are not up to the job, and a diplomatic agreement to do the job is not worth the paper it is notten on if a country does have the resources, does not have the training, to keep committed terrorists from returning to the about -- to the battlefield. the administration has sent guantanamo terrorists to these countries anyway. andeceive this committee the american people is deeply disturbing. when given the opportunity to correct the record for the committee, they ignored us. i appreciate that the administration finally responded on tuesday, but it should not take the calling of a hearing to elicit a return letter, especially on something as consequential as this. this committee has an obligation to conduct oversight. while we have differences of opinion over guantanamo policy, i do not read anyone here finds of the administration's business acceptable. should anyone think the committee's concerns are theoretical, and specifically, i was pressing on these terrorists who had been transferred to her uay, it is notg theoretical because now jihad is an al qaeda linked terrorist sent from guantanamo to or apply -- to uruguay. we sounded the alarm about their lack of legal framework. we explained about their critical resources to prevent travel out of the country that that was lacking in the case of uruguay. what is the result? last month, e.g. had the op disappeared --last month, it jihad had disappeared. he had testified daesh --government of the government of uruguay had taken steps. he is believed the headed back ia orlia or yemen -- syrui yemen. we have been waiting answers to the inquiry. while i have been patient, the president has been in a rush, seemingly willing to release tontanamo terrorists wherever he can. i wish we were not here today. holding another guantanamo hearing this week was not my intention. patience hasnd my run out. i now turn to the ranking member. thank you, mr. chairman, mr. wolosky, and mr. lewis. time, you gentlemen were here, i made my views on the guantanamo prison pretty clear and i would ask that my opening statement from that hearing be included as part of the record of this hearing. to recap, that prison should be closed. ofional security experts both parties agree with me. i have a letter here from 36 retired generals and admirals calling or the prison's closure. i ask is that it be included in the record. at the prison is a waste of money and a propaganda tool for terrorist. and of story, as far as the prison goes. issues raisede about transferred detainees in the last hearing that deserves some follow-up. i say transferred rather than release because it is an expensive process that goes into removing a detainee from the prison, sending him to another country. it is not as though they are just that loose. it is important to know how exactly we are monitoring transferred detainees and assessing the risk that they pose. rep. engel: it are good questions. because they deal with intelligence methods, we can only discuss them in a disclosed, classified setting. my understanding is that the administration offered to do just that and that offer was rebuffed. i hope that after this hearing, in a few weeks or so, we can have a closed, classified setting to get answers to some questions that you are not really allowed to say here in open session. so, why are we here? the title of today's hearing is "demanding accountability." requests release, it's ugly people's minds are made up. i want to make sure all the facts are on the table. there is plenty of blame to go all around. the chairman raises legitimate issues, but i do think there is plenty of blame to go around. the vast majority of guantanamo detainees were transferred out of the prison before president obama took office, a total of 780 detainees have been held in guantanamo, during the bush administration, 500 were transferred out, compared to 150 nine detainees under president obama. secondly, let us look under the number of transferred detainees who returned to the battlefield. thrownure 30% gets around a lot. it turns out it includes the total number of transferred detainees that we know for sure have returned for sure to the fight as well as those suspected of re-engagement over the entire life of guantanamo prison 2001 to present. during the bush years, 2001 to 2008, the greatest suspected and confirmed cases of re-engagement with actually higher than that, 35%, with 21% of the cases confirmed and 14% suspected. let me say that again. more than one third of the terrorist in president bush's administration transferred to have returned to the fight. thes contrast that with obama administration. under president obama, that number, totaling suspected and confirmed cases, dropped to 13%. a percent suspected, 5% confirmed. -- 8% suspected, 5% confirmed. i want to have a balanced hearing here because if we have already made up our minds in talking about the administration being reckless, it does not seem to me like you're really here to learn anything more. i reiterate, 13% of those transferred since january 2009 have reengaged compared to as much as 30 provide percent -- 35% during the previous administration. the contrast is striking. let us not get lost in the numbers. this is the most important point, transferred the trainees who returned to the battlefield and killed americans were let out during the bush administration, not during the obama administration. if we are going to paint with a broad brush and say that 30% of transfer detainees may be going back to the battlefront and killing americans, we need to put the story in perspective. the bush administration racked up that average and then some. the obama administration has helped to bring it back down. thirdly, the plant would not transfer any person who does not meet the most stringent criteria. i have heard claims that the remaining detainees are the worst of the worst and the administration simply want to turn them loose. that is false. 29 of 79 it remaining detainees are cleared for transfer. among them, 22 yemenis. the administration is not transferring them yet. we transferred detainees to their home countries. in the case of yemen, the government cannot provide adequate security assurances. we need to find countries that can provide adequate assurances before those 22 are transferred. that leaves 50. some of these are really bad guys. 10 of them will stand trial. another 40 are being legitimately held as prisoners of war. under no circumstances, in my opinion, is the obama administration simply opening the gate and releasing dangerous terrorists onto the street. guantanamo is a mess and it always has been. no one is blameless. no one can cherry pick single cases to paint a picture good or bad. do,ink that what we should after this, instead of having the witnesses come and tell us that they can only tell us things in a classified briefing is to spend our time with them after this hearing in a few we can be in a closed setting, getting to the bottom of this matter. now, the foreign affairs committee obviously has oversight on this issue. march andg last today's hearing are the only two times the committee has taken up this issue in nearly 15 years that the guantanamo prison has been open. since we have our top guantanamo experts with us today, i hope you can give us your opinions of some interesting ideas we have recently heard about that prison. i am going to be do a few quotes. it you may recognize them. i will give you a hint, it is one of the candidates running for president. there is a first "this morning, i watched present obama talk about -- president obama talk about gitmo, guantanamo bay, which by the way, we're keeping open." second, "torture works, ok folks, believe me, it works, and waterboarding is actually torture. let's assume it is. they asked me the question, what do you think of waterboarding, absolutely fine, but we should go much stronger than waterboarding. we should go much stronger because our country is in trouble." i just want to say that i read , some people say they want to expand the guantanamo prison and torture, that i can't think of a worse proposal for our national security. these schemes would only harm us with our allies and provide at ammunition --provide to our enemies. maybe we can hear it your views on what would happen if we went in that direction? ats, but ing tit for t think it's not really fair to blame the imagination for all the frustrations we have about guantanamo when we see that there were problems and wrong things done in the previous administers as well. i look forward to listening to you and hearing your thoughts. thank you, mr. chairman. engel. mr. now here for the special advisor for guantanamo. he served as the director for transnational threats on the national security council under president clinton. mr. paul lewis is joining us. we are pleased that he is here, special envoy for guantanamo detention at the u.s. department of defense. previously, he served as both the general counsel and the minority general counsel on the u.s. armed services committee. without objection, the witnesses' full prepared statements will be made part of the record. members will have five calendar days to submit any statement or questions or any extraneous material they might want to submit for the record. i would like to remind everyone, including our witnesses, that ful false statements is a criminal offense. indeed, that is the case for all of our hearing, and special envoy wolosky, please make your remarks. thank you very much. good morning. i appreciate your inviting you once again to appear before the committee. i look forward to continuing our discussion in closed session either later today as we have offered or as soon as possible so that we can have a