i've got two minutes left, i am not asking you to tell me sec. carter: let me go on to the saudis. the samehe saudis have problem we do which is that assad is still there. : is it fair to said they believe that assad is firmly entrenched because of the backing? an. carter: again, that is observation that we would make and did make with them. mr. graham: our goal is to destroy isil and replace a ssad. he is more firmly in power than ever. president obama will leave office in january, and it likely that assad will be in power? sec. carter: i hope not.

i think it is likely he will be because hope is not a strategy. secretary kerry said there is a problem if the cease-fire falls apart. exhibit will try it nice but if it falls apart there is a plan b, do you have a plan b for assad? sec. carter: i would let secretary kerry speaker -- mr. graham: the state department will not go take assad out. is there a military component to plan b? or is it just b.s.? sec. carter: it is not. mr. graham: heavy talk to the secretary of state? sec. carter: of course, and without speaking for him, i think -- a. graham: have you had discussion about a change instead -- strategy. have you had that discussion? sec. carter: we have had many

change of about a strategy. i wouldn't call it a plan b. mr. graham: outline the military strategy. sec. carter: we have discussed alternative strategy. mr. graham: what are they? ell. carter: as you will know, the entirety of what goes on in syria is not something we can discuss here. generalam: i like you, dunford, is this the dunford nean to destroy isil or the o he came up was given the constraints but on him by the white house? general dunford: and i came in last october, there was a strategy. those recommendations were accepted by the president, i've

been in my job seven months i own it. m: i want the whole country to know that the president's goal is to destroy isil, the military strategy we're embarked on is the best way to destroy isil, that is what you recommended? or is it limited by conditions put on you by the white house? general dunford: to clarify -- mr. graham: would you do more if you could? general dunford: i would, but the limitation is not just a political limitation. part of it is our partners on the ground. what you're saying is the strategy, meaning through indigenous partners on the ground being the methodology for securing territory and defeating isil, i support that. graham: is a deliberate and 80% kurdish force will take raqqa away from isil? are they going to be able to

take that away and hold it? general dunford: not in and of themselves. mr. king: several observations based upon this excellent hearing, number 10 want to associate myself at the chairman's comment about afghanistan. the concern is that a decision has to be made in the next several months. i don't think we will an entity that we don't know now because the scheduled drawdown will start late this summer and early fall to make the january deadline. i sincerely hope that, given what we are and the level of violence, and the really or effectiveness of the afghan forces we ought to

provide the support necessary, including the authorities, to maintain what we have gained their which has been considerable. talk today a lot of but and strength. i learned from talking to senior military officials particularly in the army that readiness is as important as and a strengt -- end strength. that is really important. an importantis consideration. on china, and the chart that we saw, it would really help if we were members of the law of the sea treaty. on the last point, do you agree? sec. carter: i do, yes. officialse of defense and navy officers have supported that agreement were not party to it. but we do respect its provisions.

not in our national interest to not be at the table, it seems to me. sec. carter: people have sat in this chair and testified for years in favor of that treaty. but that is not carry the day. : the most disturbing thing you said today that in my view, and you touched on it and we went to buy it in the hearing. you suggested that has been a sectarianism in baghdad. if that is the case, that is a disaster. aid thes what l groundwork for isil. what can we do about it? are we trying to do something about it? on the iraqi government.

sec. carter: what i was referring to over the past couple of weeks. as part of our strategy, we inport the prime minister his overall approach which is a multi-sectarian -- mr. king: is he backsliding on that? ac. carter: i had conversation just a week and a half and where completely aligned and what we're trying to respect to our campaign. it is also true that he is contending with a very complicated mix. with respect to your question,

what are we doing about it, in addition to providing political support i want to reiterate the importance of the economic support. that is not just by the united states but by others as well. were urging the gulf states, iran.cede baghdad to get in the game, support a multi-sectarian approach. as with the body is trying to stand for. politically and economically it is important to support him. that is important in view of the low oil prices. mr. king: concern about the i've satisfied the italian contractor and the arrangement that has been made by the government is sufficient .nd will be timely bolivian outlook -- if that were not.

with respect to the timing that tothe concern we all have mitigate the risk of that there are failures in the dam before their complete. howking: we talked about isil has been degraded, and that seems to be the consensus in terms of briefings. let me do that in terms of equipment and finances and foreign fighters. where are they getting their equipment? imagine,er: as you can there is no lack of ak-47s and weapons that have been left behind as a result of the years at war. primarily, they got them from

the former iraqi soldiers and brought their weapons with them in the weapons the season the early days of the war. a pretty significant progress two years ago in ground -- grabbing ground, and territory. king: are they being squeezed and now? general dunford: very much so, senator. their movement has been reduced, their ability has been reduced. their militaryt capability has been degraded to include their -- mr. king: do we have any information that their morale is declining? general dunford: my observation on my recent trip and where we were i think one of the more significant things i see is the relative morale of the iraqi security forces versus isil. we see intelligent anecdotally

that hascommanders eroded over time as a result of battlefield losses. and the fact that their pay has been cut significantly because of the resources that constraints and the leadership has. king: thank you very much. >> i went on a code during the recess and was in israel and saudi arabia, and turkey. one of the feelings that i got in speaking with a number of the leaders was a sense that everyone recognizes at some point if we take advantage of maybe some of the degraded n,atus of isis in that regio ultimately want to take around we have to hold it. for us to hold it, we have to have people present that are

women andnot men and american uniforms ultimately will come from the coalition and the partners in the middle east was of the sense i got is that they want to be prepared to do it but are not necessarily prepared to take the kind of presence the kind of we will need. to you agree with that assessment? what specific action on the taking to prepare the saudis to be able to play a role in that, along with the iraqis? sec. carter: i will start off having just been in saudi arabia. -- i will speak for them from our conversations. they have some of the same view that we do. in the end, it can't be them or us, and must be local people. they want to join the campaign and play a role.

we have to remember, this is a two-way street. the people who you think you're helping have to welcome your help. that can be an issue. that is why it is so important as weigate those politics were discussing. we do everything with the permission and through the iraqi government. no governmente is with which we can cooperate. but we still made local forces who live there, and want to live there. to get back to senator grah are not thekurds right people to take and govern raqqa. we are looking to identify and enable syrian arab forces that would be the appropriate people to take, because the people have to accept their liberators. you are thest say

liberator, thereafter believe that we could violent backlash. the saudis and others in the region understand that dynamic. we are looking for their help, finally. of militaryterms help, but this is where their economic stabilization can be so important. if the gulf states would help the sunni lands being taken back by the iraqi security forces, that would help the state of iraq, a counterweight to what is currently iranian influence. we think iraq are to be multi-sectarian place. llis: what i am more concerned with is you as a war fighter is the level of

capability in the saudis. an example. as it seems a very good capabilities in the air, but not on the ground by our standards. to put them in a situation where we finally gain the momentum to try to eradicate siisis from their level of readiness approaching and in that possible with them as a key partner? think each ofd: i our partners have certain capabilities that could be employed to good effect in syria, were they to have the will to do that? thetillis: i was aware of presence of isis and it was growing as a hub in that area.

