time already, but i do want to say, i think we need to train more asylum officers, and immigration officers including border patrol agents. and we ought to have them do asylum interviews. i think they should remove credible fear from the statue. it does not belong there. we should go straight to an asylum interview and ought to have enough asylum officers including trained border patrol agents and other customs and border patrol officers to do that. i have other recommendations, and i refer you to my written comments. thank you. >> thank you. acer: thank you. be heard todayto to offer our views regarding national security at our borders, and the importance to the u.s. commitment to protect refugees. the terrific terrorist attacks in brussels yesterday are yet another reminder of the harm the terrorists are inflicting on innocent civilians across the

world. human rights first is a nonprofit organization with offices in texas, new york, and washington, d.c.. we operate one of the largest pro bono legal with lawyers in some of the leading law firms. we can both of the formal points of entry and add our land borders, databases,ls and including databases with agencies and foreign source with credible fear. create a range

of setting and checks. they have to be interviewed by an asylum officer. portion increases -- families, theyd have reported the countries of mexico, belize, nicaragua, and growa have seen the number to 13 times what it was and a seekersof the asylum come from states and china. protectinghip

refugees advances security visited to assess this crisis and the critical infrastructure is under severe they advance stability of the region that is key to u.s. allies. it is critical to distinguish between the victims and the perpetrators. experts have described efforts to stop syrian refugees. they help a narrative. cautions that you do not

want to play into the narrative. systemger adjudication is timely and essential for ensuring the integrity of the immigration process and protecting refugees. over 480,000 immigration cases have been pending for an average of 667 days. congress with judges and the current asylum system fails to provide protection in a manner consistent with the commitment. added to the asylum system, get many cases day in

and day out. s and thes for month expedited removal system is preventing many legitimate refugees from applying for asylum and i am happy to answer questions about this. many go unrepresented because they cannot afford this. i have outlined a number of additional recommendations and i'm happy to talk about that. myself for five minutes. you recognize this somalian's across the border and the other terror groups. can you describe the special interests you have seen and how

texas is dealing with the population? others, theyed by ite been coming across and relates to al-shabaab. it would bring somalian's across and help them resettle and they have been in that investigation. and untildful of that we get a handful on the borders and the points of entry, no one able is going -- no one will be able to cross. frankly, there is no excuse and

it can be done if the proper resources are applied. texas has made it very clear that they will spend whatever it takes to get it done, because it is too important to texas. >> they will often say the apprehensions are down and the border is more secure. how does that account for the members they do not see? there were not agents assigned in the area. would not have known the vehicles would have crossed and, if we do not have those know what we do not crosses that area. it was not two days it was open.

it was open for a stretch of time. there was at least one shift more than that. they reported lower apprehension numbers and, they they are not counted. you heard a similar report suggesting they may be fudging the apprehension data. >> i have heard the reports and i have seen it. it is a high ranking manager that said you must remove these numbers because there is not an entry point. if there isn't, we can't reconcile the numbers. thereestion was posed and

was no entry point. we have the evidence they got away. they said no. >> i hear witnesses talking about resources and i agree that they are an issue. isn't the functional policy catch and release? and, theyorder patrol get across the border and they will be given a citation and it will be a major incentive. am i wrong? there is the del rio sector. it does not release a whole lot of illegal aliens. they have the space to hold on and the main determining factor

is if we have the space to hold on to the individuals. if we do, they hold onto them. if you do not have the space for them, they release them. aliens from interest countries are being apprehended. fear inim incredible the ina. do think the policy would encourage more nefarious actors to enter the united states? >> it is reasonable to assume that and they are constantly looking for ways to gain entry they as i said earlier, are known instantaneously.

i think there is a legitimate there's an interest in the subject. >> if you want to do the united states harm, come to the border andclaim incredible fear you will have this in a couple of years. washat used to happen people coming to the order and making an asylum claim and we would tell you that we will schedule you for an appointment. in thes a code section immigration and nationality act continuousized the territory from where they arrived and, if we want to exercise as we used to, once upon a time.

that we havenk moved away from these loopholes and people who come would be apprehended. an opportunity for people to realize it is not the best to go across the border, if there is a probability the law will be enforced? with would absolutely help an administration that was serious about enforcing the border. i think there are things that congress can do to take the credible fear come back when we have time to interview you. there is statutory authority.

>> i recognize the ranking member. >> i really appreciate the opening statement and i want to not spend a lot of time on this. convention for the refugees and it says, "well-founded fear" is the standard. you are talking about credible fear. you go to webster's or a "well-founded" is credible and credible is "well-founded." isn't this the same standard? >> absolutely not. it has become the international convention standard for asylum.

>> just the fear. once there is a fear of persecution with specific reasons. is first of all, what persecution? what is race? there is a body of law developed around that standard. >> we are talking about that fear. >> that fear is made up on the fly for administrative convenience. >> it seems close to a geneva standard. versus's, credible well-founded. it is not totally made up. different.ion, it is everyone who is dealing with the issue, the credible fear is clearly dictated.

>> you said that already. >> the united states has the obligations under the international refugee convention and if we start turning people away at the border, -- i am so sorry. to answer your questions, it was to go to allow people into a core removal proceeding and allowing people to be deported and making sure people comply with the obligations. a screening process was set in to make sure the united states would not support someone and we many who areat legitimate refugees are not passing that process and the immigration drudge -- judge mentioned that.