fuller discussion of some of the classified topic that we know are of interest to the committee. altogether, a total of 779 detainees have passed through guantanamo, and of those, 700 have departed. the vast majority of detainees transferred out of guantanamo to 532, weretries, some transferred by the administration of george w. bush. under president obama, a total of 159 detainees have been transferred. today, 79 remain. president bush acted to whittle the detainee population because he understood that, and i quote, "the detention facility had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for our allies." president obama has continued detainee transfers for many of the same reasons. of the 79 detainees detained at guantanamo today, 29 are currently approved for transfer. detainees have been designated as approved for transfer during this administration for one of two rigorous interagency processes. first, soon after taking office, theident obama ordered first-ever comprehensive interagency review of all the 242 detainees than in u.s. custody. the000 nine and 2010, guantanamo review task force, sometimes also called the executive order task force, as was comprised of more than 60 national security professionals from across the government, assembled all reasonably available information relevant to determining an appropriate detainee.n for each based on the task force's recommendation, the department of defense, state, justice, and homeland security, the office of director for national intelligence, and a joint chiefs of staff, unanimously determine the appropriate disposition for each detainee, transfer, referral for prosecution, or continued detention. second, pursuant to executive 13567, detainees who are not approved for transfer into thousand nine and 2010, could be and 2010, in 2009 could be subject to a review board. prb presented as our political appointees. i would now like to briefly describe the process for transferring detainees. decisions regarding whether, when, and where to transfer a detainee are the culmination of interagencyrous process. the department of state leave diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments regarding transfer of guantanamo detainees, but we are typically joined in our discussions by senior career officials from the defense, justice, and homeland security, as well as those in the intelligence committee and in the joint staff. generally, transfer negotiations occur in two steps. the u.s. government obtains or reconfirms a political commitment that the potential receiving country is willing in principle to resettle repatriate detainees and to propose various measures that will substantially mitigate the threat the detainees may pose after transfer. withcond, discussions foreign officials responsible for implementing these. to share best practices from previous detainee transfers, and perhaps most importantly, to determine, based on an individualized assessment of the specific circumstances, whether can be met.andards once we conclude that our diplomatic negotiations will result in a security framework that we assessed will substantially mitigate the threat a detainee may pose after transfer, secretary of defense consult with secretaries of ande, homeland security, the attorney general, the director of national intelligence, and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff on the transfer. only after the secretary of defense receives the views of those principles, and only if he is satisfied that the doesrements are satisfied, he sign and transmit the certification to the congress. ladies and gentlemen of the committee, let me close by saying that although we would obviously preferred that no former detainees engage in terrorist or insurgent activity, following their transfer, we believe that the low rate of confirmed the engagement for detainees transferred since isuary 2009, under 5%, testament to the rigorous approach the imagination has taken to approving detainees for transfer and to negotiating and vetting detainee transfer framework. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. lewis. the thing was to members of the committee, representative donovan, thank you for the regardingy to testify the administration's guantanamo detainee transfer process. secretary carter has approved --43ransfer of 43 caney, detainees. during this administration, 159 detainees have been transferred. esther chairman, we understand the importance of this issue to we in this committee and appreciate the attention you have given to it. as i stated in march at the outset, i would like to reiterate one continuing fundamental point regarding this facility. the president and his national security facility have determined that closing that detention facility is a national security imperative. therative is a strong term, president and his leadership of the national security team believe that the continued pensionn of the good facility weakens our national security. closing guantanamo is about protecting country, not weakening it. the importance of closing the detention facility is echoed by former president george w. bush and a long list of former secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, staff chairman, and other former military leaders. el noted, atative eng former commandant of the marine corps. transferred from gitmo are in the national security interest of the united states and are conducted in a safe and responsible manner. on march 23, 2016, i testified before this committee. during that hearing, i was asked whether the department of ever knowingly transfer a detainee to a country that did not exhibit an ability to substantially mitigate the risks or control the individual. the of that question, i stated that the department of defense did not conduct such a transfer. weeketter we sent you this , we addressed or concerns. i apologize for the late response. i want to briefly highlight several points. here is our statutory framework. the 2016 nba requires that at -- in addition to other requirements, the secretary of defense certif toy congress that the receiving country has taken or agree to take steps to substantially mitigate any risk the individual could attempt to reengage or otherwise certain the united states. -- otherwise threaten the united states. we have met that requirement. prior to the transfer of any detainee to a foreign country, the united states government receive security assurances from the country regarding the actions that the receiving country has taken or agrees to take to substantially mitigate the risk. after the assurance is received, they go through the best process --a robust process. importantly, updated intelligence, medical and compliance information is provided to each country regarding the detainees under consideration for the transfer. they traveled to gitmo to interview transfer candidates. after full consideration of all this information including a full update assessment, the secretary makes a determination that i fully about earlier. as secretary carter has testified and secretary hagel testified, they take this responsibility very seriously. secretary carter has said he will not transfer a detainee that he does not believe is in the security interest of the united states to do so. these transfers have not been conducted in a vacuum, sir. each transfer is formally notified to the congress and we regularly brief congress on transfers. with the notice of each transfer, we offer congressional leadership and all the national security committees. i appreciate the opportunity we have had to regularly brief you and your staff regarding these transfers. briefly, i think it is important to put these recent transfer decisions on foreign policy context for this committee. any countries and the international community want to close gitmo. -- many countries in the international committee wanted close gitmo. guantanamo detainees that are not nationals of the country. additionally, there is sustained support for our closure efforts from civil society organizations both the messick abroad, including the organization -- both domestic and abroad including the organization. it should answer is only approved after careful scrutiny by the intensive inter-agency review process and the negotiation of the security assurances sufficient to substantially mitigate any threat. finally, i would like to take a moment to recognize the military servicemembers who conduct operations at guantanamo. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to your questions. >> and you, mr. lewis. the last time you appeared before this committee, we asked specific questions about the transfer of detainees to countries ill-equipped to handle them, specifically, we asked whether the department of defense ever transferred a detainee to a country that it ofw was incapable maintaining control of that individual and keeping him from returning to the battlefield. mr. lewis responded no, mr. wolosky said he was not aware of such an instance. those answers appear to be false. in fact, it appears that the administration has released dangerous terrorists to ill-equipped countries on numerous occasions. i wrote to your department asking you to correct the record. you did not. the committee asked the administration to hold a transfers until you explained your testimony. you did not. in fact, you completely ignored the letter until week-old the ceiling. and that is why we are here today. i am going to ask you several simple questions, and i would appreciate a simple yes or no answer. wolosky, in your roles, do you have access to intelligence assessments of detainees and transfer countries? >> yes. >> yes. review thoseo you intelligence assessments prior to the transfer of detainees to the custody of foreign governments? >> yes, sir. review the intelligence assessments that are material to the issue before us, which is whether to transfer detainees to a specific country under certain circumstances in order to be able to meet the statutory standards. rep. royce: in my may 16 letter, i referenced three intelligence reports submitted to congress of thet to section 1023 national defense authorization act. those reports are dated may 31, august 6, of 2015. are you familiar with the content of this report? >> yes. >> yes. rep. royce: are you aware that those reports contains assessments of each country to which the defense department has transfer detainees? >> yes. rep. royce: are you aware that those assessments indicate that some countries like the ability to control those terrorists? law discuss by classified this -- defense. we are happy to do that in closed session. what i would like to point out to the committee is that in connection with each transfer, we do rely on intelligence reporting that is broader than just dia reporting. mr. wolosky: it's tailored specifically to the issue of a transfer to a certain country at a particular point in time, and is geared toward eight determination or analysis of whether the relevant statutory standard for transfers can be met. mr. chairman, the reports he referred to are one of many reports we look at. we look at all information from the intelligence community. as the envoy has stated, the secretary makes his determination looking at all the evidence that is available, the updated evidence, and in particular, he makes his assessment after we overlay the security assurances to that country. mr. lewis: if the intelligence there may be a gap and capabilities, that is what we negotiate the assurances for. again, look at those records, mr. chairman, but we look at a much broader array of records. rep. royce: i'm going to explain to you, mr. lewis, that is not what you said here in march. all right? of your familiarity with the intelligence reports and what is in those reports, i am just going to ask you again, had the administration ever transferred a detainee to a country it knew was incapable of monitoring that individual, preventing him from traveling outside the country, or otherwise keeping him from returning to the battlefield? mr. lewis: since i have worked for secretary hagel and secretary carter, every transfer has met the statutory requirement. it is my understanding that the administration prior to my coming transferred pursuant to the process that envoy wolosky indicated, and there was no transfers i am aware of that did not meet the statutory requirement. rep. royce: i don't think you can just wish away intelligence reports that raise raise gravens, reports -- raise concerns. if you are now saying that the intelligence reports are, i assume, the implication is, i have to say,n from what we can tell, the president has made a political decision to close guantanamo no matter what the cost to national security, basically. based upon our experience, based upon our discussions, which go on for some considerable time now, in terms of the warnings about the five individuals who were transferred to uruguay and the subsequent conduct and notified that one of them has been released. that can be the only reason why these intelligence assessment are being pushed aside. in my judgment. appears that the assurances that you got from uruguay did not account for anything. this fellow, jihad diyab, walked right out of uruguay. we have no idea where he is. if a country is telling you that they won't prevent his travel, which is what i pointed out to you, then we had better listen. if they are not going to prevent their travel, then it is not a surprise what subsequently has occurred. mr. wolosky, you briefed this committee several times about uruguay. you told us repeatedly that the wasrnment of uruguay capable of handling these terrorists. you testified on march 20 for 23rde are confident -- that we are confident that the government of uruguay is taking set to mitigate the risk associated with the detainees transferred to its custody. that turned out to be wrong, as i have pointed out. now escaped.s the other point i would make out to you, this also goes to some of the conversations he has had, is that i am aware, this is the third time he left uruguay. nobody knows where he is. the media is reporting he could be on his way to syria or yemen. i would like to ask, why did you provide false assurances to congress? why did you mislead us about uruguay's capabilities. i made it very clear to you, our concerns about uruguay's capabilities. they were pretty upfront. chairman, i strongly disagree with any suggestion that i misled this committee. mr. wolosky: in fact, i stand by my testimony from margin which i affirmed that uruguay had committed to and is in fact taking set to substantially mitigate the risks of the 60 to 10 to its custody in december 2014. while we would have preferred diyab remained in expiration ofthe the two-year resettlement program that was the subject of the agreement reached with uruguay and reached with him, thekly, the fact is standard is not elimination of risk, it is mitigation of risk. we never represented to this committee that there was a travel prohibition. president's closure plan described generally, and i -- intot into this the specific assurances provided by the government of uruguay -- planthe president's describes is the withholding of international travel documents. there are a number of additional and ourat we take partners take to restrict travel and to monitor travel. in anot go into those open session. i am happy to describe them to you, even in this specific context of uruguay in a close session. i cannot do it here. rep. royce: let me explain this simple fact to you. when a country tells you that they won't prevent a terrorist from traveling, then you had better listen if your intention is to release that terrorist into that country. my time has expired. el of new to mr. eng york. rep. engel: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lewis, let me start with you. in a hearing before this committee in march, you discussed the issue of former guantanamo detainees killing americans. according to white house press secretary josh earnest, none of the former detainees were gone through a screening process implemented by this haveistration in the 2009 harmed americans. to quote mr. ernest from march of this year, "no one who has been released from prison at guantanamo bay on president obama's what has been implicated in violence against americans." i would like to ask both of you, obamas the administration changed the detainee transfer process, or have you not changed it? how have these changes helped prevent former detainees from harming americans? why don't we start with you, mr. wolosky? mr. wolosky: sure, thank you congressman engel. detainees were released under the administration of george w. bush. we cannot tell you much about the circumstances under which they were released. we can speak to what our and whatation has done we understand web in the process in the previous administration. in airst, we engage rigorous interagency evidence-based process relying predominantly on career government officials to determine first is a detainee may in principle be designated andpproved for transfer transferred out of the custody of the united states. that is the first step. this is an interagency process that includes many career professionals throughout the government, and as i described, this administration, there are two separate processes to first determine whether, in principle, a detainee may be safely transferred subject to security assurances. second thing we do, very forfully, as we negotiate detainees who have been approved for transfer, specific packages consistent with local law in a places that we transfer these to, and after obtaining a political commitment from the country in question, that under those circumstances in question, the measures to be put in place in the country, monitoring, travel research and, integration planning, will mitigate substantially the risk that that particular detainee may pose. that is what we do, and what we have done, as i said in my opening statement, has reduced the engagement rate, the confirmed rate, for under 5%. it is much higher than the previous administration. we believe that that reflects the fact that the things that i just described simply were not done in the previous administration. that is what we have done. thank you. the profits of the previous administration was primarily only dod. .his is interagency when the obama administration took office, there were 240 detainees at gitmo. a fresh look took at all those detainees and decided three categories, those that could be eligible for transfer with appropriate security assurances from the proper country, those that they wanted to refer for prosecution, and those that merited attention. i say it is more rigorous because there is a broader group ,f career professionals intelligence folks, career prosecutors, who look at these cases. they also looked at a broader array of evidence. they looked at all the evidence possess. as we know, congress waited in -- weighed in. it is a much more rigorous and intensive process. >> thank you. i think it is important to put it into context because, look, even one prisoner escaping is one prisoner too much. rep. engel: we're not going to anything that is foolproof, nothing is foolproof. if we look and see what the demonstration has done, and the safeguards they have tried to that we areel absolutely doing our best. in fact, it is a big improvement from the previous administration. so, let me ask you