>> i assume that is part of the strategy. your point is absolutely right about the gulf states in the sense that their capabilities to operate, particularly against asymmetric threats in the region is an area where they could improve. >> i agree with your assessment. sign high acid part of our strategy. i just came back from a visit to cairo over the weekend to talk

to our egyptian partners about improving our cooperation in dealing with isis not only s ininai across north africa. >> i want to thank you for your leadership on the veterans bill. i had just about for a press conference. i thank you for your leadership. vice president king? vice president of your fan club. i am sure there is a lot of competition for that role. many think the witnesses for your testimony. to compliment you on some tactical successes that you have described in the earlier testimony. thatis shrinking but creates new challenges. they want to do other things that are more asymmetric around the world to maintain relevancy.

while i applaud you for tactical thatsses, i will repeat the escalation of troop presence in syria -- i am deeply concerned about the legal basis for this. on the domestic side, i am in a body in in this congress in believing that the 2001 authorization does not provide justification for this war. justification. spoke lasttis, friday at the center for strategic and international studies and was partially critical of congress for not passing an authorization. he said, worth more than 10 battleships is a sense of american political resolve. sentry that we have not that sense. you testified one year ago

before this committee and i ask you about an authorization. you said, what our men and women need is a sense that with the are doing as meaning, value, the support of the american public. i do not think we have sent a message of political resolve as the political leadership, as the decision-makers contemplate this. we have not sent a message of result for our troops, to our allies, to our adversaries. i continue to believe that the domestic legal authorization for this war is highly problematic. i want to turn my attention to a second legal issue, there has to be international legal basis for war. if you are fighting on your own soil in your not invading anybody else's sovereignty, you do not need separate legal justification for fighting that war.

if you are into the sovereign space of another nation, they're not only has to be a domestic legal justification, there has to be an international one. a common legal justification -- one of the most common is that you have been invited in by the sovereign nation that wants your help. iraq isgainst isil in at the invitation of the iraqi government so there is clear international justification for our activities, setting aside the domestic question. this, but to say there is also international legal justification for russian military activity in syria because russia has been invited in by the government of syria. we may think it is a bad idea but in terms of the international legal justification, russian activity has been invited in. proxy entryugh

thereof forces, is carrying out operations in ukraine -- that is a violation of international law. it is a clear violation of international law because ukraine has not invited them in payday are carrying out operations in a sovereign nation without the support of that sovereign nation. i struggle with is, how can we criticize the russian incursion into ukrainian sovereignty when we are carrying out escalating military operations in syria without the theission and even against will of the sovereignty of that nation? thatcorrect -- am i not -- syria has not invited us to conduct military operations within syria? >> you are correct. just to address a couple of iints, i hasten to say that

am no lawyer, but we do have to the, and with respect use of military force, i agree with you. testified in favor of therapy in -- it was signified the troops of the country is buying them. i think they feel like they are buying them. your visits to the region at test to bed. they would have been another way of attesting to that. i am told by the lawyers of the legal basis for what we are domesticsts in both law and international law for everything we are doing that again, i am not the expert on that and could not explain to you the ins and outs. that if there is a difference between what we are doing in syria and with the russians are doing in ukraine, we are fighting real terrorists,

we are not destabilizing the stable situation. we are trying to return order and decency. i do not know what a lawyer would say, the common sense -- there is a difference -- >> of course there is. i completely agree. russian witnesses on the stand, they would talk about what they are doing. i will conclude with this. at the end of this , as a strongn front of everybody around the stable, we have made a complete hash -- and that is a tip of the doctrines of more. in an incursion into the sovereign nation of syria without their permission .gainst their will we are trying to criticize russia for engaging into an incursion into another nation against their will and we are

asserting the difference that we are doing something good. i agree that they are doing something that. not a limiting principle because everybody is going to say what they are doing is good. at the end of this administration, with the complexity of this congress, we have basically, with the doctrine that says whenever and wherever as long as the president feels it is a good idea. without congress even need to do anything about it. that that is the rule and i think that has become the rule. that is a rule that will haunt us domestically under future presidents in congress. i think it is a book i could easily be seized by any other nation to basically justify all kinds of things that are horrible. we are only six months before .he into the administration they promised they would work with congress to revise the 2001 authorization is currently being

used as justification for , africa, iraq,n syria, the arabian peninsula. there has been virtually no work time to put any limiting principle on that. we are going to be in a position where we have turned an authorization from 2001 and a lot of administrative blocks into an all-purpose domestic justification. we have taken common international principles of law in we have decided that if our incur thee ok, we can sovereignty of another nation because we are doing the right thing but then that takes away our ability to effectively criticize other nations that get into the sovereignty of other nations as russia is doing in the ukraine.

this is not a subject we are going to resolve today but i we reach these new milestones of escalation i'm going to keep putting on the about theconcern precedent that we are setting for this nation but also the example we are setting for other nations. >> and thank you, senator. let me recognize senator with >> thank you. i want to thank senator kaine for that very powerful and compelling summary of concerns that i share. will not give my own version of him because he stated them very well in the and your for a long time and i thank you for being here so patiently and so committeeely to this i noted mr. secretary that there was a note of pride in your voice on you said you were not a lawyer. which i forgive you. >> i only meant that i was a

physicist. >> there are many days there were i wish i was a physicist and there is no way i could be, so, thank you both for your service. thatt to explore an issue i think is extremely important, the evolving military cooperation between russia and iran -- and may have been mentioned here but not in depth reports that russia's shipment of parts of an air defense system to iran. in addition, western iran supposedly in talks over them fighter to chat -- possible -- fighter jet. ,f the systems are delivered there has been a violation of security council 2231. i am not an international lawyer may seems pretty clear that would be a violation which requires security council approval for the sale of any

major, systems to iran. supplying weapons to iran is particularly dangerous because it is not done in a vacuum, reflects aeapons growing partisanship that has far-reaching ramifications for hezbollah because that is the run's terrorist proxy, benefiting the -- indirectly from russian arms and military operational experience in syria. you, mayon to both of i begin the general dunford, what implications for israel if you're on continues to receive military equipment in russia and what would the united states have to do? >> i think clearly there are implications for israel. i have visited a couple of times over the last few months and the

israelis you, the developments in iran are of great concern as it with our printed and commitment to ensuring that israel maintains a qualitative military edge in the theater and so the implications are that we will continue to work very close with the israelis to ensure that they have the capabilities and the capacity as you know -- they the about -- not just capability to also the capacity to deal with threats in the region and so i think are committed what the israelis now call qme to is now the most appropriate response for development and iran but i do share your concern and an of the israelis do, as well. to stop thebe done flow of arms in this way you potential diplomatic steps, are there also military steps and i can be taken? >> percival in the associate justf with what the german said that there are both steps --c and military

i don't mean military steps in this sense of attacking that in posture -- the diplomatic once i cannot speak to but there is a, of un security council resolutions are not just one number of them -- i am not an expert on that -- but i doubt they do apply -- in a should constrain countries that are supplying iran with dangerous arms because of your own's other activities in terms of supporting terrorism, in terms of ballistic missile threats and so forth for which they have been sanctioned in for which -- and which sanctions were not a .art of the iran nuclear deal to the military provisions i just say this, this is one the reasons that i was in the gulf and the president has been to go last week as a talk to our partners and fortifying themselves. now that wasn't a conversation with israel but i find conversation with israel as well

also to strengthen their capability -- we today missile-defense, lots of other areas, committed to their quantitative military. mitch inman indicated, and of course they have broader concerns than iran but iran is their personal concern -- that is the -- we have a huge posture in the middle east, military posture as she was military posture -- part of that is isil the other one is -- the other i, isil, and there is iran and that is why we're there, too underscore deterrence, to support our friends and allies especially including israel andnst iranian aggression influence so it is a very important -- >> i take it that this continuing flow of arms -- and i beld appreciate cash would taken into account in the negotiations on the memorandum of understanding that her

ongoing right now as we speak. >> and yes. those discussions are conducted by the white house but obviously completely informed by the views of thelf and a chairman military dimensions of it and extensive discussions that i have with my colleagues including my good friend the defense minister of israel and the chairman has with his counterpart there. gentlemen on behalf of the chairman only thank you for your testimony, for your service, and declared that the hearings are returned to paris thank you very much. declare that the hearings are adjourned and 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]