>> i have two minutes left. push factorsl and faults frome guatemala city. in -- ds arrive we send them back. it would have been taken home. they tried to get it illegally. they get three tries to get into

the united states and they call them coyotes. i don't like that term. human traffickers putting kids at grave risk and in an exercise here. a pull factor with low standards that allow immigrants and there is a push factor of the industry. ands much more profitable there is no real dire would trafficking, drugs, or guns. so, i ask border patrol it this is -- if this is the nature of

it. of this industry down there that pushes people up to the border -- >> we found a multitude of factors to drive people away and pulling them into the u.s. and the smugglers take advantage of theyituation and believe could stay and we have reports it is otherwise not considered. they are adopted as a commodity. and they make an immediate profit.

further compounded by moving this off with additional money. the cartels get a push and a pull. >> it comes down to risk-reward and there is little risk in smuggling migrants. traffickers, it is a endorsedard and, if we a drug smuggler, they are much greater. germanyl said that welcomes refugees and she never

expected that. and it was a pull factor. if you talk to the syrians on the border, you want to go to germany. they were beckoned to do so. we did not see a surge. there was a civil war in el salvador. there was a civil war in nickel agua -- nicaragua. we did not see the request of the border that we are seeing now. there is something else going on here.nd we are part of it you have been very courteous. meadows.ognize mr.

>> let me follow up on what was talked about. we look at the issue and there is a great difference with refugees and asylum seekers. they are not one and the same. health,on the global human rights, and foreign affairs committee and there is nothing more in my hearts. what was being talked about comes to mind. where are the places they are most troubled? mind asntry comes to the most terrific? pick?ch country would you

>> you could look at the numbers and syria. i will not rate them. >> syria would eat number one. i come there because mr. lynch syria and about mass infiltration from syria. it is not being paired out that much. thisd to understand process. they talked about these asylum-seekers sitting in jail and we were led to believe that there was a difference theyistrative rule and seek be apprehended and credible fear and they would be

released. >> there are distinct programs. the most generous overseas refugee program with well over 55,000. that is a pick and choose pick which we get to interests. the asylum program allows people and you can asylum claim you are a refugee and already here under our law. you to theeturn country and you qualify for asylum status which puts you on the path towards a green card. no numerical limit. it is tempting, given the fact

that you made me a refugee. are you will get processed sooner or later. have alynch says, they realistic expectation and it is byeliberate attempt to deter imposing consequences and making claims. she does not that agree. i have limited time. the northern triangle

countries are dangerous and they are of significantly in the region. held in very jewellike facilities. and -- ut them in jail >> it depends on where it is. we do not have the space. if it is in the del rio sector, i have driven by and, anything but a jail, there is no census or nothing around it. gowe have either let them will put them in a country club setting.

deny a lot. approving you about 92% of people coming across the border and the people who came across and said that there was a credible fear and they got approved. in the first quarter of the year, it is 86% and we are looking at approving that many. across andho comes say that you have a credible fear and one asylum, is that why your numbers go higher? border andsee on the the entire process, irs people. >> do they get a long interview? when we arrest, it is quick

and they just have to claim they have a credible fear. farsi, i can come across and say that i have a credible fear and do not get an interview. >> you do not. >> the people who may be terrorists and i do not want to categorize, but they are higher threat areas to us, based on past history's. notify the fbi immediately and we will not even interview those individuals. they were immediately turned over and we did not interview them. from countries that are not special interests, it is a short interview, if they tell us they

have a credible fear. it will basically and for the border patrol. >> i appreciate that. we reckon -- we recognize the woman from illinois. threathe complex we rely on, sophisticated intelligence gathering and capabilities focus effortsuld to strengthen the border. your term you'd -- your testimony states that the government approach leveraged into agency and international partnerships has been and will continue to be the most effective way to keep the border secure. which other agencies share information to secure the border? local andities state

tribal and we have important relationships in contiguous countries with federal police and immigration authorities and their customs group. we have the benefit of the footprint and the places we are orive in providing services in relation with places like mexico or canada, anybody with , those are interest the people we interact with. >> can you talk about the force multiplier? the surge of , throughnied minors

the liaison and government requests, they wanted to do more at the border. down sometively shut more common routes of people coming to the united states. andre seeking out smugglers it led to an overall reduction in people who use the routes. work andg the understanding the challenges that they have, they give advice and could do the work better. withat is a good example international mr. vitiello: also a very important relationship in canada as well. we share information about threats that we perceive coming from the u.s. into canada and vice versa. lots of information exchange. then, it is the responsibility of our leadership in the field to maintain good relationships

with all of law enforcement community so we can identify and understand which of the threats are most important by community and then work together to abate them. ms. kelly: it seems it's the southern border. what are the percentages or -- mr. vitiello: our resources are dedicated to the southern border. that's where the activity is represented by the large numbers, volumes of people, volumes of things because of the nature of the real estate and the differences in both economies, etc. but we also have important work that we do with canada and we similar things as it relates to identifying where we need to be situationally where on the border, technology to help us patrol and monitor and then obviously the relationships are key in understanding the threats that are faced.