this. you have heard a lot about the challenges of closing guantanamo . is it true, it is true that some former detainees have reengaged. the chairman is very upset about it, and so am i. can you help those cases into context? what are the costs of keeping this facility open and how would holding the transfer of clear detainees affect terrorist recruitment and propaganda and coalition efforts to degrade and defeat terrorist organizations? >> sir, there are three costs. it drains our expenses, it is widely expensive. we can do it cheaper in the united states. our allies want us to close gitmo. it hurts us with the international community. in my opening statement, i outlined indications in which members of the previous administration that the department of state said that gitmo for us. i believe it is a propaganda and --gitmo hurt us. it is a propaganda tool. the national security leadership of this administration am a president bush and many people in the administration, numerous secretaries of defense, of state, the paramilitary officials that we talked about, including a commandant of the marine corps, the cost of gitmo outweighs the benefit. it hurts us, it hurts us with the international community, with our taxpayer money, and it is a recruiting pool. the president has made this decision in the national security -- and the national security leadership has made this decision. first, i agree with the special envoy's comments. i do feel compelled to address and issue of terrorists prisoners escaping just to remind the committee that the individuals that we are talking about were held in detention by the united states. mr. wolosky: they were lawfully held under law of work detention, but they were not convicted of crimes. when we transfer them to foreign countries, we transfer them subject to security assurances such as travel restrictions. there are a large, this is what this administration does, the previous administration did not do this. there are a large number of the 532 transferred in the previous administration, certainly, that were not even subject to the travel restrictions that we put in place on these individuals. again, just want to make sure we are the terminology right connotesscaping incarceration. when we transfer individuals through the u.s. government has concluded maybe transfer subject to security assurances, they are transferred subject to security assurances. at that point, they are not prisoners, they are former detainees under supervision. >> i will stop now because i know my time has run out. i wanted to, the thing that irks the chairman and irks all of us is the fact that this person was sent to uruguay and uruguay apparently does not have the this persononitor who now has left the country. rep. engel: just briefly, could you talk a little bit about the case? or do you need to do in a classified setting? -thewolosky: on the i- issue of those capabilities, i would have to do that in a closed session. about whatinformed those capabilities are and what they are not. and how they were used and applied in this instance. i echo the envoy's comments. we would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this in detail. we talked to the u ruguayan authorities. secretary hagel, a deliberate person, signed the congressional navigation saying that he felt substantiallyould mitigate any threat but that the cheney. again, we are happy to discuss this in closed session. i would like to do that in closed session. thank you, mr. change men. -- mr. chairman. yans gave them the travel card to travel. at the end of the day, he walked out of there three times. this time, nobody can locate him to get him back into custody. an al qaeda linked terrorists. >> thank you so much, chairman royce for calling this hearing and for continuing to demand transparency and accountability from the administration regarding its plans for naval station guantanamo bay, and for the detention center. as you point out, mr. chairman, the administration has not been forthcoming with the american people about the release of dangerous terrorists to various nations. the reality is that the situation is far different from what we have been told i continue to ask myself, why does like uruguay, ghana, senegal want to take in these terrorists unless they believe that the benefit outweighed the risk? unless the administration convince them that the benefit risk?eighs the rep. ros-lehtinen: we are talking about a high threat individual. that person has a spirit in abating authorities, will conduct operations going to nations that have limited intelligence. that do not possess the most sophisticated monitoring system. that was obvious with the uruguay transfer. we are to believe that the use that toill not their advantage, that they will be properly overseen? it will probably take them just one day to realize how lax the security is an uruguay, for example. individuals managed now we knowuay, and that his movement was not required to be restricted. ormay be en route to syria there already. i would ask you, if it is possible, to get a yes or no answer, has the administration promised any of these countries, whether it is uruguay, senegal cash for taking in these individuals? >> congresswoman, we have provided the menace resettlement --istance to certain country de minimis resettlement a system to certain countries. if you couldinen: refresh my memory for uruguay for example, how much would that country have gotten for language? mr. wolosky: i cannot tell you off the top of my head, but we are happy to tell you that information supplemental he. rep. ros-lehtinen: has the administration offered any other favorable agreements or offer to support these countries on the other related matters in exchange, and if so, what kind of exchanges? mr. wolosky: nothing financial is in thet congressional notifications. anything related is a broad category. i can say, generally, in open session, that many of our viewers do you -- do detainee transfer to deepen intelligence cooperation with the united states. we generally welcome that. we look to facilitate that interest where it exists. rep. ros-lehtinen: has the administration provided military equipment or military training in exchange for taking in a detainee, and to what extent and to which government? mr. wolosky: not to my knowledge. mr. lewis: ma'am, that is something we would have to talk about in a closed session. rep. ros-lehtinen: might -- like night vision goggles or something like that? mr. lewis: it is detailed and complex. to discuss any specifics, we would have been about that in a closed session. rep. ros-lehtinen: has the administration provided intelligence equipment and training or promisor offered intelligence sharing -- promised or offered intelligence sharing to any government in exchange for accepting a detainee, and if so, to what extent, and which governments? mr. lewis: we would have to talk about intelligence matters in closed session. rep. ros-lehtinen: it seems to me that the absence of any of these agreements would not need to be discussed in a classified .etting i'm as you say no to these questions, i think it would be fair to assume that at least happening,s has been is happening. is it the intent of the obama administration to continue to release all but a handful of the most dangerous detainees in ,rder to then say to congress "why keep gitmo open when we have such few detainees there?" as if president obama had nothing to do with clearing out the number of detainees in the first place. >> we intend to continue essentially the policy of the previous administration to transfer detainees who we believe may be safely transferred. mr. wolosky: that's in accordance with applicable law. rep. ros-lehtinen: would it be fair to say that from now until the end of the presidency, this presidency, that we would be seeing more and more detainees being released, until there's just a handful and say, look at all this waste of money for just a handful of folks? when you are the ones pushing them out? >> we have 29 detainees approved for transfer. mr. wolosky: our intention is to work to transfer those individuals subject to security assurances. rep. ros-lehtinen: thank you. there is a great deal of resistance and having them come to united. thank you so much, mr. chairman. >> mr. brad sherman of california. probably ascend both political parties. the prior administration did release more terrorists than the current administration. more of those released by the prior administration have been caught fighting us on the battlefield. the fact is, much as we like to fight at democrats and republicans, the policy has been the same in both administrations. only in guantanamo because we do not have the political guts to house them here in the united states and release as many as possible, far too many, for typically. too quickly. massively understate the costs of the release. we are told it is wrong to keep them there for the duration of the war because the war has lasted too long. that is their fault. they waged war against america, and we never guaranteed them that the war would be short. the purpose of incarcerating pows is not only to keep them off the battlefield, but to deter their comrades. terrorists around the world that if you get caught, you will get released while the war is still going on, we encourage their recruitment. now, we are told that there is only 12 identified circumstance when americans have died because of this release. that is such a massive undercount. release all, when we somebody and they be joined the battlefield, do they send us a report? are they listed on linkedin? new status? when an american guys on the battlefield, did we get a report from the terrorists? here's a list of the