[i inndiscern [indiscernible conversations]

[indiscernible conversations] [indiscernible conversations]

our campaign us continues to travel across the country to honor winners of our student can competition. we recognized winners from inamie junior high school wyoming. they were recognized for their video, accession to affordable higher education is the investment of the future. we visited with winners in rapid and finalioux falls stop included a visit to minnesota where third prize winners were honored for their video on water pollution. a special thanks to our cable partners for helping to coordinate. every weekday, watch one of the

top 21 winning entries at 6:50 eastern before washington journal. tomorrow morning, members of the house energy and commerce committee hold a hearing on nuclear energy regulation and modernization. we want take you there live in 9:30 eastern. on c-span two, a hearing on that that medication industry. regulators and industry executives testify before a house subcommittee. that will be alive and 9:45 eastern on c-span two. house speaker paul ryan says their house is getting very close to passing legislation on the puerto rico debt crisis. spoke to reporters on take your child a workday. the house is expected to miss the main one deadline to have them deal with $70 billion in debt.

mr. ryan: good morning. welcome. i want to welcome our new special guests. oh, man this is so cute. ok. i think take our daughters and sons to work day is a wonderful thing. most of the meetings i've been in today have been with sons and daughters and it's made it a great day. i look forward to meeting all of you ever afterwards. i have two items this morning. first, today i invited the prime minister of india to address a joint meeting of congress when he visits washington this summer. india is the most populous democracy and soon it's going to be the most populous country. the friendship between our nations is a pillar of stability in a very, very important region.

this address presents a special opportunity for us to deepen our ties with our ally, india. it is a chance to hear from the prime minister on how we can work together to promote our shared values and to increase prosperity. i want to thank chairman royce and congressman holding for their leadership and for their commitment to this relationship with india. this will be the first joint meeting of this speakership. we certainly look forward to having the prime minister this summer. i believe it's june 8. second, today the economy clocked in in the first quarter at .5%. that's next to nothing. this is a sign that this is not a healthy economy. this economy is far from its potential. this is why we're passing bills just this week to help boost manufacturing and to help increase startups. there's to only so many things we can do in a divided government.

as part of our policy agenda, we're going to show the country how we can get our economy back on track. we do not have to settle for .5% economic growth. we know we can do much better than this. but for our government. and so we need to have an agenda that we take to the country and say, here's how you get real growth in this economy. here's how you get real economic growth. tax reform. open up our energy development. regulatory relief to keep the economy open, to give startups life and breath. america can do better. americans can do better. we look forward to presenting this country with a very, very clear and compelling choice and i have to say, of all the things that helped fix so many of our problems, it is getting real economic growth, job creation, wage growth, and that is something that we have to do, our policies that are being pursued right now are holding us back. this is the eighth year of this presidency and these policies and they're not working and we will offer the country a choice.

with that i'll answer your questions. reporter: off what you just said about the end of the obama presidency, this should be in theory, in divided government, a good time, because presidents tend to try to get a bipartisan agenda, a legacy passed, republicans in this case would be happy to be seeing obama go, and yet you see the appropriations process breaking down, on the senate side there's not a lot of movement -- [inaudible] -- what's your observation about the end of this period compared to other times? mr. ryan: this is my third president i've served with. i'd say this is the most ideological president i've ever served with. he's very dogmatic in pursuit of his ideology and therefore i don't see a bridging of the gap because of the nature of this presidency. i guess that's point number one. point number two, in spite of that, we're still getting things done. i mean, look, we have the

biggest highway bill in a decade. we re-wrote our customs laws. energy legislation's moving through the system. we've got a tax deal that gives certainty to businesses. so, opioids is making its way through. we had a lot of bills moving through committee this week. so i think there's still a lot of things that are getting done. but honestly, the big basics, the big issues, that's what this divided government will not produce, because, look, i ran against the guy in the last election, i don't agree with him on big issues. we as the alternative party are going to step up and be an alternative party, a proposition party, and show the country what a real growth agenda looks like. the policies that have been pursued by this administration, specifically these regulatory policies, fiduciary rule, overtime rule, joint employer, that's just from one agency. these are putting a chilling effect on growth. these are compromising businesses. we have to break this log jam with a cleansing, clearing election that will give us the

ability to actually pass the big things that need to get done to fix this and get us back on the path of growth. reporter: yesterday i spoke with bishop and grijalva about the puerto rico bill. it's obvious we're not going to get anything done before the may 1 deadline. you said you want to stay away from chaos, but maybe causing a little bit of panic, not their words, might actually force congress to get real about this issue. do you think that that helps? mr. ryan: i don't think of it like that. we had a long meeting about this yesterday. i think the resources committee and treasury department are getting very close. this gets very technical in nature. and so i think treasury's working on good faith, resources is working in good faith. they're working to put something together.

so that when we return from our work period next week, we're hoping to have something more specific to deal with. again, the goal here is to bring order to the chaos, it is to give oversight board the kind of authority they need to make sure that they get their fiscal house in order, to restructure the debt, and to make sure that taxpayers are not involved in this. those objectives will be achieved based on what i know where these negotiations are going. reporter: your predecessor the speaker: i pick on you. reporter: lucifer in the flesh. the speaker: we have children here. reporter: never worked with a more miserable son of -- how would you characterize your relationship with senator cruz? the speaker: my job is to help unify our party and take all pieces of the conservative movement and help stitch them together especially after a primary. i have a very good relationship

with both of these men and i'm going to keep it that way. reporter: jack's question not only the president's legacy. you said you are a supporter of criminal justice reform and the senate is making headway. can you put that though, in the context of things you can get done. do you have confidence with the clock ticking with the conference ahead of you that that might get to the president's desk? the speaker: i'm hopeful because the senate has made some progress. opioid, we are going to go back -- i think they have two more bills they want to get out of committee and we have a package to bring to the floor. we have four out of committee. i'm hopeful we are on a good path. the committee of jurisdiction

got sidetracked for a good reason, good cause and going to get back on top of this. i don't have a specific time line because i want to get it done. i think because of the progress made in the other body and the fact that four of our bills are out and two more we want to get done and we are on track and i'm optimistic. reporter: you see the commonality? the speaker: i can't speak to that. but that's what conference committees are about. regular order is my main stay and if they pass something, fantastic. we'll bring bills to the floor which will pass. i want members to go into conference and i want them to understand how to become legislators and this among them. and i feel like we have a very good path and chance of doing that. reporter: at the markup, it would require women to register for the draft. what's your view of that? and do you have any quams about

bringing the ndaa? the speaker: not doing it is not an option. i share chairman thornberry's opinion. and i think mac's mindset look at the selective service process and deal with that in a comprehensive way. reporter: thanks for having mine and my three-year-old daughter -- the speaker: what's her name? reporter: olivia. bill shuster and jeff miller endorsed donald trump, a third republican, mike kelly said he voted for donald trump.