people who killed them a list of the people who provided them with logistics, people who provided recruiting, financing,. that one are certain of these released people is being monitored every day and is not doing anything to help the terrorists, we have to assume that they are waging war against us as they did before, and the release is also the incredible concessions. nods,e winks, all the every country in the world, especially small countries know, take one detainee, the president of the united states is personally indebted to you. when you have got a fishing concern or you are seeking something from the united states now or later, the answer is yes. we will never get an accounting of that because you cannot account for the winks and the nods. now, we are told that gitmo is a -- we have a tremendous propaganda advantage if gitmo is closed. we have no propaganda advantage. it is still a symbol that the other side can use as long as it is still open with one detainee. that does not enhance their legal status. the supreme court has ruled in the comment on case that they have just as many legal right here as they do there. accepted nuclear bases in our states going up they were targets from the soviet union. now, we cannot even accept a prisoner. terrorists convicted in american prisons right now. will ask you to raise your hands if you know any of those that were escaped. i have researched this. we have got the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the world trade center 1993 bombers, the unabomber, we are try to bring to the united states el chapo, who escaped my skin prisons twice. we cannot incarcerate people here and obtain the political advantage that we are told can be achieved by shutting down gitmo. can't fully vote on ways to not do it. if the legal rights of these pows in the united states is too great, if they are on u.s. soil, that is the fault of congress. we can pass laws identifying they aree are pows, nonuniformed enemy combatants, and entitled to less protection than those who would wear uniform fighting against us. we have got a lot of dead americans as a result of this catch and release program. we have got one party who says that we cannot house them here, although we are able to house terrorists here in our prisons. politicalt another party so in just to shut things down that we massively understate the cost of releasing them. i yield back. >> thank you very much. >> i just like to bring us up to speed in one area. is it true that under current law, closing guantanamo is prohibited? this is not a trick question. [laughter] think that current law prohibits closing guantanamo. mr. wolosky: i think that what current law prohibits is the expenditure of money to move detainees at guantanamo into the united states. law, you canent close guantanamo by releasing the prisoners. you just cannot bring them here. that is your assessment? mr. wolosky: i believe the current law prohibits detainees from being brought into the united states. a: the reason that you both have titles that say special envoy to guantanamo closure is that your job is to close guantanamo. is that right? mr. wolosky: that is correct. mr. issa: i understand that the president who loves chavez, loves the castro's enough to open up relations has not decided to give back what we have in perpetuity. we will leave that aside. your job is to close the detention. you were working poor that. i just want to ask one or two fairly simple questions. that. were working toward i just want to as one or two fairly simple questions. president george w bush's administration released more prisoners then you inherited, right? mr. wolosky: yes. mr. issa: during that time, it has been discovered, and during this administration, it has been discovered and made public that in fact some released by the bush administration went back and told americans on the battlefield in afgh taisn an other places. is that correct? mr. wolosky: yes, sir. mr. issa: george w. bush released more prisoners, attempted to that the -- to vet them, was wrong. we know it and the public knows --right?t question they released people who went back and killed americans on the battlefield, ok? like mr. sherman, that is not popular with my party. this president has released many additional people have returned to afghanistan. are you prepared to say that are you prepared to say none of them killed americans? guantanamo detainees released after 2009 who in fact went back into killed americans? thes the assessment of intelligent community is that no detainees released during 2009 at least during this administration, are responsible for the deaths of americans. statement is no detainees released by this administration have killed americans on the battlefield as of today. eggs correct. reince ok'd. i wanted to make sure i had it on the record but you can see it because you are under oath and i believe that that you believe it. so i want to make sure we understand. we are sitting here and somehow bush earlyeorge w. on releasing me less dangerous, the easier to that, the less likely to be hardened criminal -- terrorists not criminals -- you are releasing people and they are not killing of americans. how do you account for that? is it rehabilitation you have done? >> sir, there are a lot of factual predicates embodied in your question that would require consideration. >> you released people who did not kill americans on the battlefield. how does that account for the oath.ence you set under >> as i indicated in my testimony submitted for the record, we have put in place procedures that are comprehensive, rigorous, enter agency in nature and we believe as a result of those -- interactive in nature and we believe as a result they have an effect on the re-engagement rates seen by the administrations. >> you used procedures that has eliminated -- limited re-engagement. people of reengage, they are back on the battlefield of attempting to kill americans, right? to says not correct anyone who has reengaged under the definitions used by the forlligence committee confirmed or suspected re-engagement is back on the battlefield. yet, the intelligence committee can speak to the committee about the standards used, but it is an overstatement to say an individual who has been suspected of reengage my is on the battlefield seeking to do harm to coalition forces. >> ok. it is one of these things i to be-- it needs not privately discussed -- madam chair, if i could have more 30 seconds as my predecessors did. people who were released under killedengaged and americans. you will have us believe that although people who were released i did this administration were more hardened criminals, does not released under bush because he thought there are too dangerous, they have been released and you say in a public forum they reengage but nobody died. >> sir, again, it is incorrect to say people released under bush are less or more dangerous than those released under this administration. again, this would require a rather long discussion about why, for instance, the overwhelming preponderance of detainees were approved for transfer or who remain in guantanamo today are from yemen. so it is simply not correct to make like it as assessments about who is more or less dangerous or frankly, what the procedures -- you keep talking about vetting done by the bush administration. then, we're not aware of type of vetting done by this administration. there are a lot of premises is in your question. >> mr. duncan of south carolina i am sure will follow through. >> do need more time? you are welcome to 30 seconds. >> thank you. i want to understand. we have heard endlessly the bush administration released people who went back on the battlefield and president george w. bush has to live with the fact they think these people could safely be released back to qatar and other countries and in some cases they were around but you continued to work toward closure by releasing back to the countries, yemen being a particular area of concern. i want to make sure the american public years in a an open session that you believe you have been flawless in that no americans have died because of people released under this president's watch and you have said that. i want to thank the gentleman. thank you for let me recap. >> thank you and thank you for your approach to everything. want to apologize to the lady with the department of state for coming across as abrasive about another issue and i thank you for your help. we have established the fact has one of the gitmo six disappeared. we have also established the fact that, i think, that there are certain requirements and parameters that must be met before detainees are transferred to a third country. uruguay told us former president mojica said publicly they would place no restrictions on the movements of the detainees released through uruguay. later, their chief intelligence officer in four of the u.s. embassy that the gitmo six would not be restricted in any way and tot he was not authorized conduct monitoring or surveillance. so if we go back to the requirements talked about numerous times this morning, surveillance and monitoring and the assurances were part of deal. so, america needs to understand that one of the six detainees captured on the battlefield, al qaeda operatives captured either in tora bora or afghanistan, has disappeared. states, brazil, united -- at this point has no idea where this individual is. this individual we have talked jihad diyab is a forger. in brazil. let's talk about brazil in general. we have an area in brazil and are quite known as the tri-border region. a lot of people are transiting through latin america through the area known as the tri-border region. they're coming from south america to that area often times on big passports. not necessarily forged, but passports that don't belong to them. they are exchanging the documents in that region for other false documents and trying to transit through latin america to get to america. to the united dates. case in point, five syrians traveled to the tri-border with fakebrazil israeli passports. the hypocrisy is alarming. they got into the tri-border on a fake israeli passport, exchange them for around $25,000 for fake greek passports that they used to travel to honduras. apprehended in an airport trying to come to the united states on fake greek passports. so now we have a fake passport forger from gitmo escaped, disappeared, whatever you want to call it into brazil, the tri-border region to assist area gettinghe forged and fake documents to possibly travel to the united states of america. another step. here is a huge event getting ready to happen in brazil known as the olympics. that is a heck of a terrorist target, folks. so we have an al qaeda operative who is a forger who disappeared in brazil who has the ability to forge documents and he is an eight country getting ready to host the olympics. i hope our counterterrorism efforts in brazil are on full bore. so, is the obama administration concerned about that? >> they indicated previously it would have been our preference ones in of six of the uruguay would of stayed there. >> you have stated that. i am asking, is the obama administration upset over jihad diyab's disappearance or not? >> if you are asking me what theerns me, frankly it is 532 who were transferred during the previous administration without the -- >> we have established the fact that we all wish he would've stayed in uruguay and would be right there with the other five. you, is theing obama administration concerned that he has disappeared? >> i believe i have answered your question. >> knowing what you know now, will you publicly repudiate these loan letter about the that the concerns so uruguayan government, who this administration tricked about these people can finally begin to monitor and control the remaining five detainees? will you repudiate these loan letter? >> we stand by these loan letter and by the representations we made to the government of uruguay upon the transfer. in fact, i believe the uruguayans told you congressmen, that thevisited, united states provided adequate information. >> they did. and that contradicted previous statements they made publicly. >> why do you think that is? through all ofck this. >> why would they say one thing to you and another thing up ?ront >> mr. duncan, could you yield for a minute? i wanted to put something in perspective for our witnesses here. it has to do with why the chairman of the western subcommittee would be upset here. the fact is that the chief of intelligence in uruguay explained to our committee, gave us the information, that they were not allowed to monitor or these sixce terrorists. and the decision you made was to transfer you -- them anyway. he made that observation to this committee priority the transfer. you made it the decision to transfer the six despite our warnings. the second point upsetting to him is that the intelligence chief was then dismissed from of position after warning us that to and subsequently warning us that they were outside our embassy after their release and again, that they were not allowed to monitor or .urveillanc thewe find ourselves in situation, despite jeff duncan's admonitions, we find ourselves in the situation where one of the six, indeed, one of these able toorists is indeed walk out of uruguay and no one knows where he is but we do know his attitude. and, this is the reason for our concern. but, i think mr. duncan for his trips and his works on behalf of the committee. >> i want to thank the chairman for helping clarify that. the pattern is clear. with been asking about these gitmo six and the uruguayans ability to monitor them for a long time now. we have raised concerns about events such as what we witnessed in the last 60 days, where one of the six just disappeared. qaeda terrorist, no doubt about it. he was a forger. and we are supposed to tell these countries these were not terrorists, not engaged and attacking or hurting our allies or our united states military in any way. it is very clear that he was. i yelled back. mr. matt salmon of arizona. to be back on mr. rice and mr. duncan's questions. you notified the committee those deaths committed and in afghanistan by as many as 14 detainees released by the bush administration and i would like to ask a few questions. how many americans were killed? u.s. servicemen and women, and civilians, or both? what are their names in the end where they from? >> so, it is my understanding there were 14. i can get you the specifics. i believe the intelligence to midi can get you the specific details, but the numbers 14. many of the incidents were in large-scale firefights in a ward's own we cannot always distinguish whether americans were killed by former detainees or other participants but the intelligence committee can get you the specific details u.s. four. >> just to recap, i would like to know if they were servicemen or service women or civilians or both and i would like to know what their names are in and where they from. that is what i would like to know if you can get me all of that. that will be very, very helpful. and then, just to piggyback on some of the other questions, knowing that there were casualties associated with those , to afghanistan specifically, you then as an administration decided then it was ok to still release detainees to afghanistan? is that correct? >> it may have been correct. at the moment, i can assure you transfer totainee afghanistan or frankly anywhere to the review of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and i can tell you the state department would not concur in any transfer of a detainee to afghanistan over the objection of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. detainees toasing afghanistan, did the intelligence community assess of afghanistan was incapable of maintaining custody and control of these individuals? >> the standard is maintaining custody and control, the standard is substantially mitigating the threat they may pose. these are determinations that would have been made in conjunction with and subject to the consultation with the chairman of the joint chief of staff. occurred in this administration. i believe there have been -- >> yes, there have been transfers to afghanistan. and we do consult with the field commanders in afghanistan prior again,transfer and there's transfers have been made under the statutory standard that any threat is going to be substantially mitigated by the host nation. it is better to talk about this in a closed setting, sir. ig did state for the record one of your criteria for releasing them to afghanistan was not monitoring, that is not a concern. you did not care if there were able to monitor or not. >> we cannot speak to specific security assurances for a specific country in an open session but any transfer would have involved the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. that is what we do in all transfers, particularly in a place like afghanistan. we at the state department probably would not consent to any transfer to a place like afghanistan unless the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff concurs in the transfer. >> well, afghanistan is in the four zone in one of the most corrupt countries in the world so i guess what a lot of us would like to better understand is, if monitoring is not part of a decision and making sure that there whereabouts are readily ascertained, i guess a lot of us wonder why that is not one of criteria. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> are you next in line? >> yeah. now recognizes mr. weber. mr. weber: thank you, mr. chair. -- you saidski the statute was not a limitation mitigation of risk. with a true under the prior administration as well? >> i do not believe so. >> of the current administration 2000 nine,h that in basically. >> actually, the congress came up with that. it is written into the nda, written legislation signed by obama. >> so that was the standard you used? that is pretty shocking when congressman duncan revealed that we were told uruguay was not going to be able to monitor these guys travel. there were six terrorists. i am not knowledgeable to who they were. these were not the five released in exchange for bergdahl, is that correct? >> current. to say that in the bush administration, didn't releaseempt to lower-risk combatants at first? >> i cannot speak to that i do not know the process. >> is that fair to say of the current administration? you chose to release the lower-risk first and held the worst for the last? >> the worst were not released. we are only releasing or transferring subject to security individualshose designated as approved for transfer by the six agencies and departments of the government that are responsible for those decisions. sense would probably dictate the bush administration followed the same guidelines. >> i do not think that is a fair assumption, respectfully. is four years we have not released yemeni detainees who in many cases are low-level fighters if that. because of the circumstances in yemen. currently, many of the detainees who remain in guantanamo and to our approved for transfer are from yemen and that could reflect more there nationality the in their risk profile. >> that goes to the risk pile -- profile, too, i bet. now about bergdahl, and if them field? the data >> no. i will refer to my colleague from the dod to speak to that transfer referred to by the department of