is that a sign that the g.o.p. establishment is going to accept that donald trump will be the g.o.p. nominee? the speaker: every little grain of truth. look, the process is going to play itself out. our members are free what they want to do. our members are free to endorse or not endorse. this will play itself, either the candidate will get. and my job is to make sure that it is done smoothly and by the rules and i'm sticking to that. reporter: to follow up on that. thanks for having the children. i'm following up on that. but trump has made comments if he doesn't hit 1,237 or 100 or 200 shy it would be unfair. the speaker: rules are rules. reporter: how are the rules -- the speaker: the rules committee decides the rules.

and our job is to make sure that the rules are followed to the t in a very transparent way that it's fair and following rules is the fair thing to do. so we'll see what happens. i honestly have no idea what's going to happen. reporter: mr. speaker. [indiscernible conversations]

nancy pelosi held a leader calling on the house judiciary committee to hold hearings on legislation that lgbtd prohibit anti- discrimination. would banty act discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity by emptying the civil rights act of 1964. this is 40 minutes.

i want to begin by thanking democratic policy, democratic whip hoyer and our caucus chair and our colleagues in the democratic caucus who are supporting this effort, great champions. last summer we introduced the equality act of 1964 and other existing federal law so lgbt can lead their lives. and it's a bipartisan bill in both chambers and co-sponsored by more than 200 members. the introductions, republican

leaders in the house have nothing to advance this bill or any other legislation that would address lgbt discrimination. their failure to act has created a vacuum. and in recent weeks, we have seen state lawmakers who have rushed to fill this vacuum with new laws. nearly 200 bills have been introduced in 34 states to expressly permit discrimination against lgbt americans and you can see the number of bills that are pending in states. they range from allowing religion to be allowed to be used to laws to deny use of facilities. so far this month, new laws to permit discrimination have gone on the books in north carolina, mississippi and tennessee, we cannot allow this to continue. we are calling on bob goodlatte to schedule a hearing on the equality act and 160 members of

both parties are standing together. when speaker ryan took office, he promised he would return the house to regular order. he said the committee should redraft all major legislation. you should write the bill and open up the process and let people participate. we are making this in good faith and this is an opportunity for the republicans to make good on their commitment to regular order. if they are serious about being the party of opportunity they should have substaps. if they want to vote against it, they should have a hearing and tell their constituents why they think lgbt americans don't have the same rights. the lack of federal protection for lgbt people is having a devastating impact. more than 60% of lgbt americans

have experienced discrimination and high school students don't feel safe and some have tried to get health care and same is true for 70%. this should not be this way. over the course of our history, our country has marched towards the ideal that all americans are entitled to equality under the law. but fairness and equality are values. and we are at a critical point in this fight and i would suggest that history will not look kindly on those who stood in the way. this is a time for leadership and affirm our pleff in the importance of fairness and i hope the republicans will seize this opportunity to reflect the commitment for the lgbt community and i thank all of my colleagues who are here to be part of this here and for strong

support in pressing the judiciary committee chairman to set this matter for hearing and a vote. and with that, it is now my pleasure to introduce debbie wasserman schultz. ms. wasserman schultz: last year, i had the privilege of officiating of a same-sox couple in the shadoove of the supreme court at the florida house and we achieved marriage equality across the country, the striking down of doma. i know i have consistently communicated with my lgbt community that we couldn't rest easy or sit back and just wipe our hands and say good job, time

to move on, because as congressman cicilline said there is so much left to do, so many rights that are still not won and then we watched the unraveling after the wonderful decision that was handed down, which was the right decision to grant marriage equality across the land, you have big olted, narrow-minded individuals who want to roll back that progress and roll back those rights. we have to stand vigilant we have seen what has happened in mississippi and north carolina. there is no right to discriminate and can't codify discrimination into state, local or federal law. we are asking for something very simple, that the chairman of the judiciary committee should grant a hearing, a hearing so there can be a discussion about the proliferation of these laws and we can start to make sure that

the overwhelming sentiment which has been very clear as americans across this country which is that discrimination should take place against no one anywhere in the united states of america. but we can stop that in its tracks and say enough, no further. we need to make sure we continue the progress we have been able to make. thank you very much. >> i thank david and the leader and everyone for being here. i was with a group of fifth graders a couple of days ago and they were interviewing me and they said have you ever faced discrimination because you are gay. when i was elected to congress, it turns out that the person i spent the last 22 years with, couldn't get insurance under my policy in the house of representatives. it was illegal under federal law.

that's gone now because of the work of people up here and the fight of so many activists for so many years. it's also the case we couldn't get married, but that's gone now because of the work of so many people and activists. we are about to celebrate our 24th anniversary and married for two. we have three children together. but it is still also legal in many states for people to die in an a hotel room. it would be legal for us to be fired simply because of who we are. these are issues that if they affect a member of congress, how do you think a waitress who is transgender is out there. so we have a simple message to our republican colleagues, join us. it's not too late.

last night, some of us had the honor of being with john lewis when they aired a documentary about his life and wonderful footage that so many of you have seen of congressman lewis leading the march over the edmund pettis bridge in selma and they were walking into those police batons and dogs and tear gas. but what i was focused on were the people on the other side. who are they? who are those state police officers? who are the local police officers? who are the people in the black and white video shouting at them as they sought the right to vote. our republicans have to decide if they want to march towards justice. their kids will judge them harshly. come on and join us.

we could march towards justice together. hold a hearing and march towards justice. it's my pleasure to introduce congressman nadler. mr. nadler: thank you very much. millions of americans can legally be fired from their job or denied a table or thrown out of their homes not for breaking a law but for being who they are. there are real consequences for the failure of our laws to protect people. in our state, 74 of transgender individuals have reported experiencing harassment or mistreatment and 17% have been denied medical care. we cannot allow this to continue. lgbt americans are just that, americans. we have before us legislation that will take an approach, the equality act, that

will make lgbt part of the civil rights act. 174 sponsors in the house and yet we have not been able to get a hearing. we had a bill, a bill for example to repeal the old doma law. we couldn't get a hearing in the judiciary committee. the supreme court did it for us. we can't depend on them to rescue us or do our job for us. we should be able to depend on the republican leadership to bring this kind of a subject onto the committee agenda, put it there and allow a discussion and allow a vote. it is time to hold hearings, gather evidence and propose solutions and get a fair hearing. there is no doubt the problem exists. everyone knows you get married on saturday and you get fired on monday after your boss reads it in the newspapers.

the equality act will ensure all individuals have the same dignity respect and opportunity they deserve. we should get the ball rolling. this will be the law eventually. the whole history of this country is enlarging the meaning of the declaration of independence when it says we hold these truths to be self-evident. what did they mean? they didn't mean women, black people or native americans. we have to be expanding it now. eventually this will happen and i hope that the speaker of the house, mr. ryan and the chairman of the judiciary committee will go down in history as some of the people who made it happen and not discarded on the way to make it happen. i'll introduce the democratic leader of the house, the former speaker, nancy pelosi.