defense as a prisoner exchange. whenam sure he will say no he turns round. >> my time is past, i'm going to go to the next question. we have a disagreement about whether or not they will actually monitor them or not. what number of countries do with look at for transferring these cap bakhtin's? ?ix? eight 26? how many countries are involved? >> we can get you the numbers but i believe with transfer detainees to what? 30 or 40 countries? >> we have resettled to 30 and nine repatriation spec to their own country. >> ok. 30 countries. are you monitoring? are you able to track? earlier in your comments, you said you spoke with career government officials in making those assignations. on that countryside? on our side? both? u.s. side. ok. so those 30 countries, whether or not they can monitoring them effectively, you said you are getting feedback. i think we called it information sharing. is that in real time? >> it can be. greg's it can be, is it? >> in some circumstances that i am aware of. >> wasn't in real-time on the guy from uruguay who got loose? >> we can discuss unenclosed session and i would welcome the opportunity to do that today if you would like to serve. >> ok. of those 30 countries, are you able to track in real-time or even in retrospect, it's ok, this country did a good job of keeping up with their combatants, this country did not, this was ok, this was lousy. is there a scale of readiness countries and their abilities? >> i am not aware of a scale. >> how do you know going forward in the future of the country does not doing good job, had you say, we will give the country another one or two or three? how do you determine the? >> by their record. >> that would be a scale, when it? right side on think so. it would be specific to the monitoring, information sharing with the united states. if we are not satisfied with the results on a previous transfer, we would not transfer a new one to the same place. >> that makes sense. then, of the discussion you had with mr. duncan, you talked about those relations of previous administration bush and there were 500 30 released. how many as in the current administration? >> 159. >> 159. i do not think we agreed on the fact that somehow bush released the good ones and obama released the bad ones. and said a first name? reince correct. >> ok. would you say we are roughly equal? >> it is impossible to generalize. each case is different. pushi was trying to do was back against the suggestion that bush released the easy ones and we only have the hard ones. that is not an accurate characterization. >> without specifics, you cannot accurately know that. reasonableral, a person might make that condescension? >> where all about talking about specifics, not generalizations. that is why we are here. we requested the opportunity to speak with you in closed session. because frankly, a lot of what is said, including about uruguay tellst -- i am happy to you if you're interested in learning the facts. >> will come back to that. i am out of time. i mean to say, thank you. we're on a time limit. wolosky: there are 29 detainees currently eligible for transfer we believe we can transfer safely and responsibly if we get safety assurances. >> can i make a suggestion? don't send them to your organic -- uruguay. end of the uruguay program, you mentioned earlier -- two months early. tell for the committee's sake, what would an additional two months of done in your opinion? rehabilitated the combatant? what would it have done? >> this individual was a problem from the moment he landed in uruguay and i will be upfront about it. his resettlement was difficult. he did not want to seem to participate in the opportunities afforded him by the government? i'd should we have had snapback sanctions and place? repopulating guantanamo. >> thank you. back.d >> we go to mr. joe wilson of south carolina. , mr.ilson: thank you royce. i have had the opportunity to visit guantanamo twice to see the personnel there. the professionalism of our military. it is the place where terrorists should be. in my home state of south carolina we learned a lesson. there was one terrorist at the in. break interest he has had a consequence. he has attracted more terrorists to come to the community and threatened. putting schools at risk. the immediate neighborhood at risk. it is absurd, the thought of bringing them to the united states in any way or releasing them and it is interesting you say yemen. you released people to yemen, which was supposed to be an example of a great success by this administration of establishing a stable country and within days of releasing terrorists, the country collapsed. it would be interesting to know, what did happen to the persons released to yemen previously. >> we do not release individuals to yemen. >> you had previously released, before the collapse of the country. there is a consistency here which is not that. the consistency as we have a administration that has dismissed isis as junior varsity. these are the same people who after the announcement of junior varsity committed mass murder in jakarta, brussels, paris, orlando, san bernardino. we know the mass murdered this week in baghdad and kabul. , a dismissal again of threats to american families. additionally, this administration is very consistent by reaching a dangerous iranian nuclear deal providing tens of billions of dollars to a spate -- state-sponsored terrorism just last week. the funding provided by a random to hamas, there have been rocket attacks. it is extraordinary to ignore this. then we come to pardoning and returning terrorists to go back on the battlefield. inconceivable. illogical. you talk about a recruiting tool. a recruiting tool is releasing people, not being serious about detaining people who have every intent to kill american families. it is really interesting to me that they don't use the argument that it is a deterrent or a recruiting tool to have prisons within the united states. of course it is a deterrent, people know they will be incarcerated they are less likely to commit a crime or kill american families and i'm grateful that even cnn yesterday reported u.s. officials have said the 44-year-old syrian national went off the radar several weeks ago in uruguay where he was resale in 2014. that's resettled in 2014 -- resettled in 2014. uruguay's interior minister told cnn he was considered a refugee by the government and as such he would not need permission from uruguayan authorities to leave the country. they said he would only need permission from the u.s. that enables the release of gitmo detainees to uruguay and there is a truth from cnn that i hope you look at and will reconsider what you are doing. that is this appearance could provide fuel for opponents to close the detention facility at guantanamo especially if found to be attempting to join a terrorist group. of 676 detainees released from the detention facility as of january, 118 have returned to the fight. an additional 86 are suspected of returning, a recidivism rate of one out of 3 released according to a recent report from the administration's offense of director of national intelligence. by releasing these people, american families are at risk around the world and i hope you will reconsider what you are doing. the secretary of navy is extraordinary, a person in the treasury, the process of releasing the early process did work. what is being done is there are 200 detainees when he departed, none have been approved for release. under the president, more than half have been released. he has conducted during the bush administration statements by the white house are misleading at best. i hope you will reconsider and understand this is not an academic exercise of deterrence or incarceration and yield my time. to mr.o mr. -- >> we go dana rohrabacher. >> do any of you -- do any of you know, do you believe americans at gitmo were involved with criminal mistreatment of the detainees? >> not aware of that. >> the president has made it a national security imperative that we close gitmo and we are told he has to close gitmo because it has such a bad reputation, but we just said those charges are not true. is that right? we have a propaganda campaign going on by enemies of the united states against us claiming there was some kind of major criminal mistreatment of prisoners in guantanamo. neither one of you knows an example of that. if there was one of two instances, it didn't reflect what was going on in guantanamo, correct? >> the issue is wrongfully so. many people around the world, many countries who think there were things that went wrong and gitmo. -- went wrong at gitmo. >> let me correct it. a lot of people think that but a lot of people hate our country , promoting that knowing it is not true. this isn't nice american politics. this isn't a criminal matter, although the president would like to think of these terrorists as being american criminals, americans who made a criminal act. this is people who hate our way of life, are engaged in an organized effort to terrorize western civilization by murdering large numbers of noncombatants. we are trying to handle this and we get the president makes a national security imperative to give in to those people who propagandize and doing that, have some sort of credibility to the charge that our people who are working in guantanamo are a bunch of fools who are torturing these people, there may be one or two instances where someone lost their temper or did something wrong, but by and large you know and we know the printers in guantanamo have been treated extraordinarily well. the president, by making it a national security imperative, basically demonstrated propaganda by people who hate us will succeed and it will be seen as a