ms. pelosi: good morning everyone. how wonderful to see you all here for something that is so about the values of america and of our caucus and hopefully will be of this congress. just a place where we are in context from the standpoint of congress, when we came into the majority, we had a four-legged stool we wanted to accomplish, to pass a fully inclusive hate crimes legislation. people said if we take out transgender, you could pass out it in a second. we can't pass it in a million years. and thank goodness president obama signed the bill and we were able to accomplish that. next, we had under the president's leadership and would

not have happened, we take a lot of credit for that hate crimes bill, but the next leg of the stool would not have happened without the president's leadership and courage and that is the repeal of don't ask don't tell. another piece of our agenda was to promote marriage equality in our country, legislatively, we couldn't really succeed but the courts and the rest and public opinion, of course, in the actual courts and court of public opinion, that victory has been won. there is one other piece, end discrimination in the workplace which is a very important piece of the agenda. but as we were seeing the successes and momentum in marriage equality, we saw the opportunity to do something bigger. and i salute david cicilline for offering the equality act. it was a glorious day for many

of us. many of us are standing with david and senator -- house and senate and john lewis right there. and to hear the words that many of us quoted and julian bond talked about the fact that we need to do this. the equality act has opened up the civil rights act. that is not done lightly. it is a very big deal but right thing to do and who we are as a country. wasn't about ending discrimination in the workplace, it was in every place, whether it's credit or jury trial -- every aspect of our lives just as it applies to everyone in our country now would apply to the

lgbt community and we are excited about that and we urge our leadership to hold hearings on this legislation. hold hearings on this legislation. let's do our job. bring in your witnesses and we'll bring in ours. i put this in a historical context, but just yesterday which was really sad, in a debate on the defense authorization bill, probably has been mentioned but i want to go there, they had a vote, republicans in the armed services committee voted for an amendment that would reverse the president's executive order preventing lgbt's in federal contracts. there is a need for us to have hearings so we can act upon the fact and act upon our values. so i salute congressman cicilline on his leadership and if i may yield to mr. hoyer.

mr. hoyer: thank you very much, madam leader and thank you, mr. cicilline for your leadership on this issue. and thank my fellow co-sponsors of this legislation. let me start with leader pelosi, last night we had a vote 33-29, it was to install discrimination in the national defense authorization act. so this is an extraordinarily timely issue. last night, less than 24 hours ago, the majority of members of the armed services authorization committee, no democrats, voted to perpetrate discrimination. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. we introduced this bill last july in the wake of the supreme court's historic ruling on marriage equality. a ruling which the overwhelming majority of americans support.

it is still legal, however, for employers to fire an lgbt individual solely because of their sexual orientation or gender expression, as has been mentioned. lgbt individuals can be expelled from school or denied medical care or housing. in 29 states it's legal to deny lgbt americans at a restaurant, theater, library or other public space. think of that, in america. in 28 states, lgbt americans can be denied housing. in recent weeks we have seen north carolina and mississippi enact discriminatory laws. and under north carolina's law transgender americans could be forced to use bathrooms that do not correspond with their gender identity.

that is why this legislation is so timely and so needed. i thank representative cicilline and lewis, merkley, baldwin, booker, for their leadership in introducing the legislation last year. it is time for house republicans to hold a hearing and then bring it to the house floor for a vote where it will pass. i urge them to do so. let me close as jerry nadler referenced, endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights and among those are the pursuit of happiness and life and liberty.

we said that. as jerry nadler pointed out, it didn't mean african-american citizens, it didn't mean women, it didn't mean others who are left out of that definition. america's better today than it was then. it needs to be better still. when we pass this legislation, it will be. >> let me begin by thanking dave cicilline for being tireless in this effort for congress to do its job. mr. becerra: people are wondering why congress isn't willing to deal with the zika virus, and wondering why this republican congress won't do a budget and when will they do

comprehensive immigration reform and when congress is going to deal with the crisis in flint, michigan with adults and children drinking poisonned lead water and if we want to help america, we would put dave cicilline's bill on the floor right away. i stand proudly with every member who is here who is a champion of this issue and i think it's time for congress to get it and do its job. as a proud latino of catholic heritage, 20 years ago, i voted against the defense of marriage act. i'm pleased to see what the supreme court has said last year. but come on, congress has to get with it. we know there are people who are being treated, not just unfairly but unequally. so we can do our job.

is there anyone in america who believes that congress should have people elected who want to discriminate still? is there anyone in america who believes we should have members of congress who want to treat people unequally? this congress has a lot it can do and i think most of us believe that the votes are there to get the things done. i agree with the work of everyone standing here, if we allow congress to vote and eliminate discrimination against anyone, your race, national origin, sexual orientation, anyone, americans would agree, congress should be able to pass that. congress, do your jobs and get some things done. i thank david. >> i'm proud to join as a

co-chair of the equality caucus and as an overly lgbt member and how proud we should be of all of our champions of equality that are standing with us here today in leadership, members of the democratic caucus and the notable absence of the republican conference here today calling for simply a hearing on helping their fellow americans achieve the equality that is our due. mr. polis: the time is now, i salute representative cicilline and the civil rights community and women community, so many champions of community and co-sponsors of the bill, 174. we are saying, let's hold speaker ryan to have hearings on bills, move bills forward and when we have a bill that has such enormous support with members of this body, let's at

least schedule a hearing. can they find witnesses that want to make arguments against this bill? let's hear those arguments. are they embarrassed and why are they trying to hide behind this bill and not allow expert witnesses talk about the importance of this bill in the lgbt community in america. i hope we can move forward. we will continue the pressure with representative nadler who said it will pass. but you know what? we will build towards passage and law and that means every step of the way we will remind those who have the ability to have hearings and schedule votes that the time is now and you must do it. and we will use every tool in our arsenal to advance an agenda of equality for all americans so all americans are equal under the law and won't face the bitter discrimination that still characterizes our country.

i thank representative cicilline and i would like to yield to barbara lee, another champion of equality and co-chair of the equality caucus who has joined us today. ms. lee: thank you very much. let me thank you, congressman cicilline, first of all, for your tenacity, your commitment and your dedication to justice and to equality. let me just say a couple of things and put it in context. i'm an african-american woman. i remember the days when i could not drink out of a water fountain unless it said colored. i could not attend public schools because i was black. my dad served 25 years, proud military officer, veteran, we could not eat in restaurants

because we were black. and so there is no way, congressman cicilline and to all standing here and others as an african-american woman i could not join in this struggle for equality for our lgbt communities and i'm proud to be a founding member of the equality caucus and also in my district in the east bay of california, northern california, my constituents, i have many, many lgbt families that are looking to us and relying on us for justice and for fairness. it's mind boggling to understand why this equality act has not come to the committee for a hearing, just a hearing. that's the democratic process, that's the american way and we see what's taking place throughout the country with

these hate-filled laws but i cannot believe that our congress and third branch of government that the united states house of representatives, i can't believe that we would join those hateful efforts. and so the equality act is an important step forward in the march to justice and equality for everyone. finally, let me just say i participate with congressman cicilline and others, with john lewis marching across the edmund pet ties bridge to remind us about the struggle for freedom and equality. this is one more step. our lgbt community deserves a federal government that will stand up for their rights and families. so it's way past time for a hearing on the equality act and way pasted -- past time. and thank you for leading the charge.

congresswoman janice hahn -- i'm sorry. representative kildee, come on up. mr. kildee: first of all, if we are going to be the america we promised to be, we can't leave anyone behind whether it's children in my hometown of flint, michigan, who have been poisonned or the lgbt community. in my home state of michigan, today, we can still be fired for being gay. you can still be discriminated against in the workplace for being gay or refused service for your status. that is discriminatory and that's wrong and that's not america. congress needs to act. there's no excuse for the republicans in congress, not at least holding a hearing and gathering facts, perhaps facts

they might find inconvenient as they continue to cling to policy that is based on hate, that is based on prejudiced, big on biggoted. it is completely unacceptable and un-american and seen in north carolina and mississippi, laws introduced that continue to double down on hate and on discrimination. hatred is wrong. discrimination is wrong. bigotry is wrong. prejudice is wrong no matter what convoluted logic is used masked as principle to justify it. as a people, as americans we have to act. congress is charged with that responsibility. congress should do its job, hold hearings and bring this legislation to the floor and be the america we say we are. and now we talk to janice hahn from california. thank you.

ms. hahn: thank you. and i first would like to thank my wonderful friend and colleague, congressman cicilline for being a champion of so many issues but particularly of this equality act and i wanted to take a moment to thank all my lgbt colleagues in congress for their courage, really every single day in living their lives. every american deserves the right to be treated fairly under the law. but the fact is that this is just not the case in the world that we live in right now. we've made progress that we can be proud of but lgbt americans continue to face legal discrimination. ongoing discrimination directly contradicts american values. the latest attacks and the hateful rhetoric against transgender americans are part of a very disturbing trend.

the new bathroom laws in north carolina and debated are driven by bigotry and fear. their supporters will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history. and laws like this only underscore the need for this equality act. there is a young man in long beach, california, named judah who was literally thrown out of his home when he turned 18. and as he laid on his bed wondering about the transportation that would pick him up from his home and he didn't know where and he felt so alone and so hopeless and i want him to know today that many of us in congress are fighting for you. we're fighting to make sure that you have a life that you can live with equality, with dignity and respect that is a god-given

right for all americans. you know, speaker ryan has long promised regular order. you know what? this would be a good place to start with this act. this issue is too important to ignore. we need a hearing on the equality act. thank you. >> i just wanted to stand with david and with all of us in the congress that do believe that we need a hearing and we need to pass the equality act. i'll start as barbara lee did with my own personal story. i went to a college that was all male for 200 years. i was fortunate that in my junior year in high school they decided to accept women, but i know the experience of an 18-year-old going into a situation where your kind is not accepted, not welcomed. and i had devoted my life and i wanted to speak to some of the

children who are here that congress will protect your rights and that we will protect equality wherever we go. 20 years ago, as a young attorney in new hampshire, i represented a family that was going through a transition with gender. and i can tell you i can't even fathom the notion that the pilot, the woman who has lived for 20 years would be instructed, the audacity of the north carolina legislature to tell her to use the men's room. i'm sorry, that's wrong. it's not right for a family and not right for our own personal human dignity and i want to stand with david cicilline and sean patrick maloney to say, speaker ryan, this is not right. we represent all of the american

people. thank you. mr. foster: i'm best known as being the only phd scientist in the united states congress so i could give you the scientific case for extending lgbt' legal rights to all americans. i'm also a businessman who made his career in they at try call theatrical stage lighting and all of the glass ceilings for lgbt were broken years ago. our company's equipment was used to illuminate the white house with all the colors of the rainbow following the historic decision on marriage equality. i'm the son of a civil rights lawyer.

my father wrote the enforcement language behind the civil rights act in 1964. he was a scientist who stepped away from his career because he saw civil rights as the great moral cause of his generation. and every generation has its duty to bend the arc of justice further and that is why i am proud to co-sponsor the equality act and i commend david cicilline for introducing it and i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to have a hearing and have a vote and pass this as soon as possible. thank you. mr. cicilline: we have time for a few questions. reporter: the anti-lgbt laws that are in place in kansas, north carolina and mississippi. mr. cicilline: it is a comprehensive civil rights bill and will add gender identity in which discrimination that is prohibited, public

accommodations, jury service, federal funding, employment, housing and the benefit of this comprehensive approach is that the existing jurisprudence around these civil rights protected classes would also be part of the jurisprudence now that would apply to the equality act. it would create a federal statute that prohibits discrimination and i think it would ensure in every state in the country that individuals could not be discriminated in all of the areas of public life based on sexual orientation or gender identity and state laws come in conflict with that -- i'm not -- i'm a lawyer, the federal law would take precedence and would provide protection at the federal level for individuals and prohibit them from being discriminated against. reporter: any conversations --

what are is your sense that the hearing will take place? mr. cicilline: it will get set for hearing either there is an intention to move the legislation or there's so much pressure from the country, from outside the congress that they feel obligated to respond to that. i hope both of those will be the case. i hope when chairman goodlatte considers this request, he will not only recognize that 178 co-sponsors of the bill in the house and 116 signed a letter to chairman goodlatte asking for a hearing. i hope those will demonstrate significant support in the congress for passage of the equality act. if you look at the polling around the country, this is widely supported. people believe in equality and that discrimination is wrong. and as jerry nadler said, there is no question that the equality act will become the law of the land, but how quickly that will

happen in the house unless we work together to accelerate that occurrence so we bring equality to all americans as quickly as possible. thank you all for being here. >> coming up on c-span, secretary of defense ashton carter and general joseph dunford testified before a house committee on the plan to close the guantanamo bay detention center. republican presidential candidate donald trump outlines his foreign-policy priorities. later, a senate armed services hearings on the u.s. strategy to counter isis in the middle east. that is followed by the washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. writing morning, our student cam grand prize winner will join us from oklahoma. she will also talk about what she learned producing the documentary. pennsylvania republican congressman murphy will join us to discuss his mental health legislation. and ted lieu will join us to talk about the hacking of his iphone and his call to the oversight and government reform committee to investigate. be sure to watch it c-span's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. morning, nancy pelosi will hold her weekly press briefing. 9:15ll take you live at a.m. eastern on c-span two. south carolina governor nikki

haley testified on the obama administrations plan to close guantanamo bay detention center and transfer some of the detainees to a military prison in trust and. she said the planet made no sense seeing that the detainees would cost her state jobs and potential business. she was followed by local law enforcement officials testified on the cost and impact on communities and this house home subcommittee is about two hours. >> the committee will come to order. the purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on state and local perspectives regarding the impact of transferring guantanamo bay detainees to the homeland. the chair now recognizes himself

for an opening statement. january 2009, president obama 13492,executive order which ordered the closure of the detention facility at guantanamo bay naval base in cuba. inr seven years later, february 2016, the administration submitted its plan to close detention facilities. although the plan is devoid of specifics, the administration has made clear that in in the united states to didn't attain an unspecified number of guantanamo bay prisoners. i must break from the script and comment on that a little bit. the collective best judgment of

the administration's top military and civilian leaders, with all due respect, military that serve the administration are bound to agree with the commander in chief. so their credibility in this regard unfortunately has to be questioned on this basis, if nothing else. and of course, civilian leaders looking to curry favor with the ad restriction are in this position. the solid,look at unbiased facts, not the appellant or the collective best judgment. moving on -- but it's time to set the record straight. the administration has failed to seek the necessary input from stay and local law enforcement on its plan. the reason is simple. law enforcement professionals strongly oppose any plan that could endanger the citizens they are sworn to protect. last month, the major county sheriff's association, which

represents sheriffs offices from our nations largest counties, wrote the president to express their opposition to the plan. i ask that this letter be included in the record. and without objection, it is so ordered. the letter states that detainees deemed too dangerous to release should not be brought to the homeland where they will pose a threat -- a threat to the local communities we serve. why would the administration ignore the advice of our state and local law enforcement professionals? just because their advice doesn't fit the administration's political narrative doesn't mean there voice should be heard. the fact is state and local law enforcement have numerous concerns with the applications of bringing the world's most dangerous terrorists to our homeland. law enforcement officials have serious questions, which the administration's plan either failed to consider or simply did not answer. for example, what if the base requires evacuation?