sign of weakness by terrorists all over the world. this is encouraging those people who will murder noncombatants , especially americans. let's get to the number 532 released by bush. among those, a lot of people were picked up. those from afghanistan will be picked up. and a lot of situations like that. 159. has released it is a bit disconcerting. this administration insists on treating terrorists, those involved in terrorist activities has nothing more than criminals. -- activities as nothing more than criminals. that is why the president find it impossible to stay with the words, "radical islamic terrorist." that is different than some criminal who committed an act of violence or murder in the united states. as a weakness, the president is encouraging terrorists around the world to take advantage of this weakness, take advantage of the fact that we are willing to retreat if you have a propaganda campaign. i am glad to hear that we are suggesting that our guys didn't commit all sorts of horrible acts against these people but of 159 that were released. what is disconcerting is when i hear we don't have proof and it has been determined that this number actually have not committed any of these other acts after they have been released. mr. issa, it is absurd, it is so bad. if we are waiting for evidence to prove before we can say it is probable that they have been involved, because we know the kind of people you are, that is one thing. what we are told is unless we have overwhelming evidence, we are going to assume they haven't. this is not watching out for the security interest of the people of the united states. this is projecting weakness, make sure more americans die, by nothing else, giving in and having a president of the united states insisting on treating terrorists as if they are american criminals which will do nothing to -- nothing but encourage terrorism overseas. >> we go to mike mc call, of texas. >> thank you, mister chairman. the president campaigned on a promise to close guantanamo. is it fair to say that campaign promise will not be fulfilled? >> difficult to say. as your know, we're asking congress to reconsider its position on bringing a small number of detainees into the united states where our federal prison system has a 100% success rate in incarcerating 400 convicted terrorists. >> the current plan is to process 29 transfers out of gitmo which would leave 79 detainees that would leave 50 at guantanamo. right? >> that is correct. there are 10 in the military commission process that are being prosecuted or serving sentences. the periodic review board process is ongoing so it is possible the number of detainees who were approved for transfer will increase, but your round the numbers are generally correct. >> the 50 remaining, is it your intention -- we passed in the congress under the national defense authorization bill, express prohibition against bringing detainees into the united states. this administration will honor legal restraint and follow the law. >> as the president said, his intention right now is to work with the congress to change the law. >> what is the status of the trial of khalid shaikh mohammed. >> why is this taking so long? as a federal prosecutor, this has been since 9/11. >> i'm a former prosecutor as well. other people are better. place to answer your question. it is a new process, everything is new. there is no precedent. there are a bunch of different defense counsel's and the judge has been careful and deliberative. we have general martins trying very hard but it is difficult to do the law carefully as you know. >> defense counsel following a lot of emotions. pretty nice quick run down there. left. 50 detainees are how many will be facing military trials? >> there are seven in the motion states, 9/11, the alleged call bomber and one more al qaeda leader. there are three in the sentencing phase and we are continually looking at the others to see if there can be a case, but i am not the best to tell you where we would be. release, we plan to know 13 released have been implicated in attacks since the united states or coalition forces in afghanistan, not a good number. let me ask you this question. has the administration ever refused to send detainees to a country because it could not provide adequate security? >> absolutely. there are many countries we look at that determine are not suitable for this. >> you mentioned a lot of detainees you want to transfer out. yemen is a failed state in my judgment. it is in a really bad state of affairs. you have the iranian forces, al qaeda, the arabian peninsula, fighting external operations against the united states. can you tell me definitively you will not be sending these detainees to yemen? >> yes. >> very good answer. what country would most likely receive them? >> i prefer to talk to you in closed session about that. what i will say, as you know, we prefer repatriation because cultural affinity, language, skills, family connections, in this case that is not going to be possible for yemen, so we are looking at other alternatives. >> my last question. saudi's had a pretty good the radicalization program. have you considered that? >> yes. we transferred a number of yemenis to saudi arabia. >> my time is expired. thank you. >> back to the issue of what you told the committee in march. we asked specific questions about the transfer of detainees to countries ill-equipped to handle them. specifically we asked whether the department of defense ever transferred a detainee to a country that it knew was incapable of maintaining control of that individual and keeping him from returning to the battlefield and mr. lewis responded no. your written response to the committee's letter suggests that the law doesn't prohibit us from sending detainees to countries that have partially derogatory intelligence assessments. partially derogatory in common terms means cannot contain or at least are seriously challenged in containing those terrorists. why didn't you cite the law, rather than suggesting detainees were not being transferred to countries that were incapable of maintaining control when it is so clear that they are? that is the point i want to make. that is why this seemed to me like misleading the committee. i appreciate the witnesses willingness to speak in a classified setting, which we will take advantage of, that can't hide the fact that these issues can and have been discussed productively here today. you can see we have serious concerns about this policy and we will continue this conversation, but i do want to thank the witnesses and members of the committee and the committee is adjourned. >> thank you mr. chairman. [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] [indiscernible] ♪ cook's c-span's washington journal live with news and policy issues. coming up, political's stephen shepard talks about the latest polling on hillary clinton and donald trump. he examines at only -- but how americans view the candidates. the sunlight foundation and interim director looks at how the recent ruling by the fbi on hillary clinton's use of the private e-mail server -- that is available to the public. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> could five g mobile connectivity be right around the corner? he says the u.s. must lead the world. tonight on the communicators, kathleen abernathy talks about five g and what it means for the u.s. she will discuss why it is needed for self driving cars and the expansion of virtual reality. -- is joined i howard busker joined by howard busker. >> the goal is we have the vision thing going. we are going to push ahead to ensure that u.s. maintained his global leadership in the wireless arena. that is terrific for our country. i would argue it is essential, because this is -- where u.s. global leadership has yielded tremendous and if it's economically -- tremendous benefits economically. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. >> the ninth circuit court of appeals heard oral arguments that challenges the wireless surveillance program. the case involves the somali american -- to set off a car bomb that was fake and a part of a federal sting operation. he is appealing the conviction saying his constitutional rights were violated. this is an hour. >> all rise. the board is in session. >> the next case is the united states of america versus mohamed mohamud. if you are going to divide your time between the two of you and reserve any time, keep time for yourself. >> understood. may it please the court, steve sady for mohamed mohamud. this case turns on the need for fairness and the rule of law where the risk is high that prejudgment and governmental overreach will deny the defendant a fair trial. the government brought massive resources to bear against a teenager who had not previously prepared, intended or researched a plan to carry out domestic terrorism. after a year of government contact, he pressed buttons to detonate a bomb in downtown portland. in the context of potential prejudice and fear that this type of case brings, instead of scrupulous adherence to the rules to guarantee a fair trial, the trial was marred by an array of constitutional errors, any one of which requires rehearsal. -- requires reversal. i intend to first address three of the trial errors, the state of mind, the jury instructions, the closing arguments and turn to three areas of errors related to classified materials and finally go to the 702 surveillance issues which will also be addressed by security accounts. incorrect rulings on state of mind permeated this trial. the most flagrant involved the notice from interpol that said that he is an al qaeda recruiter. the defense contests that the contents of that statement are false.