what if that detainees required transportation to medical facilities? and what resources are necessary for such transfers? i trip -- i visited guantanamo bay word taxpayers paid very .early for a core facility the administration has argued that taxpayers could save tens of millions of dollars by transferring these terrorists to the homeland. i would say which taxpayer? right now, all of us pay for youtanamo bay your it if move them, state-by-state, facility by facility, it will be the taxpayers in the local locations that will bear the entire burden. but did they calculus the cost the states and local communities? they will face additional costs to the heightened threatened environment brought about by this decision and taxpayers will foot the bill. this site will eckley become a magnet for protests as well

further straining the resources of the locals. we also have legal questions, such as if these terrorists are eligible for removal from immigration detention or constitutional rights. the department of justice believes that existing statutory safeguards are sufficient. and those held under the laws of war brought to the united states are under the reach bashar far from the reach of immigration laws. another major concern is that the facility would become a terrorist target it's off. consider the propaganda -- it's selitself. anybody who thinks this is impossible suffers from a failure of imagination. release to30% of detainees having been confirmed or suspected of rejoining the fight, gitmo detainees clearly remain dangerous and want to

kill americans. the facility also could become an attractive target for lone wolves and other radical islamist extremists may be inspired to perform jihad in the homeland. the american people do not want gitmo terrorists detained in their communities, their neighborhoods are down the street from the children's school. congress passed legislation that prohibits transferring gitmo detainees to the homeland and the president signed it. however, it is still moving forward with its legacy, the president that is, and the administration is still moving forward with his legacy-driven agenda, which includes closing guantanamo bay. and it is different. it is different from the national security agenda that i think he should be focused on. despite the will of the mecca people, he is moving forward this agenda. states and localities must prepare for the possibility that this administration will seek the detainees -- seek to detainees terrorists in our

communities despite the concerns of the american people. i think of and are haley for coming today. statesng and put from and local communities regarding these transfers is critical. made thernor haley trip to washington today underscores that importance. thank you again for being here, governor. i look forward to your testimony. the chair now recognizes the ranking minority member of the full committee, mr. thompson for his statement. representative thompson: thank you for holding today's hearing. i would like to request unanimous consent to introduce statements to the record from retired major general michael and james googles. representative perry: without

objection, so ordered. representative thompson: thank you, governor, for eating at this chris -- the subcommittee hearing. the united states faced the question of what to do with so-called unlawful combatants captured in military operations in afghanistan or other counterterrorism operations. thatnswer of the time military leaders seized upon was a u.s. military prison located within the guantanamo bay naval base in cuba. arrivedt 20 detainees at guantanamo bay prison on january 11, 2002. since that time, guantanamo bay has served as a prison camp to detain dangerous individuals, to interrogate those individuals on active acts of terrorism, and to prosecute those individuals for war crimes.

during the bush administration, more than 500 were released to their home countries or transferred to a third country. this month, the department of defense announced that they would transfer nine detainees to saudi arabia. the total number of individuals currently at guantanamo bay is 80. i want to make it clear that guantanamo bay has served its purpose and must be closed. closing the guantanamo bay detention facility is a national security imperative to it continues -- it's continued operation weakens our national security by furthering the recruitment propaganda of violent extremists hindering relations with key allies and partners and draining the department of defense resources. president obama signed an executive order expressing these concerns and ordering the

closing of the detention facility. closure, it may be necessary for those detainees who cannot be transferred to a third party country to be imprisoned in the united states in facilities deemed to be able to do so. today, i expect to hear concerns of the national security transferringfor suspected terrorists to the united states. some of the witnesses might say that bringing the detainees to the united states brings terrorism to our own backyards here in based on years of -- backyards. based on years of research by the department of defense, state and homeland security, these concerns are something not supported. there is no evidence that suggest housing guantanamo detainees will bring additional attacks, tension or danger to the united states. in fact, america has a long track record of incarcerating dangerous terrorists. some of the most dangerous terrorists in the world that

atve known are incarcerated u.s. maximum-security prisons, such as the super max facility in colorado. in fact, the man who tried to bring down the world trade center in 1993 and his co-conspirators have been serving multiple life sentences in super max since 1997. no one, terrorist or any criminal, has ever escaped from the super max prison. the only person charged in the 2012 terrorist attack on the u.s. compound in benghazi is currently being held in alexandria, virginia. approximately 15 miles from where we are sitting now. in fiscal year 2015, the cost of operating guantanamo bay was approximately $445 million. in addition to these annual costs, maintaining the facility in the future would require an additional $200 million.

closing the facility is expected andave between $140 million $180 million annually. the plan president obama delivered to congress represents the best and more secure way to close the prison at guantanamo bay. today, i encourage everyone to focus on the fact and not baseless fear. i look forward to your testimony and the testimony of all the witnesses in fact-based answers to my questions to that. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. otherentative perry: members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening statements may be submitted for the record. we are pleased to have two panels of distinguished witnesses before us today. the chair will never recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan, to introduce the first witness. representative duncan: thank you, mr. chairman. a great day in washington,

just like it is a great day in south carolina because i am honored and proud to introduce my good friend governor nikki haley. first elected governor in 2010 as the 116th governor of the great state of south carolina. she is the first female and first minority governor in state history, and is currently the youngest governor serving in the nation. governor, weming served together in a south carolina general summary for six years. she has been an ardent leader in south carolina, bringing numerous jobs to the state and constantly furthering south carolina's economic develop them. i appreciate her hard work as governor and her leadership to bring our state through some very difficult times, especially in the last 12 months. she is also no all-night from il an her, -- she is also alumni from my alma mater. i am excited to have her testify before our subcommittee and

providing a governor's perspective on the supported tissue. so welcome, governor haley. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. representative perry: one point concern, mr.tive cat go be a led to sit on the dais and participate in this hearing. without objection, so ordered in the chair -- so ordered. the chair thanks the gentleman. the witnesses full scale will appear in the record. thank you very much. we invite all of you in south carolina where it is 80 degrees and sunny. we hope you will come and take the time to visit soon. members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here to speak on this issue of national importance. thankcially want to congressman duncan and other members of the south carolina delegation for this or on this issue. -- for their support on this issue. in august last year, my office

was contacted out of the blue by the department of defense to inform us that they were traveling to charleston, south carolina, to assess the naval consolidated brig for the possibility of housing guantanamo bay detainees. imagine my surprise. not only was it against federal theto transfer guantanamo trainees into the united states, but why would anyone want to put terrorists in charleston? charleston, the city we call the holy city, the city named the number one vacation spot in the country for four years in a row. in south carolina, the state that was named the friendly estate in the country, the most patriotic state in the union. it makes zero sense. on february 23, 2016, president obama announced his plan to close guantanamo bay detention facility, currently used to house some of the deadliest terrorists in history, including the principal architect of the september 11 attacks leaked sheikh mohammed.

little newontained information. it did not even name a stateside facility. instead, it referenced a department of defense's 2015 survey of 13 potential but unidentified facilities. the opening paragraph of the plan, president obama presents the three reasons for why it is a national security imperative that the united states end its mission in guantanamo bay. mayrdless of any merit that support these assertions, they do not support the conclusion that the terrorists should be transferred to charleston, south carolina, or any other location in the united states. i know that other witnesses today will discuss specific cost and security concerns. so my testimony today will focus on three specific reasons provided by the president's plan . first, the president claimed serves as aamo bay

recruitment tool for terrorists. of course it does, but does so -- but so does statements by public leaders and american values as a whole. and so certainly would a similar facility located in charleston, south carolina, leavenworth, kansas, or florence, colorado. have chosen to wage war on the united states based on ideological hatred toward the american way of life and the fundamental freedoms of which we pride ourselves. the september 11 attacks occurred before there was ever a didtanamo bay facility, as the first world trade center bombing, the uss cole bombing, .nd numerous other attempts moving detention operations from a secure facility outside of the continental united states and into charleston will not stop

the propaganda. this line of thinking is giving the terrorists too much credit and too much validity. terrorists do not need a jail to hate us. they hate us on their own. second, the president contends that the presence of the facility at guantanamo bay somehow a major impediment to our relationships with foreign nations. the governor, my principal engagement outside of the united states is admittedly on the economic development front. attracting foreign investment to my state. that being said, summing the president's assertions are true, the question that comes to my mind is what about the detention at guantanamo bay is damaging to our relationship with foreign leaders and nation? whether the dictator -- the terrorists are detained on a military base in cuba or somewhere in the united states, they will be held under the same legal authority by the same

country, in the same manner for the same duration, for the same reasons. why does the zip code matter? on foreignct relations in south carolina, i can tell you i am tremendously concerned. alone, werleston area have international manufacturing giants, boeing, mercedes-benz, and now volvo. we have one of the most important deep water ports on the atlantic coast. south carolina is home to the largest bmw land in the world. we have five international tire companies. we also have ge, google, boss, dupont. i could go on and on. how i might to tell these companies that they will be sharing an address with the most heinous and dangers terrorists on earth, that the city that noy chose to call home is going to be one of the most high-profile terrorist locations

in the world. i can't and i won't. finally, the president wants to talk about cost. let me first say, if there's one thing we can all agree, the federal government is absolutely defending ther people of the united states of america. of while the department defense is not immune to fiscal ways, running a military prison during an ongoing conflict should not be high analyst of cost-saving measures. i come from a state where we balance our budget. findmise, we can help you $85 million somewhere else to cut. costs simply that, don't matter to me. you can pay the state of south carolina to host these terrorists and we wouldn't take them for any amount of money. there is no price worth the fear this reckless idea which strike in the hearts of the people of my state.

there is no price worth the inevitable economic downturn it would cause. and there is no price worth watching terrorists across the ande celebrate victory rightly claim that they can dictate the military posture of what should be the most powerful nation in the world. i'd like to close with this. as the members of this committee know better than most, national security decisions should be made with one and only one consideration in mind -- what is in the best interest of the safety and security of the citizens of the united states? with serious policy issues no easy answers underline the long-term detention and final disposition of terrorists captured during armed conflict, the location of the united states controlled military prison should not be determined based on loose perception, --imates, and 8 --year-old

eight-year-old campaign pledges. last year, the people of charleston stared hate directly in the eye. we know true hate and we know what fear it can bring. again,t need to see it nor do we wish it on any other state. keep the terrorists where they are, where they belong. do not bring them to my home. for the thank you opportunity to speak here today and i look forward to your questions. representative perry: thank you, governor haley. the chair recognizes himself or five minutes of westerns. we've already spent a fair amount of time today discussing the security of occasions of bringing guantanamo detainees to the homeland, particularly to your stay. in that vein, could you please describe for the committee members some of the south airliner specific concerns that you and law enforcement agencies under your purview would have? governor haley: as a governor, would tell you what does it do to the reputation of the state we take these detainees?

in south carolina, where we have worked massively to bring made in america jobs to south carolina, what comes -- what company is going to invest in a state where they keep these heinous terrorists. they are not going to. companies look at where they are going to bring their suppliers, where they are going to bring the customers. they don't want that ruby tatian on them as they go forward. now you look at the tourism aspect of it. who was going to come vacation in a state that is now known to house these terrorists? it completely taints what we have been proud to say is the number one tourist vacation for four years in a row. but it would do this to any other state. all of these implications are very important. and we know we are already having to stand up all of our armed bases, all of our securities because the targets right now are on servicemen and women. you are just putting another target, but now you will put it on trust in, south carolina. it's wrong to go and have states

now have to deal with one more issue when we are dealing with so many is wrong. our focus now is, how do we keep our service men and women safe? because right now if i sit down and talk to my f.b.i. affiliates as well as my chief, that's who we're trying to protect because the targets are on any military people in uniform, any security in uniform. if you go and put it in a place like south carolina, we are not only going to have protest but we'll also have threats that we don't have right now. why would you move something there and cause stress on this country when right now this country is going through so many homegrown issues on its own to turn around and add one more to it? mr. perry: just following up on that a little bit, just to set the context. of course, the detention facility in guantanamo bay is sequestered from -- there's not

going to be any protest, right? nobody's flying to guantanamo bay for recreating and whatever and would be protesters at some point and of course you won't go there kind of unannounced and exercise some terrorist activity. that's just not going to happen at guantanamo bay so it's shielded by that from the geography and the place that it is. also, i just wanted to say, since you mentioned the military and of course you have a high component of military members in the state and in the area, thank you for your -- you served with your husband as well. we appreciate the -- your sacrifice in that regard. can you talk at all about the costs to local law enforcement, whether it's regarding protests, whether it's being prepared for any eventuality and not have the failure of imagination whether or not one of these individuals would get out or someone would use the facility as a target, can you address that at all? governor haley: you know, we can talk about costs but you can't put a cost on fear. you can't put a cost on what it will do to a state.

we looked at hate in the eye last year. we had to deal with that. our state is still recovering from that. it is unbelievable what it will do to the people of a state when they know hate is anywhere near them. there is no cost you can put on that. what i can tell you is we have had to stand up our armed bases. we have already had to add additional securities to our military, to our officials and everything and -- in everything and anything we do because everything in the state has to be more careful. cost to me is such a frivolous conversation because when you've been a state that knows what this is like, you never want to go back to that. and no state should ever have to know what that fear feels like. senator perdue: have the local -- mr. perry: have the local law enforcement in collaboration with federal enforcement agencies done any cost estimates that you know of? i don't know. you said it's difficult to quantify but at some point it's

going to require additional -- whether it's additional training, whether it's additional manpower, equipment, briefings, protocols, have you even begun? based on the phone call you said you got, have you even started down that road and have local law enforcement officials aware of this expressed any concern to you? governor haley: whether that be of d.p.s., whether that be our military bases or general, those are the conversations we've had. i will spend whatever it takes to help my people. whether it be law enforcement, whether it be military, whether it be tourism, whether it be economic development, every call i've gotten has been, please don't let this happen to south carolina. representative perry: thank you. the chair recognizes mr. thompson for his five minutes of questioning.

representative thompson: thank you for appearing before this committee this morning. i'll get to when my question you had any dealings with that thesed facility detainees would be transferred to? governor haley: the department of defense has had no interaction with us whatsoever outside of suddenly getting a call saying they were going to be going to the charleston naval big. that's all that we've gotten. representative thompson: are you spending any money from taxpayers on maintenance in the navaop